Homeoproofer's Challenge Thread

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

"If you build it. They will come"

Well, it does seem about time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3894776#post3894776) for "Homeoproofer" to present his final version of a viable Challenge.

[GoodGuysEatPie]

Waiting...

:popcorn1

~Good Guy~

[Acleron]

Just going to run downstairs and make a cup of coffee, give me a yell when it happens, wouldn't want to miss anything :)

[Homeoproofer]

Thanks for the help to open this thread!

Is the result out of this thread then, accepted by the JREF in my application?

My claim is:

I can identify a homeopathic remedy by smelling!

How it is done:

To prepare the bottles:
Two balls out of a globulie-bottle have to be resolved in a bottle with 100ml alcohol(70%) .

This has to be done n-times...
and x-bottles h
ave to be filled with 70%alcohol(same 100ml)


How I will analyse the content of the bottles:
After shaking the closed bottle (1 after the other) I smell then the air out of the bottle and need up to one day to tell if it is a remedybottle or only a alcoholbottle.
After I found 1 remedybottle of the n remedybottles out of the x bottles, I need 2-4 weeks to recover my analysationability and can search further for the next bottle...


The suggestion from another threadposter was a Number x of 20 bottles and 3(n) bottles out of this 20 are remedybottles.


For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??

For the main-test(sorry-forgot the correct word if this is nt ok)
Would I have to repeat the first successful trial of finding the (i.e.) 3 out of 20 bottles ?

What is scientifically accepted and will satisfy the JREF?

My troubles:

I have a visual disability and this is not always same in the effect at my lowvision...
It is possible that I come into a condition where it is not possible for me to analyse the bottles, while this has nothing to do with a risk for my health at all- just for winning the challenge.

For this case or for another, I would like to let my wife to analyse the bottles, because she could do it same good and is already in a good condition for making this job.
There is already no reason anymore to not let her do it...
And if my wife would do it, she would need an assistant to give her the possibly needed informations that she does not know.
I would call it as team which acts as one person- 1 group ot of 3 in the doubleblind study.

I understand this as legally ok and would like to have in anyway a homeopath as an assistent to ensure the safety of me or my wife.

Other question

It is about homeopathy, and is it out of that needed for me, to have an academic supporter or a puplic publication?

There is already enough out there about homeopathy I think...


Thanks for all the help!

Jürgen

[ddt]

<U> For the preliminary test:>/U>
You seem to have used HTML codes instead of BBcodes for the formatting. If you read this timely, you may still be able to edit your post.

ETA: Hint: before submitting a post, use the "preview post" button to see how your post is going to look like.


is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??
While I'm not the JREF, the probability of 1:10 seems a tad high even for a preliminary test.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi, Juergen!

My name's Jackalgirl and I love helping with protocol design, so I hope that you don't mind if I weigh in here. Let me just start, though, by saying that I am not a rep for JREF, so please take my suggestions with a grain of salt.

One note: the BBCode for underlining is and -- you're using HTML code, which isn't being processed by the Forum properly. (I forget all the time too -- drives me crazy! ; ) )


I can identify a homeopathic remedy by smelling!

Cool! This should definitely be testable. There are likely to be some other issues with the rest of your protocol, though.


How it is done:

To prepare the bottles:
Two balls out of a globulie-bottle have to be resolved in a bottle with 100ml alcohol(70%)


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this: two balls of what? Also, could you clarify what you mean by "70%"? Do you mean that the first bottle is 70% alcohol and 30% of whatever the substance is that's to be diluted?

If so, what substance do you propose to dilute?


This has to be done n-times...
and x-bottles h
ave to be filled with 70%alcohol(same 100ml)

Please tell me if I'm understanding you properly: for each dilution, the new bottle will be filled with 70% fresh alcohol, and the other 30% will come out of the bottle of mixture. You'll do this n times. Have you decided how many times you have to do it? Better math minds than mine will come along, I'm sure, but Wikipedia (taken with a grain of salt) says that a potency of 12C is unlikely to have any of the original substance in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Dilution_and_succussion). What potency are you shooting for?

Mind you, one of the major claims of homeopathy is that the more dilute the substance is, the more potent it is, and that the quality of the substance is maintained beyond the 12C point -- that is, that there is some kind of "echo" or "essence" (my terms) of the substance that does its...well, its magic. Most skeptics, and I imagine the JREF as well, are going to consider anything less than 12C as not homeopathic. So I highly suggest that you shoot for a target potency of 12C or higher.

How I will analyse the content of the bottles:
After shaking the closed bottle (1 after the other) I smell then the air out of the bottle and need up t one day to tell if it is a remedybottle or only a alcoholbottle.

Here's the first sticking point: I highly doubt that JREF is going to have their rep or proctor sit around for an entire day watching you decide whether the bottle is the remedy bottle or not. You are not going to be allowed to take the bottle out of the sight of the proctor/rep/observer(s). Can you speed up the process?

After I found 1 remedybottle of the n remedybottles out of the x bottles, I need 2-4 weeks to recover my analysationability and can search further for the next bottle...

This might also be a problem, although it's possible that the JREF will find a rep patient enough to deal with this. Note, though, that you will most probably not be able to find the result of your first attempt until ALL attempts are completed. So if, for example, you take one month per attempt and you're doing 10 attempts, you won't find out how you did until 10 months later.



The suggestion from another threadposter was a Number x of 20 bottles and 3(n) bottles out of this 20 are remedybottles.


For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??


I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.


My troubles:

I have a visual disability and this is not always same in the effect at my lowvision...
It is possible that I come into a condition where it is not possible for me to analyse the bottles, while this has nothing to do with a risk for my health at all- just for winning the challenge.



Since you're doing the test by smell, and since what you're doing is going to have to be observed by someone, your vision shouldn't be a problem. The bottles will probably be labeled something like "A", "B", "C", etc. and all you have to do is show the observer or recorder which bottle you think is the remedy. He or she will record it (and it'll all be on video, too, to ensure accuracy).


For this case or for another, I would like to let my wife to analyse the bottles, because she could do it same good and is already in a good condition for making this job.
There is already no reason anymore to not let her do it...
And if my wife would do it, she would need an assistant to give her the possibly needed informations that she does not know.
I would call it as team which acts as one person- 1 group ot of 3 in the doubleblind study.

I understand this as legally ok and would like to have in anyway a homeopath as an assistent to ensure the safety of me or my wife.


It's already been established that you can apply and specify that someone else (your "assistant") will actually do the demonstration. So I don't think that this will be a problem. You can have as many people as you want with you -- as long as the test is double-blind. That means that no one on the team with you or in the room with you (including observers or recorders) will know which bottle contains which remedy.



Other question

It is about homeopathy, and is it out of that needed for me, to have an academic supporter or a puplic publication?


Your team has to have some kind of media presence. This means that either you or your assistant has to have been featured in the media somehow, or have published a book or paper, etc. There might be more specific requirements for the media presence -- you might want to shoot an email to challenge@randi.org to get this properly clarified.

Good luck! : )

-- JG

[Mojo]

To prepare the bottles:
Two balls out of a globulie-bottle have to be resolved in a bottle with 100ml alcohol(70%) .

This has to be done n-times...
and x-bottles h
ave to be filled with 70%alcohol(same 100ml)


For the blank bottles, it will be necessary that two "balls" that have not had a remedy added to them are dissolved in them, so that there is no difference between the "remedy" bottle and the blanks other than the alleged presence of the remedy. Being able to detect whether or not alcohol has had sugar dissolved in it would not be considered paranormal. This has already been explained to you on the other thread.

You will also need to specify what remedy you propose to detect, and at what potency. Just saying "a globulie-bottle" will not be considered precise enough.

It will also, of course, be necessary for the test to be double-blind, which is not mentioned in your protocol. Neither you, nor anyone who will come into contact with you during the test, can know which bottle(s) contain the remedy. The fact that you need 2-4 weeks to recover after finding a remedy bottle will obviously cause problems here. If a witness chosen by you is present when the bottles are prepared, there will be no way of preventing communication other than by incarcerating one or both of you.

[Jackalgirl]

Ah hah! I see that Baron Samedi is the smarter probability person (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3892131#post3892131). He's right -- if you want to know if 3 out of 20 is enough to pass the Challenge, send an email to challenge@randi.org. That's what you'll have to do -- this Forum is for people like me (who like Challenges, but who do not represent the JREF) to discuss Challenges, and the JREF folks don't generally answer questions here. So email challenge@randi.org and let us know what they say. : )

[ddt]

I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.

There were a couple of mathematicians in the original thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118179) (me being one).

A couple of options to get in the 1:1000 ballpark:

1) 10 bottles, of which an unknown number are positive. This gives as probability 1:1024. However, if all of them are positive the test would last nearly a year.

2) 46 bottles, 2 of which are positive. This gives probability 1:1035.

3) 20 bottles, 3 of which are positive. This gives probability 1:1140.

4) 14 bottles, 4 of which are positive. This gives probability 1:1001.

In all cases, the probabilities are for identifying them all correctly when there's nothing else involved than pure chance.

[Pixel42]

I'd like to reiterate what I said in the original thread: as far as I'm aware the "1 in a 1000" probability requirement was something thrown out at random by Randi as an example of the sort of probability someone would have to beat to win the million. It's certainly not mentioned in the rules as a requirement for either the preliminary or the final test, and I seem to recall Randi saying in Swift when the rules were revamped that it's not a fixed requirement. I'm pretty sure JREF would be happy with a much smaller probability of chance success, at least for the preliminary test.

It will also, of course, be necessary for the test to be double-blind, which is not mentioned in your protocol. Neither you, nor anyone who will come into contact with you during the test, can know which bottle(s) contain the remedy. The fact that you need 2-4 weeks to recover after finding a remedy bottle will obviously cause problems here. If a witness chosen by you is present when the bottles are prepared, there will be no way of preventing communication other than by incarcerating one or both of you.
This is the problem I see with the suggested protocol. I can see no obvious way in which Homeoproofer's representative can be satisified that no cheating has taken place when the bottles are prepared AND JREF's representative can be satisfied that Homeproofer's representative hasn't told Homeoproofer which bottles contain the remedy. This would not normally be an issue because no-one present when the bottles were being prepared would have contact with the participants until the test is over, but as you say that is impracticable when the test lasts weeks rather than hours.

So some way in which Homeproofer's representative can be satisfied that the bottles have been prepared and labelled correctly without actually seeing the labels would have to be devised.

[Mojo]

This is the problem I see with the suggested protocol. I can see no obvious way in which Homeoproofer's representative can be satisified that no cheating has taken place when the bottles are prepared AND JREF's representative can be satisfied that Homeproofer's representative hasn't told Homeoproofer which bottles contain the remedy. This would not normally be an issue because no-one present when the bottles were being prepared would have contact with the participants until the test is over, but as you say that is impracticable when the test lasts weeks rather than hours.

So some way in which Homeproofer's representative can be satisfied that the bottles have been prepared and labelled correctly without actually seeing the labels would have to be devised.


Perhaps Homeoproofer could do some sort of multi-stage test. He can, presumably, identify a single bottle from a group of 10 in a single session lasting one day, as he wouldn't need any recovery time before identifying the remedy (of course, he would still need to be isolated from his representative for this time). After identifying the bottle in that test, he could then take his 2-4 weeks to recover, and do another test with freshly prepared bottles, again to identify one bottle from 10. Three of these would give odds of 1:1,000, wouldn't they (10X10X10)?

[Pixel42]

Perhaps Homeoproofer could do some sort of multi-stage test. He can, presumably, identify a single bottle from a group of 10 in a single session lasting one day, as he wouldn't need any recovery time before identifying the remedy
As I understand it, he needs a day to determine if any one bottle contains the remedy. Presumably it takes that long for symptoms to develop after sniffing the remedy - if they develop it's a dosed bottle, if they don't it isn't. So he needs a day before sniffing another bottle, even if the bottle he's just sniffed is not dosed.

[Mojo]

As I understand it, he needs a day to determine if any one bottle contains the remedy. Presumably it takes that long for symptoms to develop after sniffing the remedy - if they develop it's a dosed bottle, if they don't it isn't. So he needs a day before sniffing another bottle, even if the bottle he's just sniffed is not dosed.


Yes, you're right - I'd misread what he'd posted, and thought that he only needed a day to identify one out of ten.

[Baron Samedi]

The suggestion from another threadposter was a Number x of 20 bottles and 3(n) bottles out of this 20 are remedybottles.


For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??



No. If there are 20 bottles in total, and 3 contain the homeopathic solution, you must correctly identify all 20 bottles (i.e. which 3 are homeopathic)

[Cuddles]

I'd like to reiterate what I said in the original thread: as far as I'm aware the "1 in a 1000" probability requirement was something thrown out at random by Randi as an example of the sort of probability someone would have to beat to win the million. It's certainly not mentioned in the rules as a requirement for either the preliminary or the final test, and I seem to recall Randi saying in Swift when the rules were revamped that it's not a fixed requirement. I'm pretty sure JREF would be happy with a much smaller probability of chance success, at least for the preliminary test.

Very unlikely. This was discussed in a thread a while ago. The 1/1000 is not an absolutely fixed rule because there are some things for which it's not appropriate. For example, the most recent test involved someone claiming to make a person urinate, which either happens or not, there is no probability involved. The same has been true for other claims in the past, such as making aliens appear. However, when winning by chance is a possibility, it is very unlikely that the JREF will allow a lower probability than usual. As always, the only way to get a definite answer is to ask RemieV or Randi himself.

There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.

[Pixel42]

No. If there are 20 bottles in total, and 3 contain the homeopathic solution, you must correctly identify all 20 bottles (i.e. which 3 are homeopathic)
Homeoproofer and JREF will mutually agree the success criteria before the test. I doubt if JREF would consider correctly identifying 1 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 sufficient to pass the preliminary test, but they might well accept identifying 2 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 as sufficient. No-one here can speak for JREF, these are the sort of details Homeoproofer must discuss with them directly.

[Pixel42]

As always, the only way to get a definite answer is to ask RemieV or Randi himself.
Agreed.

There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.
Oh, excellent suggestion. Even if the symptoms vary for different people, there should presumably be some symptom that Homeoproofer can identify. A couple of volunteers per bottle should do it. What say you, Homeoproofer?

[ddt]

Homeoproofer and JREF will mutually agree the success criteria before the test. I doubt if JREF would consider correctly identifying 1 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 sufficient to pass the preliminary test, but they might well accept identifying 2 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 as sufficient.

Probability of identifying at least 2 out of 3: 52/1140, approx. 1/21.9

[chillzero]

I'm surprised no one has put this one to bed yet:


Is the result out of this thread then, accepted by the JREF in my application?



No. Only a formal application made to the JREF, according to the MDC rules and FAQs will be accepted, after the JREF review and decide on it. This forum is not the JREF, and no one here (other than Jeff Wagg and RemieV) speak for the JREF.

[Homeoproofer]

maybe a look into the thread "homeoproofer" would help you to understand better...
but i explain your questions...



Cool! This should definitely be testable. There are likely to be some other issues with the rest of your protocol, though.


i see no problems for he fair test.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this: two balls of what? Also, could you clarify what you mean by "70%"? Do you mean that the first bottle is 70% alcohol and 30% of whatever the substance is that's to be diluted?


Don´t you know that you can buy alcohol ina drugstore with a percentage?
pure alcohol is impossible...

so they sell it of course with water.
it is therfor 70 % alcohol with 30%water in the alcohol bottle- but not in my bottle as you see below further ...



If so, what substance do you propose to dilute?


I do not want to give liquid substances into the alcohol, I want to dissolve globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy.



Please tell me if I'm understanding you properly: for each dilution, the new bottle will be filled with 70% fresh alcohol, and the other 30% will come out of the bottle of mixture.
[QUOTE]

No.

I wrote 100ml alcohol, but the bottle is (what I orgot) 300ml volume.
nothing else than alcohol in the bottle plus 2 globulies


[QUOTE=Jackalgirl;3896323]
You'll do this n times. Have you decided how many times you have to do it?


No, this is the question here.


Better math minds than mine will come along, I'm sure, but Wikipedia (taken with a grain of salt) says that a potency of 12C is unlikely to have any of the original substance in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy#Dilution_and_succussion). What potency are you shooting for?


LM potency which is 1:50000 and also called Q(greek:50000)
L(50-greek)M(1000-greek)


Mind you, one of the major claims of homeopathy is that the more dilute the substance is, the more potent it is, and that the quality of the substance is maintained beyond the 12C point -- that is, that there is some kind of "echo" or "essence" (my terms) of the substance that does its...well, its magic. Most skeptics, and I imagine the JREF as well, are going to consider anything less than 12C as not homeopathic. So I highly suggest that you shoot for a target potency of 12C or higher.


I agree with you, but skeptics are satisfied with C30 and up, as I have seen without knowing the reason for.
LM12 should be more difficult to believe to have a substance in it and is as far as I know, the highest suggested potency for using out of the LM-range.
it is quite interesting for me, that I have not seen a skeptic writing and complaining about LM-potencies or Q-potencies...
(altough they believe to know enough to complain)



Here's the first sticking point: I highly doubt that JREF is going to have their rep or proctor sit around for an entire day watching you decide whether the bottle is the remedy bottle or not. You are not going to be allowed to take the bottle out of the sight of the proctor/rep/observer(s). Can you speed up the process?


I see a missing logical thinking:
what shall I do with a bottle filled with alcohol?
analyse it to see that it is alcohol?

I do not need observers around me all the time, because I do not need to take the bottle with me too.

I want to be able to smell it 1 time or maybe a second time, and not triing to get drunken by alcoholsmelling...



This might also be a problem, although it's possible that the JREF will find a rep patient enough to deal with this. Note, though, that you will most probably not be able to find the result of your first attempt until ALL attempts are completed.


If it is like you think, it takes a month to state the result of testing 20 bottles.


So if, for example, you take one month per attempt and you're doing 10 attempts, you won't find out how you did until 10 months later.


10 times, isn´t it a little bit much desired?
But it is possible with changing the remedy I guess, because who would test a medicineeffect for 10 months long, and risk a discomfort for this time?
The claim is not necessarely that there is only 1 remedy that is different to plazebo, it is the claim that every remedy of homeopathy is effective.

And what is the problem of a test over 10 months if this is necessary for proofing something?



I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.


I can do whatever is possible in the remaining time of the challenge!



Since you're doing the test by smell, and since what you're doing is going to have to be observed by someone, your vision shouldn't be a problem. The bottles will probably be labeled something like "A", "B", "C", etc. and all you have to do is show the observer or recorder which bottle you think is the remedy. He or she will record it (and it'll all be on video, too, to ensure accuracy).


misunderstanding...
I have not mentioned that I would have a problem in seeing the bottles, I ment that it could happen that I am in a condition where I would not like to smell remedies.
I never give up the hope to cure what noone could cure yet: LHON
and if this could happen I would not like to disrupt the cure with such a trial. but I can include the trial into the cure, otherwise.
I want to use remedies, where I know that they have a positive effect for my vision and that is then also the difference what it will make in smelling at remedies or at plazebos...
the plazebo has NO positive effect at my eyes, even if I would believe it is a remedy, but the remedy has.

If my wife would do the testing, she would not need to see a differnce in her vision, of course, because, she could feel the effect of every remedy after a few minutes yet!
It seems to be a kind of wonder, but other people think it is only sugar and wnat to pay a million for.



It's already been established that you can apply and specify that someone else (your "assistant") will actually do the demonstration. So I don't think that this will be a problem. You can have as many people as you want with you -- as long as the test is double-blind. That means that no one on the team with you or in the room with you (including observers or recorders) will know which bottle contains which remedy.


fine!


Your team has to have some kind of media presence. This means that either you or your assistant has to have been featured in the media somehow, or have published a book or paper, etc. There might be more specific requirements for the media presence -- you might want to shoot an email to challenge@randi.org to get this properly clarified.
Good luck! : )
-- JG

I sent an email already and am waiting for reply now!

Thanks from Jürgen


There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.

Unfortunately this would not be my claim then, it would be the claim of a mass of people...
And not so many people are capable of testing remedies in such a short time or such a way as I plan to do it.


This is the problem I see with the suggested protocol. I can see no obvious way in which Homeoproofer's representative can be satisified that no cheating has taken place when the bottles are prepared AND JREF's representative can be satisfied that Homeproofer's representative hasn't told Homeoproofer which bottles contain the remedy.


I see it as possible to do so:
The "checker"(=qualitysecurity) is present when the bottles are prepared and it has then to be ensured that nobody can touch the bottles anymore after that, until I get it.

After they are prepared it can not be a problem to give all the bottles to me, because there is no method in this world known, to detect the remedy!

If you fear that I have a labratory and could analyse, if there is a mycrogram sugar in the alcohol, it has to be ensured that the plazebos are REAL plazebos and nothing else- easy to do, because the companies which sell remedies sell also plazebos.

Both, te remedy and the plazebos have tocome from the same company and have to be secured tranported also in observance by the checker who should be a lawyer I think.
I guess it is possible for me to find al lawyer who would do this for an affordable price...

Imagine a room next to another room which are connected by a window.
The bottles are given into the window and the window can be locked from both sides, what the lawyer will do on the one side and keep the key.
I open the window on the other side then and take out the bottles and have no worry!

of course it has to be impossible to use a magictrick like a window with containing bottles and the new prepared bottles are never seen on my side then...

From the way from the drugstore where the remedies come from, the lawyer would secure the remedies in a locked box...



This would not normally be an issue because no-one present when the bottles were being prepared would have contact with the participants until the test is over, but as you say that is impracticable when the test lasts weeks rather than hours.


This did not come to my mind yet...

But can´t it be ensured, that I can not have contact with one of the preparement group?=
1 month no meeting with any of them...should be possible I hope.

For the blank bottles, it will be necessary that two "balls" that have not had a remedy added to them are dissolved in them, so that there is no difference between the "remedy" bottle and the blanks other than the alleged presence of the remedy. Being able to detect whether or not alcohol has had sugar dissolved in it would not be considered paranormal. This has already been explained to you on the other thread.


There was no agreemtnt in the other thread- if somebody telle me his opinion in the other thread it does not mean that it is a rulfe or law and that it is correct and accepted.

It would be an additional security for me if the bottle without remedy do not contain anything as alcohol, because there is NO possivility to recognize 1 microgram of sugar in a 100ml alcohol with 70% concetration, nor it is possible for any person on our planet to do so!
I have no build in lagratory in my fingers to analyse the alchol too...
And to smell the little lactoseglobulies in the lachol is very impossible!
Have you ever tried to smell 70%alcohol?
If you have tried you know that it is impossible to smell a difference between the bottles...



You will also need to specify what remedy you propose to detect, and at what potency. Just saying "a globulie-bottle" will not be considered precise enough.

Why not?
If it has to be a remedy chosen by a homeopath and the potency was already stated with LM12 I think...
Any globulies with a potency higher than C30 are defined as plazebo by skeptics...
Out of that it is completely unimportant and not explainable I think, why it is important to know the remedyname before already when applying for the challenge(or accepting the challenge)

When the test is done, the remedy are known and will not be changed anymore.
Or at least as soon as my homeopath has given his ok, for the remedies I would like to use then already, because I just did not tell yet, for the case that it has to be changed lateron.

out of my claim, that remedies are remedies, and the necessary three times of taking it, it has to be a remedy which is chosen very well, to have no unwanted effect at me...
except someone likes me to suffer i.e. ballpain for some days as an exchange for he money...




It will also, of course, be necessary for the test to be double-blind, which is not mentioned in your protocol.

I have mentioned it already in discussions many times, just in the suggested first post of mine here, it may be forgotten.


Neither you, nor anyone who will come into contact with you during the test, can know which bottle(s) contain the remedy. The fact that you need 2-4 weeks to recover after finding a remedy bottle will obviously cause problems here. If a witness chosen by you is present when the bottles are prepared, there will be no way of preventing communication other than by incarcerating one or both of you.

incarceration is only one idea, but there are more possibilites:
Like I have seen already in a video about a former homeopathyproofing in the challenge which was not told in the other thread, it is possibble too, to make the labels of the bottles invisible for me, by taping them...

So it would be impossible to tell me anything.
All the bottles look very same and there is no way for me to recognizing a difference as through smelling then!

The bottles would stay in a secured place where nobody can touch them and also if I could take the bottles with me, it would be impossible for me, to find out about the content with cheating!

[Pixel42]

there is NO possivility to recognize 1 microgram of sugar in a 100ml alcohol with 70% concetration, nor it is possible for any person on our planet to do so!
And yet you are so sure that something that is no longer even present will be detectable by its effect on you ...

it is possibble too, to make the labels of the bottles invisible for me, by taping them...

So it would be impossible to tell me anything.
That might well be a workable solution to the problem.

[Czarcasm]

"globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy"
What specifically is the substance you wish to dilute with the 70% alcohol solution?

[Coveredinbeeees]

I smell then the air out of the bottle and need up to one day to tell if it is a remedybottle or only a alcoholbottle.


If my wife would do the testing, she would not need to see a differnce in her vision, of course, because, she could feel the effect of every remedy after a few minutes yet!

It seems to me that you wife would be the better candidate for the test. She does not have a medical issue which could prevent her from performing and she is able to detect the remedy "after a few minutes" rather than "up to one day." Why not just have your wife take the challenge so that it need not take a year?

[Jackalgirl]

maybe a look into the thread "homeoproofer" would help you to understand better...

Yup -- I probably should have read that first. But I think I understand what you're thinking, thanks to your explanations and other people's comments. Your protocol consists of you or your wife sniffing a bottle, then waiting for some kinds of symptoms to occur (or not occur).
I think that's do-able. I'll be quite interested in what RemieV or Jeff have to say (when they respond to your email).

Thanks for clarifying the alcohol question -- or, at least, let me make sure I'm getting it right: you've got a solution of 70% alcohol, 30% water. You're talking about rubbing alcohol, correct?

And into this, you're going to dissolve your remedy substance. As Czarcasm asks, have you decided on what the substance is?

If you have, what is the weight or volume of a globulie?


LM potency which is 1:50000 and also called Q(greek:50000)
L(50-greek)M(1000-greek)

If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.

Again, a 12C solution (1:10x24) is likely not to have any of the original substance in it, and is also considered to be more potent by homeopathic standards, which is where a lot of the criticism of homeopathy comes from: how can something that does not have any of the original substance in it be effective? In fact, how could you tell between it and a bottle of solvent? And that's the substance of the test, as I understand it: that you can tell. So I imagine that JREF is going to want to have a potency a bit higher than 1:50000.

(According to that bastion of accuracy, Wikipedia, 1:100,000,000 is the amount of arsenic allowable in US drinking water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy).)

This is, of course, assuming that you're mixing up a 1LM solution, as opposed to, say, a 6LM solution, which should do the trick.


If it is like you think, it takes a month to state the result of testing 20 bottles.

You mentioned that you would need 2-4 weeks to "reset" between attempts, which means it'll take a lot longer than one month to test the results. Or are you saying that you'll only need 2-4 weeks to "reset" after you've found a remedy bottle?

In this case, it'll still take longer than a month, no? Even if the very last bottle of the set of 20 is a remedy bottle, this still means that in two other attempts you'll have to wait 2-4 weeks each to "reset" (for a total of 4-8 weeks, which is one to two months of total waiting time).

Another question to ask the JREF (if you haven't already) is whether they'll let you stop the test once you've found the three remedies, or whether they'll want you to test all 20 regardless. I suspect they will want the latter (they have in the past, but with a different kind of test).

Edited to add: just saw Coveredinbeeees' response, and I think it's a great point too. (And I LOVE the nickname. : ) )


10 times, isn´t it a little bit much desired?
But it is possible with changing the remedy I guess, because who would test a medicineeffect for 10 months long, and risk a discomfort for this time?
The claim is not necessarely that there is only 1 remedy that is different to plazebo, it is the claim that every remedy of homeopathy is effective.

I'm not sure I understand. But I think that the point of this test is to demonstrate that you are capable of recognizing a homeopathic solution (as opposed to just a solution).

This test won't actually establish the efficacy of (any given) homeopathic remedy. What it will do is demonstrate that a homeopathic solution is measurably different from a non-homeopathic solution.

Please understand that in all of this, I'm using my skeptic-layman's understanding of what "homeopathic" means, which is "something that has been diluted so many times that none of the original substance still exists in the solution, but which somehow maintains some 'essence' of the original substance that causes a measurable effect." I do know that, technically, a 1X (1:10) solution prepared according to the procedures of homeopathy is homeopathic, but the extraordinary claims of homeopathy lie in the efficacy of solutions prepared beyond 12C.


And what is the problem of a test over 10 months if this is necessary for proofing something?

Well, understand that the Million Dollar Challenge is different from a scientific study. It's just a paranormal challenge using a controlled demonstration. You won't necessarily be proving anything -- but if you can pass the Challenge, you'll be demonstrating that there's something worth further study here.

To determine efficacy, you'll have to do something along the lines of a full-blown, fully-controlled, double-blind medical study. The JREF might be interested in that, but bear in mind that you'll bear the expenses of such a study.


misunderstanding...
I have not mentioned that I would have a problem in seeing the bottles, I ment that it could happen that I am in a condition where I would not like to smell remedies.
I never give up the hope to cure what noone could cure yet: LHON
and if this could happen I would not like to disrupt the cure with such a trial. but I can include the trial into the cure, otherwise.
I want to use remedies, where I know that they have a positive effect for my vision and that is then also the difference what it will make in smelling at remedies or at plazebos...
the plazebo has NO positive effect at my eyes, even if I would believe it is a remedy, but the remedy has.

If my wife would do the testing, she would not need to see a differnce in her vision, of course, because, she could feel the effect of every remedy after a few minutes yet!
It seems to be a kind of wonder, but other people think it is only sugar and wnat to pay a million for.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you are describing the means by which you'll identify the remedy bottle by either your physical reaction, or your wife's physical reaction. If so, no worries. I am willing to bet a case of Diet Coke that the JREF will not care how you do it, just that you do it.

Can't wait to hear what they say -- I'd also like to see what they say about the custody issue (i.e., how the bottles are stored when they're not in use).

[Cuddles]

If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.

Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.

[Jackalgirl]

Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.

I agree. One of the basic steps of the test is to understand exactly what everyone's saying when he or she says "homeopathic".

[leonAzul]

Cut to the chase.

Either the claimant can blindly identify two out of three, three out of five, five out of seven, etc. homeopathically prepared solutions/tinctures from those that have not been homeopathically prepared, just by smelling; or not.

Let the homeopaths use their own rules for what constitutes homeopathy. Then let the rule of logic constitute the rule of proof.

Either it works, or it doesn't.

My money's on science. ;)

[Homeoproofer]

Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.

I do not want to usell LM1!
I want to use LM12!

This is much higher diluted as 1:50000!
It is 1:2,44140625e+56 (Windows calculator)

[Homeoproofer]

at first a little abstrakt part :

Cut to the chase.

Either the claimant can blindly identify two out of three, three out of five, five out of seven, etc. homeopathically prepared solutions/tinctures from those that have not been homeopathically prepared, just by smelling; or not.

Let the homeopaths use their own rules for what constitutes homeopathy. Then let the rule of logic constitute the rule of proof.

Either it works, or it doesn't.

My money's on science. ;)

Strange idea of a proof, if not caring about keeping it realistic...
Rule of logic shall constitute a proof a kind of remedy which works out of the system of your logic?

How dare to expect this fair!

---------------------------
but also nice to hear here the explicit statement about what it is about what you care mostly: money (is on science)
---------------------------

Now the explaination:

Just if you do not know:

There are different ways of using a classical homeopathic remedy, and one is smelling it.
Smelling the remedy, means the same as dissolving the globulie on the tongue.

The reasons for not just using globulie, is mostly to prevent the critism of the possibility to see a difference or to taste a difference between the plazebo and the remedyglobulies!

And doesn´t it look more spectacular, only out of the easy visible fact that there is nearly nothing in the alcohol?

BTW: There are different globulie sizes, at least 2 I know.
And LM Globulies are much smaller than the C-potency-globulies!

but the size does not matter at all!
2 Globulies of the little LM-Potencysize, and there are homeopaths whos opinion is, that the REAL homeopathy is the LM(or Q) potency which has therefor to be accepted after I also like to use the highest potency(used in therapies) of LM!

I do not see a problem, but many people who can calculate without knowing what the calculation is for...

Homeopathy is also logically right and understandable only with logical thinking, but the knowledge of homeopathy has to be known to start logical thinking!

so lets discuss further...

[Homeoproofer]

"globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy"
What specifically is the substance you wish to dilute with the 70% alcohol solution?

Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

What do you need a substance name of a substance which is not there?
Isn´t it contradictionary?

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)

[Mojo]

Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

What do you need a substance name of a substance which is not there?
Isn´t it contradictionary?


Why are you so reluctant to state the remedy you intend to use?

Are you prepared to have someone else select a remedy for you?

[Baron Samedi]

Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

What do you need a substance name of a substance which is not there?
Isn´t it contradictionary?

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)

This is very standard for the test. You are asked to clearly state your claim, and all parameters. You claim to be able to detect homeopathic remedies at LM12. The JREF will most certainly ask which remedies you have tested yourself so that way the test is as fair as possible. If you have tried it yourself and have a reaction to Nat Mur LM12, the test should be on Nat Mur LM12. If the test suddenly uses Rhus Tox and you fail, you have an instant excuse as to why you failed. That's why it's important to both you and the JREF for you to say exactly which remedies you have tested and claim to be able to detect and at what potency.

[Homeoproofer]

Yup -- I probably should have read that first. But I think I understand what you're thinking, thanks to your explanations and other people's comments. Your protocol consists of you or your wife sniffing a bottle, then waiting for some kinds of symptoms to occur (or not occur).
I think that's do-able. I'll be quite interested in what RemieV or Jeff have to say (when they respond to your email).


indeed


Thanks for clarifying the alcohol question -- or, at least, let me make sure I'm getting it right: you've got a solution of 70% alcohol, 30% water. You're talking about rubbing alcohol, correct?


I do not know what "rubbing alcohol" means- but I am sure you may know what it means when you read 5% alc. on a beerbottle!



And into this, you're going to dissolve your remedy substance. As Czarcasm asks, have you decided on what the substance is?

If you have, what is the weight or volume of a globulie?


it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.

And it does not matter for the skeptic I think, what size it is while no molekul of the namegiving substance is in the globulie or in the alcohol later...

Aren´t you loyal to your own conviction?
(the name of the remedy will be acknowledged early enough)



If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.


I never said that I want to use 1:50000!
Because I wrote LM12 and that is 12 times 1 part in 50000.


Again, a 12C solution (1:10x24) is likely not to have any of the original substance in it, and is also considered to be more potent by homeopathic standards, which is where a lot of the criticism of homeopathy comes from: how can something that does not have any of the original substance in it be effective? In fact, how could you tell between it and a bottle of solvent? And that's the substance of the test, as I understand it: that you can tell. So I imagine that JREF is going to want to have a potency a bit higher than 1:50000.


And indeed - they get it!
And btw: there is not only C30, I just used today a C200 against a swelling after a biten by insects...
(and I read about the usage of C1000 too, but as you could imagine, is this too strong for me in the trial)


(According to that bastion of accuracy, Wikipedia, 1:100,000,000 is the amount of arsenic allowable in US drinking water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy).)


And I could not know if there is arsen in the water in the US, while there are also other poisonous substances in the water on the world in such a small amount that it does not matter... with the difference that they do not have a potency!


This is, of course, assuming that you're mixing up a 1LM solution, as opposed to, say, a 6LM solution, which should do the trick.

You mentioned that you would need 2-4 weeks to "reset" between attempts, which means it'll take a lot longer than one month to test the results. Or are you saying that you'll only need 2-4 weeks to "reset" after you've found a remedy bottle?


Only a break after a remedy, and I try every bottle- not that it would be necessary for me, out of the fact that I can be sure that there can´t be another bottle after I found all of them.

Oh! If it is not necessary, I would not continue after the finding of all remediebottles!



In this case, it'll still take longer than a month, no? Even if the very last bottle of the set of 20 is a remedy bottle, this still means that in two other attempts you'll have to wait 2-4 weeks each to "reset" (for a total of 4-8 weeks, which is one to two months of total waiting time).


RIGHT.
but it was only ment as the maximum time for me that I like to request.
It could be much shorter time...
But what, if I have a immunreaction and need longer time...

I like to make the test of course also as short as possible!


Another question to ask the JREF (if you haven't already) is whether they'll let you stop the test once you've found the three remedies, or whether they'll want you to test all 20 regardless. I suspect they will want the latter (they have in the past, but with a different kind of test).


As I was so often told in the other thread, it is not interesting or requested by the JREF to see a symptom, but only important what I tell about the bottles.
Out of this, it would not seem to be a necessarity, to smell all the bottles after I said that I am sure about the 3 remedybottles.

(but good to talk about this!)
For the case that it would happen that it is not clear to me, if a bottle is really a remedybottle or not, it is of course interesting for me to check all the bottles by smelling!
(I do not expect this case, but it is pursuable I think, that I would like to keep this right to be prepared for the unexpected)


I'm not sure I understand. But I think that the point of this test is to demonstrate that you are capable of recognizing a homeopathic solution (as opposed to just a solution).

This test won't actually establish the efficacy of (any given) homeopathic remedy. What it will do is demonstrate that a homeopathic solution is measurably different from a non-homeopathic solution.


Oh my goodness, if it would be measureable, I could not get the million...
but you are right in a way...

Of course it is not yet the proof of the capability of homeopathic remedies to cure deaseases, but it shows at least that this potenciated remedies are not just lactose or alc.drops.
This could mean then the conclusion that the claim that homeopathic remedis are only placebos, is nonsense...

what the skeptic will think about it is a miracle for me only, but I can imagine what the world will think about it!

So if you all sincerly think that homeopathy is placebo only, lets give me the chance!



Please understand that in all of this, I'm using my skeptic-layman's understanding of what "homeopathic" means, which is "something that has been diluted so many times that none of the original substance still exists in the solution, but which somehow maintains some 'essence' of the original substance that causes a measurable effect." I do know that, technically, a 1X (1:10) solution prepared according to the procedures of homeopathy is homeopathic, but the extraordinary claims of homeopathy lie in the efficacy of solutions prepared beyond 12C.


Yes, and just because of this single fact, that there is nothing in the homeopathic remedy which could get measured, it shall be prohibited?
Oh my goodness, what a good reason is that!

Don´t you know other things which can not be measured, but nobody would dare to hesitate to believe in it?
(but this belongs to the thread: "homeoproof")



Well, understand that the Million Dollar Challenge is different from a scientific study. It's just a paranormal challenge using a controlled demonstration. You won't necessarily be proving anything -- but if you can pass the Challenge, you'll be demonstrating that there's something worth further study here.


if it is so well done with scientific and fair rules, it should be seen as a proof!
Otherwise it would make the challenge a little bit untrustable, or not?


To determine efficacy, you'll have to do something along the lines of a full-blown, fully-controlled, double-blind medical study. The JREF might be interested in that, but bear in mind that you'll bear the expenses of such a study.

How much could such a study cost?
if it is done in the same way as other medical studies, with the only difference that it has to be done with respecting of a different understanding of the laws of nature which means then according to homeopathy and not to Allöopathy.

It is naturally harder to do a study of the reastions of the immunsystem compared to do a study of the reactions of a body on a drug!



If I'm understanding you correctly, you are describing the means by which you'll identify the remedy bottle by either your physical reaction, or your wife's physical reaction. If so, no worries. I am willing to bet a case of Diet Coke that the JREF will not care how you do it, just that you do it.


this would be simpler as it is:
it is not only a reaction of mine or my wifes body at the remedy- it is much more a reaction of MYSELFS or my wifes PERSON and it´sensitivity at a remedy!

like I tried to describe it already before I think, this is also the reason why I can do it, or my wife can do it, but not just anyone could do it.

On the other hand, most people can experience a cure via homeopathy because it is not necessary to be that sensitive to get the cureing effect.
The last group of people are not capable of experience an advantage out of homeopathic treatment, because they are not only unsensitive for, they also do not want to see an effect!

If you block it, a psychotherapy will also not work...
Only the schoolmedicine can cause symptomchanges against the striked will of a person, but that is also why it can harm!


Can't wait to hear what they say -- I'd also like to see what they say about the custody issue (i.e., how the bottles are stored when they're not in use).

Out of the fact, that there is NO way to analyse the content of each bottle, it COULD be possible for me to take them home with me, and test it in a timely manner I like.

BUT it is NOT necessary for me to take it with me.
what shall I do with it at home...nothing

Only interesting would be, to have the opportunity to smell it more often (each bottle).

my imagination:;
The bottles are locked in a proper box and the key is kept by the lawyer or a trusted person, while the room for the box is also locked with the key which is kept by another trusted person independendly.

If I can occupy a room in a clinic, it is already enough to have a safe in a small storeroom, and the testing and the storage could be done in that clinic then! *perfect :)*

How is it about sponsorings?
I could try to organize sponsors, while it should be only my buisness were my money for the trial comes from.

Jürgen

[Homeoproofer]

It seems to me that you wife would be the better candidate for the test. She does not have a medical issue which could prevent her from performing and she is able to detect the remedy "after a few minutes" rather than "up to one day." Why not just have your wife take the challenge so that it need not take a year?

It does not have to take a year anyway.

There is only a quicklier recodnization time possible but her recovery takes much longer out of her sensitivity.

This has to be discussed witth a professional in homeopathy first, if it could be a risk for the success out of the timeschedule or other conditions that the profi knows.

Jürgen

[William Smith]

Hi Homeoproofer,

I may have missed it: Do you fulfill the necessary qualifications to even apply?

1. Do you have a media presence?
2. Do you have academic support?

I quote from the Challenge Application form page (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/:)

"[...]12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.[...]"

As a fellow native German, I offer my services as a translator. However, I would not be willing to translate posts of a pointless discussion. The quoted page says it best: "[...]PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.[...]"

Should the JREF accept your application though, I woiuld gladly volunteer my services and help your hammer out a test protocol asap. Your claim seems easily testable. With some tweaks to the protocol, you might have your claim tested this year.

[Baron Samedi]

it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.

And it does not matter for the skeptic I think, what size it is while no molekul of the namegiving substance is in the globulie or in the alcohol later...

Aren´t you loyal to your own conviction?
(the name of the remedy will be acknowledged early enough)


Do you care to share the name of that remedy now? If it is olive oil, I'll be very disappointed.

[William Smith]

A helpful dictionary. (http://dict.leo.org/ende?lp=ende&lang=de&searchLoc=0&cmpType=relaxed&sectHdr=on&spellToler=on&chinese=both&pinyin=diacritic&search=rubbing+alcohol&relink=on)

[Dr H]

Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.

If I'm reading correctly the 12LM potency Homeoproofer is proposing is roughly equivalent to a 30C preparation. One part solute would be diluted with 49,999 parts solvent, and this would be repeated 12 times.

http://www.ritecare.com/homeopathic/guide_potency.asp

[Jackalgirl]

I do not know what "rubbing alcohol" means- but I am sure you may know what it means when you read 5% alc. on a beerbottle!

We're not talking about the same kinds of alcohol. There are different kinds. The alcohol in beer is ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Rubbing alcohol is also known as isopropyl alcohol (C3H8O), and you can find it in the drug store as a 70% (or 91%) solution.

I don't think it matters what you use -- after all, at 12LM dilutions, I would expect either the remedy or non-remedy bottle to both smell the same and have the same effect on you. But for what it's worth.



it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.

Well, sorry, but I have tried to research it. It's a German word, so I hit on a lot of German websites, and so far haven't been able to find a definition that includes a description of what a globulie is (or its weight/volume/mass). If you have that information, it would be most useful in figuring out exactly how to describe how you're going to get to a 12LM preparation.


And it does not matter for the skeptic I think, what size it is while no molekul of the namegiving substance is in the globulie or in the alcohol later...

You're absolutely correct. But your description of how you're going to prepare the remedy is that you're going to do it "x" times to reach a 12LM preparation. In order for me (or anyone else) to be confident that that's what's happening, we have to know what you're starting with.


Aren´t you loyal to your own conviction?
(the name of the remedy will be acknowledged early enough)


Why not now? To be honest, I don't care what you use. But I'm curious. And I'm wondering why you're holding it back. There's no reason to do so.


I never said that I want to use 1:50000!
Because I wrote LM12 and that is 12 times 1 part in 50000.


Roger!

Only a break after a remedy, and I try every bottle- not that it would be necessary for me, out of the fact that I can be sure that there can´t be another bottle after I found all of them.

Oh! If it is not necessary, I would not continue after the finding of all remediebottles!

Well, see what JREF has to say about that. In another Challenge (edge's dowsing claim), they didn't accept that. On the other hand, your claim isn't about dowsing.

RIGHT.
but it was only ment as the maximum time for me that I like to request.
It could be much shorter time...
But what, if I have a immunreaction and need longer time...


Do you have to have an immune reaction in order to detect the substance? If not, pick a substance to which you don't have immune reactions and we should be good to go. If you've done this before (which I assume you have), then you should know which substances cause major problems and which ones don't.



Oh my goodness, if it would be measureable, I could not get the million...
but you are right in a way...

I don't think you need to worry about that. As far as I know, once you get past 12C, there's no way to measure the original substance in the solution using current methods. I could be wrong -- I often am, so someone please correct me if so -- but I don't think there's any way to differentiate the original substance as the original substance (that is, you'd find all of the impurities in the solvent, but there'd be no way to tell which one (if any) was the original substance).


Of course it is not yet the proof of the capability of homeopathic remedies to cure deaseases, but it shows at least that this potenciated remedies are not just lactose or alc.drops.
Yes. This would be a big step towards demonstrating this claim.


This could mean then the conclusion that the claim that homeopathic remedis are only placebos, is nonsense...


Not at all. All you'd know is that there's something interesting going on. Knowing that there's something going on with the solvent beyond what our knowledge of chemistry says should be possible (or, rather, probable) simply means that our knowledge of chemistry is not entirely correct. It says nothing for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies in humans (or animals).

For that, you need properly controlled clinical trials.


what the skeptic will think about it is a miracle for me only, but I can imagine what the world will think about it!


I think that skeptics and non-skeptics alike will be very interested! : )



Don´t you know other things which can not be measured, but nobody would dare to hesitate to believe in it?
(but this belongs to the thread: "homeoproof")

Some things that can't be measured directly can be measured indirectly by their effects on other things. I'm assuming you want to claim this for homeopathy, but the truth is that no effects beyond the placebo have been firmly established (in a proper double-blind test that has been properly replicated).


How much could such a study cost?
if it is done in the same way as other medical studies, with the only difference that it has to be done with respecting of a different understanding of the laws of nature which means then according to homeopathy and not to Allöopathy.

That's the beauty of the scientific method. It doesn't matter what you believe or understand regarding the "laws of nature". It'll all come out in a properly controlled study. As for how much it will cost? No idea. A lot, I imagine. In fact, I imagine that it will be hugely expensive.


this would be simpler as it is:
it is not only a reaction of mine or my wifes body at the remedy- it is much more a reaction of MYSELFS or my wifes PERSON and it´sensitivity at a remedy!


Yes. What you're testing here is whether you're (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy, when neither of you know what you're sniffing. This does not prove that a remedy is better than placebo at dealing with a specific disease or its symptoms. It just demonstrates that you are (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy.

Frankly, I think that would be a terrific start.


like I tried to describe it already before I think, this is also the reason why I can do it, or my wife can do it, but not just anyone could do it.

That sounds paranormal to me. I don't think you're in danger of losing your eligibility for the Challenge.


On the other hand, most people can experience a cure via homeopathy because it is not necessary to be that sensitive to get the cureing effect.
The last group of people are not capable of experience an advantage out of homeopathic treatment, because they are not only unsensitive for, they also do not want to see an effect!
You're describing the placebo effect, or an anti-placebo effect. That's why double-blind tests are so important. The person taking the medicine has no way of knowing whether it's the medicine or not. So it's far less likely for the person's own expectations to get in the way of the trial.

Out of the fact, that there is NO way to analyse the content of each bottle, it COULD be possible for me to take them home with me, and test it in a timely manner I like.

BUT it is NOT necessary for me to take it with me.
what shall I do with it at home...nothing

Only interesting would be, to have the opportunity to smell it more often (each bottle).

I don't think that'll be acceptable to JREF. You can't have any opportunities to monkey with the bottles in any way. It's just a matter of showing a proper chain of control.


my imagination:;
The bottles are locked in a proper box and the key is kept by the lawyer or a trusted person, while the room for the box is also locked with the key which is kept by another trusted person independendly.

That sounds good to me. I'm sure the JREF would be okay with that too (though, of course, you'd have to ask them).


If I can occupy a room in a clinic, it is already enough to have a safe in a small storeroom, and the testing and the storage could be done in that clinic then! *perfect :)*

How is it about sponsorings?
I could try to organize sponsors, while it should be only my buisness were my money for the trial comes from.

Jürgen

I agree. I don't think that JREF will care how you pay for the incurred expenses, just THAT you pay for the incurred expenses. As ever, you'd have to ask them, but I'm betting that'll be their answer. As for your suggestion of using a clinic, I think it's a good one, and one you should suggest (after you've found one willing to donate their space, of course). Good luck! : )

[Coveredinbeeees]

It does not have to take a year anyway.

That depends on the protocol you finally agree upon. The one day per sample testing time combined with the 2-4 week recovery time after each positive sample could easily lead to a year long test.

There is only a quicklier recodnization time possible but her recovery takes much longer out of her sensitivity.

This is helpful to know. Out of curiosity, roughly how long would your wife's recovery time be?

Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

What do you need a substance name of a substance which is not there?
Isn´t it contradictionary?

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)

It is important to know exactly what you intend to dissolve in the alcohol because you need to be certain that there will be no clues, other than the efficacy of the homeopathic content, that something has been dissolved in it. If the plan is to dissolve a non-homeopathic placebo in the remaining samples you need to be certain that those solutions will look and smell identical to the solutions containing a homeopathic pill.

Telling us exactly what you intend to dissolve will help us to spot any flaws in your protocol.

[Dr H]

We're not talking about the same kinds of alcohol. There are different kinds. The alcohol in beer is ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Rubbing alcohol is also known as isopropyl alcohol (C3H8O), and you can find it in the drug store as a 70% (or 91%) solution.

I don't think it matters what you use -- after all, at 12LM dilutions, I would expect either the remedy or non-remedy bottle to both smell the same and have the same effect on you. But for what it's worth.

Just for the record, there's more than one kind of "rubbing alcohol" available. One is isopropyl, as you describe (also available in 99% solution); another common one is 70% ethanol, which has been "denatured" (rendered undrinkable) through addition of a small percentage of methanol or isopropyl alcohol.

If he were going to drink the samples, he'd probably have to go for 140 proof Polish vodka, but since he's just sniffing them one would htink that either isopropyl or denatured ethanol would suffice.

[Jackalgirl]

Just for the record, there's more than one kind of "rubbing alcohol" available. One is isopropyl, as you describe (also available in 99% solution); another common one is 70% ethanol, which has been "denatured" (rendered undrinkable) through addition of a small percentage of methanol or isopropyl alcohol.

If he were going to drink the samples, he'd probably have to go for 140 proof Polish vodka, but since he's just sniffing them one would htink that either isopropyl or denatured ethanol would suffice.

I stand corrected -- thank you very much! : )

I'm not sure that even if he did drink the samples rather than just sniffing them, it would make a difference -- theoretically, a 12LM preparation of <whatever> in (drinkable) alcohol is the same as the same bottle full of just plain (drinkable) alcohol, so the effect should be the same, right? Wouldn't want to try to drink denatured alcohol, tho. Ugh!

Again, thanks for the info. I did not know that and very much appreciate the correction!

[Homeoproofer]

Hi Homeoproofer,

I may have missed it: Do you fulfill the necessary qualifications to even apply?

1. Do you have a media presence?


I thank you so much for your most helpful posting!
Altough I would not have the qualifications for applying for the challenge, if you understand your quoted challenge-rules literally, it could be in the power of the JREF to let me apply even tough I do not have a media presence on my own person, because there are mediapresences which are there to be understood as presences which mean also my person.

The homeopathy is not only for one person or two in this world it is made for all of us who like to use it when having healthcoditions.
Same is with the statement that homeopathyremedies are plazebo, what does not mean only me, but all the remedies.


The only difference of mine to other people is, that I can make it proofable for you, and that should not be possible to be understood as an ability of a certain power, I think.
Otherwise the ability of proofing something to the JREF would be declared as "supernatural"!

Funny, isn´t it?



2. Do you have academic support?

I quote from the Challenge Application form page (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/40/32/:)

"[...]12. This offer is not open to any and all persons. Before being considered as an applicant, the person applying must satisfy two conditions: First, he/she must have a “media presence,” which means having been published, written about, or known to the media in regard to his/her claimed abilities or powers. This can be established by producing articles, videos, books, or other published material that specifically addresses the person’s abilities. Second, he/she must produce at least one signed document from an academic who has witnessed the powers or abilities of the person, and will validate that these powers or abilities have been verified.[...]"


The witness should not be a problem.



As a fellow native German, I offer my services as a translator. However, I would not be willing to translate posts of a pointless discussion. The quoted page says it best: "[...]PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.[...]"


I have my translator, don´t worry about that, but thanks for the offer!



Should the JREF accept your application though, I woiuld gladly volunteer my services and help your hammer out a test protocol asap. Your claim seems easily testable. With some tweaks to the protocol, you might have your claim tested this year.

I am here for this "tweaks"-
For what else is this forum then, if not for that?

We´ll see if the JREF hesitates to accept my application...
They would not need to be afraid, I think, if they are convinced about their statements about homeopathy.

...maybe it is very liked for the JREF to have again a new chance to talk about the homeopathy-placebo?

But I do not know until the answer comes from the JREF explicetly.

BTW: I got an answer already!
Unfortunately it contained only a link to a not existant page in the WWW and no explaination or answer to my question.
(I asked again)


Do you care to share the name of that remedy now? If it is olive oil, I'll be very disappointed.

Naturally I do not know every single remedy out of more than 2500 and also not "olive oil".
It sounds of course very possible to use this substance for a remedy, but I do not want to use it, not yet.


Why are you so reluctant to state the remedy you intend to use?


Because you are also one of them, who tought me by experience in the forum, that it is not clever to tell things which are unnecessary to know.
If I tell you, it is clear, that you try to make a problem for me!
...it has always been like that.

I do not like to give food for attacks...
and don´t you understand what I explained,
That it hasnot a little reason to think about the kind of remedy for you, because there is no substance in the remedy which could be found by yours, and it is my intention to ask the homeopath for his best idea.

I asked also the question:
"Are you unloyal to your own conviction?"

Are you?

I can´t make a difference for you, what remedy I use if it is a potency of LM12...



Are you prepared to have someone else select a remedy for you?
[/QUOTE]

it is NOT "someone"...
It can only be my homeopath in agreement with me.

This is very standard for the test. You are asked to clearly state your claim, and all parameters. You claim to be able to detect homeopathic remedies at LM12. The JREF will most certainly ask which remedies you have tested yourself so that way the test is as fair as possible. If you have tried it yourself and have a reaction to Nat Mur LM12, the test should be on Nat Mur LM12. If the test suddenly uses Rhus Tox and you fail, you have an instant excuse as to why you failed. That's why it's important to both you and the JREF for you to say exactly which remedies you have tested and claim to be able to detect and at what potency.


This is a misunderstanding of the request by Mr.Randi, I think on the one hand and on the other hand a misunderstood application-suggestion I made:

Mr.Randi says that NO remedy of homeopathy with the high potencies could be different to plazebo...

... My trial does not state that there is only 1 remedy that I can find, it says that I can find any remedy, but because of the fact that it is medicine which affects the wellbeing of a person in any way, and not a pokergame, it has to be a chosen remedy.

And already out of a knowledge of homeopathy, you would not tell me to proof the same remedy again, I guess...
...I could complain about the test exactly in this case and not in the other case where it is another remedy which I never used before and was also CHOOSEN IN MY AGREEMENT.

No possibility to fear troubles from me, if I agree before to the remedy!

and like I already reminded above, it is anyway "NOTHING" for you while you like the world to think also that it is nothing...

That depends on the protocol you finally agree upon. The one day per sample testing time combined with the 2-4 week recovery time after each positive sample could easily lead to a year long test.

This is helpful to know. Out of curiosity, roughly how long would your wife's recovery time be?


...who knows? it s a mistery !



It is important to know exactly what you intend to dissolve in the alcohol because you need to be certain that there will be no clues, other than the efficacy of the homeopathic content, that something has been dissolved in it.


Right! and that is for real only important to me then.



If the plan is to dissolve a non-homeopathic placebo in the remaining samples you need to be certain that those solutions will look and smell identical to the solutions containing a homeopathic pill.


Like already stated, everyone could try to smell a difference between alcohol and another alcohol where there is a little bit sugar in it- and it is absurd to think about the possibility of a difference. Same as it is absurd to think about the difference between two sugarpills in alcohol for the smell.

THAT IS THE CLAIM: to recognize a difference.



Telling us exactly what you intend to dissolve will help us to spot any flaws in your protocol.

there is no flaw

[Mojo]

We´ll see if the JREF hesitates to accept my application...


Have you contacted them yet?

[Coveredinbeeees]

Right! and that is for real only important to me then.

It is also important to the JREF and to anyone wishing to help you design your protocol


Like already stated, everyone could try to smell a difference between alcohol and another alcohol where there is a little bit sugar in it- and it is absurd to think about the possibility of a difference. Same as it is absurd to think about the difference between two sugarpills in alcohol for the smell.

THAT IS THE CLAIM: to recognize a difference.

It might seem absurd to you but some of us prefer not to jump to conclusions. At present, we do not know that the pill you intend to disolve contains only sugar and we do not know that it will only be "a little bit" of sugar. We do not know these things because you have yet to state what pill you will be dissolving.

there is no flaw

Congratulations!

If you are truly in possession of a flawless protocol then there is little need for you to post anything more. I would love to see it but I am happy to wait until you have had it accepted or declined by the JREF.

My final question is this. If you have a flawless protocol all worked out, why are you posting here? Surely a short post along the lines of, "I have submitted my flawless protocol to the JREF and eagerly await their response," would have sufficed.

[William Smith]

I thank you so much for your most helpful posting!
Altough I would not have the qualifications for applying for the challenge, if you understand your quoted challenge-rules literally, it could be in the power of the JREF to let me apply even tough I do not have a media presence on my own person,...
...

Well, this settles that then. (http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/47/37/) Please scroll down to 2.6 - from which I quote:

"[...]The Challenge rules are in place for a reason. When you fill out the JREF Challenge application, you are entering into a contract. The JREF doesn’t cut corners or make exceptions. Not even for you. The Challenge guidelines are not that difficult to meet. One issue that comes up often is the new rule describing the need for a media presence. [...]"

The JREF changed the Challenge Rules dating April 01, 2007. Since then, it became necessary for every applicant to have said media presence and academic support.

Homeoproofer, given that you do not fulfill the necessary qualifications at this moment, you might very well establish said qualification until March 2010 when the Million Dollar Challenge ends.

Of course, I do not speak for the JREF. Try challenge@randi.org



I will now await the inevitable multiple page "discussion".

[Homeoproofer]

Well, sorry, but I have tried to research it. It's a German word, so I hit on a lot of German websites, and so far haven't been able to find a definition that includes a description of what a globulie is (or its weight/volume/mass). If you have that information, it would be most useful in figuring out exactly how to describe how you're going to get to a 12LM preparation.


you see that you can´t find everything in the net?
but why not translating german words to english words and search again?
This is of course described in one of the books of homeopathy which is owned by i.e. the drugstores which like to produce a remedy. They need to know , so they have to have the book.

I´ll tell you for your curiosity, tough it has no relevance for the trial at all!
The substance is clear- a globulie
and it is also logically correct that there can not be more in the alcohol as there was in the globulie before, remeining from the original substance.
In the globulie is nothing from the namegiving substance left and in the alcohol it will not change.



You're absolutely correct. But your description of how you're going to prepare the remedy is that you're going to do it "x" times to reach a 12LM preparation. In order for me (or anyone else) to be confident that that's what's happening, we have to know what you're starting with.


I do not do anything "12 times" often.
what we are starting with, is a h.remedy of a known potency which is physically only lactose and nothing else.
oh my goodness.


Why not now? To be honest, I don't care what you use. But I'm curious. And I'm wondering why you're holding it back. There's no reason to do so.
Roger


You make a typical mistake:
There is no reason acknowledged of yours, but there couls be something...
*ggg*



Well, see what JREF has to say about that. In another Challenge (edge's dowsing claim), they didn't accept that. On the other hand, your claim isn't about dowsing.


right, it is about medicine


Do you have to have an immune reaction in order to detect the substance? If not, pick a substance to which you don't have immune reactions and we should be good to go. If you've done this before (which I assume you have), then you should know which substances cause major problems and which ones don't.


If homeopathy would be that easy, the job of the homeopath would not exist.

And there iis naturally an immunreaction after every remedyusage.
Which includes also the change of things which are not in the range of measurable by devices.
If I would not need this, I would be a Wonderboy, but that is not what I proove, I proove a homeopathy-related-topic.



Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
This could mean then the conclusion that the claim that homeopathic remedis are only placebos, is nonsense...


Not at all. All you'd know is that there's something interesting going on.


???
if something has REAL effect, how could it be plazebo then?


For that, you need properly controlled clinical trials.
....
Some things that can't be measured directly can be measured indirectly by their effects on other things. I'm assuming you want to claim this for homeopathy, but the truth is that no effects beyond the placebo have been firmly established (in a proper double-blind test that has been properly replicated).


Out of what reason ever...
I only wonder why a very normal person would need to get a properly controlled clinical trial after the one got cured.
They do not need and that is why no one was interested to get a trial for believing...

Only the one who does not want to accept by logical thinking, that a desease ended because of homeopathy, will like trials.
When a desease ends after a remedy-usage remarkable earlier as without treatment, or also much earlier as by plazebotherapy, and if a desease ends after h.remedy treatment altough it has never ended yet by plazebo, it has to be clear for the proud logical thinker.



That's the beauty of the scientific method. It doesn't matter what you believe or understand regarding the "laws of nature". It'll all come out in a properly controlled study. As for how much it will cost? No idea. A lot, I imagine. In fact, I imagine that it will be hugely expensive.


In fact it is no beauty, it is the limitation of science.
to close the eyes and not face the reality, is no beauty.
And a Newspaper with a certain interest or sponsor with a vertain interest will always tell what the sponsor likes...



Yes. What you're testing here is whether you're (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy, when neither of you know what you're sniffing. This does not prove that a remedy is better than placebo at dealing with a specific disease or its symptoms. It just demonstrates that you are (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy.


if a remedy is not only lactose, but has effects at the body resp. a person, which makes it possible to recognize it, it has a dualistic effect...
(it makes you feel it or not, and it makes you feel good with the change or not)

This means that it can do good or not good in increasing/decreasing something in the condition of an individual.

And that is why it is very obviously clear to me, that it is different to placebo.
Plazebo does not have a testable effect for a person like the remedies have- look at the mass of remedyproovingsdescriptions.
There is no possibility of prooving a placebo like that...

Or do you really think that you could use a "Placebo C30" repeatetly until the immunreaction starts?
You can try!


You're describing the placebo effect, or an anti-placebo effect. That's why double-blind tests are so important. The person taking the medicine has no way of knowing whether it's the medicine or not. So it's far less likely for the person's own expectations to get in the way of the trial.


I can´t see were there is anything describing the plazeboeffect.
Oh my goodness!
When I write that there are people who are unsensitive and do not like to realise the effect of a remedy, it is not plazebo-description, it is only explaining why some people can not see the effect of homeopathic remedies and worry for the rest of their lifes about the money that they think to have wasted out of not going to the right homeopath.
The point is, that you just do not know why you do not have an effect out of taking a h.remedy, when you do not go to the professional, and you should not complain about it before understanding it.

BUT THIS IS NOW GOING TO START A OFFTOPIC DISCUSSION!
so post it in the other thread please!


I don't think that'll be acceptable to JREF. You can't have any opportunities to monkey with the bottles in any way. It's just a matter of showing a proper chain of control.


monkey???
when I like to smell more often, it does not mean anything out of control of the JREF.


That sounds good to me. I'm sure the JREF would be okay with that too (though, of course, you'd have to ask them).

I agree. I don't think that JREF will care how you pay for the incurred expenses, just THAT you pay for the incurred expenses. As ever, you'd have to ask them, but I'm betting that'll be their answer. As for your suggestion of using a clinic, I think it's a good one, and one you should suggest (after you've found one willing to donate their space, of course). Good luck! : )



I wait for reply already

[Pixel42]

I only wonder why a very normal person would need to get a properly controlled clinical trial after the one got cured.
Because most normal people would be curious to know if it was really the homeopathic remedy that cured them. And the only way to find that out is to do a properly controlled clinical trial.

[Mongrel]

Just for the record, there's more than one kind of "rubbing alcohol" available. One is isopropyl, as you describe (also available in 99% solution); another common one is 70% ethanol, which has been "denatured" (rendered undrinkable) through addition of a small percentage of methanol or isopropyl alcohol.

If he were going to drink the samples, he'd probably have to go for 140 proof Polish vodka, but since he's just sniffing them one would htink that either isopropyl or denatured ethanol would suffice.

There's also pharmaceutical grade ethanol available, here (http://www.jmloveridge.com/products.asp?letter=E) is an example, compliant with the relevant Pharmacopoeia (British in this case)

[Mojo]

Well, sorry, but I have tried to research it. It's a German word, so I hit on a lot of German websites, and so far haven't been able to find a definition that includes a description of what a globulie is (or its weight/volume/mass). If you have that information, it would be most useful in figuring out exactly how to describe how you're going to get to a 12LM preparation.


"Globules (http://www.nppharm.fr/granules-globules.htm)" are the larger size of the sugar pills used in most cases as a carrier for homoeopathic remedies. The potentised remedy is prepared as a liquid, and then dropped onto the pills and allowed to evaporate.

There is a description of how Q and LM potencies are prepared here (http://www.remedia-homeopathy.com/homeopathy/qpotenz.html). It seems to involve dissolving prepared globules, then further diluting the resulting solution and using the further dilution to prepare more globules. Quite a rigmarole.

See also The Organon § 270 (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/64.html) (Sixth Edition).

For the sake of simplicity, and certainty as to how the remedy has been prepared, it might be better to use 30C.

[Jackalgirl]

I was going to address your points one by one, but I realize that that would be getting off on a tangent (as you say, it would be better for another thread). So, without arguing about homeopathy, its effectiveness, etc, I'm going to just concentrate on the protocol.

So...are you going to prepare the remedies using a substance, or are you going to go with standard off-the-shelf preparations? (Edited to add: sorry to be dense on this point, but your answers have been confusing me.)

If you're going to make the remedies yourself, what substance? (for curiosity's sake. It really does not matter what you use.)

And what volume/weight/mass (in grams or ml, please) will you start with?

Would you be open to someone else preparing the bottles according to your specifications, all videotaped so that you can later review the tapes and be satisfied that the bottles were prepared properly? This will guard against any conscious or unconscious marking or identifying the individual bottles.

If you purchase off-the-shelf preparations, would it be acceptable for a third party (on videotape) to transfer the homeopathic remedy into the same kind of bottle as will be used for the non-homeopathic solvent bottles?

Would you be able to identify 3 out of 20 bottles?

Lastly, you're going to have to have media presence and affidavits from academics before you apply. Will you be able to do this?

[Baron Samedi]

This is a misunderstanding of the request by Mr.Randi, I think on the one hand and on the other hand a misunderstood application-suggestion I made:

Mr.Randi says that NO remedy of homeopathy with the high potencies could be different to plazebo...

... My trial does not state that there is only 1 remedy that I can find, it says that I can find any remedy, but because of the fact that it is medicine which affects the wellbeing of a person in any way, and not a pokergame, it has to be a chosen remedy.


Correct. The trial does not say that there is one and only one remedy that you can find. There are many for you to chose from. Have you tested all 2,500 remedies possible? Are you absolutely certain that you can detect each and every one of them? How about a 30C solution of Berlin Wall?

I'm not asking these questions to be mean or attack you in any way, I'm actually trying to help your protocol. There must have been some remedies which you have tried and received a reaction, which makes you so certain of your claim. Which remedy would you like to use for your test?



And already out of a knowledge of homeopathy, you would not tell me to proof the same remedy again, I guess...
Actually, we're asking you to show any proof of some remedy. Your use of the word "again" implies that you have demonstrated to us an ability to detect one sort of solution. Again, please, pick one.

As a separate point, it actually would be QUITE informative for you to show us that time and time again, you can correctly identify the same remedy. If you can consistently show that you can detect Rhus Tox LM12, and repeat that any day of the week, and time of the day, that would be amazing. Start small. Then once you can show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can detect this first solution, then perhaps you can show a second or a third.


...I could complain about the test exactly in this case and not in the other case where it is another remedy which I never used before and was also CHOOSEN IN MY AGREEMENT.

No possibility to fear troubles from me, if I agree before to the remedy!

and like I already reminded above, it is anyway "NOTHING" for you while you like the world to think also that it is nothing...Again, are you sure you want to go down this route? If you've never tested a remedy, how can you be certain that you can detect it? How would you know if it should be used or not? You mentioned being able to chose with the JREF which solution would be fine... under what criteria would you make that selection?

This makes the process quite prone to error and mistakes, and leaves a large "out" for you to make excuses at the end of the trial if you do end up failing the test. From what I know about the MDC, they may not accept this condition of yours. Again, I could be wrong, and they may allow you to submit a claim without clearly stating which remedy you can detect, and have tested yourself that you can detect it with 100% accuracy. This is something you need to ask the JREF themselves. Do let us know what they say!

[Mojo]

And already out of a knowledge of homeopathy, you would not tell me to proof the same remedy again, I guess...
Actually, we're asking you to show any proof of some remedy. Your use of the word "again" implies that you have demonstrated to us an ability to detect one sort of solution.


I think that when Homeoproofer uses the word "proof" there, he is referring to a homoeopathic "proving", i.e. taking a remedy and seeing what symptoms appear afterwards.

[Baron Samedi]

I think that when Homeoproofer uses the word "proof" there, he is referring to a homoeopathic "proving", i.e. taking a remedy and seeing what symptoms appear afterwards.

If that's the case, I stand corrected. Still,

1) It doesn't have anything to do with the challenge

2) Why wouldn't they want to retest the "proving" to see if different symptoms appear? Maybe they missed one the first time? But that's off topic for this thread

You've been here a lot longer than I have. In your opinion, would predefining the remedy be essential to the challenge application?

[Cuddles]

Altough I would not have the qualifications for applying for the challenge, if you understand your quoted challenge-rules literally, it could be in the power of the JREF to let me apply even tough I do not have a media presence on my own person, because there are mediapresences which are there to be understood as presences which mean also my person.

Nope. If you don't pass the media requirements, you don't get tested. Simple as that. No exceptions. No changes in the rules are made for anyone.

Out of interest, have you even bothered to read the rules? Considering that knowing if you are actually elligible for the challenge is the first thing anyone should find out, it doesn't seem so.

The witness should not be a problem.

"Should not"? Do you actually have a signed statement from an academic? If not, it will remain a problem until you do.

We´ll see if the JREF hesitates to accept my application...

Have you even sent an application? I wouldn't if I were you, you have already admitted that you don't meet the requirements. Until you do, there is no point even thinking about applying.

Because you are also one of them, who tought me by experience in the forum, that it is not clever to tell things which are unnecessary to know.
If I tell you, it is clear, that you try to make a problem for me!

There are two points here. Firstly, if you can actually do what you say you can, it is not possible for anyone here, or anywhere else, to make problems for you. Secondly, if you won't tell us what you are actually going to do, including what substance you will be dissolving in what solution and the method for doing so, we can't help you come up with a protocol. Everything has to be detailed in the protocol. No details, no protocol.

I can´t make a difference for you, what remedy I use if it is a potency of LM12...

THAT IS THE CLAIM: to recognize a difference.

Sure, but a difference between what? If you won't tell us what you're going to be testing, we can't know if there should be a difference anyway. One important question that you've already been asked is where you will get the homeopathic pills from? Will you make them yourself or get ready made ones from a shop? Either way, can you guarantee that there are no other ingredients present? The majority of homeopathic remedies contain many substances in measurable quantities, so it would be easy to tell the difference between one and a sugar pill. If you won't tell us what you actually plan to do, we can't tell you if it would be a valid test or not.

there is no flaw

That's a pretty bold claim to make, considering that you don't even have a protocol yet.

[Mojo]

You've been here a lot longer than I have. In your opinion, would predefining the remedy be essential to the challenge application?


I can't speak for the JREF, obviously, but I suspect that an specified remedy agreed to by both sides would be part of the protocol, if only to prevent homeoproofer from saying, after he'd failed, "ah, but you gave me a remedy I wasn't susceptible to".

[Mojo]

BUT THIS IS NOW GOING TO START A OFFTOPIC DISCUSSION!
so post it in the other thread please!


Unfortunately, you seem to have stopped posting there.

[Homeoproofer]

It might seem absurd to you but some of us prefer not to jump to conclusions. At present, we do not know that the pill you intend to disolve contains only sugar and we do not know that it will only be "a little bit" of sugar. We do not know these things because you have yet to state what pill you will be dissolving.

You can know everything if you read my postings!
The remedies are well known only lactose, as you can be convinced of by buying it in a drugstore and while knowing that it is classical homeopathy what I write about...



....why are you posting here? Surely a short post along the lines of, "I have submitted my flawless protocol to the JREF and eagerly await their response," would have sufficed.

of course it is good for me, but it is not easy as it seems, to make it also good for you...
I am here for getting the ideas I need to make it best!

Unfortunately, you seem to have stopped posting there.
(the other forumthread)
[/QUOTE]

I ahve not stopped to post there, but I am not superman and can not post so much and often- I have a life to live "outside" of the thread...

Have you contacted them yet?

yes

I can't speak for the JREF, obviously, but I suspect that an specified remedy agreed to by both sides would be part of the protocol, if only to prevent homeoproofer from saying, after he'd failed, "ah, but you gave me a remedy I wasn't susceptible to".
[/QUOTE]

Of course the remedy will be definitely known in the application.
But that does not mean, that the remedy is important, out of the fact that the skeptics do not accept any high-potency-remedy!

And no excuse possible because the remedy is chosen by myself.


So...are you going to prepare the remedies using a substance, or are you going to go with standard off-the-shelf preparations? (Edited to add: sorry to be dense on this point, but your answers have been confusing me.)


out of a drugstore


And what volume/weight/mass (in grams or ml, please) will you start with?


The LM12 potency- 2 globulie as explained before


Would you be open to someone else preparing the bottles according to your specifications, all videotaped so that you can later review the tapes and be satisfied that the bottles were prepared properly? This will guard against any conscious or unconscious marking or identifying the individual bottles.


has to be done with observance and guidelined by a knowledged person out of a drugstore, homeopath, or at least a lawyer!
video tapes are no proove for not-cheating as you can ask a lawyer, I think- do not believe what you see in the movies...


If you purchase off-the-shelf preparations, would it be acceptable for a third party (on videotape) to transfer the homeopathic remedy into the same kind of bottle as will be used for the non-homeopathic solvent bottles?


Of course this has to be done - as expalined before- by lawyer would be the best!


Would you be able to identify 3 out of 20 bottles?


Of course- We are able to identify as many bottles as you like us to do and out of an unlimited number of bottles- just there is the timelimit!
(as explained)


Lastly, you're going to have to have media presence and affidavits from academics before you apply. Will you be able to do this?
[/QUOTE]

I am working on my meadiapresence already and have my academic support!

Because most normal people would be curious to know if it was really the homeopathic remedy that cured them. And the only way to find that out is to do a properly controlled clinical trial.

it is normal in your opinion- in mine it is not so very normal, because I know more people who are just happy about and thankful for getting healthy and would not dare to try to find out that it was something else, altough it is obvious clear what helped when nothing else was done!

...
There is a description of how Q and LM potencies are prepared here (http://www.remedia-homeopathy.com/homeopathy/qpotenz.html). It seems to involve dissolving prepared globules, then further diluting the resulting solution and using the further dilution to prepare more globules. Quite a rigmarole.


It is only difficult for you to understand, but it has a sense and you do not need to care about it, fortunately!



See also The Organon § 270 (http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/64.html) (Sixth Edition).

For the sake of simplicity, and certainty as to how the remedy has been prepared, it might be better to use 30C.

THIS OPINION is also difficult to understand for me!
Only because you do not like the complicated cpu in your PC, it is also no reason for you to stop purchasing it...

LM-Potencies are produced in the way it is carefully defined and very strictly too, and there is no reason of a hesitate to use it!

Correct. The trial does not say that there is one and only one remedy that you can find. There are many for you to chose from. Have you tested all 2,500 remedies possible? Are you absolutely certain that you can detect each and every one of them? How about a 30C solution of Berlin Wall?


The remedy "berlin wall C30" does really exist?
a new remedy?

Nobody told here, that he or she wants to proove to be able to recodnize every singel remedy out of 2500, because this is not schoolmedicine where it does not matter who tries to swallow a substance for getting a drugeffect...

by skeptics, all remedies are same placebo , and so it is already enough to proove that one out of the huge number of remedies available, is NOT placebo, to proove the "plazebo"opinion wrong!



I'm not asking these questions to be mean or attack you in any way, I'm actually trying to help your protocol. There must have been some remedies which you have tried and received a reaction, which makes you so certain of your claim. Which remedy would you like to use for your test?


Indeed it is the case that it is possible for my wife to test any remedy, but to take care about her comfort, I like to care about the remedy...
maybe it is this remedy or it is another- I have written examples in another posting - please look it up- I repeat fo often here already that it is boring for me...sorry!


Actually, we're asking you to show any proof of some remedy. Your use of the word "again" implies that you have demonstrated to us an ability to detect one sort of solution. Again, please, pick one.


my wife has experienced effects of about 25 remedies as I have just counted in my protocoll for you!



As a separate point, it actually would be QUITE informative for you to show us that time and time again, you can correctly identify the same remedy. If you can consistently show that you can detect Rhus Tox LM12, and repeat that any day of the week, and time of the day, that would be amazing. Start small. Then once you can show beyond a shadow of a doubt that you can detect this first solution, then perhaps you can show a second or a third.


There is no doubt for me already now!
no doubt that my wife can "detect" remedies- tough she can´t tell if it is lyc. or if it is nux-v.
The other point is that it is a point far from reality, that someone has to be sensitive to a remedy for an unlimited number of usages.

It COULD be interpretated a sign for a mistaken choice if she reacts that sensitive and you ay understand that noone would try to use a wring medicine again and again...



Again, are you sure you want to go down this route? If you've never tested a remedy, how can you be certain that you can detect it?


You should know that it could be done with the book that you like to fight against: Materia medica!

no reaction will not be seen!
no reaction is only the case for i.e. my grandmother when she has to use many pharmaproducts at the same time- but this is the job of the homeopath to know about the right usage of different medications at the same time.
NO REACTION COMES FROM BLOCKING THE REACTION(I would worry about my immunsystem if it would not react, you know?)



This makes the process quite prone to error and mistakes, and leaves a large "out" for you to make excuses at the end of the trial if you do end up failing the test. From what I know about the MDC, they may not accept this condition of yours. Again, I could be wrong, and they may allow you to submit a claim without clearly stating which remedy you can detect, and have tested yourself that you can detect it with 100% accuracy. This is something you need to ask the JREF themselves. Do let us know what they say!
[/QUOTE]

The claim is to detect a remedy and that I like to choose it on my own and I will like to tell the potency which defines already pretty fine that it is no molekul that you could detect...

Now after you all made me unsure I do not know anymore if I like to tell about the remedy, (but maybe I´ll do) to keep the possibility of a change.


Have you even sent an application? I wouldn't if I were you, you have already admitted that you don't meet the requirements. Until you do, there is no point even thinking about applying.


i am working on everything and can send my application as soon as I finished the necessarities!
Now I am here after I heard J.Randi tell that it has to be started here...



There are two points here. Firstly, if you can actually do what you say you can, it is not possible for anyone here, or anywhere else, to make problems for you. Secondly, if you won't tell us what you are actually going to do, including what substance you will be dissolving in what solution and the method for doing so, we can't help you come up with a protocol. Everything has to be detailed in the protocol. No details, no protocol.


I tell all necessary informations! What do you miss?
I have also explained so long when I did not give an information emidiately- I can tell ony things where i am sure about...
Only liers can tell everything other people ask them.!


Sure, but a difference between what? If you won't tell us what you're going to be testing, we can't know if there should be a difference anyway.


have you read the previous posting?
it is alcohol (or from today on, it may be another liquid) and the same liquid where there are two classical homeopathic globulies dissolved in it.



One important question that you've already been asked is where you will get the homeopathic pills from?
Will you make them yourself or get ready made ones from a shop? Either way, can you guarantee that there are no other ingredients present?


For classical homeopathic remedies out of a dugstore it is very clear what ingredients they contain, and this is therefor out of need to be prooven because it is the place where all the people buy it every day and shouldn´t it stay always in the reality of our existance what we do here?



The majority of homeopathic remedies contain many substances in measurable quantities, so it would be easy to tell the difference between one and a sugar pill. If you won't tell us what you actually plan to do, we can't tell you if it would be a valid test or not.


It is new to me, that classical homeopathic remedy-globulies would contain several ingredients...

[Czarcasm]

If I go to the local herbal remedy shop and ask for "classical homeopathic remedy-globulies", she's going to think I'm crazy. Could you please at least narrow it down to three choices which homeopathic remedy you are going to try?

[William Smith]

If I go to the local herbal remedy shop and ask for "classical homeopathic remedy-globulies", she's going to think I'm crazy. Could you please at least narrow it down to three choices which homeopathic remedy you are going to try?

At the risk of sounding redundant, skeptic even:

I thank you so much for your most helpful posting!
Altough I would not have the qualifications for applying for the challenge, if you understand your quoted challenge-rules literally, it could be in the power of the JREF to let me apply even tough I do not have a media presence on my own person, because there are mediapresences which are there to be understood as presences which mean also my person.
...

Homeoproofer does not fulfill the qualifications to become an applicant. Hence no test will happen. (If desired, I could repost this in bold with beaucoup exclamation marks.) ;)

Technically, this thread should get moved since the discussion does not have the topic MDC.

[Mojo]

The remedy "berlin wall C30" does really exist?


Oh yes (http://www.interhomeopathy.org/index.php/journal/entry/berlin_wall/).

[Jackalgirl]

Ah! Okay, cool, that makes things a lot easier -- that is, that you're going to buy a commercially-prepared substance.

It's also good that it'll be transferred to the same kind of bottle as will contain the solvent-only preparations.

I think this is very doable. You just need that media presence/academic support -- which I note you say you're working on -- and you should be good to go.

I'm pretty sure that JREF is going to want to know what remedy you're going to buy, though. It's just part of a thorough, complete protocol: everything will be spelled out in exactitude.

Good luck! I'm really interested to see how this turns out!

[Homeoproofer]

If I go to the local herbal remedy shop and ask for "classical homeopathic remedy-globulies", she's going to think I'm crazy. Could you please at least narrow it down to three choices which homeopathic remedy you are going to try?

1. you do not have to buy it
2. here in austria the drugstoreemployee would know for sure what you talk about and nobody would think that you are crazy!

I have given you examples already!
havent you seen it?

[Homeoproofer]

Homeoproofer does not fulfill the qualifications to become an applicant. Hence no test will happen. (If desired, I could repost this in bold with beaucoup exclamation marks.) ;)

Technically, this thread should get moved since the discussion does not have the topic MDC.

not correct, because I will get my media presence sonner as you expect!

[Baron Samedi]

The remedy "berlin wall C30" does really exist?

Yes, please see Mojo's link. Will this work for your protocol?


Nobody told here, that he or she wants to proove to be able to recodnize every singel remedy out of 2500, because this is not schoolmedicine where it does not matter who tries to swallow a substance for getting a drugeffect...
Will Berlin Wall work for your protocol?


maybe it is this remedy or it is another- I have written examples in another posting - please look it up- I repeat fo often here already that it is boring for me...sorry!


my wife has experienced effects of about 25 remedies as I have just counted in my protocoll for you!
Which 25 exactly? Can you please give more details?

There is no doubt for me already now!
no doubt that my wife can "detect" remedies- tough she can´t tell if it is lyc. or if it is nux-v.
The other point is that it is a point far from reality, that someone has to be sensitive to a remedy for an unlimited number of usages.

It COULD be interpretated a sign for a mistaken choice if she reacts that sensitive and you ay understand that noone would try to use a wring medicine again and again... I'm certain in your mind that there is no doubt. Belief does not equate to concrete evidence. It's this evidence which people here have been asking for.

You said that your wife can detect remedies. Does she also show adverse reaction to sniffing straight 70% alcohol?


Originally Posted by Baron Samedi http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3903515#post3903515)
Again, are you sure you want to go down this route? If you've never tested a remedy, how can you be certain that you can detect it?You should know that it could be done with the book that you like to fight against: Materia medica!
You didn't answer my question. Have you tested all remedies in the MM to see if you can detect them in a 70% alcohol solution?


no reaction will not be seen!
Again, will Berlin Wall fall under this category?


Now after you all made me unsure I do not know anymore if I like to tell about the remedy, (but maybe I´ll do) to keep the possibility of a change.
Why are you so hesitant to say which remedy you plan to test? It's a simple enough question.

[William Smith]

not correct, because I will get my media presence sonner as you expect!

Technically, indeed correct, because you do not have it now.

How about academic support?

While I admire other forum members asking detailed questions and engaging in a concrete and constructive discussion, it will be rendered moot if you do not have the qualifications to apply, doesn't it?

[Cuddles]

i am working on everything and can send my application as soon as I finished the necessarities!
Now I am here after I heard J.Randi tell that it has to be started here...

Randi never told you anything has to be started here. Many applicants have gone through the whole process of applying, testing and failing without ever even seeing the forum, let alone posting on it.

I tell all necessary informations! What do you miss?

No you have not. Remember the parts where you have refused to answer questions? Such as what homeopathic remedies you plan on testing and where you will get them from? That is extremely necessary information which you have refused to provide.

have you read the previous posting?
it is alcohol (or from today on, it may be another liquid) and the same liquid where there are two classical homeopathic globulies dissolved in it.

Yes, I did read that. It's meaningless. What kind of alcohol? What "other liquid" might it be? Which homeopathic "globulies"? Where will you get them from? How will you know exactly what is in them? Where will you find blank pills with identical ingredients? These are all extremely important questions that you have either ignored or simply refused to answer. Without answers, you will never get an acceptable protocol.

For classical homeopathic remedies out of a dugstore it is very clear what ingredients they contain, and this is therefor out of need to be prooven because it is the place where all the people buy it every day and shouldn´t it stay always in the reality of our existance what we do here?

Well, firstly it's not always obvious what they contain since homeopaths are often guilty of not labelling things properly and there is very little regulation. I understand that things are a little better in your country, so that might be less of a problem though. However, it still doesn't answer the question of exactly what remedies you want to test. The fact that they're clearly labelled doesn't help if we don't know which label to look at.

It is new to me, that classical homeopathic remedy-globulies would contain several ingredients...

Apparently there are is an awful lot of classical homeopathy that is new to you. Perhaps you should consider actually learning a bit about it before making claims about it.

[Jackalgirl]

Howdy, Cuddles --

If I'm not mistaken, he's already mentioned that the solvent will be denatured ethyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) at a 70% alcohol/water dilution.

Also, he's stated that he'll be buying the preparations from a drugstore. They'll already be prepared at a 12LM dilution.

Lastly, he's stated that the remedy will be decanted into the same kind of bottle that will be used for the plain solvent.

So, another question from me for homeoproofer: will the preparations you'll be buying at the drugstore be in denatured ethyl alcohol solutions? I imagine that if they're meant to be swallowed, they won't.

Whatever solvent you use in the bottles that don't contain the actual remedy -- it's going to have to be the same solvent that's used in the remedy bottles.

Your protocol is going to call for liquid homeopathic preparations, right? Not pills?

For what it's worth, also, I'd recommend using ONE remedy as the target remedy. Again, sorry if I'm getting confused, but I'm getting the sense that you're talking about using, say, three /different/ remedies in a trial of 20 bottles. Just specify that the protocol requires three sealed, unwrapped 12LM bottles of the same remedy.

Gzuz is right, though: you won't be able to apply at all until you have satisfied the media presence/academic support requirements of the rules. Still, we can hammer out the protocol here -- maybe, if and when you do meet those requirements, this will help you get through the protocol phase faster.

[Mojo]

If I'm not mistaken, he's already mentioned that the solvent will be denatured ethyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) at a 70% alcohol/water dilution.

Also, he's stated that he'll be buying the preparations from a drugstore. They'll already be prepared at a 12LM dilution.

Lastly, he's stated that the remedy will be decanted into the same kind of bottle that will be used for the plain solvent.

So, another question from me for homeoproofer: will the preparations you'll be buying at the drugstore be in denatured ethyl alcohol solutions? I imagine that if they're meant to be swallowed, they won't.

Whatever solvent you use in the bottles that don't contain the actual remedy -- it's going to have to be the same solvent that's used in the remedy bottles.

Your protocol is going to call for liquid homeopathic preparations, right? Not pills?


His protocol uses sugar pills that have been impregnated with the remedy - see my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3903273#post3903273) about this.

He is using "globules", which are the larger size of pill, and wants to use two "globules" for each bottle. I would suggest that the protocol should also require two blank "globules" to be dissolved in each of the "placebo" bottles, otherwise all he will be doing is telling alcohol with sugar dissolved in it from alcohol without sugar.

[Cuddles]

Howdy, Cuddles --

If I'm not mistaken, he's already mentioned that the solvent will be denatured ethyl alcohol (rubbing alcohol) at a 70% alcohol/water dilution.

Really? I know he said 70% alcohol and that various people have pointed out that there are many different kinds, but I don't remember him actually confirming which kind he would use. And now he seems to be saying that he might use something else entirely anyway.

Also, he's stated that he'll be buying the preparations from a drugstore. They'll already be prepared at a 12LM dilution.

Yes, but he hasn't said which preparations or which drug store. I'm also a little confused about whether he plans on buying the pills themselves, or if he will buy a liquid and put it on the pills himself (or have someone else do it of course). That could just be me being confused though. The other important question is where he will get the blanks from as well.

Lastly, he's stated that the remedy will be decanted into the same kind of bottle that will be used for the plain solvent.

Well this is getting into more detailed aspects, but how will the remedy actually be prepared? Just drop the pill in and wait for it to dissolve? Stir it? How long will it take and is there anything he thinks will spoil the homeopathy, such as heating or stiring?

Gzuz is right, though: you won't be able to apply at all until you have satisfied the media presence/academic support requirements of the rules. Still, we can hammer out the protocol here -- maybe, if and when you do meet those requirements, this will help you get through the protocol phase faster.

I agree. I doubt he will ever actually meet the requirements, but it can't hurt to work out a protocol just in case. At the least, it could be useful for someone else in the future.

[Jackalgirl]

His protocol uses sugar pills that have been impregnated with the remedy - see my earlier post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3903273#post3903273) about this.

He is using "globules", which are the larger size of pill, and wants to use two "globules" for each bottle. I would suggest that the protocol should also require two blank "globules" to be dissolved in each of the "placebo" bottles, otherwise all he will be doing is telling alcohol with sugar dissolved in it from alcohol without sugar.

Ah hah! Okay, so "globules" are pills. I was trying to figure out what "globulies" meant, from a homeopathic point of view. Thank your for that clarification!

And I think you're 100% right about the bottle preparation.

[Homeoproofer]

Yes, please see Mojo's link. Will this work for your protocol?


Of course I´ve looked at it!
But this website does not seem to show an accepted remedy, or it is not from an Materia Medica.
I would have to ask in my drugstore for it, if they can offer this remedy-

On the other hand, is this the newest or at least one of the newest remedies, of all the remedies which are usually prescribed by homeopaths...
Nearly no doctor knows it, because it isn´t in the used repertories or Materia Medicas and so it is completely out of interest to be interested in, in the challenge!

I am not the one who claims, that every information you can find in the internet, is true!
I am not responsible for websites which appear today and could disappear tomorrow!


Will Berlin Wall work for your protocol?


I do not know Berlin Wall, so it is out of interest for me.
What we want to show is, that one specific remedy with a pote4ncy higher than C30 can be found out of Bottles with placebos.

It is unnecessary to show, that we could do this with every kind of remedy, because out of the view of science and chemistry, all the remedies are same and only lactose- so what does it matter what remedy it is?

Homeopaths tell, that it has potency, but chemist tells, that it is ONLY lactose...
To show, that it is possible to seperate it correctlsy, shows that the chemist is wrong.

The fact that the homeopath would claim that the different remedies have different effects, does not matter for the experiment or the proof about the difference between potency-globulie and globulie without potency!

I do not know how "Berlin Wall" is produced and I am not interested in it, because I do not want to use a remedy in my test, which is not common in homeopathic therapies!



Which 25 exactly? Can you please give more details?


There can not be any necessarity for you to know about it.


I'm certain in your mind that there is no doubt. Belief does not equate to concrete evidence. It's this evidence which people here have been asking for.


what is goind on here? I have told already that the evidence is the experience in using remedies over more than 5years for me and about 2 yearsw for my wife. And the evidence will be shown to you also, whe the time comes...



You said that your wife can detect remedies. Does she also show adverse reaction to sniffing straight 70% alcohol?


This is a good question, which does not tell anything about the effectivity of remedies, out of the fact that my wife does not use alcohol for curing anything- she does not smell at alcohol...
And who has ever heared that alcohol cures certain deseases like mensespain by sniffing it?

This is what I had to change already and I tol in previous posts - didn´t you read it????

The alcohol was an idea to make the effect of the remedy stronger, but while it can´t be used in daily life, it is also not possible to use it in an experiment, because it is just too strong for my tiny wife...

Long time ago, she has tried to smell the remedy disolved in alcohol and it had too strong effect in therapy, so it had to be changed to water only...
The evidence of strong effect with alcoholsmelling was given, but the test would be impossible with it, when she has to smell more than 20 times!

So we have to use pure tapwater!


You didn't answer my question. Have you tested all remedies in the MM to see if you can detect them in a 70% alcohol solution?


I have written something about this!


Again, will Berlin Wall fall under this category?


I do not know "BErlin wall" - do you know that remedynames are not in english language?


Why are you so hesitant to say which remedy you plan to test? It's a simple enough question.

Oh so simple for you, but so pointless too!
For the one who just uses aspirin for everything it may be simple, but for the one who has to choose out of more than 2500...

Technically, indeed correct, because you do not have it now.


Technically incorrect: The forumthread is not only for the onw who is ready for the challenge all over, otherwise I would not write there.



How about academic support?


It has to be clear if the name of the supporter will be shown in puplic media or not.


While I admire other forum members asking detailed questions and engaging in a concrete and constructive discussion, it will be rendered moot if you do not have the qualifications to apply, doesn't it?

it doesn´t.
If I have I will.
I will have so I will ...


Randi never told you anything has to be started here. Many applicants have gone through the whole process of applying, testing and failing without ever even seeing the forum, let alone posting on it.


YOU have never seen him telling it, but I have!
He said it explicitely in a video that I have seen:
"Discuss it in the forum- do not miss it!"

Of course there is no "HAVETO", but it is a strong suggestion, and I follow...



No you have not. Remember the parts where you have refused to answer questions? Such as what homeopathic remedies you plan on testing and where you will get them from? That is extremely necessary information which you have refused to provide.


This is not true!
I wrote that the remedy has to be purchased in a drugstore!

I told that they should come from a trusted company which produces the remedies- like "DHU" >Deutsche homöopathische Union<,

And pages of explaining maybe already about the reason why I can not tell already now what remedies to test!
I think you do not read the postings...are they too long for you?

Because of being forced so long, also examples for possibilities!
Belladonna LM12 and you CAN find it in the thread !


Yes, I did read that. It's meaningless.


meaningless?? *ggg*
given informations are "meaningless" for you?
so what?


What kind of alcohol? What "other liquid" might it be?


do you know the water which comes out of the wall? *ggg*


Which homeopathic "globulies"?


A chosen remedy and examples have to be seen above in this posting- so practise reading this time and do not say that this would be meaningless- to read postings!


Where will you get them from?


drugstore


How will you know exactly what is in them?


What does it matter?
It is not more than the chemist could analyse.
It is lactose and if it is baought- the remedy and the placeboglobulies, from the same company, there should not be a difference at all, between the substances.

It is not the point, what is in them, it is the point that there is the same in the remedies and in the globulie-plazebo!


Where will you find blank pills with identical ingredients?


DRUGSTORE!


These are all extremely important questions that you have either ignored or simply refused to answer. Without answers, you will never get an acceptable protocol.


How could I take you serious, after you write repeatetly in one posting the same false informations?


Well, firstly it's not always obvious what they contain since homeopaths are often guilty of not labelling things properly and there is very little regulation. I understand that things are a little better in your country, so that might be less of a problem though. However, it still doesn't answer the question of exactly what remedies you want to test. The fact that they're clearly labelled doesn't help if we don't know which label to look at.


I am not here to be responsible for good or bad homeopaths and thats why I do not care about people you may have seen in your life!
The fact is that there is a qualitycontrol in homeopathy and you just do not know about it...

I told also that the one who does not know, can not complain about something!


Apparently there are is an awful lot of classical homeopathy that is new to you. Perhaps you should consider actually learning a bit about it before making claims about it.

MJuahaha!
Great joke now!
Who are you to tell me about the necessarity of learning about homeopathy?

absurd, isn´t it?

It is so pointless what you complain about, and does not matter at all for my claim and for the proof that you will see.


Also, he's stated that he'll be buying the preparations from a drugstore. They'll already be prepared at a 12LM dilution.


dilution? they will be globulies with potency LM12.
That is for seeing thhem to be for real in the bottles while preparing them- a drop is not visible- so a witness can´t see anything.
after disolving it maks then no difference when the globulies have vanished.


Lastly, he's stated that the remedy will be decanted into the same kind of bottle that will be used for the plain solvent.

So, another question from me for homeoproofer: will the preparations you'll be buying at the drugstore be in denatured ethyl alcohol solutions? I imagine that if they're meant to be swallowed, they won't.


No liquid remedy from the drugstore for the trial as mentioned above, but anyway the ethylalcohol would not harm, if only 5 drops are used or 2 drops disolved in water...


For what it's worth, also, I'd recommend using ONE remedy as the target remedy. Again, sorry if I'm getting confused, but I'm getting the sense that you're talking about using, say, three /different/ remedies in a trial of 20 bottles. Just specify that the protocol requires three sealed, unwrapped 12LM bottles of the same remedy.


it was and is easier: ONE kind of remedy

DESCRIPTION:

Globulies in a sealed unwrapped 5g bottle has to be purchesed by someone, with 2lawyers as withnesses, brought to the place of the test...
The same drugstore has to provide the remedy and the placebo from the same producer, but in different volumes:
The remedy has to be in a 5g bottle while the placebo has to be in a 8g bottle. (why comes later)

There are 20 empty and never used bottles with a volume of 300ml then, and someone will fill them with 100ml tapwater and closes each bottle imediately
then.

The bottles will stand on a table and the remedy and the placebobottle are also on the table, but in a locked box.
Everthing has to be visible for the witness all the time!

The 300ml-bottles with the 1/3 Waterfilling(100ml) will get labeled then and in a secret list it is visible what the bottle one, two, three is.

The secret list has to be wrapped in tinfoil and comes then into an envelope which will be sealed by the lawyer-Nr.3 and kept for the whole time of the trial in a seperate safe.
The key of the safe will be kept by lawyer(Nr.3) in a sealed envelope and gives it to the party who will check the result of the test in the end of the doubleblin trial...

The bottle Nr.1,2,3 have to stand then clearly visible onto the table all over the preparation visible by the laywer-witness(Nr.1+Nr.2)!

who prepares the bottles, takes two of the remedy-globulies and gives it into the first bottle and closes the bottle imediately.
Each botle has to be sealed after the closing by the lawyer-Nr.2!

The next 2 Remedy-Globulies come into the second bottle with closing it imediately. -> sealing by the second lawyer-Nr.2!

and the last 2 remedy-globulies come into the third bottle which has to be closed imediately too- and sealed too by the Lawyer-Nr.2.

2 plazeboglobulies will be droped into each other remaining bottle 4-20 while every bottle has to be closed imediately after dropping the globulies and also sealed after closing imediately by the laywer-Nr.2!

(All the closed bottles do not have to be opened anymore before I will use it in the test what is ensured by the sealings and the box and the safe...)

And after all the globulies have finally disolved in the water, the preparation is finished after sealing the afterwards invisible labelings.

The bottles have to be given standing into a locked box where they cannot crash at each other because they should be wrapped with "Küchenrolle"(same as toilettpaper but bigger pieces). and the FIRST lawyer has to get the key imediately to seal the envelope where he puts the key into it.

The box will be kept in a safe then and the key goes to the second lawyer who will put the second key also into an envelope to seal it too.

Like this, the lawyer does not have to get in contact with me, when the envelopes with the keys will b given to me!

I am in the same party with my wife and will give the bottles to her.

This is more complicated, but reasonable for enusreance of security and fairness.


Gzuz is right, though: you won't be able to apply at all until you have satisfied the media presence/academic support requirements of the rules. Still, we can hammer out the protocol here -- maybe, if and when you do meet those requirements, this will help you get through the protocol phase faster.

Thank you very much!
I am very busy working on the requirements all the time!

[Ravenwood]

You do realize that the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred in carrying out the test, right? Here in the U.S., Lawyers charge quite a bit for their time, even for simple things like you are proposing...

[William Smith]

...
Technically incorrect: The forumthread is not only for the onw who is ready for the challenge all over, otherwise I would not write there.

I do not understand what this means.


It has to be clear if the name of the supporter will be shown in puplic media or not.

Yeah, we have heard that line before. Upon reading the rules (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html)you will notice:

"[...]4. Applicant agrees that all data (photographic, recorded, written, etc.) gathered as a result of the setup, the protocol, and the actual testing, may be used freely by the JREF.[...]"

While that does not imply that the JREF will publish the name of the academic supporter, one might consider the possibility.

The question, as always: What reason(s) would you have to hide the identity of your supporter(s)?


it doesn´t.
If I have I will.
I will have so I will ...
...

It seems like stating the obvious, anyway, here goes: Homeoproofer, only an actual demonstration will convince forum members and visitors about the nature of your claim. Meandering posts about tangential issues in the protocol while you do not have the qualifications to even apply will prove counterproductive to your cause.

Even more obvious: You need not convince members of this internet forum, you need to successfully participate in two controlled tests.

[Jackalgirl]

For what it's worth, tapwater is not pure. At least, not in most places. I know that in the States there's usually chlorine (depending on where you are) and fluoride in there. Are you sure this isn't going to interfere with your test? Make sure you and your wife try this out before you pursue this further, especially if you're talking about retaining the services of multiple lawyers.

As for your protocol: I'm afraid I'm not following it; I think I'm just having trouble parsing the sentences. I just want to point out that the protocol has to be double-blind.

This means that the people who prepare the bottles and the initial list of which bottle contains which thing (substance or placebo) never come in contact with you. You'll have an observer/recorder who will record the results. When all attempts are complete (that is, you've examined all bottles), the people who initially did the setup and your observer/recorder will compare their lists.

Also -- and I think you have this covered in your protocol -- just make sure that there is absolutely no difference between the actual remedy and placebo bottles except the remedy. Again, it sounds to me (if I'm understanding this correctly) that your protocol takes care of this, as long as you can get placebo (lactose-only) pills of the exact same size as the remedy pills. Sorry about the confusion between "dilution" and "potency", btw. I understood what you meant about the 12LM pills, though.

I'm sure that Mr. Randi/RemieV will review your protocol's custody plan (that is, who holds the bottles in between attempts and how you access them when it's time to make an attempt) and come up with some good suggestions. I'm thinking along the lines of a trusted intermediary who has a safe deposit box at the bank or something like that.

And, as has been pointed out, once you sign the application, you give the JREF rights to publish absolutely everything about the test, including the details of the protocol and the identities of everyone involved.

Sounds like things are well on their way, which is usually not the way of things with Challenge applicants, so that's very cool. : ) As I've said before, I'm very interested in how this will turn out.

[Baron Samedi]

Let's try this one more time...

Of course I´ve looked at it!
But this website does not seem to show an accepted remedy, or it is not from an Materia Medica.
I would have to ask in my drugstore for it, if they can offer this remedy-


Try here (https://www.helios.co.uk/cgi-bin/store.cgi?action=link&sku=Berl&uid=6969)


On the other hand, is this the newest or at least one of the newest remedies, of all the remedies which are usually prescribed by homeopaths...
Nearly no doctor knows it, because it isn´t in the used repertories or Materia Medicas and so it is completely out of interest to be interested in, in the challenge!
It's been around for at least 10 years and still in use. You can buy it in homeopathic stores. You claimed to be able to test any homeopathic solution. Why not this?



I do not know Berlin Wall, so it is out of interest for me.
What we want to show is, that one specific remedy with a pote4ncy higher than C30 can be found out of Bottles with placebos.

