Homeopathy - I am ready for open challenge

[muntadev2in]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

I am Dr.Devendra Kumar munta viswakarma MD(Homeo).Long back I had posted a thread "Homeopathy not a placebo". It is known to the JREF regular users.

I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic medicines.

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.

Prior to comment, you can have a look at my experimental results and my proposed natural laws upon which Homeopathic dilutions effecting living beings on the earth.

Please have a look at http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

You can reach me@: muntadev2in@yahoo.co.in

Have a brainfeed.

Ready for challenge.

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta
MD(Homeo)

[catbasket]

No thanks.

Are you a doctor of anything apart from homeopathy?

[muntadev2in]

I will reply for any genuine comments.

[lionking]

Well if you posted before, someone must have told you the process for making a MDC claim. And it isn't by posting here.

[catbasket]

ETA @muntadev2in, of course.

Do you have any qualifications in medicine other than your MD(Homeo)?
Do you have any scientific training?

Genuine questions - trying to decide if it's worth me looking at your blog, or even at your previous posts here at JREF. Otherwise, to me, you are just a homeopath claiming homeopathy works. All homeopaths claim that - what's so special about you?

[muntadev2in]

I did B.sc.,BZC (Botony, zoology, chemistry) after that joined in Homeopathy Did BHMS(batchler of Homeopathic medicine & surgery) and then MD(Homeopathy)

Please have a look at my blog

yes I am doing my fellowship under Central council for research in homeopathy (CCRH),India. Working with BABA ATOMIC RESERCH CENTER, BIOMEDICAL DEVISION,Mumbai scientists in a collobarative project.

Dr.Dev

[MRC_Hans]

Ahh, welcome muntadev2in!

To all: This fellow has posted a lot on homeopathic forus. It is a long time we have had a serious homeopath here, so le't try to have a debate. Of course muntadev2in's formal qualifications is a valid query.

Now, Munta (I hope you don't mind me abbreviating your rather long and cryptic username?), I have a starting question (which is already reflected in Lionking's post):

When you say "challenge", do you mean a debate challenge?
If yes, you are in the right place.
Or, do you mean you want to try for the Randi Million $ challenge?
In this case, you must file a formal application. You can seek advice on protocol discussion on this forum, but the actual protocol must be negotiated with the JREF.

I will now read your links.

Hans

[muntadev2in]

yes realy I want advice on protocol.

[MRC_Hans]

OK, I read it. You and I have already discussed this, but by all means, let's try again:

You seem to be making two basic claims (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) The displayed graphs (see attached) reflect temperature changes of the test persons' skin.

2) The graphs show distinct patterns that depend on type of remedy, versus placebo.

Re #1: Please explain how a frequency versus period graph can reflect a time-domain temperature change.

Re #2: Please explain what those characteristic patterns are, because I can't see them.

Hans

[muntadev2in]

please also see this graph sulphur 200c..... "Please explain how a frequency versus period graph can reflect a time-domain temperature change."

Dear Hans I hope you know well how we will test the hidden periodicity in variable data.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4Qj2pBWNw6g/SPWBWBAeg_I/AAAAAAAAAmU/eePRpfSaou8/s1600-h/sulphur+200c+and+placebo+AR.JPG

[muntadev2in]

sulphur 200c.....

[muntadev2in]

sulphur 200c.....

[MRC_Hans]

please also see this graph sulphur 200c..... "Please explain how a frequency versus period graph can reflect a time-domain temperature change."

Dear Hans I hope you know well how we will test the hidden periodicity in variable data.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4Qj2pBWNw6g/SPWBWBAeg_I/AAAAAAAAAmU/eePRpfSaou8/s1600-h/sulphur+200c+and+placebo+AR.JPG

It doesn't matter what I know. Please explain your calulation method. Also, you should be ready present your raw data.

Hans

[Pixel42]

yes realy I want advice on protocol.
From what I've seen so far, your protocol would look something like:

1. Ten placebos and ten homeopathic remedies are prepared and labelled. The labels are then covered up and the bottles are shuffled.

2. Ten volunteers select a bottle at random and consume the remedy.

3. You measure the volunteers skin temperature, or whatever else you fancy, in whatever way you like and examine the results. Based on those results you determine whether the volunteer took the placebo or the remedy.

4. The labels are then uncovered, so your accuracy can be determined.

All that's required in addition is an agreement as to how many correct results constitutes success, which would require agreeing the odds that need to be beaten (1 in 1000 is typical) and calculating how many correct identifications that equates to.

[Mojo]

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.


For details of how to apply for the challenge see here:

http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html

[fls]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

I am Dr.Devendra Kumar munta viswakarma MD(Homeo).Long back I had posted a thread "Homeopathy not a placebo". It is known to the JREF regular users.

I did a quick search, but didn't find the thread. Can you find it for me?

I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic medicines.

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.

Our challenge is a bit different. You are given a number of bottles with a solution in them, and you tell us which ones are homeopathic remedies and which ones are not, using any method you wish to use. Do you have any experiments like this on your blog?

Linda

[catbasket]

I did B.sc.,BZC (Botony, zoology, chemistry) after that joined in Homeopathy Did BHMS(batchler of Homeopathic medicine & surgery) and then MD(Homeopathy)

Please have a look at my blog

yes I am doing my fellowship under Central council for research in homeopathy (CCRH),India. Working with BABA ATOMIC RESERCH CENTER, BIOMEDICAL DEVISION,Mumbai scientists in a collobarative project.

Dr.Dev

Thanks very much for your reply. I'm reading through your blog now.

yes realy I want advice on protocol.

The first thing I notice is that I cannot find any mention of blinding for your experiments. Was any used?


Linda - I think it's this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80364).

[Pixel42]

muntadev2in: have you tried experiments of the kind Linda and I have described? If not, I strongly urge you to do so before continuing with your application. It's very easy to convince yourself you can see something you expect to see, the real test is whether you can still see it when you don't know if it's supposed to be there or not. That's why the JREF tests (and indeed all such tests done in accordance with the scientific method) take the form they do. You need to prove to yourself that you can pass this sort of test before even attempting to prove it to anyone else.

[fls]

Linda - I think it's this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80364).

Thanks Snow.

Linda

[Careyp74]

muntadev2in: have you tried experiments of the kind Linda and I have described? If not, I strongly urge you to do so before continuing with your application. It's very easy to convince yourself you can see something you expect to see, the real test is whether you can still see it when you don't know if it's supposed to be there or not. That's why the JREF tests (and indeed all such tests done in accordance with the scientific method) take the form they do. You need to prove to yourself that you can pass this sort of test before even attempting to prove it to anyone else.

This is the one thing that seperates science from psuedoscience. Well, there are a lot of things, but they re all wrapped up neatly into this one quote. This statement should be the first thing you see when you apply for the challenge.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

How did you obtain your solute?

What is it?

What was its purity?

How were the homeopathic dilutions created?

[Pixel42]

I will reply for any genuine comments.
I can't help noticing that, despite this promise, muntadev2in has not in fact replied to most of the questions asked or any of the helpful suggestions that have been made, indeed has not posted on the thread at all since about two hours after he created it three days ago. So I guess we don't have a potential homeopath challenger for the $1 million after all.

I am desolated.

[muntadev2in]

Ahh, welcome muntadev2in!

Of course muntadev2in's formal qualifications is a valid query.

Hans

I spent 8 1/2 years of my life time to study homeopathic science (BHMS 5 1/2 + MD(Home0) 3 years. My qualification is not questionable. I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.

Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.

Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.

Thanks, I will meet you 2maro by 10am,

Dr.Dev

[Pixel42]

Hey, he's back! Excellent.
I spent 8 1/2 years of my life time to study homeopathic science (BHMS 5 1/2 + MD(Home0) 3 years. My qualification is not questionable.
Has anyone questioned them since you gave them?

I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.
Well I do, and many here (Linda and MRC_Hans, for example) know far more than I do.

Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.
The money has been donated as prizemoney, not as funds to run JREF. It's in a bank, waiting to be won. Ample proof is available on this site.

Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.
As I said, we already do. Any chance of the promised responses to questions and protocol suggestions now?

[rjh01]

If you wish to see some of the posters in action against people like yourself, it may be in your own interest to read a few of these threads http://forums.randi.org/tags.php?tag=homeopathy. Failure to read, understand and learn from these threads will mean that you will repeat the mistakes others have made and you will meet the same fate - being laughed from this forum.

[paximperium]

I spent 8 1/2 years of my life time to study homeopathic science (BHMS 5 1/2 + MD(Home0) 3 years. My qualification is not questionable.
Actually, it is. I don't know who you are. Would you like to talk clinical research protocols or do you want to continue with the small talk?


I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.
I do and many others do as well. How is this relevant to your claim?


Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.
Irrelevant to your claims. This continues to be a popular dodge by those who are unable or unwilling to accept the challenge.


Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.
I do understand it and it's principles continue to be unfounded.
Do you have anything of relevance to state concerning your claims?

[paximperium]

Review of your "experiment":

How was the study randomized?
How was the study blinded?
How was the test substance prepared? What was the dose concentration of sulfur in the test substance?
What is the effect of regular Sulfur in 1c dose on a regular test subject? What type of sulfur was used?
What was the placebo? How was the placebo blinded/compared to the test substance in color, taste, container etc.?
What is the baseline health of the test subjects? How were they randomized?
Why was this method used to test skin temperature(which is easily changed by room temperature) instead of using core body temperature?
What time scale and time of day was each subject group tested to consider cirrcadian rythm?
What power calculations and errors and variants was considered in your pre-experiment calculations?

I have so many more but we'll start with these.

[geni]

Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars?


1)vBulletin is not open source.

2)IBM (Net income $10.4 billion) uses open source stuff.

[Mojo]

I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.

...

Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.


You appear to be recycling one of Dr MAS (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38999)'s old excuses.

The basic principles (similars/infinitessimals etc.) are really pretty simple. Hahnemann expressed the whole of homoeopathy in a book of not much more than 200 pages.

But a detailed knowledge of the principles is irrelevant as far as testing it is concerned (or as far as assessing the evidence for effectiveness is concerned, for that matter). Tell us what you can do, and how, and we can help you design a test protocol acceptable for the Challenge.

[alfaniner]

Homeopathy - I am ready for open challenge.

I hiighly doubt that.

[Kuko 4000]

Tell us what you can do, and how, and we can help you design a test protocol acceptable for the Challenge.


This.

[TMiguel]

I spent 8 1/2 years of my life time to study homeopathic science (BHMS 5 1/2 + MD(Home0) 3 years. My qualification is not questionable. I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.
There are many people that spend their entire life devoted to a complete nonsense, it doesn’t make it less nonsense by wasting even more time whit it.

Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.
I believe that the million dollars are not to be spent or else you wouldn’t have a million dollars as a prize to give.
Anyways, you do not see anyone that passed the test complaining about not getting the money, do you? (because nobody so far passed the test, …good point, but irrelevant)


Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.
More then you actually think, enough to be able to point out that homeopathy offers no explanation, has a construct without logic or reason (“why is that so?: you know because prefing”).
You whit your 8 ½ years of experience should know better then anyone else that it has noting to support it.

Real science in the other hand says it doesn’t work, you know that foolish man called Avogadro whit his crazy theory that there are such thing has atoms and that we can make an estimate how many there are, whit such a nonsense thing called evidence to support it. Stuff like that.

[Crundy]

If we gave you 20 vials, one containing a 30C homeopathic remedy and the other placebos, could you tell us which is the homeopathic remedy (using any method you like, preferably by 'treating' people)?

If you could do this three times in a row then I'm pretty sure this would be good enough odds (1/8000?)

[Ivor the Engineer]

If we gave you 20 vials, one containing a 30C homeopathic remedy and the other placebos, could you tell us which is the homeopathic remedy (using any method you like, preferably by 'treating' people)?

If you could do this three times in a row then I'm pretty sure this would be good enough odds (1/8000?)

Can I spend 8 1/2 years repeating the experiment?

[Furcifer]

If we gave you 20 vials, one containing a 30C homeopathic remedy and the other placebos, could you tell us which is the homeopathic remedy


All of them

[GreyICE]

Well, in general I always enjoy seeing polite, proponents of these 'alternative medicines' because it allows a good debate to be established. Also, if these medicines do work, and you do have proof, they're obviously not woo. So I will enjoy seeing you attempt to post proof and discuss it with intelligent individuals.

To anyone dismissing this out of hand: Please don't. If we drive away the good posters who do post interesting stuff (even if we consider it woo) all we'll have left is the thoroughly vetted posters (i.e. boring consensus forum) and the trolls (like our dear departed Gnome). Not really the sort of forum we want.

Anyway, Mr. Viswakarma (if this is the wrong form of address I apologize) welcome. I am not qualified to address any of your posts, unfortunately (I'm an engineer, not a doctor, and what I know about these things is enough to know that I don't know that much), but I welcome the discussion and I assure you I will be reading both your posts and the relevant responses. I just wanted to assure you that your efforts (even if I believe them misguided) are appreciated.

To everyone else: Y'all know I appreciate your solid information anyway ;)

[paximperium]

Is he coming back?

[Gravy]

Hello, muntadev2in. You said,

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.
When you were asked if you meant the JREF $1 million challenge, you said,
yes realy I want advice on protocol

But then you said,
Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.Anyone can verify that the prize money exists:
http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs.pdf
So let's hear no more of that excuse. You'll find the application and FAQ here.
(http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html)
To be sure we're all on the same page, please answer this question: do you intend to apply for the $1 Million Challenge? Yes or no?

[Arthur Denton]

I will reply for any genuine comments.

You will reply,
I have to comply,
Otherwise you'll stay shy,
No matter why,

You can't reason,
Your thoughts will end in treason,
Moderators close threads for no reason,
You're a godsent and we're looking out for reaaasooon...

[chorus]I left homeopathy
For lack of a better rhyme,
I left homeopathy,
Because I prefer to commit a crime

You will reply,
I have to comply,
Otherwise you'll won't answer,
The curiosity will give me cancer,

[chorus]I left homeopathy
Because it can't cure a damn thing,
I left homeopathy,
Because I can't rhyme it with anything...

Honestly, I think you're at the wrong place. You won't find agreements, you'll find people questioning you, in a discussion forum, I mean. Of course, if you come at the enemy's den, saying (and I quote) "I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic[sic] medicines." I can only hope you start enlightening us heathens about your holy medicine, instead of sitting in a corner dodging questions.

Coward.

[CapelDodger]

Hey, he's back! Excellent.

That's what I thought! Then a quick scroll down to find it was as back as he got. So it goes ...

What a fart. (Did you know that farts can be ever so diluted, but we still smell them? Makes you think.)

[Mojo]

Thanks, I will meet you 2maro by 10am


Where were you?

[arthwollipot]

:popcorn1

[muntadev2in]

Hello, muntadev2in.


To be sure we're all on the same page, please answer this question: do you intend to apply for the $1 Million Challenge? Yes or no?

YES

[chillzero]

YES

Moving this thread to the correct forum section. Please bear in mind now that the discussion must remain strictly on topic, to the development of an application / protocol.

[fromdownunder]

YES

OK. Good start. Have you read:

http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html)

Norm

[Pixel42]

YES
Splendid :)

What did you think of the test protocol I suggested in post #14?

Do you understand why your test protocol needs to take that sort of form, and do you accept that necessity?

Have you tested yourself using that sort of test protocol, and if so what were the results?

[paximperium]

He has returned. Good.

Please share what sort of protocol you are suggesting for the application for the challenge and we will provide feedback.

The protocol needs to hold at least this basic information: What is the claim? You need to be very specific about what you are claiming you can do or "prove".

[RoboTimbo]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

I am Dr.Devendra Kumar munta viswakarma MD(Homeo).Long back I had posted a thread "Homeopathy not a placebo". It is known to the JREF regular users.

I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic medicines.

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.

Prior to comment, you can have a look at my experimental results and my proposed natural laws upon which Homeopathic dilutions effecting living beings on the earth.

Please have a look at http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

You can reach me@: muntadev2in@yahoo.co.in

Have a brainfeed.

Ready for challenge.

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta
MD(Homeo)

(bolding mine)
Welcome muntadev2n,

This looks like a very easily testable claim. Have you actually applied for the MDC yet? There are many people who are eager to assist you in formulating an acceptable protocol. Keep in mind, we can only unofficially assist you. We (most of us) don't speak for JREF.

Any information you can provide here about how you intend to prove that homeopathic dilutions are different from water or alcohol would very much help us along.

Thanks,

Tim

[PingOfPong]

Hello Muntadev and good luck,

I read your blog and saw that you did a spectral breakdown of your recorded data. What software/method did you use? Your methodology section indicated that you took samples at one minute intervals for 30 minutes. Is that correct? With those constraints, one can only make meaningful statements about frequencies between 0.00056 Hz and 0.00833 Hz. The graphs on your front page are from 0 to 0.5 Hz. Could you please explain why?


my math - For spectral information of a time signal, the upper frequency limit before aliasing occurs is determined by one half of the sampling rate (see Nyquist frequency): 1/(2*60) = 0.00833 Hz. The lower bound is determined by the total length of the sample: 1/(30min*60) = 0.00056 Hz.

[chillzero]

Please open a new thread in Science for discussion on homeopathy, etc. This thread is for the discussion of a protocol and claim only.

[Gravy]

YES
Thank you for the direct answer, which can be hard to get in these parts. I hope your pursuit of the prize is a positive learning experience.

[Dumb All Over]

Hello Muntadev2in,

Please, when do you plan to apply for the Million Dollar Challenge?


Thanks,
DAO

[Acleron]

Muntadev2in, do you have a protocol that we may discuss?

[Thabiguy]

muntadev2in,

if you feel ready to take the Million Dollar Challenge, then what you should do first is actually apply - as soon as possible. Protocol discussion is possible but premature at this point: application comes first, protocol negotiations next. Keep in mind that all you need to apply is a claim; you don't need to have your experiment completely prepared. Also, after you apply, you'll start getting valuable feedback from JREF which may help in designing a protocol acceptable by both parties.

In order to apply, you'll need an academic affidavit and a proof of media presence, and these might take some efforts to get, so this is what you should focus on first.

[muntadev2in]

Hello Muntadev and good luck,

Your methodology section indicated that you took samples at one minute intervals for 30 minutes. .

In case of gelsemium- 2 sec interval and sulphur- 1sec interval, for 10mits.
in case of recent exp I conducted.

[muntadev2in]

How to apply for MDC, whether I have to send application along with the description of my trail on a separate paper I dint get. Please help me?

To all of them who are participated in this discussion with respect,

I am working in Mumbai which is 1200km away from my native place, I am working as senior research fellow under CCRH. I am getting only 8 Casual leaves per year. Even after hard work for 8 1/2 years in the field, we can’t get any secured job in India, this is the fate of a Homeopath in India.

Last month I went to home on loss of pay and conducted experiments with Sulphur 200c,
I will surely apply for MDC. I need your suggestions on protocol,

I also want to conduct some more preliminary tests as per your suggestions,

Why I have posted this topic in this forum is, It is my intension to ask J.RANDI to remove "Homeopathy" name from MDC. My results are the proof for Homeopathic dilutions are not simply water or alcohol.

I hope I will be posted to a nearby research centre to my home town soon, I am requesting Director, CCRH,India. If it happened I will be ready for MDC, by conducting some more preliminary tests.

Even then I am applying for MDC now.

I am writing this, not to get any sympathy. I am preparing myself for the challenge.

