Personally I love the experiments, and having a large group of people sending out loving energy to heal the earth is so awesome. No matter what the outcome is, the fact that that so many people are coming together for something positive makes it a success.

Some questions persist about our last Water into Wine Experiment, so I’m going to make a final stab at answering them.

First, why did I call it the ‘Water into Wine’ experiment when we in fact did not attempt to change ‘Water into Wine’ but were trying to lower pH? Why do I call it a ‘demonstration’ of anything when we didn’t prove anything yet? Why don’t I publish the figures yet? Why don’t I do bigger and more elaborate studies?

In any Intention Experiment, my own job is twofold: first to make this sometimes complex information comprehensible to the layperson and second to encourage all of you to participate. I attempt to accomplish both jobs through journalistic skill.

Getting people to give up part of their Saturday requires engaging their hearts and minds. It requires, as they say in Britain, ‘bread and circuses’. In a word, it requires entertainment.

‘Water into Wine’ was a metaphor, of course, for lowering the pH of water so that it was closer to the pH of wine.

I called it that to conjure up mental acidic associations in you as well. I wanted all of you to imagine wine (a more acidic medium than water) when you were sending intention to the water.

My books are filled with metaphors, to enable laypeople to understand many complex notions that are usually described in science through mathematics.

Any announcements from me about the actual experiment of course clarified that what we were actually doing was lowering pH.

However, I doubt whether I would have got as much participation if I’d called our experiment the ‘Lowering of the pH of Water by One-tenth of a pH Experiment’.

We are not claiming to have proven anything. A single study is still simply a demonstration. As I’ve said repeatedly, it demonstrates the possibility that there could be an effect through the power of intention.

It PROVES nothing at this point, because we only have a single demonstration. As scientists put it, our ‘N’ – or number of tested things – equals 1.

With our Germination Experiments, we had 30 time 4 seeds – or an N of 120 — with each of the six experiments. We also ran six dummy experiments.

In the end, our N turned out to be 1440 (120 times 12 experiments in total). That is what gave our study statistical power and enabled us to claim ‘significant’ effects.

We will need to run the Water into Wine Experiment many more times before we have such statistical power.

The scientists are reluctant to publish the actual figures at this point because we don’t have anything scientifically conclusive yet. We have only a demonstration of a possible effect that will be verified (or shot down) by replication.

In our earlier studies, we didn’t even go into detail or show graphs until we had carried out many studies. Nevertheless, our participants were so clamorous for results that we decided to release our general evidence.

We will keep you posted as our numbers build. We’ll be replicating the Water into Wine study on March 20, in Japan, in front of Reconnective healers.

The final question, why don’t we build vastly sophisticated experiments, has largely to do with expense. This work is carried out without pay for all involved, despite the vast labor-intensiveness of each study.

We have donated more than £100,000 to create websites and carry our early experiments.

At the moment, the scientists often donate their free time and grant money to our research.

Our web team has donated its time because they believe in our work.

Occasionally a company with deeper pockets donates money for a larger server, as they did in the Peace Intention Experiments. A large magazine in Holland has offered to underwrite our Gaia Experiment, and so will cover the cost of building the terrarium needed.

I am delighted to run any experiment with possible validity and that fits in with the ethos of The Intention Experiment so long as costs are covered.

We have a ‘Donate’ button on the front page of our website. For those of you who would like to see more elaborate experiments, please feel free to press the button and provide us with the funds to do so.

First, why did I call it the ‘Water into Wine’ experiment when we in fact did not attempt to change ‘Water into Wine’ but were trying to lower pH? Why do I call it a ‘demonstration’ of anything when we didn’t prove anything yet? Why don’t I publish the figures yet? Why don’t I do bigger and more elaborate studies?

In any Intention Experiment, my own job is twofold: first to make this sometimes complex information comprehensible to the layperson and second to encourage all of you to participate. I attempt to accomplish both jobs through journalistic skill.

Getting people to give up part of their Saturday requires engaging their hearts and minds. It requires, as they say in Britain, ‘bread and circuses’. In a word, it requires entertainment.

‘Water into Wine’ was a metaphor, of course, for lowering the pH of water so that it was closer to the pH of wine.

I called it that to conjure up mental acidic associations in you as well. I wanted all of you to imagine wine (a more acidic medium than water) when you were sending intention to the water.

My books are filled with metaphors, to enable laypeople to understand many complex notions that are usually described in science through mathematics.