It is unnecessary to show, that we could do this with every kind of remedy, because out of the view of science and chemistry, all the remedies are same and only lactose- so what does it matter what remedy it is?
Do you know all 2500 remedies in your MM? And now you again state that the remedy does not matter. So again, why not Berlin Wall?


Oh so simple for you, but so pointless too!
For the one who just uses aspirin for everything it may be simple, but for the one who has to choose out of more than 2500...

And I agree with you! That's why I'm asking these questions. Instead of having to pick randomly one out of 2500 remedies, 2475 of which you have not tried to see if you can detect, why not focus on one of the 25 you have tried? If so, it should be easy enough to give examples of ones you have tried. If, however, you continue down the path of saying, "I've tried 25, therefore I can test each and all homeopathic remedy with 100% success," it opens the door to asking why you will not consider Berlin Wall.


This is not true!
I wrote that the remedy has to be purchased in a drugstore!

Excellent. How many different remedies are available in your local drugstore? I'm almost certain not 2500.


This is a good question, which does not tell anything about the effectivity of remedies, out of the fact that my wife does not use alcohol for curing anything- she does not smell at alcohol...
And who has ever heared that alcohol cures certain deseases like mensespain by sniffing it?

It was just a simple question. You mentioned before that your wife does not drink alcoholic beverages. I was just wondering if she had an allergy to alcohol. But from your lack of a straight answer, I'm guessing that you've never asked her to try it on pure alcohol. You might want to give that a shot.

Long time ago, she has tried to smell the remedy disolved in alcohol and it had too strong effect in therapy, so it had to be changed to water only...
The evidence of strong effect with alcoholsmelling was given, but the test would be impossible with it, when she has to smell more than 20 times!

So we have to use pure tapwater!

So if you use tap water, both you and your wife can take this test?

Under other posts, we've made estimates on how long this test may take, which was about 2 months. You may need to put something in the protocol about disinfecting the bottles or water before creating the solutions. Tap water in a jar after 2 months may look a little on the green/brown side.

[dbw]

Homeopathy is much more commonly accepted on the continent. He may be able to find lawyers willing to volunteer the time.

The main sticking points I see are
(1) He won't tell us what he's using. Sir, I guarantee Randi won't accept your application unless you tell which remedy you're testing. Your refusal to tell which remedy you're using is highly suspicious.
(2) A remedy purchased at a drug store is not going to be acceptable, because there are unknown variables in the production of the remedy. For instance, perhaps the bottle says "12C dilution in 70% ethanol, 30% water", but if we use 70% ethanol, 30% water for the placebo and it turns out the bottle actually contains 68% ethanol and 32% water, the whole test is invalidated. The manufacturer's word is not going to be enough, because assuming they are telling the truth about all aspects of the remedy is begging the question. Find a chemist or chemistry grad student willing to assist you. Provide him with instructions on how to prepare the remedy via serial dilution, shaking/striking, etc. He will then prepare both the remedy and the placebo according to your instructions and in your presence.

[Homeoproofer]

I thank you all for your great help!
I admit to came into a hurry, after the time seems to be a little short for a long trial...
And out of the reason of the fact, that a lot of reactions are not forecasteable perfectly in homeopathy in every case, and that I do not want to play with the wellbeing of my wife, I did not want to try everything before telling you here.
The knowledge out of experience with the reactions of my wife was enough at first...

But the problem becomes clear to me now:
Of course it is not possible to test every remedy, but that was never told !
It just gives a conclusion about all other remedies !

That is understood by knowing that every remedy and each of all, have to be used for the right person in the right case and can only work fine and expected if done properly- also the potency has to be right!

So I have to choose the right one and this was not so easy, and thats why I´ve not told yet...

Let´s explain:
One tries to find a remedy for a certain problem but chooses the wrong one.
What happens then: The body reacts very strong if it was slightly wrong, or does not reacts or at least not recognizeable, when it was completely wrong...or the symptoms become worse, also if it was wrong(maybe I forget now about certain possiblities, but this is not a course...)

I just tried a certain remedy now with my wife and (she tried it) and she had no reaction yet- but it was only a quite short time ago and it maybe she will recognize something later...

It was just no possiblity for the immunsystem to do something!

So how shall I know now what could be the best remedy to be used in the trial?
U do not know enough about homeopathy and think it would be so easy- but if it would be so easy, someone else would have succeeded already with another trial!

This is my reason why I have to keep the possiblity of chaning the kind of remedy as I like to!

You do realize that the applicant is responsible for all costs incurred in carrying out the test, right? Here in the U.S., Lawyers charge quite a bit for their time, even for simple things like you are proposing...

And I could not afford to pay that here too, but that is not so clear now, if I can find a lawyer who will help me without charge.
There are possiblities, you would wonder!

maybe you do not have so many friends?


I do not understand what this means.


do not worry about it, it is not so important!


The question, as always: What reason(s) would you have to hide the identity of your supporter(s)?


Isn´t his wish the reason for it?


....cut...
Even more obvious: You need not convince members of this internet forum, you need to successfully participate in two controlled tests.

I work on an application and you give me good ideas here and put my attetion at important points where I have to think about it then and I improve everything to the best...
It should be the best trial ever done for homeopathy!


For what it's worth, tapwater is not pure. At least, not in most places. I know that in the States there's usually chlorine (depending on where you are) and fluoride in there. Are you sure this isn't going to interfere with your test? Make sure you and your wife try this out before you pursue this further, especially if you're talking about retaining the services of multiple lawyers.


Oh, you have not been in the nice austria yet!
You would wonder, not only what is possible to get it for free, but also how good the water is here!

And even if there is chlor in the water, while I hesitate to expect fluor, it would not be a problem in any case, because I KNOW how homeoapthy works!

Don´t worry, I have experience with my water here and i.e. in Thailand I have not tried to be careful and have bought mineralwater...
I am sure my father in law could have used rainwater too, but why when he has also a shop to buy water there...

I would do it in wine if my wife could smell wine, and I would do it with beer if there would not be the gas in it...
*hehe* and if the milk would not get sauer, I would use it maybe too, if the tapwater would not work (nonsense of course)


As for your protocol: I'm afraid I'm not following it; I think I'm just having trouble parsing the sentences. I just want to point out that the protocol has to be double-blind.

This means that the people who prepare the bottles and the initial list of which bottle contains which thing (substance or placebo) never come in contact with you.


This does not happen in my protokoll above!
The keys come to me, but the lawyer do not have to meet me for this.


You'll have an observer/recorder who will record the results. When all attempts are complete (that is, you've examined all bottles), the people who initially did the setup and your observer/recorder will compare their lists.


ah! and I thought that the one who compares the lists, should not meet the other two groups too!
in my protokoll nobody needs to meet anyone...


I'm sure that Mr. Randi/RemieV will review your protocol's custody plan (that is, who holds the bottles in between attempts and how you access them when it's time to make an attempt) and come up with some good suggestions. I'm thinking along the lines of a trusted intermediary who has a safe deposit box at the bank or something like that.


I imagine that a clinic would be the best location!
But it is possible that they do not want, or are not allowed to be involved in such a puplic event...
Ahh!! No problem- a private clinic or even a clinic for animals who works with homeopathy should have no problem


And, as has been pointed out, once you sign the application, you give the JREF rights to publish absolutely everything about the test, including the details of the protocol and the identities of everyone involved.


I´ll find one!


It's been around for at least 10 years and still in use. You can buy it in homeopathic stores. You claimed to be able to test any homeopathic solution. Why not this?


I could test everything, but not everything with one time smelling only, as I had to realise and I have explained in the top of this...
it is possible to test everything at the right time!


Do you know all 2500 remedies in your MM? And now you again state that the remedy does not matter. So again, why not Berlin Wall?


...and I could use a stone out of the tower of Pisa for problems with the backbone?
maybe the homeopaths are guilty for, how the tower looks like now...


And I agree with you! That's why I'm asking these questions. Instead of having to pick randomly one out of 2500 remedies, 2475 of which you have not tried to see if you can detect, why not focus on one of the 25 you have tried? If so, it should be easy enough to give examples of ones you have tried. If, however, you continue down the path of saying, "I've tried 25, therefore I can test each and all homeopathic remedy with 100% success," it opens the door to asking why you will not consider Berlin Wall.


Thanks for explaining!
Have I ever written here, that someone could tell me what remedy to use? Or that I like to pick one randomly?
I hope not- otherwise It is a shame for me that I did not think about it longer before- I come into timestress when I think about the end of the challenge...


Excellent. How many different remedies are available in your local drugstore? I'm almost certain not 2500.


correct!
I give you two examples for remedies I could not get:
sars. and cortico.
And that is when I order the remedy in the greatest homeopathy-drugstore that I know out of the Internet...
You woun´t believe but they have more than 2500!


It was just a simple question. You mentioned before that your wife does not drink alcoholic beverages. I was just wondering if she had an allergy to alcohol. But from your lack of a straight answer, I'm guessing that you've never asked her to try it on pure alcohol. You might want to give that a shot.


you did not get it, that we have given it a "shot" already?

It is not allergy, because allergy is something different...
Otherwise she would be someone with the most allergies in the world.


So if you use tap water, both you and your wife can take this test?


my wife can do it
I could do it if my vision lets me do it, and I have always seen the effect in my vision, but it could happen that my vision changes without a remedy also and that is what makes it risky...


Under other posts, we've made estimates on how long this test may take, which was about 2 months. You may need to put something in the protocol about disinfecting the bottles or water before creating the solutions. Tap water in a jar after 2 months may look a little on the green/brown side.

Indeed it is a problem, but also desinfecting the bottle only, would not be enough I think.
One months works as I know...
We will try to find the best solution for this point in the coming eek!

Jürgen

[dbw]

Okay, this is going nowhere fast. I suspect that this guy is never going to submit a coherent protocol.

[Cuddles]

YOU have never seen him telling it, but I have!
He said it explicitely in a video that I have seen:
"Discuss it in the forum- do not miss it!"

Of course there is no "HAVETO", but it is a strong suggestion, and I follow...

So as I said, Randi has never told you that you have to post here. Thank you for agreeing with me.

This is not true!
I wrote that the remedy has to be purchased in a drugstore!

I told that they should come from a trusted company which produces the remedies- like "DHU" >Deutsche homöopathische Union<,

Which, as I have now said several times, does not say which remedy you will use or where you will get it from.

And pages of explaining maybe already about the reason why I can not tell already now what remedies to test!

You have not explained a single reason. You have said over and over again that you refuse to tell us certain things which are absolutely critical to a protocol, but you have not given a single coherent reason why that is the case.

I think you do not read the postings...are they too long for you?

No, they are just either incoherent or simply don't answer the questions.

Because of being forced so long, also examples for possibilities!
Belladonna LM12 and you CAN find it in the thread !

So are you stating that you will use Belladonna LM12? Or is that just a possibility? Possibilities are utterly useless.

meaningless?? *ggg*
given informations are "meaningless" for you?
so what?

The point is that you haven't actually given any information. Which is why I, and others, keep asking you.

do you know the water which comes out of the wall? *ggg*

If you have water coming out of your wall I suggest you contact either a plumber or a builder. If you mean out of a tap from the municipal water supply, is that what you actually now plan on using as a solvent? Once again, possibilities are useless. Will you use tap water? Or will you use alcohol? Don't keep telling us what might be possible, actually give an answer for once.

A chosen remedy and examples have to be seen above in this posting- so practise reading this time and do not say that this would be meaningless- to read postings!

drugstore

What does it matter?
It is not more than the chemist could analyse.
It is lactose and if it is baought- the remedy and the placeboglobulies, from the same company, there should not be a difference at all, between the substances.

It is not the point, what is in them, it is the point that there is the same in the remedies and in the globulie-plazebo!

DRUGSTORE!

Jesus tapdancing Christ on a pogostick! WHAT remedy? WHICH drug store? WHO made it for the drug store? Why do you bother writing such long posts if you're not even going to pretend to answer any questions?

How could I take you serious, after you write repeatetly in one posting the same false informations?

There's no point pretending I'm telling lies. My posts are clear for everyone to see. I have simply been asking you questions. If you don't like having it pointed out that you refuse to answer them, perhaps you should try actually answering them.

I am not here to be responsible for good or bad homeopaths and thats why I do not care about people you may have seen in your life!
The fact is that there is a qualitycontrol in homeopathy and you just do not know about it...

If you are not making the remedies yourself, which it appears you will not be, then it is extremely important that you know exactly what is in them. It is irrelevant that you are not responsible for the bad homeopaths, if your remedy comes from one it is your test that will be screwed up. And before you say anything, there are plenty of bad homeopaths

I told also that the one who does not know, can not complain about something!

MJuahaha!
Great joke now!
Who are you to tell me about the necessarity of learning about homeopathy?

absurd, isn´t it?

It is so pointless what you complain about, and does not matter at all for my claim and for the proof that you will see.

Who am I? I am one of the many people here who clearly knows a lot more about both homeopathy and designing tests than you do. The only absurd thing is that you refuse to listen to anyone who says something you don't like. If you actually want a test to happen, you need to stop insulting everyone and start paying attention to what we are telling you. The things you keep claiming we do not need to know are absolutely critical to developing a protocol, and if you carry on with this obstructive and dismissive attitude, I can guarantee you a test will never take place, and you will only have yourself to blame.

[steenkh]

I just tried a certain remedy now with my wife and (she tried it) and she had no reaction yet- but it was only a quite short time ago and it maybe she will recognize something later...
It is excellent that you and your wife try out different remedies. This will raise the possibility of a successful test later.

But why could you not tell us this earlier? You do not need to be afraid that we will ridicule you for doing some tests yourselves; on the contrary, it is very commendable that you do this. Few claimants actually try this before the test.

Once you have settled on a remedy, you should try to do the test again under conditions that will be as blind as possible. This should clearly indicate to you what your chances are.

[ddt]

Okay, this is going nowhere fast. I suspect that this guy is never going to submit a coherent protocol.

You got it. If you have too much time, check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118179) in the Science & Med subforum. This has been going on from July 10th in the same, rambling way. Homeoproofer is not very "solution oriented" when it comes to setting up the protocol and following the sage advice of other posters here. If he only were so little solution oriented when it came to homeopathy...

[Homeoproofer]

So as I said, Randi has never told you that you have to post here. Thank you for agreeing with me.


What do you read?
I never agreed with you!
of course he could never tell me and has never done so personally, because I have never met him!
But when he speaks on a video, visible to he whole world, he has indirectly spoken to me too!

You have the nice advantage that you are moderator, so you can say and write whatever you want...
you make the rules like you prefer...
I agree to everything what you write:
It is not necessary to write here?
I think you do not lik it, because you see very obviously that I explain homeopathy in a way everybody could see what it means and how right it is!
And that is why you do not like me here...


Which, as I have now said several times, does not say which remedy you will use or where you will get it from.


does the moderator own no fast PC to read all the pages I wrote already where I explained that it can´t be statet what remedy and also why it is completely unimportant for the scientist who does not belive that homeopathy could be anything else as placebo.

There is nothing else that I have not answered yet, and tht is the reason why you can not repeat any question that is not answered and you are the only one here who complains about that.

If you think that you make me so angry that I would start to swear at you or anyone else, you are wrong ad should give up now...


You have not explained a single reason. You have said over and over again that you refuse to tell us certain things which are absolutely critical to a protocol, but you have not given a single coherent reason why that is the case.


I have done the things you may have not seen.
everything very well, and that is why you are the only one who complains here.


No, they are just either incoherent or simply don't answer the questions.


if you think...
you are the boss, aren´t you?

incoherent is it naturally, and out of science, and that is the reason for, to go for the million.

what do you think about my protokoll?
isn´t it a nice one?


So are you stating that you will use Belladonna LM12? Or is that just a possibility? Possibilities are utterly useless.


it does not matter as I explained :
the proof will proof ONE example out of more than 2500 remedies to be different to plazebo and I will choose the remedy which will not consist of any molekül what gave the name for the remedy.

I extend it for youur convinience:
C30 or LM12

For you it is a lactoseball and for me it is a remedy and only to find it without a mistake out of other balls, will proof that the difference exists!

The remedy is the smallest size or the bigger size of remedysizes which is depending on the potency LM or C and the plazebo is the very same size.


The point is that you haven't actually given any information. Which is why I, and others, keep asking you.
There is and will not be a chance for you to worry about a fairness at all in my application!
How should I worry about the remedy or complain about the choice if it was my own choice?
(because this worry came up before in previous postings)



If you have water coming out of your wall I suggest you contact either a plumber or a builder.


no humor?
If I need it, I take my money also out of the wall!
and maybe this wall where the money is in it, could be used as a remedy against diarrhea!


If you mean out of a tap from the municipal water supply, is that what you actually now plan on using as a solvent? Once again, possibilities are useless. Will you use tap water? Or will you use alcohol? Don't keep telling us what might be possible, actually give an answer for once.


Sorry! I thought it was clear enough and also quite explizit...
yes water because at the moment I do not know anything better and as I expect nomore.


Jesus tapdancing Christ on a pogostick! WHAT remedy? WHICH drug store?


What a country is that where you live in...In austria it would not matter at all what drugstore, because they are all in the need of being licensed and therefor trustable for the faithful scientistbeliever I expect.

The big drugstore is easily found in the net: but I tell you the reason why I do not like to tell you:
(and pleaso do not claim then I would have not written anything as an asnwer to your question!)
I am reasonable afraid that you skeptic will annoy them then and they have no time for such people who have nothing etter to do as harmind others buisness: You can wait for a remedy for several weeks if you order with less priority out of their high number of customers they have to serve!

That is also the reawson why I do not tell a name of anyone else here, because my homeopath who wants to support me, would get troubles then...
I tell you everything which is for real necessary, but for the application it would not matter what drugstore, what remedy and not now needed is also the supporter I guess- I can fill in the name then without help!


WHO made it for the drug store?


Either they have an educated chemist who makes the job strictly by caring about the requirement of the HAMB, or they have to order it from a certain company which would not print their name at the remedy if they would nhot also give a qualitysecurity.


Why do you bother writing such long posts if you're not even going to pretend to answer any questions?

funny! I have answered EVERY question yet!

[QUOTE=Cuddles;3912058]
There's no point pretending I'm telling lies. M
y posts are clear for everyone to see. I have simply been asking you questions. If you don't like having it pointed out that you refuse to answer them, perhaps you should try actually answering them.


i don´t dare to mean that you intend to tell alie, but maybe you need a globulie!
If answers would be missing their questions would havve been repeated.
And if I would overlook a question I would answer it then!

Just tell me what you miss and I tell you then, but please do not be disappointed if the answer does not match your desire!


If you are not making the remedies yourself, which it appears you will not be, then it is extremely important that you know exactly what is in them. It is irrelevant that you are not responsible for the bad homeopaths, if your remedy comes from one it is your test that will be screwed up. And before you say anything, there are plenty of bad homeopaths


Ah! you know some?
Why don´t you fight against them directly then instead of against the whole homeopathy which is not responsible for bad people?

My remedies can not come from bad homeopaths, because I buy it in drugstores who have to loose a reputation and have to care about the law too- but you do not know the strict rules for producing the remedies and that is why you have to worry...

I have bought my remedy one time in another drustore and then the plug of the bottle fell out of it and I lost the half bals, while the remedy was ok, and I will never buy there anymore- This is the consequenze in the free market with only regulations that you do not know.

Is it different in the USA?
So you are already boring of freedom and free market I gues...
But we here in austria, while I do not know about the other countries out there, have regulations to secure the citizens and we can feel fine .


Who am I? I am one of the many people here who clearly knows a lot more about both homeopathy and designing tests than you do. The only absurd thing is that you refuse to listen to anyone who says something you don't like. If you actually want a test to happen, you need to stop insulting everyone and start paying attention to what we are telling you. The things you keep claiming we do not need to know are absolutely critical to developing a protocol, and if you carry on with this obstructive and dismissive attitude, I can guarantee you a test will never take place, and you will only have yourself to blame.

I take everything serious here and that is why I have postet my protokoll to show how I imagine a trial to be fair to both parties.
whom have I insulted here?

I think no posting has been removed in THIS thread, isn´t it true?
In the other thread I admit to have insulted others and the reson were others who sarted to fight against every statement of mine with insulting me what was ok...
Skeptics are allowed to use swearing words- or is "sucker" a kind of respectfulness?

I do not delay here anything, not like others who ask again and again the same and cannot respekt a not possible answer- I can´t pull the ansseres out of nothing- If I would do so, you would not liike it too!

You are Moderator- so are you speaking for the JREF?
I can stop to post already in this case, because you told me often enough that it is not necessary and you do not like it altough it is like I expect free for you too, to join here or not...

best regards
Jürgen

[William Smith]

...
Isn´t his wish the reason for it?
...

If his wishes conflict with the Challenge Rules, the Rules have the upper hand.

Do you understand that for a test to happen you must strictly adhere to the rules, Homeoproofer?

Reread them a couple of times, perhaps you have not yet grasped them in their entirety.

[Homeoproofer]

If his wishes conflict with the Challenge Rules, the Rules have the upper hand.

Do you understand that for a test to happen you must strictly adhere to the rules, Homeoproofer?

Reread them a couple of times, perhaps you have not yet grasped them in their entirety.

I´ve seen now, out of the point of the one who does not want the other one to win, it seems to be clear now, sorry!
I HAD read it...

No problem- I search for the one who will support me!

It seems obvious that you are quite afraid that I can win, otherwise you would not talk like that..."he will not win" and "he will never finish the application" shows your weak points I think...

If it would not be a risk, that someone could win, this rules would not be necessary in this kind of strict way without exceptions for a case like homeopathy...

it is not my claim, it is the claim of the homeopathy that I will proof right.
But out of the fact that I am not alone with my claim for homeopathy, it should not be a problem to find the supporter I need and also not a problem to get a report about us in TV or Radio or a newspaper...

It is an easy exercise for me, U´ll see - so just keep patience and wait some days until I tell you then that I have finished preparating the final deal!

see you then
Jürgen

[ddt]

I´ve seen now, out of the point of the one who does not want the other one to win, it seems to be clear now, sorry!
I HAD read it...

No problem- I search for the one who will support me!
Are you reverting to the "me English bad" schtick?


It seems obvious that you are quite afraid that I can win, otherwise you would not talk like that..."he will not win" and "he will never finish the application" shows your weak points I think...
Where did GzuzKryzt say those things - in which posts? Some others (including me) have said so as a prediction. It's quite apparent from the "progress" you're making in finalizing the protocol.


If it would not be a risk, that someone could win, this rules would not be necessary in this kind of strict way without exceptions for a case like homeopathy...
There are no exceptions or special rules for homeopathy. You haven't even bothered to read the rules for the MDC, have you?


it is not my claim, it is the claim of the homeopathy that I will proof right.
But out of the fact that I am not alone with my claim for homeopathy, it should not be a problem to find the supporter I need and also not a problem to get a report about us in TV or Radio or a newspaper...
See - you haven't read them. You, as an individual, have to show your paranormal abilities - not homeopathy in general.


It is an easy exercise for me, U´ll see - so just keep patience and wait some days until I tell you then that I have finished preparating the final deal!
If it's so easy an exercise, why do you refuse to state which substance you want to use in the challenge? And answer other straightforward questions?

[Miss_Kitt]

Hello, Jurgen! (Please forgive the absence of umlaut in my text)

I have been following this discussion with interest. I think the language problems are hurting understanding.

Here are the unanswered questions on your protocol:

1) You will need to specify exactly which remedy, and how it is prepared. Saying, "Bought in a drugstore" is not enough precision. I am not sure that saying, "Remedy xxx at potency yyy, in globule form, from manufacturer AAA, lot #nnnnn" and "Inert globule, size B, from manufacturer AAA, lot #n2n2n2" would be acceptable to JREF, but it might be. The issue here is that the materials have to be specific and independently verifiable. Then such questions as what kind and amount of inert ingredients are in the remedy globules and placebo globules can be answered.

2) Whether you think it is necessary or not is unimportant to the Challenge. If you want to get the money, you have to play by the rules. The rules exist because they provide a framework to develop a protocol that will be acceptable to JREF and the challenger.

3) Using distilled water in preparation might be advisable, since the same container of distilled water could be used to prep all the bottles. All bottles, lids, and tools used in the preparation process should be sterilized to avoid anything contaminating the solutions.

4) Your media and academic support will need to be willing to be identified publically. If they are not, then they are no longer serving the purpose of showing that you have demonstrated your abilities to them; and that your demonstrations were convincing to them, not just yourself.

5) The goal of this thread is to help set up a protocol that meets the requirements of science. If you find the requirements unacceptable, your application to the Challenge will not be approved. Science requires that the testing be A)Reproduceable; B) Insulated from fraud or bias; C)Clearly defined in the procedures and assessment processes; and D) Fully documented.
That means that the same result has to be gotten more than once; using a method that is independent of the experimenter doing the test; using a process that can be examined by disinterested third parties for error; and with all aspects of the test being written, photographed, measured, etc. at the time they are done so they can be referenced later.

The central argument that you are having seems to be, "I have seen / felt this work! Why don't you believe me?" The Skeptics' reply is, "That is not evidence to science." They're not saying you have not experienced effects; they're not saying others have not experienced effects. The protocol will need to exclude other possible causes of the effects than just the content of the remedy solution. No one is saying that your experience with homeopathy is not real, only that the causes of that may not be--or may not solely be--what you believe it to be. The testing process will resolve that issue.

Perhaps you can find a chemistry or biology student who knows both German and English to help you understand what the protocol concerns are.

I can see your sincerity and your desire to enlighten the world. Working with those who are trying to help you craft an acceptable protocol will help you achieve that goal. Arguing why the rules shouldn't have to apply in your case will not.

Best wishes, Miss Kitt

[Manduca]

Another experimental design would be that Homeoproofer does not know how many bottles have the "remedy" and how many do not, but he agrees to correctly identify some percentage of them correctly.

He then has to sniff all the bottles, and cannot stop when he thinks he has found the right number of remedy bottles.

The probability calculations are easier - by chance alone, he has a probability of 1/2 of being right on any single bottle, and (1/2)^n probability of being right on n of them.

[chillzero]

Homeoproofer, a few things.
If you wish to discuss moderation issues, take it to the Forum Management section. Moderators are entitled to post in the forum as standard members. If they do not use a box like this, then you should not address them as moderators.

Threads in this section are to be kept strictly on topic to the Million Dollar Challenge, and the protocol for a test. If you can't keep it on topic, this will be set to moderated status.