Thanks all,

Dr.Devendra kumar munta.

[William Smith]

How to apply for MDC, whether I have to send application along with the description of my trail on a separate paper I dint get. Please help me?

To all of them who are participated in this discussion with respect,

I am working in Mumbai which is 1200km away from my native place, I am working as senior research fellow under CCRH. I am getting only 8 Casual leaves per year. Even after hard work for 8 1/2 years in the field, we can’t get any secured job in India, this is the fate of a Homeopath in India.

Last month I went to home on loss of pay and conducted experiments with Sulphur 200c,
I will surely apply for MDC. I need your suggestions on protocol,

I also want to conduct some more preliminary tests as per your suggestions,

Why I have posted this topic in this forum is, It is my intension to ask J.RANDI to remove "Homeopathy" name from MDC. My results are the proof for Homeopathic dilutions are not simply water or alcohol.

I hope I will be posted to a nearby research centre to my home town soon, I am requesting Director, CCRH,India. If it happened I will be ready for MDC, by conducting some more preliminary tests.

Even then I am applying for MDC now.

I am writing this, not to get any sympathy. I am preparing myself for the challenge.

Thanks all,

Dr.Devendra kumar munta.

Here you go. (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html)

Make sure to read the rules carefully and do not hesitate to ask any questions.

[William Smith]

Here you go. (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html)

Make sure to read the rules carefully and do not hesitate to ask any questions.

Please pay special attention to rules #1, #12, #15 and #16.

[Mojo]

How to apply for MDC, whether I have to send application along with the description of my trail on a separate paper I dint get. Please help me?


Try following the link given in post #15: For details of how to apply for the challenge see here:

http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html

And post #45:
OK. Good start. Have you read:

http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html)

Norm

[Pixel42]

I need your suggestions on protocol
Looking back at my first suggestion I don't think I made adequate allowance for your need to gather history, nor for the fact that (if I understand your claim correctly) it's changes in skin temperature rather than absolute skin temperature that you believe shows the effect of the homeopathic remedy.

So here's a second attempt at a suggested protocol:

Day 1

1. At time X (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. At time Y (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers

Day 2

1. At time X measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. The volunteers then consume your chosen homeopathic remedy
3. At time Y measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers

You may need to repeats Days 1 and 2 a few times to collect sufficient data. That's OK, as long as you specify in advance how many times you intend to repeat them.

When you are ready:

Day 3

1. Ten placebos and ten homeopathic remedies are prepared and labelled, the labels covered up and the bottles shuffled.
2. At time X measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
3. The volunteers then pick a bottle at random and consume the contents
4. At time Y measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
5. State which volunteers you believe took the placebo and which the remedy
6. The labels are removed and if you correctly identified more than N (number to be agreed between you and JREF before the test is run) you are deemed to have passed the preliminary test

For the final test (assuming you pass the preliminary) it should only be necessary to repeat day 3, with perhaps a higher value for N (again agreed between you and JREF in advance).

Does that sound like something approaching an acceptable protocol?

I also want to conduct some more preliminary tests as per your suggestions
This is good to hear. I strongly advise you to do a version of this test (using fewer volunteers perhaps) as soon as possible. The results may surprise you, and save you a lot of wasted time and effort.

[Seanrmr]

muntadev2in I was wondering if I could get a hold of any of the raw data from your experiments, I just did a uni project on speaker identification using autocorrelation and believe that if the placebo and remedy have the same spectrum every time I should be able to modify my code that you could use it to help choose which one is homeopathic or placebo. I would be more than happy to release the code back to you or other people if they wanted to double check my work as it would be opensource. And if my results are against you I will happily keep them quite from other people other than yourself if you choose for it to be like that. And if it proves positive I wont even ask for a cut in the million it would be all yours.

Sean

[fls]

In order to apply, you'll need an academic affidavit and a proof of media presence, and these might take some efforts to get, so this is what you should focus on first.

