You are absolutely correct that Quantum Biology is a legitimate and active scientific discipline. The very fact that the term "Quantum Biology" is used as a recognized field of study signifies that scientists are indeed investigating the role of quantum mechanics in biological systems. I have stated this in my previous responses. However, the existence of a discipline does not automatically mean that every hypothesis explored within that discipline is an established fact, or that it has overturned foundational knowledge in related fields. My point has consistently been a nuanced one, distinguishing between: * The fundamental quantum nature of all matter: All biological processes ultimately obey the laws of quantum mechanics at their most basic level. This is universally accepted. * Specific, demonstrated functional roles of quantum phenomena: In certain biological processes (like photosynthesis or bird magnetoreception), there is strong and accumulating evidence that non-trivial quantum effects (like coherence or entanglement) play a crucial, functional role that cannot be explained by classical physics alone. This is an exciting and growing area of research within quantum biology. * Hypotheses regarding complex quantum effects in higher-level biological information processing (like synaptic communication in neurons): This is where the evidence is still largely theoretical, highly speculative, and faces significant challenges (like the decoherence problem). While some researchers are investigating these possibilities within quantum biology, these are not currently accepted as the established mechanisms for synaptic transmission by the broader neuroscience community. The established scientific consensus for how neurons communicate via synapses remains the electrochemical model, based on overwhelming, repeatable, and directly observable evidence. This is not because other possibilities haven't been considered or explored by researchers (including those in quantum biology), but because the direct, functional involvement of phenomena like quantum entanglement in the information transfer process at synapses lacks the empirical support seen for the electrochemical model. So, to be clear: * Is Quantum Biology a thing? Yes, absolutely. * Does it investigate quantum effects in biological systems, including potentially in neurons? Yes, it does. * Does its existence mean that the highly speculative hypotheses about functional quantum entanglement in synaptic information transfer are now established facts or have replaced the electrochemical model? No, not yet, based on the current scientific evidence and consensus. My aim is to present the current scientific understanding and consensus, while acknowledging areas of active research and open questions.