If you are not applying, the thread will be moved to a different section of the forum, so please clarify this. A thread here is not an application. Nobody other than RemieV and Jeff Wagg speak for the JREF in this forum, and they are unlikely to comment in a thread, particularly if there is no open challenge related to it. If there is a challenge to be made, then this thread must be kept only to the topic of the protocol for that specific challenge.

[dbw]

Well said, Miss Kitt! I second her recommendation to find a chemist (in the American sense of someone holding or working towards a PhD in chemistry, not in the British sense of a pharmacist) to help you design the protocol.

Try contacting the chemistry department at Humboldt University... I'm sure they have no lack of chemistry students willing to participate in an interesting project such as this one. And I imagine most of them speak excellent English. This could also get you your academic backer, assuming you can demonstrate your ability to them.

Seems like that should be your next step! Good luck.

[ddt]

Another experimental design would be that Homeoproofer does not know how many bottles have the "remedy" and how many do not, but he agrees to correctly identify some percentage of them correctly.

He then has to sniff all the bottles, and cannot stop when he thinks he has found the right number of remedy bottles.

The probability calculations are easier - by chance alone, he has a probability of 1/2 of being right on any single bottle, and (1/2)^n probability of being right on n of them.
Welcome to the forum, Manduca!

You're absolutely right that's a possibility. However, Jürgen has already indicated he'd need one day between testing two bottles, and in case of a positive identification, he'd need 2-4 weeks "recuperation time". A test with n bottles with an unknown number of bottles containing the remedy would then cost very much time.

In order to alleviate that problem, some people with mathematical qualifications have proposed a test in which precisely 2 or 3 bottles contain the remedy - with overall more bottles, but less time in worst case. In that case, however, even one wrong identification would give a much bigger probability of being the result of pure chance.


Well said, Miss Kitt! I second her recommendation to find a chemist (in the American sense of someone holding or working towards a PhD in chemistry, not in the British sense of a pharmacist) to help you design the protocol.
There are of course a couple of things that simply can be hammered out here. For instance: the homeopathic substance he proposes to test; and the number of bottles he wants to test.

Unfortunately, Jürgen hasn't reacted to those questions in a very constructive way yet.


Try contacting the chemistry department at Humboldt University... I'm sure they have no lack of chemistry students willing to participate in an interesting project such as this one. And I imagine most of them speak excellent English. This could also get you your academic backer, assuming you can demonstrate your ability to them.
Do you mean Berlin's Humboldt University? Jürgen is from Austria, though. And AFAIK, Humboldt is more focused on the arts than on science.

[Jackalgirl]

What Miss Kitt said, Juergen -- she's spot on.

I understand that you're saying, "since you skeptics think this is nonsense and that there is none of the original substance in a homeopathic preparation, it doesn't matter what the substance is". In a sense, this is true, as I have mentioned before.

As Miss Kitt points out, though, the Challenge is going to require that you be extremely thorough and specific about everything in your protocol. You'll need to disclose everything.*

Oh, you have not been in the nice austria yet!
You would wonder, not only what is possible to get it for free, but also how good the water is here!

I second Miss Kitt's suggestion of using distilled water. Again, you want to remove the possibility of anything other than your homeopathic substance interfering. If there is other stuff in the tapwater, you don't want your wife to react to that vice the substance.

If you are absolutely sure that the preparation method (putting water into bottles, dissolving pills in the water) will not somehow "activate" the impurities in the tap water, and you're willing to attest to this in your protocol, and if JREF agrees, then I'm sure it will be fine. But to be safe, it would be best to use distilled water. What you don't want is, after your wife does not react to the substance, to suddenly say, "oh! The other stuff in the water prevented her from having a proper reaction!" You've already mentioned that your wife didn't react to a remedy in tap water, so it might be worth it to give distilled water a try.

The keys come to me, but the lawyer do not have to meet me for this.


I could very well be misunderstanding you, but if I am not, I doubt that JREF will agree to this. Custody will have to be maintained by a third party, which means that you will by no means be allowed to hold the keys to wherever/watever is holding the bottles in between tests.

ah! and I thought that the one who compares the lists, should not meet the other two groups too!
in my protokoll nobody needs to meet anyone...

I doubt this will be acceptable to the JREF. If you compare the lists and report the results, there is always the possibility that you will cheat, or lie, and change the results. That's why the preparer/recorder and observer/recorder -- not the claimant -- compare their lists.

I imagine that a clinic would be the best location!
But it is possible that they do not want, or are not allowed to be involved in such a puplic event...
Ahh!! No problem- a private clinic or even a clinic for animals who works with homeopathy should have no problem

Maybe. We'll see how JREF responds. They might not consider a homeopathic clinic to be an impartial third party. But I'd go ahead and suggest it if and when you get to the protocol negotiation stage of your Challenge application.

*When I was a kid in school, my teacher gave us an assignment: write the instructions to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We did so, and he brought in all of the stuff you need to make sandwiches. And he followed our instructions. LITERALLY. "Spread peanut butter on one piece of bread." Ooops! No mention of a knife -- so he used his fingers. And so on. Your protocol is going to need to be written in peanut-butter-and-jelly instructions.

[dbw]

Do you mean Berlin's Humboldt University? Jürgen is from Austria, though. And AFAIK, Humboldt is more focused on the arts than on science.

Yep, I meant the Berlin one. It's the only German-language university I could think of off the top of my head. It's an internationally-known university with like 20,000 students, I'm sure they have chemistry... and anyway I'm sure there's something suitable in Austria, too.

[Homeoproofer]

Are you reverting to the "me English bad" schtick?

no
-->and you can see, I will answer every unimportant question from now on.- before I would have not answered something like that-
but only if I have no time for...I will not answer


Where did GzuzKryzt say those things - in which posts? Some others (including me) have said so as a prediction. It's quite apparent from the "progress" you're making in finalizing the protocol.


Ah, you have not seen my protokoll?


There are no exceptions or special rules for homeopathy. You haven't even bothered to read the rules for the MDC, have you?

I have read the rules and have seen that ther3e are no exceptions and that WAS the point that I was writing about!
Oh my goodness!


See - you haven't read them. You, as an individual, have to show your paranormal abilities - not homeopathy in general.


I have read and I have done more than that:
Mr.Randi said in a video that he will pay 1.000.000 for to the one who could proove that plazebo is different to homeopathic remedies!
But the ability to proove can´t be paranormal, it is the case that plazebo is a different thing as a remedy!

And isn´t it a spoken contract when you say something in TV???


If it's so easy an exercise, why do you refuse to state which substance you want to use in the challenge?


so IT IS ME now who can see that you do not bother to read my postings !
Because I have explained it and you can know now about the reason!


And answer other straightforward questions?

If you ask me if I like the weather today, I will not answer it too!
All other kind of questions have been answered and you just do not quote a question that has not been answered, because you can not find one!


Different to this, Miss_Kitt has answered the questions for "not asnwered questions" :

Here are the unanswered questions on your protocol:

1) You will need to specify exactly which remedy, and how it is prepared. Saying, "Bought in a drugstore" is not enough precision. I am not sure that saying, "Remedy xxx at potency yyy, in globule form, from manufacturer AAA, lot #nnnnn" and "Inert globule, size B, from manufacturer AAA, lot #n2n2n2" would be acceptable to JREF, but it might be. The issue here is that the materials have to be specific and independently verifiable. Then such questions as what kind and amount of inert ingredients are in the remedy globules and placebo globules can be answered.


INCORRECT
Mr.Randy and all the others of you, have also not and never written or said, that there is only one a specific drugstore selling the bad homeopathy, you mean all and so I can pick one of them.
AND ALL DRUGSTORES IN AUSTRIA ARE THE SAME GOOD FOR THIS!

I can make it clear what´s the companyname who profuces the remedy, but this does not matter out of the fact that it is just homeopathic material that you can buy everywhere!

I will provide the names in the coming week! My promise on that!



2) Whether you think it is necessary or not is unimportant to the
Challenge. If you want to get the money, you have to play by the rules. The rules exist because they provide a framework to develop a protocol that will be acceptable to JREF and the challenger.


i have ne^ver said or written taht this rules are not important and never wrote that I would not accept them!
Just opinions here are not law.


3) Using distilled water in preparation might be advisable, since the same container of distilled water could be used to prep all the bottles. All bottles, lids, and tools used in the preparation process should be sterilized to avoid anything contaminating the solutions.


unfortunately this is again a mistake...
BECAUSE it does not matter for homeopathy and only for "expiration dates" if it is cntamined.
It can not have any effect at the homeopathic effect, simply out of the reason that the homeopathic effect is directed and the water wtih all the possibly present "dirt" in it, is not and only confused.

How could I complain about my own decision lateron?
Of course not, because I will never agree to destiled water!
Then I would not proove homeopathy, but try to proove something else, what I do not know...
This is then already perfevctly macde for my failure and you are the clever one you think....

Do not care about the water- it comes out of the pipe and can not contain the wrong substances- I can drink it and every austrian does the same every day!
Austrian water is healthy water and NO PROBLEM!


4) Your media and academic support will need to be willing to be identified publically. If they are not, then they are no longer serving the purpose of showing that you have demonstrated your abilities to them; and that your demonstrations were convincing to them, not just yourself.


Of course, I understand that!
that is why I search for the one already !
How is an academic defined?
(not that you do not like my academic then...)


5) The goal of this thread is to help set up a protocol that meets the requirements of science. If you find the requirements unacceptable, your application to the Challenge will not be approved. Science requires that the testing be A)Reproduceable; B) Insulated from fraud or bias; C)Clearly defined in the procedures and assessment processes; and D) Fully documented.
That means that the same result has to be gotten more than once; using a method that is independent of the experimenter doing the test; using a process that can be examined by disinterested third parties for error; and with all aspects of the test being written, photographed, measured, etc. at the time they are done so they can be referenced later.


Tell me please, what does not meet your requirements of science!
On the other hand it was also written here somewhere that the challenge is no scientistic study...
and that it is only checking the paranormal with rules of science.

We provide the success of finding the remedy out of 20 and find it then one more time - That is repeated then, right?
I am waiting your corrections!



The central argument that you are having seems to be, "I have seen / felt this work! Why don't you believe me?" The Skeptics' reply is, "That is not evidence to science." They're not saying you have not experienced effects; they're not saying others have not experienced effects. The protocol will need to exclude other possible causes of the effects than just the content of the remedy solution. No one is saying that your experience with homeopathy is not real, only that the causes of that may not be--or may not solely be--what you believe it to be. The testing process will resolve that issue.


That is good!
But then you should also act like that...
the fact that something does not succeed in a scientific test, does not mean that it does not succeed in the real life, but you would think then that it is the same...
It is only for the own advantage of pride and hurts the scientistic spirit.


Perhaps you can find a chemistry or biology student who knows both German and English to help you understand what the protocol concerns are.

I can see your sincerity and your desire to enlighten the world. Working with those who are trying to help you craft an acceptable protocol will help you achieve that goal. Arguing why the rules shouldn't have to apply in your case will not.

Best wishes, Miss Kitt
[/QUOTE]

Thanks a lot Miss_kitt!

greetings to you friends from
Jürgens

[Pixel42]

Mr.Randi said in a video that he will pay 1.000.000 for to the one who could proove that plazebo is different to homeopathic remedies!
But the ability to proove can´t be paranormal, it is the case that plazebo is a different thing as a remedy!
In the case of a homeopathic remedy, no it isn't. A placebo is a sugar pill or similar, which contains no active ingredients which can affect the health of the patient. Because of the way in which homeopathic remedies are prepared, they also end up containing no active ingredients which can affect the health of the patient. The most careful chemical analysis using electron microscopes etc cannot tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and a placebo. So if you can, you have demonstrated a paranormal ability. That is why homeopathy qualifies for the the $1 million paranormal challenge, when things like herbal remedies (which do contain active ingredients) do not.

[Homeoproofer]

I understand that you're saying, "since you skeptics think this is nonsense and that there is none of the original substance in a homeopathic preparation, it doesn't matter what the substance is". In a sense, this is true, as I have mentioned before.


Unfortunately others here have other opinion and think to be stronger than you...

The point is to repeat this for everyone who does not like to accept the presence of an answer to it:(you means often all opponents)
To state a remedy already NOW would be the reason for a failure in a trial later...
Even if you do not like this reason, it is just like that, because of facts in homeopathiy that nobody here likes to accept:
Homeopathic remedies have effect but it is not easy to forecast exactly what it will be and it is nearly impossible to know it without the kowledge of he actual codition of the person!

Out of the fact that I do not proove to look into the future, I can not know before BUT only for your satisfaction I am working on the search of a remedy where I can be convinced about a certain effect in the trial.
I have not finished that and can not tell now but I will tell you early enough!

do sou have a littel bit patience?
that is why I mentioned belladonna already, for habving alittle bit piece- but you did not give up annoying my remedydecision.

I WILL TELL THE REMEDY!
Lactose balls was told and "homeopathic remedy" was also told-the first is what the chemist sees and the second is what the homeopath claims, but you are not satisfied, altough you say "homeopathic remedIES" and "homeopathy" and "homeopathS"...

No equity, but I can serve you!


As Miss Kitt points out, though, the Challenge is going to require that you be extremely thorough and specific about everything in your protocol. You'll need to disclose everything.*


And I tried to do so!
It will be improved as soon as I can- I am not superman...


I second Miss Kitt's suggestion of using distilled water. Again, you want to remove the possibility of anything other than your homeopathic substance interfering. If there is other stuff in the tapwater, you don't want your wife to react to that vice the substance.


she can not react on other substances in the water because they are not in potency!


If you are absolutely sure that the preparation method (putting water into bottles, dissolving pills in the water) will not somehow "activate" the impurities in the tap water, and you're willing to attest to this in your protocol, and if JREF agrees, then I'm sure it will be fine. But to be safe, it would be best to use distilled water. What you don't want is, after your wife does not react to the substance, to suddenly say, "oh! The other stuff in the water prevented her from having a proper reaction!" You've already mentioned that your wife didn't react to a remedy in tap water, so it might be worth it to give distilled water a try.


I don´t trust in destilled water, I trust in my tapwater more!
Tapwater can not be activated -
no problem!

Thanks for the hints!

I hesitate that it would work with destilled water- altough I can not know about it for sure: it is the guess out of knowledge and logic thinking, that it would be much more possible to activate unwanted ingredients in destilled water than in tapwater.
may sound unlogic for you, but it is not.
The important thing it the huge amount of substances which are different and not directed while the ingredient that will become potenciated is directed.


I could very well be misunderstanding you, but if I am not, I doubt that JREF will agree to this. Custody will have to be maintained by a third party, which means that you will by no means be allowed to hold the keys to wherever/watever is holding the bottles in between tests.


If I can not do anything with the bottles, why should it be a problem to give me the keys?
I can only look at the bottles and it does not have to be possible for me to reach the safe or the bottles...
If we can do it in a clinic...what is a puplic place and guarded I guess...

AND there should be two keys and I want only one!

Unfortunately it looks as if nobody cares about, what you write here...
(others bring up the same things again where you agreed already in a way as if they would be completely unattended...


I doubt this will be acceptable to the JREF. If you compare the lists and report the results, there is always the possibility that you will cheat, or lie, and change the results. That's why the preparer/recorder and observer/recorder -- not the claimant -- compare their lists.

i never stated that I want to do i9t on my own!
have I?
Of course this will be done by another one, and I only wrote in my protokoll that this has to be witnessed by someone trusted.

Lawyer was a nice possiblity I mentioned but it could be also a homeopath.
I´ll see whom I get for this job!


Maybe. We'll see how JREF responds. They might not consider a homeopathic clinic to be an impartial third party. But I'd go ahead and suggest it if and when you get to the protocol negotiation stage of your Challenge application.


a DIFFICULT THING.
Who would be an impartial party in this trial?
Suggest one!

The clinic could be on my side, of course, but if the clinic would be on the other side, it would be me who would have the troubles in trusting them...
And a more important point is the fact, that you would not find a schoolmedicineclinic who will give a room for this event!


*When I was a kid in school, my teacher gave us an assignment: write the instructions to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We did so, and he brought in all of the stuff you need to make sandwiches. And he followed our instructions. LITERALLY. "Spread peanut butter on one piece of bread." Ooops! No mention of a knife -- so he used his fingers. And so on. Your protocol is going to need to be written in peanut-butter-and-jelly instructions.

In the end I´ll do so!
Thanks a lot!
Jürgen

[Jackalgirl]

Unfortunately others here have other opinion and think to be stronger than you...

The point is to repeat this for everyone who does not like to accept the presence of an answer to it:(you means often all opponents)
To state a remedy already NOW would be the reason for a failure in a trial later...

Okay, now this I don't understand at all. If you know what remedy (or remedies) you and/or your wife reliably react to, what's the harm in saying so here? If you plan, say, to use belladonna, why not just say so? How is saying that here, now, going to cause you to fail later?


Homeopathic remedies have effect but it is not easy to forecast exactly what it will be ...

Ah, but don't you see the inherent problem with this? With regular medicine, you can have a very high chance of forecasting what's going to happen (while knowing that there may be, on occasion, people who react weirdly to the medication). For example: pain killers. If I have a headache, I can be pretty certain that taking aspirin will help. There are always extraordinary circumstances, but medical trials have taken place that show that aspirin has an effect beyond that of a placebo.

If you can't forecast what a homeopathic remedy will be, then how is this sound medicine? Are you always just guessing what's going to happen?


she can not react on other substances in the water because they are not in potency!

How do you know this?



I don´t trust in destilled water, I trust in my tapwater more!
Tapwater can not be activated -
no problem!

As long as you're willing to attest to this beforehand, and acknowledge that this cannot possibly be a source for failure after the fact, I'll bet that'll be fine.


I hesitate that it would work with destilled water- altough I can not know about it for sure: it is the guess out of knowledge and logic thinking, that it would be much more possible to activate unwanted ingredients in destilled water than in tapwater.
may sound unlogic for you, but it is not.
The important thing it the huge amount of substances which are different and not directed while the ingredient that will become potenciated is directed.

I'm not sure what you mean by "directed". Then again, though, it's not really important at this stage that I understand...only that you and JREF develop a protocol that is mutually agreeable, and that you do your best to think of all of the things that might cause your test to fail and control for them in your protocol.


If I can not do anything with the bottles, why should it be a problem to give me the keys?
I can only look at the bottles and it does not have to be possible for me to reach the safe or the bottles...
If we can do it in a clinic...what is a puplic place and guarded I guess...

I doubt that JREF will allow you to have any means of gaining access to the bottles between tests.


Unfortunately it looks as if nobody cares about, what you write here...
(others bring up the same things again where you agreed already in a way as if they would be completely unattended...

For what it's worth, it doesn't matter what any of the Forum posters say or to what any one of us agree -- the only people who matter in regards to the MDC are RemieV and James Randi. The rest of us are trying to help you write a protocol that will be approved by JREF, but JREF is the only entity that can actually agree to any part of the protocol. The rest of us can only suggest.


a DIFFICULT THING.
Who would be an impartial party in this trial?
Suggest one!

Someone who isn't a friend, and whose livelihood or belief system isn't threatened by the outcome of the test. I know that's kind of vague, but that's all I've got. A lawyer would probably be good. Another option would (again) to put the bottles in a bank safe deposit box. If the bank keeps records of who opens the box, that would be ideal: everyone could have a key -- because the bank would (hopefully) record who goes into the box and when...and it would be easy to verify if someone got in there when he or she shouldn't have.


The clinic could be on my side, of course, but if the clinic would be on the other side, it would be me who would have the troubles in trusting them...
And a more important point is the fact, that you would not find a schoolmedicineclinic who will give a room for this event!

Yup, it makes it difficult: both you and JREF have to be confident in the whole process. But I'm sure that JREF will have some really good suggestions (better than the ones I've made) as they've been doing this for a long, looooong time.


In the end I´ll do so!
Thanks a lot!
Jürgen

Live to serve. ; )

[ddt]

no
-->and you can see, I will answer every unimportant question from now on.- before I would have not answered something like that-
but only if I have no time for...I will not answer
You're better advised to answer the relevant questions and spend more time on that than to answer each sidetrack or even rhetorical questions.



Ah, you have not seen my protokoll?
In post #72? My apologies, I missed that. See, that happens when you write too much irrelevant stuff :).

Kidding aside, I see you propose to have 20 test bottles, of which 3 contain the homeopathic medicine.

The odds of guessing those 3 correct by pure chance are 1:1140. As I understand, JREF will most probably be content with that for the preliminary test (but not for the final test).


I have read the rules and have seen that ther3e are no exceptions and that WAS the point that I was writing about!
Oh my goodness!
You did write:
If it would not be a risk, that someone could win, this rules would not be necessary in this kind of strict way without exceptions for a case like homeopathy...
which suggests you claim that there are exceptions in the rules for homeopathy.


I have read and I have done more than that:
Mr.Randi said in a video that he will pay 1.000.000 for to the one who could proove that plazebo is different to homeopathic remedies!
But the ability to proove can´t be paranormal, it is the case that plazebo is a different thing as a remedy!

And isn´t it a spoken contract when you say something in TV???
No it isn't. A contract exists only when both parties have agreed. Your local baker has a bread in his window with a label "2 euro" next to it. That's an offer of his to sell you that bread for 2 euro. The moment you say to the baker that you accept that offer, you have a contract of sale. The MDC is a bit more complex, as the offer of Randi includes a mutually agreed upon test protocol. So there isn't a contract the moment you say "yes" to Randi.

Note, as one of the provisions of the MDC, that your claim and test protocol have to be notarized.


so IT IS ME now who can see that you do not bother to read my postings !
Because I have explained it and you can know now about the reason!
You might have explained why you haven't named one specific remedy, but no-one has either bought the story or understood it. Neither have I. Why don't you just pick the one which you feel most confident with?

[Pixel42]

You might have explained why you haven't named one specific remedy, but no-one has either bought the story or understood it. Neither have I. Why don't you just pick the one which you feel most confident with?
If I'm understanding him correctly, he's having trouble deciding which one he does feel most confident with. Once he's made up his mind, he'll tell us.

[Baron Samedi]

I thank you all for your great help!
I admit to came into a hurry, after the time seems to be a little short for a long trial...
And out of the reason of the fact, that a lot of reactions are not forecasteable perfectly in homeopathy in every case, and that I do not want to play with the wellbeing of my wife, I did not want to try everything before telling you here.
The knowledge out of experience with the reactions of my wife was enough at first...

But the problem becomes clear to me now:
Of course it is not possible to test every remedy, but that was never told !
It just gives a conclusion about all other remedies !

That is understood by knowing that every remedy and each of all, have to be used for the right person in the right case and can only work fine and expected if done properly- also the potency has to be right!

So I have to choose the right one and this was not so easy, and thats why I´ve not told yet...

Let´s explain:
One tries to find a remedy for a certain problem but chooses the wrong one.
What happens then: The body reacts very strong if it was slightly wrong, or does not reacts or at least not recognizeable, when it was completely wrong...or the symptoms become worse, also if it was wrong(maybe I forget now about certain possiblities, but this is not a course...)

I just tried a certain remedy now with my wife and (she tried it) and she had no reaction yet- but it was only a quite short time ago and it maybe she will recognize something later...

It was just no possiblity for the immunsystem to do something!

So how shall I know now what could be the best remedy to be used in the trial?
U do not know enough about homeopathy and think it would be so easy- but if it would be so easy, someone else would have succeeded already with another trial!

This is my reason why I have to keep the possiblity of chaning the kind of remedy as I like to!


Unfortunately others here have other opinion and think to be stronger than you...

The point is to repeat this for everyone who does not like to accept the presence of an answer to it:(you means often all opponents)
To state a remedy already NOW would be the reason for a failure in a trial later...
Even if you do not like this reason, it is just like that, because of facts in homeopathiy that nobody here likes to accept:
Homeopathic remedies have effect but it is not easy to forecast exactly what it will be and it is nearly impossible to know it without the kowledge of he actual codition of the person!

Out of the fact that I do not proove to look into the future, I can not know before BUT only for your satisfaction I am working on the search of a remedy where I can be convinced about a certain effect in the trial.
I have not finished that and can not tell now but I will tell you early enough!

do sou have a littel bit patience?
that is why I mentioned belladonna already, for habving alittle bit piece- but you did not give up annoying my remedydecision.

I WILL TELL THE REMEDY!


You may want to work on that self test ASAP. Part of the application is that media presence, and a witness to your ability. It's impossible for you to have a witness, since you're now backpedaling and saying that you don't know which remedy you can detect. How long will it take you to decide upon which remedy to test?

[Homeoproofer]

Okay, now this I don't understand at all. If you know what remedy (or remedies) you and/or your wife reliably react to, what's the harm in saying so here? If you plan, say, to use belladonna, why not just say so? How is saying that here, now, going to cause you to fail later?


You can see now, how difficult it is to understand it...
Like I tried to explain, it is not sure that she will react with the same symptoms again as she reacted before with.


Ah, but don't you see the inherent problem with this? With regular medicine, you can have a very high chance of forecasting what's going to happen (while knowing that there may be, on occasion, people who react weirdly to the medication). For example: pain killers. If I have a headache, I can be pretty certain that taking aspirin will help. There are always extraordinary circumstances, but medical trials have taken place that show that aspirin has an effect beyond that of a placebo.


Homeopathy does not cause effects, it cures, what makes the differnce:
Aspirin lets the headacke disappear, but a homeopathic remedy would cure it if it is a repeatingly suffer.
The symptoms we use to identify the remedy, are only reactionsymptoms when there is no problem present to be cured...


If you can't forecast what a homeopathic remedy will be, then how is this sound medicine? Are you always just guessing what's going to happen?


CURE has to be medicine, or would you expect differenct?


How do you know this?


In the trial we can expect what symptom my wife will experience with analysing her conditions and looking into the repertory/Materia medica and in a cure it is not much different.
The one knows, and the other one does not want to know the unknown out of what he knows...


As long as you're willing to attest to this beforehand, and acknowledge that this cannot possibly be a source for failure after the fact, I'll bet that'll be fine.

fine!


I'm not sure what you mean by "directed". Then again, though, it's not really important at this stage that I understand...only that you and JREF develop a protocol that is mutually agreeable, and that you do your best to think of all of the things that might cause your test to fail and control for them in your protocol.

OK; it does not matter if you understand it, but it is the reason for using tapwater and not destilled water...

RIGHT NOW THE IDEA:
We can use mineralwater without gas, if tapwater would be a problem- but it is not for me.


I doubt that JREF will allow you to have any means of gaining access to the bottles between tests.