Any announcements from me about the actual experiment of course clarified that what we were actually doing was lowering pH.

However, I doubt whether I would have got as much participation if I’d called our experiment the ‘Lowering of the pH of Water by One-tenth of a pH Experiment’.

We are not claiming to have proven anything. A single study is still simply a demonstration. As I’ve said repeatedly, it demonstrates the possibility that there could be an effect through the power of intention.

It PROVES nothing at this point, because we only have a single demonstration. As scientists put it, our ‘N’ – or number of tested things – equals 1.

With our Germination Experiments, we had 30 time 4 seeds – or an N of 120 – with each of the six experiments. We also ran six dummy experiments.

In the end, our N turned out to be 1440 (120 times 12 experiments in total). That is what gave our study statistical power and enabled us to claim ‘significant’ effects.

We will need to run the Water into Wine Experiment many more times before we have such statistical power.

The scientists are reluctant to publish the actual figures at this point because we don’t have anything scientifically conclusive yet. We have only a demonstration of a possible effect that will be verified (or shot down) by replication.

In our earlier studies, we didn’t even go into detail or show graphs until we had carried out many studies. Nevertheless, our participants were so clamorous for results that we decided to release our general evidence.

We will keep you posted as our numbers build. We’ll be replicating the Water into Wine study on March 20, in Japan, in front of Reconnective healers.

The final question, why don’t we build vastly sophisticated experiments, has largely to do with expense. This work is carried out without pay for all involved, despite the vast labor-intensiveness of each study.

We have donated more than £100,000 to create websites and carry our early experiments.

At the moment, the scientists often donate their free time and grant money to our research.

Our web team has donated its time because they believe in our work.

Occasionally a company with deeper pockets donates money for a larger server, as they did in the Peace Intention Experiments. A large magazine in Holland has offered to underwrite our Gaia Experiment, and so will cover the cost of building the terrarium needed.

I am delighted to run any experiment with possible validity and that fits in with the ethos of The Intention Experiment so long as costs are covered. I invite any of you who would like to see more elaborate experiments to press the ‘Donate’ button on the front of our website and provide us with the funds to do so.

I was very happy to read the response to our comments.

Before commenting further, I would state that I don’t believe in intention, I KNOW that it works. What is at stake here is to demonstrate its effectiveness to the sceptics in a scientific way.
I’m sure that all criticisms emanated from people in the same mood.

I was happy to read that for your scientific team,the last experiment was just a milestone, not a scientific demonstration which will require a number of replications.

So it seems that there is only here a communication problem.
You, Lynne are tending to market the results in a dramatic way while they are neither validated nor, in the last experiment, readable.

I thind that we, the intenders, are sort of mental stakeholders in your effort, therefore a democratic and very effective process would be to take advantage of the scientific skills many of us have in the following way:

- publish before the experiment is run a detailed paper providing the scientific plans (objective, methods, evaluation, etc) for us to comment.

- publish after the experiment a report providing detailed results, readable graphs, numerical analysis (statistical if applicable), discussion and conclusion. A common practice.

Lynne, please consider all the points I made as a supportive action to your effort. I wish you, and us, all the best for the next experiments.

Conny – as an intuitive healer and massage therapist I have come to understand and accept that we DO create our own illness and life situations. This is done on a subconscious level and is very subtle; to learn more about this there is a good book available that will explain it to you. The title is “Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom” by Christiane Northrup, M.D.

Causing our own illness is often as subtle as our self-talk, how we “feel” about ourselves, the unresolved issues from our childhood (such as lessons in church that we are born with original sin and therefore “unworthy”, etc.) these things get stuck inside us and we have to consciously work to leave them behind us and go into healing.

But, again, Thank You, Lynne, for the work you’re doing. I think in the long run it will prove to be what saves humanity and our planet.

You say this first “water into wine” experiment is just an insight and need to be replicated to demonstrate any robust effect. Right. However, you conclude the report of the experiment by saying:
“So this, our 19th experiment, is also our 16th successful Intention Experiment – DEMONSTRATING, once again, that our collective thoughts have the power to change – perhaps even heal – our world.”
As you said, you didn’t demonstrate anything in this experiment.As we know, this is frontier science, so you must be careful and stick to scientific robust standards to get these results acknowledged by scientific community. These results seems adequate only for people already convinced of power of intention. I assume this is not your goal.

i whish you all the best for your next experiments.

Best regards,
julien