I have not initiated a coordinated, major, collaborative research effort on the topic of structured water, which is what it would take to make any real progress in an academic setting. A few casual conversations might be suggestive, but would not answer any questions. It would not move the needle.
Plus, I will go on record to say that, in my opinion, this is an excellent example of the type of research and observation that really needs to be done: specifically, we need a massive amount of observations of biological effects with carefully recorded experimental conditions. The fact is, you can do all of the exclusion zone and x-ray crystallographic measurements you want to… and it would tell you… nothing much about whether of not it is really having biological effects.
So I would say, for the time being, for a while, keep track of experimental conditions and make careful measurements and observations. Before you can even really begin to study something like this, you need a solid and large body of observations, so that you can begin to see patterns, so you can begin to hypothesize mechanisms, so you can begin to formulate working hypotheses, which then allows you to make predictive and measurable statements, allowing you to verify and refine, or exclude, sets of observations, which allows you to further refine the hypotheses and predictions, and when you have multiple hypotheses, you can then formulate tests to exclude, or support by strong inference, each hypothesis.
This is actually how all productive biological research is actually done. The other approaches are basically methods used by academics to pump federal dollars.
So what I am doing, and my advice to everyone else who is reading this, is to keep testing, observing, recording, report back here, look for patterns, and if you see something then we can have several people test it independently, collect the results, and publish them in our journal (JoSaM.org).