The question was "why" if I can not find out about the content in another way as smelling at it...
I could not access the bottles alone- I would have only ONE key and in my plan there would be a second key necessary.

of course a quite difficult thing then, to access the bottles when I have to contact the keyholder first...


For what it's worth, it doesn't matter what any of the Forum posters say or to what any one of us agree -- the only people who matter in regards to the MDC are RemieV and James Randi. The rest of us are trying to help you write a protocol that will be approved by JREF, but JREF is the only entity that can actually agree to any part of the protocol. The rest of us can only suggest.


That is theoretycally the case, BUT nobody knows who is behind the synonyms...



Someone who isn't a friend, and whose livelihood or belief system isn't threatened by the outcome of the test.


this is it: everybody could be a friedn and everybody could have an interest in the result in any way!


I know that's kind of vague, but that's all I've got. A lawyer would probably be good. Another option would (again) to put the bottles in a bank safe deposit box. If the bank keeps records of who opens the box, that would be ideal: everyone could have a key -- because the bank would (hopefully) record who goes into the box and when...and it would be easy to verify if someone got in there when he or she shouldn't have.


brilliant suggestion!
but from the bank to the place of the trial it could be far....
That is why I thought about securing it in a clinicsafe or a kind of lockable cabinet.


Yup, it makes it difficult: both you and JREF have to be confident in the whole process. But I'm sure that JREF will have some really good suggestions (better than the ones I've made) as they've been doing this for a long, looooong time.


for a long time there was also nobody who won the challenge...
...and maybe had to agree to certain things to just have the chance to try it.
The power is on one side and right in this stage out of the control of a third party.

so I will see if it will be made possible for me to start.

[Mojo]

You can see now, how difficult it is to understand it...
Like I tried to explain, it is not sure that she will react with the same symptoms again as she reacted before with.


Shouldn't she react with similar symptoms to those listed as "proving" symptoms in the materia medica? If patients are going to react differently to the same remedy, it rather makes a nonsense of the principles of homoeopathic prescribing.

However, for the purposes of the challenge, it does not matter if she produces different symptoms - all you have to do is to identify the bottles containing the remedy. As long as the remedy produces some sort of symptom that the placebo doesn't, it should be possible for you to tell the difference.

[Jackalgirl]

You can see now, how difficult it is to understand it...
Like I tried to explain, it is not sure that she will react with the same symptoms again as she reacted before with.

Well, this could be a problem. If your claim is that you can distinguish between a homeopathic preparation and a preparation made with a placebo, you're going to need to be able to do so reliably in order to attempt the MDC.

CURE has to be medicine, or would you expect differenct?

I expect medicine to have some kind of effect -- whether it be simply to alleviate symptoms, or to actually cure a disease -- in a reliable way. I would expect that one would be able to replicate these effects, and I would also expect that a double-blind test would show that these effects happen independently from the expectations of the patient in the majority of patients. That's not to say that the placebo effect is without merit -- on the contrary, it can be a very powerful effect -- but if a medicine claims to have an actual effect on people that is somehow different from the placebo effect, then I expect that this will be demonstrable in a double-blind trial.


In the trial we can expect what symptom my wife will experience with analysing her conditions and looking into the repertory/Materia medica and in a cure it is not much different.
The one knows, and the other one does not want to know the unknown out of what he knows...

I'm afraid I can't parse these sentences. Ultimately, though, all that matters is that you (and your wife) can reliably distinguish between a remedy and a placebo.


RIGHT NOW THE IDEA:
We can use mineralwater without gas, if tapwater would be a problem- but it is not for me.

Again, as long as you attest that tap water will not cause a problem, and that you will not claim -- after the test -- that any failure is due to the fact that you used tap water, I don't think that JREF will have a problem with it. But make sure you try this out with your wife BEFORE you propose it to make sure it will not be a problem.


brilliant suggestion!
but from the bank to the place of the trial it could be far....
That is why I thought about securing it in a clinicsafe or a kind of lockable cabinet.

After you have gotten your academic support in the form of the affidavits, and after you have gotten your media presence, JREF will try to find someone in your local area to oversee the preliminary test. I think, at that point, you can try to figure out where the trial actually will be -- and the issues of physical custody should be pretty easy to work out at that point.

In other words, I don't think you should get too hung up at this point -- it's just something to think about, and it looks like you've got several options and suggestions, so I think it will work out fine once you get to that step.



for a long time there was also nobody who won the challenge...
...and maybe had to agree to certain things to just have the chance to try it.

Well, this is definitely true: in fact, people have to agree to each and every rule of the MDC.


The power is on one side and right in this stage out of the control of a third party.

so I will see if it will be made possible for me to start.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that JREF will be dictating the terms of the Challenge, then no. The protocol has to be mutually agreeable -- both you and the JREF have to agree and be comfortable with the protocol. If either you or the JREF can't come to terms, the application will simply be dropped. So if the JREF tries to impose something on you to which you can't agree, you are not bound or forced to continue.

[steenkh]

I don´t trust in destilled water, I trust in my tapwater more!
Tapwater can not be activated -
no problem!
Real homoeopaths writing on this forum have claimed that only distilled water is used, because the distillation apparently resets any homoeopathic potencies that the water may carry naturally (lots of weak solutions and natural succussion is happening in nature). But, OK, it is your claim, so if you feel uneasy about how homeopaths claim to produce their solutions, please go ahead with tap water.

Please also notice that it is by no means certain that the JREF will accept a homoeopathic remedy that is simply bought off counter in a pharmacy. Nobody knows if the producer has cheated and added something extra that can actually have an effect! I am sure that the JREF will insist on a homoeopathic remedy that has been produced under controlled circumstances and where all pollutants and possible fraudulent additives have been diluted out of existence.

[William Smith]

I´ve seen now, out of the point of the one who does not want the other one to win, it seems to be clear now, sorry!
I HAD read it...

No problem- I search for the one who will support me!

It seems obvious that you are quite afraid that I can win, otherwise you would not talk like that..."he will not win" and "he will never finish the application" shows your weak points I think...

If it would not be a risk, that someone could win, this rules would not be necessary in this kind of strict way without exceptions for a case like homeopathy...

it is not my claim, it is the claim of the homeopathy that I will proof right.
But out of the fact that I am not alone with my claim for homeopathy, it should not be a problem to find the supporter I need and also not a problem to get a report about us in TV or Radio or a newspaper...

It is an easy exercise for me, U´ll see - so just keep patience and wait some days until I tell you then that I have finished preparating the final deal!

see you then
Jürgen

Ok, do it.

I hope, for the advance of science, that you will have two successful controlled tests. From experience and common sense, I do not at all think you will.

Evidence to the contrary will convince me. Only evidence, though.

[LongFuzzy]

Could someone please explain why HP cannot take the bottles home with him? He could tamper with them all he wants, but how could that help him? He has to make a list that matches the list of when the samples were made, right? What am I missing?

-LF

[Homeoproofer]

Shouldn't she react with similar symptoms to those listed as "proving" symptoms in the materia medica? If patients are going to react differently to the same remedy, it rather makes a nonsense of the principles of homoeopathic prescribing.

Ah, und you mean that one symptom out of i.e. 2000 is easy to recognize?


However, for the purposes of the challenge, it does not matter if she produces different symptoms - all you have to do is to identify the bottles containing the remedy. As long as the remedy produces some sort of symptom that the placebo doesn't, it should be possible for you to tell the difference.

"The similar symptom" sounds so easy when you write that...
as if there are only 5 symptoms.

Real homoeopaths writing on this forum have claimed that only distilled water is used, because the distillation apparently resets any homoeopathic potencies that the water may carry naturally (lots of weak solutions and natural succussion is happening in nature). But, OK, it is your claim, so if you feel uneasy about how homeopaths claim to produce their solutions, please go ahead with tap water.


It is simply false that only destilled water would reset anything.
Real homeopaths have postet here? Bu...but they have not won!
There are BTW many real homeopaths out there who tell about their existance and write the book against homeopathy: Who would write a book with informations against the own conviction?
This people are not reliable for a logically thinking person.


Please also notice that it is by no means certain that the JREF will accept a homoeopathic remedy that is simply bought off counter in a pharmacy. Nobody knows if the producer has cheated and added something extra that can actually have an effect! I am sure that the JREF will insist on a homoeopathic remedy that has been produced under controlled circumstances and where all pollutants and possible fraudulent additives have been diluted out of existence.

Impossible to cheat- Otherwise all the homeopathic rmedies would contain something else then you claim- nothing, and so your fight against it would not have any reason then...

If you do not trust in the greatest companies, you should also forget about buying a Chrysler out of the risk that there could be a traktormotor in it...





I expect medicine to have some kind of effect -- whether it be simply to alleviate symptoms, or to actually cure a disease -- in a reliable way. I would expect that one would be able to replicate these effects,


isn´t it strange to desire a replication after something has worked for someone herself?

is your desire to find out if your health is just actual because your cure was a cheat?How would it be possible that your cure was a cheat if your healthynes is true?
(this is only in prinzipal because your sentence was also principally)


Again, as long as you attest that tap water will not cause a problem, and that you will not claim -- after the test -- that any failure is due to the fact that you used tap water, I don't think that JREF will have a problem with it. But make sure you try this out with your wife BEFORE you propose it to make sure it will not be a problem.


YOU came up with this worries!
you have expected me to argue against something that I ordered on my own beforehand!
You expect the evil from another one and that is your problem and not mine.


After you have gotten your academic support in the form of the affidavits, and after you have gotten your media presence, JREF will try to find someone in your local area to oversee the preliminary test. I think, at that point, you can try to figure out where the trial actually will be -- and the issues of physical custody should be pretty easy to work out at that point.


You see: JREF is said to be the one who decides and if I do not agree I can go home...


Well, this is definitely true: in fact, people have to agree to each and every rule of the MDC.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but if you mean that JREF will be dictating the terms of the Challenge, then no. The protocol has to be mutually agreeable -- both you and the JREF have to agree and be comfortable with the protocol. If either you or the JREF can't come to terms, the application will simply be dropped. So if the JREF tries to impose something on you to which you can't agree, you are not bound or forced to continue.

Oh my dear! Don´t you see it, that the trial will never take place if I do not agree to everything what the JREF wants?
And this is no difference to dictating anymore then if everything is depending on the goodwill of one party...

You may think that I will be happy that I do not have to do something if I do not want to?
*g*

[Mojo]

Okay, now this I don't understand at all. If you know what remedy (or remedies) you and/or your wife reliably react to, what's the harm in saying so here? If you plan, say, to use belladonna, why not just say so? How is saying that here, now, going to cause you to fail later?You can see now, how difficult it is to understand it...
Like I tried to explain, it is not sure that she will react with the same symptoms again as she reacted before with.Shouldn't she react with similar symptoms to those listed as "proving" symptoms in the materia medica? If patients are going to react differently to the same remedy, it rather makes a nonsense of the principles of homoeopathic prescribing.
Ah, und you mean that one symptom out of i.e. 2000 is easy to recognize?
However, for the purposes of the challenge, it does not matter if she produces different symptoms - all you have to do is to identify the bottles containing the remedy. As long as the remedy produces some sort of symptom that the placebo doesn't, it should be possible for you to tell the difference.
"The similar symptom" sounds so easy when you write that...
as if there are only 5 symptoms.


Homeopaths claim to be able to identify symptoms caused by remedies - this is, after all, how they identify the the symptoms a remedy will be used to treat when they carry out a "proving".

And even if you are concerned that remedies may produce a number of different symptoms, this problem will not be addressed by refusing to specify a remedy. Refusing to specify a remedy to be used will not reduce the number of potential symptoms.

This is not a logically valid reason for refusing to specify a remedy. It looks more like an attempt to provide yourself with a ready-made excuse to use when you fail the test.

[Kuko 4000]

I'm impressed by the patience of some of you, good job.

[Pup]

isn´t it strange to desire a replication after something has worked for someone herself?

is your desire to find out if your health is just actual because your cure was a cheat?How would it be possible that your cure was a cheat if your healthynes is true?

Because people can become healthy without any medicine.

Example: I injured my knee a few months ago. Standard advice for the specific injury: ice it, take NSAIDs, don't over-exert it, and it will be better in ten days to two weeks.

I didn't ice it, didn't take any medicine, and it was better in ten days, just from resting it.

If I'd used ice and taken anti-inflammatory medicine, I would have thought they caused the cure just as predicted, and never would have realized they were unnecessary. The same would have been true if I'd used homeopathic medicine.

[Jackalgirl]

isn´t it strange to desire a replication after something has worked for someone herself?

is your desire to find out if your health is just actual because your cure was a cheat?How would it be possible that your cure was a cheat if your healthynes is true?
(this is only in prinzipal because your sentence was also principally)

There's something called an "error of causality". It is the mistake of assuming that because B happened after A, that A caused B. If I am going to claim that a remedy has an actual, measurable, reliable effect, and that it specifically cures "X" (where X is some kind of ailment), I'd like to be sure that that's the case. So, to be sure, I would conduct a double-blind trial. Anecdotal information will not do.*

You see, what a double-blind test allows me to do is be absolutely, 100% confident that the remedy performs as advertised, and that something else -- confirmation bias, wishful thinking, or just plain getting better on one's own -- wasn't involved.

*Okay, so here's my own anecdotal story: when I was a kid, I sprained my ankle pretty badly. One of my parents' "New Age" friends came over and stroked my ankle with a stone and claimed that he was healing my ankle. Sure enough, a couple of days later -- about the same amount of time it would take to heal by itself -- I was as right as rain.

Now, this sort of thing is innocuous when dealing with illnesses or injuries that get better on their own. And illnesses and (minor) injuries get better on their own in a large majority of cases. But what about the problems that don't? What if someone is suffering from something more serious, like cancer? What if that person delays or plain refuses to get medical assistance that is double-blindedly demonstrated to be effective because they believe that a stone will cure them, or that homeopathy is effective? When the stakes are high, you HAVE TO KNOW, and I mean REALLY KNOW, that the treatment is effective, and you can't do this if you haven't even bothered to figure out if the effect you're observing is different from the placebo.


YOU came up with this worries!
you have expected me to argue against something that I ordered on my own beforehand!
You expect the evil from another one and that is your problem and not mine.

Quite true. In my (admittedly rather limited) understanding of homeopathy, the "magic" comes from shaking the dilution, which somehow transfers some kind of "essence" from the diluted substance into the water, which somehow "remembers" the substance. There's stuff in tap water, and tap water is agitated a lot. My fear is that after the fact, you will claim that this caused your test to fail. However, you are quite right in that my fears in this regard don't matter -- what matters is how JREF will respond. I imagine -- but this is a guess, mind you -- that as long as you attest before the test that the use of tap water can in no way affect the outcome, it should be fine. Especially if you have properly self-tested yourself and your wife and had no problems.



You see: JREF is said to be the one who decides and if I do not agree I can go home...

Is said by whom? They're wrong in implying that the decision is one-sided. If JREF requires something as a part of the protocol and you don't agree with it, you can break off negotiations yourself. You will in no way be required to accept anything you don't want to. So you, too, can be the one to decide.


Oh my dear! Don´t you see it, that the trial will never take place if I do not agree to everything what the JREF wants?
And this is no difference to dictating anymore then if everything is depending on the goodwill of one party...

You may think that I will be happy that I do not have to do something if I do not want to?
*g*

It is true that you have to agree to each and every Challenge rule, yes. JREF is ponying up 1 million dollars, so they have every right to dictate the terms. And if you don't agree to those rules then no, you can't participate.

But you are not correct in saying that you have to agree to "everything [that] the JREF wants" -- because the protocol has to be mutually agreeable. That means you have a stake in it, and you have to be comfortable with it and agree to it. JREF cannot force you to undergo a trial that you don't think is fair, or think you will fail.

[Dr H]

I stand corrected -- thank you very much! : )

I'm not sure that even if he did drink the samples rather than just sniffing them, it would make a difference -- theoretically, a 12LM preparation of <whatever> in (drinkable) alcohol is the same as the same bottle full of just plain (drinkable) alcohol, so the effect should be the same, right?

Well, yeah -- plus the effects of drinking 1/3 liter of 140 proof vodka. :)

Wouldn't want to try to drink denatured alcohol, tho. Ugh!

That's exactly why it's denatured, so people won't drink it. Doing so would make one very ill.

Again, thanks for the info. I did not know that and very much appreciate the correction!

No es nada.

[Dr H]

2) Why wouldn't they want to retest the "proving" to see if different symptoms appear? Maybe they missed one the first time? But that's off topic for this thread


I asked this question of Homeoproofer, in several different ways, in the other thread. He
minced no words in pointing out how foolish I was for asking it.

Apparently, once a proving is done, the substance remains in the MM forever, with no possible question about its efficacy, what it should be used for, or if there might be something better.

The only infallible medical field I've ever come across. ;)

[Dr H]

The JREF changed the Challenge Rules dating April 01, 2007. Since then, it became necessary for every applicant to have said media presence and academic support.

Yeah, but do they really mean it?

I mean, c'mon -- look at that date. ;)

[Dr H]

Hello, Jurgen! (Please forgive the absence of umlaut in my text)

I have been following this discussion with interest. I think the language problems are hurting understanding.

Here are the unanswered questions on your protocol:

Nicely constructed, Miss Kitt.

Just one small quibble:

3) Using distilled water in preparation might be advisable, since the same container of distilled water could be used to prep all the bottles. All bottles, lids, and tools used in the preparation process should be sterilized to avoid anything contaminating the solutions.

Sterilization doesn't guarantee freedom from contamination -- it just guarantees that there are no living biological organisms present.

Really, though, it shouldn't matter what the solvent is, so long as the same solvent, from the same source is used to prepare all of the samples and targets. It could be distilled water; tap water all from the same tap; lab-grade ethanol; or rubbing alcohol all from the same bottle.

It seems to me that a bigger stumbling block might be how JREF chooses to interpret "media presence." Where I live, for example, it's not all that hard to get interviewed briefly on the radio -- all you do is set up a free public performance of practically anything, and then call the local public station and tell them. They''ll always announce your event, and 9 out of 10 times they'll also interview you briefly for one of their "public service" spots.

The question is whether JREF would consider that sort of limited exposure "a media presence".

[ddt]

A small quibble back:

Sterilization doesn't guarantee freedom from contamination -- it just guarantees that there are no living biological organisms present.
Miss Kitt spoke of distillation, not sterilization. Distillation has as result pure water, free from contamination - well, up to a certain degree of purity. 99% pure can easily be had from your local drug store, I'm sure there's better out there for lab use.

[dbw]

A small quibble back:

Miss Kitt spoke of distillation, not sterilization. Distillation has as result pure water, free from contamination - well, up to a certain degree of purity. 99% pure can easily be had from your local drug store, I'm sure there's better out there for lab use.

Yeah, according to Wikipedia, distillation supposedly destroys the homeopathic properties.

[Cuddles]

The only infallible medical field I've ever come across. ;)

Just don't try telling sugeons that.:p

It seems to me that a bigger stumbling block might be how JREF chooses to interpret "media presence." Where I live, for example, it's not all that hard to get interviewed briefly on the radio -- all you do is set up a free public performance of practically anything, and then call the local public station and tell them. They''ll always announce your event, and 9 out of 10 times they'll also interview you briefly for one of their "public service" spots.

The question is whether JREF would consider that sort of limited exposure "a media presence".

They probably would. It is very easy to get limited, local media exposure if you put in any effort at all. The problem is that many applicant in the past haven't even put that tiny amount of effort in. They're happy to ramble on about the hows and whys of their abilities, but refuse to do anything at all to actually test anything. Requiring a media presence won't weed out all the nuts, but it will get rid of the people who aren't willing to put at least a bit of effort in. It's also likely to get rid of hoaxers and such, who may be willing to yank the JREF's chain, but won't be as willing to have their names and faces plastered around the news.

[dbw]

I think it's just a way to prevent mentally ill people from wasting JREF's time by applying.

[Miss_Kitt]

dbw -- In which case, it demonstrably is not 100% effective... ;)

[Jackalgirl]

Could someone please explain why HP cannot take the bottles home with him? He could tamper with them all he wants, but how could that help him? He has to make a list that matches the list of when the samples were made, right? What am I missing?

-LF

Hi, LF --

I don't think that anyone responded to you. I don't speak for JREF, but if I did, I'd say that the bottles have to remain in a neutrally-controlled place between tests. First, it's de rigeur for these kinds of test, and secondly, I wouldn't want to take the chance of anyone interfering with the labels. If the suggestion were only that HP take the one bottle that is under test and do whatever the heck he wants with it, then return with a "yes this is the remedy" "no this is just a bottle of solvent", I imagine that would be more acceptable.

[Homeoproofer]

I asked this question of Homeoproofer, in several different ways, in the other thread. He
minced no words in pointing out how foolish I was for asking it.

Apparently, once a proving is done, the substance remains in the MM forever, with no possible question about its efficacy, what it should be used for, or if there might be something better.

The only infallible medical field I've ever come across. ;)

Until you do not understand how to use a Materia medica and until you do not understand exactly how it is build up and also until you do not understand the eaning of it- we can not discuss this!
This is something for specialists and not for people who want to understand how a Intel-Pentium-CPU works before understanding the difference of voltage and currency

[Homeoproofer]

There's something called an "error of causality". It is the mistake of assuming that because B happened after A, that A caused B. If I am going to claim that a remedy has an actual, measurable, reliable effect, and that it specifically cures "X" (where X is some kind of ailment), I'd like to be sure that that's the case. So, to be sure, I would conduct a double-blind trial. Anecdotal information will not do.*


One could give the skeptics one proof after the other - it would not help them to understand something that they do NOT want to understand.
Too many trials have been done...
too many!
but you know what?

The one who does not get help from schoolmedicine will come to the homeopath to get help- and GETS HELP which means CURE!
and noone could ever tell this one then, that there has to be a well conducted scientific test out there ...

and if you are in this position that you will know that you have to suffer for the rest of the life or that you will die, what will yu do then?
You would accept the forecasted death?
Or will you also go to give the homeopath a chance?

And if the homeopath succeeds, you will regret the long suffer from the past wich would not have been necessary if you would have believed in the right thing!



You see, what a double-blind test allows me to do is be absolutely, 100% confident that the remedy performs as advertised, and that something else -- confirmation bias, wishful thinking, or just plain getting better on one's own -- wasn't involved.


Thats is theory, but we live lifes - not on paper but on a planet where we destroy the natureal environment until we have the proof that it is destroyed already...
when it is too late...then all of us will understand!



*Okay, so here's my own anecdotal story: when I was a kid, I sprained my ankle pretty badly. One of my parents' "New Age" friends came over and stroked my ankle with a stone and claimed that he was healing my ankle. Sure enough, a couple of days later -- about the same amount of time it would take to heal by itself -- I was as right as rain.

Now, this sort of thing is innocuous when dealing with illnesses or injuries that get better on their own. And illnesses and (minor) injuries get better on their own in a large majority of cases.


but they get better much quicklier and possibly with much less pain, but how could Ì tell the one who is blind on own intention?
It makes NO, absolute no sense to explain you anything!

It is only idiotic to say that it is only placebo if menses pain and also spasms vanishafter using homeopathy- because, why doesn´t the schoolmedicine use this brilliant method of doing nearly nothing then?
who is the fullidiot here then?

Is the idiot the one who helps or the one who does not want the one to help?

Just be happy about being so clevber to know when something can get better on its own!
No need to use any medicine at all in such harmless occasions.

The problem is then when you use the pharmaproducts for such a little thing and suppress a symptom with it - it will not be forgotten(by your body) and the pharmaindustry can be hapy about it- they will get money of yours again and again!
You will come back and the doctor is also happy about this fact!
The best of all for this industry is, that it is yet impossible for them to recognize the fatal mistakes they make and can never analyse why another symptom came up for real...
of course they will invent explainations...
(so please do not bother me with it,thanks)


But what about the problems that don't? What if someone is suffering from something more serious, like cancer? What if that person delays or plain refuses to get medical assistance that is double-blindedly demonstrated to be effective because they believe that a stone will cure them, or that homeopathy is effective?
When the stakes are high, you HAVE TO KNOW, and I mean REALLY KNOW, that the treatment is effective, and you can't do this if you haven't even bothered to figure out if the effect you're observing is different from the placebo.


you make me smile !
what does the patient experience if going to the doctor, out of the desire to have proofen help??

Suffer!
You write as if you would have the cure for cancer!
how rediculous is this!



Quite true. In my (admittedly rather limited) understanding of homeopathy, the "magic" comes from shaking the dilution, which somehow transfers some kind of "essence" from the diluted substance into the water, which somehow "remembers" the substance.

Ah yeah! You need substances always- but this si your problem- that the reality shows you if you like to see it:
This would is not only substance.

If you think you could explain EVERYTHING with your point of view...
good luck then if you try!

you will fail earlier as you think, but you will not be tired to invent explainations and excuses...



Is said by whom? They're wrong in implying that the decision is one-sided. If JREF requires something as a part of the protocol and you don't agree with it, you can break off negotiations yourself.


exactly what I said: if they want somethig that I can not agree with, I can go home- I am free to leave and the JREF can say that nobody was able to succeed their rules, but they will say different: "Nobody was able to proof homeopathy" is what they will shout out loud!


You will in no way be required to accept anything you don't want to. So you, too, can be the one to decide.


decide to go home- yes!



It is true that you have to agree to each and every Challenge rule, yes. JREF is ponying up 1 million dollars, so they have every right to dictate the terms.


but they do it in a pulic way with the claim to be scientifically reliable...
who judges if it was fair what the JREF has done?
This kind of offer is propaganda my friend!


And if you don't agree to those rules then no, you can't participate.

But you are not correct in saying that you have to agree to "everything [that] the JREF wants" -- because the protocol has to be mutually agreeable. That means you have a stake in it, and you have to be comfortable with it and agree to it. JREF cannot force you to undergo a trial that you don't think is fair, or think you will fail.

Oh my goodness! The point is that "mutually" does not mean that something has to be fair- it means that it is possible to block the attempt!

But whatever- I could accept so many rules of the JREF - no problem I would win if I could participate- this is the problem only now!
Try to bring something into the media which doe4s not want it to be in the media- you will not have a chance!

[whatthebutlersaw]

Voltage is what equestrian vaulting is called in France and Sweden, right?

(just kidding, I know it's to do with electrical tension), and currency is money, right? What do I win?

edited to add: 'Until' is not the appropriate word to translate 'weil' with in this situation, although it _can_ be used for certain values of 'weil'. I am guessing that either Homoeoproofer wants to say "As long as you don't know...", or "Until you DO know..."

I hope so anyway. Otherwise it just gets too confusing. Or maybe diluted knowledge is better knowledge?

[William Smith]

...
Oh my goodness! The point is that "mutually" does not mean that something has to be fair- it means that it is possible to block the attempt!

But whatever- I could accept so many rules of the JREF - no problem I would win if I could participate- this is the problem only now!
Try to bring something into the media which doe4s not want it to be in the media- you will not have a chance!

Homeoproofer, the MDC is only one way for you to provide evidence for your claims and reap the reward - plus a cool million dollars, obviously. If you see the need to provide something substantial for the medical community, you might want to pursue different paths. Write a paper, get it published, you name it. It is your claim, after all.

However, if you want to pursue the MDC you better understand that no bickering, meandering and criticizing will net you the Prize.

Only an actual demonstration of your claim will open the door to the Final Test. But of course you know that, don't you?



I can tell you from personal experience that local newspapers in Germany will very likely print your story if you present it accordingly.

But you also seem very well aware of the fact that you do not have something substantial to present at all, do you not?

[Cuddles]

Until you do not understand how to use a Materia medica and until you do not understand exactly how it is build up and also until you do not understand the eaning of it- we can not discuss this!

So you're saying it would be easier for you to discuss this with people who do not understand what they are talking about? That's probably true, but I didn't expect you to be so honest about it.

This is something for specialists and not for people who want to understand how a Intel-Pentium-CPU works before understanding the difference of voltage and currency

And homeopathy has exactly what to do with computers and money?

Try to bring something into the media which doe4s not want it to be in the media- you will not have a chance!

Homeopathy is in the media all the time. If you think that homeopathy is something that is difficult to get into the media, I can only wonder exactly what planet you're living on, because it doesn't appear to be anything like Earth.

[chillzero]

Homeoproofer, you need to start discussing a specific protocol for a claim, or this thread will be moved from the MDC section.

[Jackalgirl]

Hi!

Too many trials have been done...
too many!


And as far as I know, none of them has been able to distinguish the remedy from placebo. Those that proport to have done so have later been shown to be faulty in their methodology.


...and if you are in this position that you will know that you have to suffer for the rest of the life or that you will die, what will yu do then?
You would accept the forecasted death?
Or will you also go to give the homeopath a chance?

I wouldn't bother with homeopathy. It'd be a waste of my time, since it wouldn't have any effect. Now, if a study came along with good, solid methodology that showed some kind of effect, I'd be all for it 100%, you betcha.

By the way, you touch on one of the reasons why so many people here get so angry -- so jaw-clenching, froth-at-the-mouth angry -- at "complementary medicines" like homeopathy (or people who claim to be psychic, talk to the dead, etc). Because they play on the sheer desperation of people in desperate circumstances.

And if the homeopath succeeds, you will regret the long suffer from the past wich would not have been necessary if you would have believed in the right thing!

Well, show me a homeopath who has succeeded in a situation in which it is absolutely certain -- or at least very highly probable -- that the success was due to homeopathy and not some other factor. I'm not talking about "what ifs" here -- I mean, what if I had incurable cancer and a pink man-muffin from Andromeda showed up, bonked me with his magic wand, and cured me? Until I see some actual evidence that homeopathy does anything (beyond placebo), then I'm going to treat it with the same amount of belief as a pink Andromedean man-muffin.

Mind you, I am open to the evidence. Show me the man-muffin and I'll be singing the praise of Andromeda.


Thats is theory, but we live lifes - not on paper but on a planet where we destroy the natureal environment until we have the proof that it is destroyed already...
when it is too late...then all of us will understand!

That's evocative, but it's not really applicable here. For one, humanity's effect on the environment is well-documented and in vigorous debate in the scientific community. We may be arguing about the causes and the extent and the validity or nonvalidity of our predictions, but there is consensus that humanity can have, and has had, an effect on the environment.

Homeopathy, on the other hand, is a fantasy story. It's unsupported by evidence.

but they get better much quicklier and possibly with much less pain, but how could Ì tell the one who is blind on own intention?
It makes NO, absolute no sense to explain you anything!

Again, there is the possibility of causal error. Just because someone seems to get better much more quickly doesn't mean that it's homeopathy that did it. How much better? How much more quickly? Were they likely to get better on their own? How did they compare to a control group that took a placebo? If this test has not been done, and has not actually shown that someone did, in fact, actually get better more quickly (and isolated homeopathy as the cause because it controlled for other possibilities), then you can't say that homeopathy did it.

You may believe that it did -- and, in fact, I do believe that you passionately believe it. But that doesn't make it so.

It is only idiotic to say that it is only placebo if menses pain and also spasms vanishafter using homeopathy- because, why doesn´t the schoolmedicine use this brilliant method of doing nearly nothing then?

Where is this study? Do you have a link?


Just be happy about being so clevber to know when something can get better on its own!
No need to use any medicine at all in such harmless occasions.

I agree. In fact, there's such a think as too much medication. For example, there's a real and ongoing danger of the development of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. This is caused in large part by people who a) demand antibiotics when they do not need them or b) do not finish the full course as advised. I'm not saying that everyone in this situation did not actually need antibiotics (and would have gotten better on their own), but I'm willing to bet that there are a bunch of people who, in fact, would have gotten better and, in fact, didn't need the antibiotics. So I completely agree that there's no need to use medicine in many cases where things would get better on their own.

On the other hand, if you're suffering from symptoms, it's nice to be able to suppress them.


The problem is then when you use the pharmaproducts for such a little thing and suppress a symptom with it - it will not be forgotten(by your body) and the pharmaindustry can be hapy about it- they will get money of yours again and again! You will come back and the doctor is also happy about this fact!

I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that "the pharmaindustry" gets money when people continue to take medication to which their body has built a tolerance?

What's the difference between "the pharmaindustry" getting your money "again and again" in this case and the homeopathic industry getting your money "again and again" for something that works no better than placebo?

You write as if you would have the cure for cancer!
how rediculous is this!

I'm sorry, but again, I don't follow. Could you please show me where I say that I have the cure for cancer?

What I said is that if someone tells me that something cures cancer, I would like to be confident that this is actually true. That confidence comes from knowing that the something has been thoroughly, and properly, tested. And that the person isn't just telling me that it works because he or she passionately believes that it does.


Ah yeah! You need substances always- but this si your problem- that the reality shows you if you like to see it:
This would is not only substance.

If you think you could explain EVERYTHING with your point of view...
good luck then if you try!

you will fail earlier as you think, but you will not be tired to invent explainations and excuses...

I can't parse this at all. Are you talking to me, or to yourself?


Try to bring something into the media which doe4s not want it to be in the media- you will not have a chance!

Dude, the media is literally slavering to report on stuff. Half the time, they don't bother even checking their work. They reported on Allison DuBois supposedly having the ability to talk to the dead and helping with the Opal Jo Jennings case (never happened). I can't believe that the German media is any better.

Medicine is big, big, HUGE business. If you can actually demonstrate that there is something to homeopathy, "the pharmaindustry" will be all over it like white on rice. And you will be TOTALLY newsworthy because the media is eager to report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Heck, it's a main feature of many hospitals; I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to find out that they can charge even MORE for homeopathic remedies once you've demonstrated that it works! If you can demonstrate that it does, you'll have the media & academic requirements of the MDC in the bag, believe me.

[Homeoproofer]

It is not me who is doing an offtopic discussion here, and also I think that I have not started it- if so I am sorry for and I promise to not do so furthermore!

Jackalgirl writes here her repeatingly attacks against homeopathy without anything but just only the same sentence:"there are no studies"

I do not waste my time with this, it has no sense at all, because if she would be interested she could find enough to proof that homeopathy cures- everyone can do so...

She makes me angry so much now with so very rediculous nonsense that I do not ansswer it anymore-
she has no respect of reality because I explained it already so much + so long but she tells teh same again and again- no advantage in discussing something!

[Jackalgirl wrote:]
Heck, it's a main feature of many hospitals; I'm sure they'll be ecstatic to find out that they can charge even MORE for homeopathic remedies once you've demonstrated that it works! If you can demonstrate that it does, you'll have the media & academic requirements of the MDC in the bag, believe me.[/QUOTE]

How shall I prove something as a nobody in science or medicine?
And after I proved it in the challenge it is too late for the media presence I need for the trial!

So you're saying it would be easier for you to discuss this with people who do not understand what they are talking about? That's probably true, but I didn't expect you to be so honest about it.


The discussion about the Materia medica is a good example for an offtopic-discussion started by another one!
And I do not only stop discussing it here- I will not discuss it with this one anywhere anymore until he understands what he talks about!
DO NOT TURN AROUND MY WORDS- EVEN IF THE ENGLISH IS WRONG!


And homeopathy has exactly what to do with computers and money?
currency

i ment the current in Ampere!
sorry!


Homeopathy is in the media all the time. If you think that homeopathy is something that is difficult to get into the media, I can only wonder exactly what planet you're living on, because it doesn't appear to be anything like Earth.
[/QUOTE]

I´ve not tried it in the newspapers yet- the radiostations and tv were not interested so far-
it is not homeopathy - it is me who has to appear in the media- or what?


I can tell you from personal experience that local newspapers in Germany will very likely print your story if you present it accordingly.

But you also seem very well aware of the fact that you do not have something substantial to present at all, do you not?

I have not tried it in the newspapers yet- I´ll do after I have my supporter found.

[William Smith]

...
How shall I prove something as a nobody in science or medicine?
...

Well, that seems simple enough: Present substantial evidence/datasets for your claims/hypotheses and get them published in peer-reviewed journals.

In short: Become a somebody.

...
I´ve not tried it in the newspapers yet- the radiostations and tv were not interested so far-

Have you considered that your claim(s) seem(s) unfounded/baseless to them? (Rhetorical question of course.)


it is not homeopathy - it is me who has to appear in the media- or what?


Your specific claim or ability has to be mentioned in the article/podcast/interview/feature/etc.


I have not tried it in the newspapers yet- I´ll do after I have my supporter found.

If I were you I'd make a list of all the local papers in a radius of 100km. I'd even include the most conservative ones, as well as the smallest outlets available, weeklies, city journals, everything.

Then I'd make a list of local TV stations, namely: Offene Kanäle. (Note: That's German for public access TV.) I'd also include the regional minors, back in the 80s known as "Drittes Programm".

After that, I'd make a list of local radio stations.

Lastly, I'd collect possible - at least half-decent - URLs from people/organizations who seem willing to at least listen to my case.

All this should net me at least 200 contacts.



Before I'd contact anyone on any list, I'd make sure that I have a 30 second summary (max!) of what I am able to accomplish.
If they seem willing to listen a bit longer I'd have a two minute speech prepared to wow them, as well as a short written document or a video of my speech ready to send to them. This includes a simple test set-up. The key word is simple.

I'd know everything I want to say by heart, without hesitating or pausing even a little. I'd appear 100% confident without seeming cocky.

Then I'd contact the first name on the list and punch/weasel/compliment/brown-nose my way to a media presence.

Sounds simple, would likely be difficult.



But you have complete confidence in your abilities, Homeoproofer, right?

You are fully convinced about what you are able to achieve, right?

You have undoubtable evidence from numerous tests, right?

Right?

[Jackalgirl]

I'm sorry if my repeated requests for studies come across as "attacks". It must be really rough trying to get anywhere in the world when you can't bear to be asked questions. And I'm also sorry that you can't understand that you explaining something does not constitute evidence.

I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated because I keep ignoring your claims and asking for studies. Understand, though, that you're making an extraordinary claim. Should I believe you if you claim, over and over and over, that you have repeatedly visited the moon? Would it be unreasonable of me to ask for some evidence? Is it an attack to tell you that I am not interested in entertaining more explanations and descriptions of your moon shot until I have seen the video and looked over your math?

Sure, I could go and search for studies on my own but you're the one making the claims here -- don't you already know about all of the studies that support your beliefs regarding homeopathy? Provide the links. Or if you can't provide links, provide authors and titles. Then I'd be absolutely more than happy to go take a look. (I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm serious. You give me a study title and I will go look it up and read it.)

I'm also sorry to hear that you think you have to be "somebody" in order to get somewhere "in science". It means you do not understand the process at all, or the power of evidence.

But I'm even more sorry that your world view demands that we here accept your claims without evidence. As you can see, it won't happen.

Lastly, I'm sorry that your inability to provide a demonstration to a local academic/hospital and news crew is going to render you ineligible for the Million Dollar Challenge. It would have been interesting to read about your attempts. Of course, it is VERY common for someone to demand to perform a demonstration for the MDC without ever having actually tried it before, much less convinced an academic (or a news crew) that they can do what they can do.

A pity. It would have been an interesting MDC attempt. Oh well.

[Acleron]

I'm sorry if my repeated requests for studies come across as "attacks". It must be really rough trying to get anywhere in the world when you can't bear to be asked questions. And I'm also sorry that you can't understand that you explaining something does not constitute evidence.

I'm sorry that you're getting frustrated because I keep ignoring your claims and asking for studies. Understand, though, that you're making an extraordinary claim. Should I believe you if you claim, over and over and over, that you have repeatedly visited the moon? Would it be unreasonable of me to ask for some evidence? Is it an attack to tell you that I am not interested in entertaining more explanations and descriptions of your moon shot until I have seen the video and looked over your math?

Sure, I could go and search for studies on my own but you're the one making the claims here -- don't you already know about all of the studies that support your beliefs regarding homeopathy? Provide the links. Or if you can't provide links, provide authors and titles. Then I'd be absolutely more than happy to go take a look. (I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm serious. You give me a study title and I will go look it up and read it.)

I'm also sorry to hear that you think you have to be "somebody" in order to get somewhere "in science". It means you do not understand the process at all, or the power of evidence.

But I'm even more sorry that your world view demands that we here accept your claims without evidence. As you can see, it won't happen.

Lastly, I'm sorry that your inability to provide a demonstration to a local academic/hospital and news crew is going to render you ineligible for the Million Dollar Challenge. It would have been interesting to read about your attempts. Of course, it is VERY common for someone to demand to perform a demonstration for the MDC without ever having actually tried it before, much less convinced an academic (or a news crew) that they can do what they can do.

A pity. It would have been an interesting MDC attempt. Oh well.

Sorry to quote the whole of your post, but the sincerity of your compassion for him drips like unending dew. :)

[Jackalgirl]

Sorry to quote the whole of your post, but the sincerity of your compassion for him drips like unending dew. :)

Perhaps so. However, the sincerity of my offer to read the studies he knows of which provide a demonstration of the efficacy of homeopathy is very real. I'm willing to admit that I am wrong about the whole thing...but I need some evidence.

Homeoproofer's problem is that he wants us to accept his word about it. Or to accept that anecdotal evidence is all you need to establish efficacy. Or to buy into argumentum ad populum, or something. So yeah, perhaps in that my regret is not so sincere. ; )

[Gr8wight]

Jackalgirl writes here her repeatingly attacks against homeopathy without anything but just only the same sentence:"there are no studies"

I think you are misinterpreting Jackalgirl's position. There are many, many studies. They just don't support your position. We can quote for you dozens of properly controlled (note those words are bolded to impress upon you their importance) studies that appear to show that homeopathic remedies have no effect. So stop saying "there are no studies." Because Jackalgirl certainly isn't.

[Acleron]

I'm willing to admit that I am wrong about the whole thing...but I need some evidence.

The point that most homeopaths miss. Personally I would be disappointed that all I had learned in biology, physics and chemistry had been undermined but exhilarated that something new had been found. Regardless of that, a hefty amount of evidence would be required to convince me. Evidence of an effect that, so far, is much lacking.

[Dr H]

A small quibble back:

Miss Kitt spoke of distillation, not sterilization. Distillation has as result pure water, free from contamination - well, up to a certain degree of purity. 99% pure can easily be had from your local drug store, I'm sure there's better out there for lab use.

As long as we're quibbiling...

She also spoke of sterilization in reference to contamination:

"...and tools used in the preparation process should be sterilized to avoid anything
contaminating the solutions."

[Dr H]

Until you do not understand how to use a Materia medica and until you do not understand exactly how it is build up and also until you do not understand the eaning of it- we can not discuss this!

One learns about things by asking questions about them. If questions are not
permitted, the learning process is severly hindered. My questions to you were
-precisely- about the "how's" of the MM.

This is something for specialists and not for people who want to understand how a Intel-Pentium-CPU works before understanding the difference of voltage and currency

It is not neceaary to know anything about voltage or current if what one wants to understand about a CPU is how it is programmed.

[sanguine]

How shall I prove something as a nobody in science or medicine?


Here's how to submit a manuscript to the open-access, respected general science journal PLoS One:

http://www.plosone.org/static/checklist.action

PLoS One has published single-author papers in the past from a remarkably wide range of topics, and assuredly would publish a well-controlled study showing positive results from homeopathy.

They just published one on neural correlates during Zen meditation:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003083

[xinit]

For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??


Maybe I'm not quite following what you're proposing here...

Are you suggesting that merely getting one hit out of a possible 10 would adequately demonstrate your powers beyond that of simple chance?

I picture this as calling the outcome of ten coin tosses... and only managing to get one right when chance might suggest I should get roughly five out of ten, but much more than one.

I'd suggest a very simple initial test of ten vials, randomly ordered and numbered by non-interested parties who are the only ones present during the numbering of the sealed, prepared vials.

Five of these vials would be off-the-shelf homeopathic remedies, and five of them would be alcohol. It might be more precise to see that the remedies and the controls all have exactly the same alcohol; so the remedies might have to be mixed by a 'reputable' homeopath under supervision of the non-interested parties; to ensure that no flavours, essences, etc, might also be introduced into the vials that might differentiate them.

I'd like to see you identify four of the remedies as being remedies, and I'd give a bonus point if you could identify what the remedy was.

[Homeoproofer]

too rediculous already! and I do make a break now - just for my wellbeing

If you want to play oponents, you demonstrate that you do not want to know about something!

It is just like that and very logically understandable, that you should help me to demonstrate the reality instead of fighting against it, if you like to know it.

nobody cares about you "skeptics"- nobody who knows better than you- but you harm the`unknowledged ones, and that makes you all guilty-
but on the othe`r hand you do not know what you do, as it is obviously c`lear to me...

nobody intents to do bad- it is just a point of viéw...
in your limited point of view there is no place for real logical thinking- "skeptics" logic is based only on rules which have been constituted by another logical system...
isnt it stupid to do so?

The one who cant see that, is lost and nobody can help this pe0ople- sorry for them!

[William Smith]

too rediculous already! and I do make a break now - just for my wellbeing

If you want to play oponents, you demonstrate that you do not want to know about something!

It is just like that and very logically understandable, that you should help me to demonstrate the reality instead of fighting against it, if you like to know it.

nobody cares about you "skeptics"- nobody who knows better than you- but you harm the`unknowledged ones, and that makes you all guilty-
but on the othe`r hand you do not know what you do, as it is obviously c`lear to me...

nobody intents to do bad- it is just a point of viéw...
in your limited point of view there is no place for real logical thinking- "skeptics" logic is based only on rules which have been constituted by another logical system...
isnt it stupid to do so?

The one who cant see that, is lost and nobody can help this pe0ople- sorry for them!

How does the skeptics' (whoever that may be) alleged narrow-mindedness affect your ability to provide evidence for you claim, Homeoproofer?

Lest you forget: Some forum members did invest a significant amount of their time into your claim.

One million dollars for two simple controlled tests is not enough to entice you? Ah, too bad. Perhaps next time.

[xinit]

We're lost because we refuse to take your word that you can do something?

I can control the weather with my eye lasers; why won't you believe me?

[Czarcasm]

I'm not seeing any discussion of a particular protocol at all here. Does this thread still belong in this forum?

[Aepervius]

from what I can read it is on the verge of a cliff, and that cliff is named "abandon all hope - sub forum".

[William Smith]

I'm not seeing any discussion of a particular protocol at all here. Does this thread still belong in this forum?

from what I can read it is on the verge of a cliff, and that cliff is named "abandon all hope - sub forum".

I'd say it belongs here because it educates willing readers about how potential applicants fail to even apply.

Operative phrases: "educates" & "applicants fail".

[chillzero]

There is a good point made, however, that the thread should not really be posted to, unless it is in discussion of a protocol.

[Homeoproofer]

you do not like to know something
you want to take away my energy only- what shall I care about you anymore?

NOBODY cares about you here not one intelligent person does do that!

[William Smith]

you do not like to know something
you want to take away my energy only- what shall I care about you anymore?

NOBODY cares about you here not one intelligent person does do that!

Since you seem to be talking to nobody in particular:
You should care about the million dollars as well as the recognition from your peers after you have provided evidence for your claim, Homeoproofer.

Have you given up on your claim?

[Sherman Bay]

there is not only C30, I just used today a C200 against a swelling after a biten by insects...
(and I read about the usage of C1000 too, but as you could imagine, is this too strong for me in the trial)If C1000 is too strong, why don't you send me some of that potent stuff and I'll put a drop of it in Lake Michigan. Then stand back, because together, we can blow up the planet, or at least kill all the insects in the Midwest. Also, every municipality that gets its water from the lake will be able to cure whatever this substance is supposed to cure straight out of the tap, and when the water reaches the ocean, watch out, as the potency will exceed the capacity of the Solar System, possibly even the Universe.

[xinit]

There isn't enough water on the planet to do a full dilution of a liter of mother tincture down to C100... how exactly do the homeopaths perform this miracle?

[petre]

There isn't enough water on the planet to do a full dilution of a liter of mother tincture down to C100... how exactly do the homeopaths perform this miracle?

At a quick glance I'm fairly sure there isn't enough mass + energy in the universe that could be converted to water and dilute an entire liter of mother tincture to C100. Fortunately they don't convert the entire tincture but instead discard part (most) of it at each step. For something like C100 I picture them keeping two vials of C98, using 1 to make 100 vials of C99, keep 99 of those and use 1 to make a batch of 100 C100. Then continue to use those ones you kept earlier to make future batches.

In case you were going to ask: No, I've never heard of any homeopath state any particular selection process in deciding what part to throw away and what part to keep. Any that have commented specifically on the matter (in my limited contact) have claimed it does not matter.

I imagine in the early days of homeopathy the plan was more like: make 100 C20 and sell 99 of them. Then use the last one to make 100 C21 and sell 99 of those, then use the last to make 100 C22...etc. Every time you were almost out of stock you could have a new stronger batch!

[xinit]

At a quick glance I'm fairly sure there isn't enough mass + energy in the universe that could be converted to water and dilute an entire liter of mother tincture to C100.

Interesting volumes that don’t come close to being large enough to hold a fully diluted 200C elixir;

Earth’s volume is roughly 1.08 x 1024 L
Our Sun's volume is roughly 1.40 x 1030 L
A sphere with a radius of one light year = 3.55 x 1051 L

I did a bit of math to find out how much water you'd need to take a liter of Mother Tincture (with one gram of 'active' ingredient) down to 200C. I was surprised at the sheer size of the numbers, honestly, and just how dilute it does actually get at that point.

If the dilution isn't done completely, and there is product that is discarded during the process, where and how is this safely discarded? Is there some sort of marking and storage done of waste products from homeopath labs? I'd hate to see the oceans polluted with homeopathic remedies that could be so harmful in such strong dilutions.

[petre]

Interesting volumes that don’t come close to being large enough to hold a fully diluted 200C elixir;

Earth’s volume is roughly 1.08 x 1024 L
Our Sun's volume is roughly 1.40 x 1030 L
A sphere with a radius of one light year = 3.55 x 1051 L

I did a bit of math to find out how much water you'd need to take a liter of Mother Tincture (with one gram of 'active' ingredient) down to 200C. I was surprised at the sheer size of the numbers, honestly, and just how dilute it does actually get at that point.

If the dilution isn't done completely, and there is product that is discarded during the process, where and how is this safely discarded? Is there some sort of marking and storage done of waste products from homeopath labs? I'd hate to see the oceans polluted with homeopathic remedies that could be so harmful in such strong dilutions.

Well logically the answer is that since no properly controlled scientific study has ever demonstrated that discarded homeopathy material ever harmed anyone, one could conclude that it is likely they indeed do no harm. Next chance I get I'll ask one if this is a reasonable method by which to arrive at such a conclusion.

[xinit]

Well logically the answer is that since no properly controlled scientific study has ever demonstrated that discarded homeopathy material ever harmed anyone, one could conclude that it is likely they indeed do no harm. Next chance I get I'll ask one if this is a reasonable method by which to arrive at such a conclusion.

They'll dismiss your concern over scientific studies with a sound like "pffft" and a wave of their hand. Kind of like a ward against the evil eye...

[Gr8wight]

Interesting volumes that don’t come close to being large enough to hold a fully diluted 200C elixir;

Earth’s volume is roughly 1.08 x 1024 L
Our Sun's volume is roughly 1.40 x 1030 L
A sphere with a radius of one light year = 3.55 x 1051 L

I did a bit of math to find out how much water you'd need to take a liter of Mother Tincture (with one gram of 'active' ingredient) down to 200C. I was surprised at the sheer size of the numbers, honestly, and just how dilute it does actually get at that point.



I had the same reaction when I addressed this topic a little over a year ago. I couldn't wrap my head around the numbers, and had to ask a friend for help:Serial Delusions (http://journals.aol.ca/plittle/AuroraWalkingVacation/entries/2006/05/28/serial-delusions/1975)

[Mojo]

Interesting volumes that don’t come close to being large enough to hold a fully diluted 200C elixir;

Earth’s volume is roughly 1.08 x 1024 L
Our Sun's volume is roughly 1.40 x 1030 L
A sphere with a radius of one light year = 3.55 x 1051 L

I did a bit of math to find out how much water you'd need to take a liter of Mother Tincture (with one gram of 'active' ingredient) down to 200C. I was surprised at the sheer size of the numbers, honestly, and just how dilute it does actually get at that point.


Someone over at Wikipedia has done the maths from a different viewpoint: how many doses of a 30C remedy would be needed to deliver a single molecule. ...this would require two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material.

[Dr H]

Someone over at Wikipedia has done the maths from a different viewpoint: how many doses of a 30C remedy would be needed to deliver a single molecule.


...this would require two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material.

But that one molecule is well worth waiting for. :)

Has Homeoproofer flown the coop?

[Acleron]

But that one molecule is well worth waiting for. :)

Has Homeoproofer flown the coop?

Probably been diluted too far.

[rjh01]

But that one molecule is well worth waiting for. :)

Has Homeoproofer flown the coop?

He was last here on 21 September. So looks like it. I wonder if he will return?