Editing Water memory (section)

===Aftermath===
In a response letter published in the same July issue of ''Nature'', Benveniste lashed out at Maddox and complained about the "ordeal" that he had endured at the hands of the ''Nature'' team, comparing it to "[[Salem witchhunt]]s or [[McCarthyism|McCarthy]]-like prosecutions".<ref name="letters">{{cite journal|journal=Nature |title=Dr Jacques Benveniste replies |volume=334 |date=28 July 1988 |author=J. Benveniste |pages=291 |url=http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste02.pdf |doi=10.1038/334291a0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091018233412/http://br.geocities.com/criticandokardec/benveniste02.pdf |archive-date=18 October 2009 |issue=6180 |bibcode=1988Natur.334..291B |s2cid=4362490 |url-status=unfit |doi-access=free }}</ref> Both in the ''Nature'' response and during a later episode of ''[[Quirks and Quarks]]'', Benveniste especially complained about Stewart, who he claimed acted as if they were all frauds and treated them with disdain, complaining about his "typical know-it-all attitude". In his ''Nature'' letter, Benveniste also implied that Randi was attempting to hoodwink the experimental run by doing magic tricks, "distracting the technician in charge of its supervision!" He was more apologetic on ''Quirks and Quarks'', re-phrasing his mention of Randi to imply that he had kept the team ''amused'' with his tricks and that his presence was generally welcomed. He also pointed out that although it was true two of his team members were being paid by a homeopathic company, the same company had paid Maddox's team's hotel bill.

Maddox was unapologetic, stating "I'm sorry we didn't find something more interesting." On the same ''Quirks and Quarks'' show, he dismissed Benveniste's complaints, stating that, because of the possibility that the results would be unduly promoted by the homeopathy community, an immediate re-test was necessary. The failure of the tests demonstrated that the initial results were likely due to the [[Observer-expectancy effect|experimenter effect]]. He also pointed out that the entire test procedure, that Benveniste later complained about, was one that had been agreed upon in advance by all parties. It was only after the test had failed that Benveniste disputed its appropriateness.

The debate continued in the letters section of ''Nature'' for several issues before being ended by the editorial board. It continued in the French press for some time,<ref name="controversy">{{cite journal
| journal = Nature
| title = Benveniste controversy rages on in the French press
| volume = 334
| date = 28 July 1988
| author = P. Coles
| pages = 372
| doi = 10.1038/334372a0
| pmid = 2457165
| issue = 6181
|bibcode = 1988Natur.334..372C | doi-access = free
}}</ref> and in September Benveniste [[Jacques Benveniste#After Dark|appeared]] on the British television discussion programme ''[[After Dark (TV series)|After Dark]]'' to debate the events live with Randi and others. In spite of all the arguing over the retests, it had done nothing to stop what Maddox worried about: even in light of the tests' failure, they were still being used to claim that the experiments "prove" that homeopathy works. One of Benveniste's co-authors on the ''Nature'' paper, Francis Beauvais, later stated that while unblinded experimental trials usually yielded "correct" results (''i.e.'' ultradiluted samples were biologically active, controls were not), "the results of blinded samples were almost always at random and did not fit the expected results: some 'controls' were active and some 'active' samples were without effect on the biological system."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Beauvais | first1 = Francis | year = 2008 | title = Memory of water and blinding | journal = Homeopathy | volume = 97 | issue = 1| pages = 41–42 | pmid = 18194766 | doi=10.1016/j.homp.2007.10.001 | s2cid = 3676368 }}</ref>