I would love to refute your explanation, but to be honest, I can't make heads or tails of it. "Active" water? "Inactive" water? EM "oscillations"? "Crystal seeds"? ...I give up. It's like pseudo-science buzzword bingo.
One thing though: people often complain that something "isn't scientific" whenever the science comes to a conclusion that they don't like. The editor of Nature -- a prominent science magazine -- was willing to publish the guy's article. That alone should be reasonable counter-evidence for all those claims that there's a some scientific "conspiracy" afoot to keep the miracle of homeopathy down. The thing is, they published his results, and then they tried to reproduce them. This is science. That's how it works. His claims didn't hold up, and that was that. He's free to go back and re-reproduce his results, this time consistently, and then they might be re-examined again. Until then, his results are bunk.
Water is said to be active when the effect on basophile cells was positive. Basophile cells are actors in the immune system and Benveniste was studying mechanism of allergy when he discovered this effect. Water remained active even with repeated dilution and shaking. When water was heated above 80°C and cooled back again it became inactive, which means it had no more effect on basophile cells.
Benveniste also detected the presence of a low frequency (~500Hz) EM emission of active water, which is not present with inactive water. The source of this low frequency EM emission is a problem in itself because it is not compatible with the water molecule oscillation frequency.
Recording the EM emission and replaying it back on inactive water rendered the water active on the basophile cells. These are the experimental evidences reported by Benveniste that remains to be explained.
Things fall in place when we assume the presence of stable water molecule aggregation with charge movement through them, a growth mechanism by polarization affinity and fragmentation by shaking.
BTW it is not true that the editor was willing to publish the "guy's" article. Benveniste was before it a well known and respected scientists and he had to insist and debate for his article to be published. It was published because the editor had nothing to oppose to it and justify a rejection.
When he came to check the experience with Randi, probably under pressure of the scientific community, they found nothing that could explain the observations which where reproduced at will in front of them in increasingly twisted ways. Randi and the editor went nearly nuts for not finding any trick or error.
The result is that they justify the mismatch between their beliefs and the data by undetermined experimental errors. How convenient, but that is not science.
Note that I am not talking about homeapathy here and claiming anything about it. I currently have no clue and no beliefs about it. What I say about it is I don't know. And this is the best that we can objectively say a priori without error about it.
Back to the Benveniste discovery, the normal scientific process should be to try to elaborate a theory that explains the observations; not to debunk it at any cost. Once a theory is proposed and proved to be coherent and valid with current scientific knowledge and understanding, it should then be tested. My father proposed such a theory, but it has not been tested yet. From what he told me, it should be easy. If the water molecule aggregates are present they should change the electric property of water. Simple direct measurement with conventional EM measurement devices should do it. No need of hard to control basophile cells reaction test. According to Benveniste observation, EM signal could induce formation of these aggregates and thus, according to the theory, alter the EM property of water. If the aggregates are stable, the change if EM emission of water would be persistent and measurable. it would be removed after heating the water which dissolves the aggregate structures. How hard would this be to test and explore ?
One thing though: people often complain that something "isn't scientific" whenever the science comes to a conclusion that they don't like. The editor of Nature -- a prominent science magazine -- was willing to publish the guy's article. That alone should be reasonable counter-evidence for all those claims that there's a some scientific "conspiracy" afoot to keep the miracle of homeopathy down. The thing is, they published his results, and then they tried to reproduce them. This is science. That's how it works. His claims didn't hold up, and that was that. He's free to go back and re-reproduce his results, this time consistently, and then they might be re-examined again. Until then, his results are bunk.