IAR finally breaks silence on informed water

On the same topic:

While I was engrossed in editing a couple of scientific articles, I suddenly noticed a distinct smell of sulfur, which immediately made me fear the worst. I looked around, worried that I might have inadvertently evoked some infernal presence. Fortunately, none of this happened: the source of that disturbing scent was simply a press release from the Institut Agricole Regional (IAR) of the Aosta Valley, which decided to take a firm and clear stance on the famous "informed water" that my readers have now come to know.

While fully embracing and supporting my position on the matter, even using my own words, he ultimately accuses me of having made "malicious insinuations" regarding the Institute . What a relief: no demon, just my own fault for having sounded the alarm too loudly! I am essentially being accused of having "maliciously" implied that the position of the Institut Agricole Régional was, let's say, a little too "cautious" in condemning informed water, that extraordinary substance which, for some mysterious reason, is supposed to acquire therapeutic properties from unlikely "stabilized frequencies." I am pleased, however, to discover from the IAR press release that its position is now clear, unequivocal, and unequivocal: the IAR firmly distances itself from this commercial pseudoscience, and believes—literally—that there is no scientific basis to support informed water, moreover officially denying its supporters, who insinuated—they did—that it was being tested at the Institut.

For this, frankly, I thank the IAR. Because, ultimately, this was precisely the fundamental goal of my "malicious" article: to establish an official, authoritative, and firm position on the scientific validity of certain practices that risk damaging not only the credibility of a prestigious scientific institution, but above all, the citizens and the regional agricultural sector. We know well what the silence of scientific institutions in the face of pseudoscience means, especially when there are those in politics who try to exploit it: it leaves the field open to those who exploit confusion and ambiguity to sell miraculous solutions devoid of any basis.

Perhaps I may have disturbed someone's peaceful sleep, and for this, I admit, I feel compelled to offer my most sincere apologies. It wasn't my intention to interrupt peaceful institutional meditations with the insistent ringing of an "evil" alarm clock. However, I continue to believe this alarm was necessary. I have never believed that silence, especially when the public interest is at stake, could be considered a legitimate option for a researcher, much less for an institution like the IAR, which is (also) a research institution. Indeed, I was taught that the duty of a scientist, and of a citizen in general, is precisely the opposite: to break the silence whenever transparency and clarity are at risk, even at the risk of being perceived as a provocateur, provided, of course, that the arguments are valid and open to scrutiny—which evidently is the case, given that on the merits, the IAR precisely expresses my position and that of the community of researchers and scientists who, along with me, denounced what was happening.

Therefore, acknowledging that my inconvenient insistence, and that of this newspaper , CICAP , and others, ultimately served to push the IAR to take a clear stance on the issue of informed water, then I can consider myself satisfied and willingly accept the label of "malicious." In short, dear friends of the IAR, thank you so much for breaking your silence and finally clearly expressing what needed to be said. Forgive me for the rude awakening: I promise I'll try to be more gentle next time. But I can't guarantee I'll succeed.

More on these topics: