Redaction s note.

 Impression about a speculation is alas!not deceived  for professor  Filimonov. Charlpvsky   linked on a such authorities as and academician   Behtereva and academician  Dubinin .And in thesis of an own report he shared: We are suggested to do research with a laboratory of system-genesis and brain genesis in consultation academism Dubinin. These are scientists on meeting at  not stayed and redaction called them, and here share academician   Dubinin to us:

Am not going taking part in any experiments, its misunderstanding ,Charkovsky is not tied with our laboratory , and an idea births in water am not ability to support, and am not met with her. And same we are heard by academism Behtereva.

 Am not negativity attributing to any new, but not agree on experiments on peoples.  And somebody from relatives are going to birth am say no, am against.

And now paradox is first: Approving for saving births in water, he admits and own non-competent   in this problem.

Paradox third:authoritative sciences, and on the opinion on which he's linking,  are not supporting his experiments.

Paradox fourth: About a birth in water are linked many posts popular, and specialists for 3 hours discussing  method are not ability achieving from author are elementary facts about how much birth taken? And on which categories they are rated advantages, and on this which bases he is   advantages,that babies birthing in water are healthier, than were born by tradition method . Science is not needed   for subjectivism , her need in  right facts, numbers, convincing comparisons, by protocol registered births histories. And such in Charkovsky not had.