I personally think that requirement should be waived in this case. Instead of testing obviously silly and unimportant claims, such as the Russian Man in a Box, Randi should welcome the opportunity to test a homeopath with this more useful and important challenge. Perhaps all we should ask from muntadev2in is that he show us that he has tried the test on his own, first. We want this test to proceed, so a barrier that is intended to prevent wasted effort is not necessary here.

Linda

[muntadev2in]

Looking back at my first suggestion I don't think I made adequate allowance for your need to gather history, nor for the fact that (if I understand your claim correctly) it's changes in skin temperature rather than absolute skin temperature that you believe shows the effect of the homeopathic remedy.

So here's a second attempt at a suggested protocol:

Day 1

1. At time X (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. At time Y (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers

Day 2

1. At time X measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. The volunteers then consume your chosen homeopathic remedy
3. At time Y measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
.

there is only one time X - which is fixed.

per day two subjects - 1st one for medicine....2nd one for placebo..........there are two sensors connected sn3 and sn4 connected to medicine subject and placebo subject at time X,

Please go through the discussion part

[PingOfPong]

Muntad, I don't represent JREF in any way but I think a more acceptable protocol to them must have more subjects and blinding. Would 10 subjects randomly assigned the placebo and remedy do? There would be no garuntee that there would be 5 remedy takers and 5 placebo takers. A simple coin flip by a neutral third party could be used to decide which they take.

p.s. If I opened a thread in the science forum would you discuss the results of your blog with us?

[fls]

there is only one time X - which is fixed.

per day two subjects - 1st one for medicine....2nd one for placebo..........there are two sensors connected sn3 and sn4 connected to medicine subject and placebo subject at time X,

Please go through the discussion part

You will need to be able to do this test many times (about 10 times) to make sure it is not a lucky guess.

Is it possible for you to test more than two subjects per day?

If you can only do two subjects per day, how long before you can test the same two subjects again (1 hour, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days...)?

Does it matter if the 1st one is for placebo and the 2nd one for medicine? If it does, why does it matter?

If I show you a reading, can you tell me if that reading came from a subject that took medicine or a subject that took placebo?

Thank you,
Linda

[Mojo]

Looking back at my first suggestion I don't think I made adequate allowance for your need to gather history, nor for the fact that (if I understand your claim correctly) it's changes in skin temperature rather than absolute skin temperature that you believe shows the effect of the homeopathic remedy.

So here's a second attempt at a suggested protocol:

Day 1

1. At time X (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. At time Y (to be specified by you) measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers

Day 2

1. At time X measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteers
2. The volunteers then consume your chosen homeopathic remedy
3. At time Y measure and record the skin temperature of the volunteersthere is only one time X - which is fixed.

per day two subjects - 1st one for medicine....2nd one for placebo..........there are two sensors connected sn3 and sn4 connected to medicine subject and placebo subject at time X,

Please go through the discussion part


Are you saying that if you were given two bottles, one containing a homoeopathic remedy and one containing an indistinguishable placebo, you would be able to tell which is which by simply administering them to two volunteers and then taking a single temperature reading from each volunteer at a specified time?

[Pixel42]

there is only one time X - which is fixed.

per day two subjects - 1st one for medicine....2nd one for placebo..........there are two sensors connected sn3 and sn4 connected to medicine subject and placebo subject at time X,

Please go through the discussion part
It sounds like your preferred protocol is as follows:

1. A placebo and a homeopathic remedy are prepared and labelled, and the labels covered.
2. Sensors are connected to the two volunteers
3. At time X (to be specified by you) the two volunteers take the two preparations. Neither they nor you know which has taken the placebo and which the remedy.
4. You monitor the sensor output (for how long?)
5. You state which volunteer you believe took which preparation
6. The labels are uncovered to confirm (or otherwise) your conclusion

This protocol is essentially fine but, as has been pointed out, there is a 50% chance of you getting the right answer by chance. So you would have to repeat the experiment many times (dozens, I would think) in order to demonstrate that you are doing significantly better than chance. I'm not sure that JREF have the resources to commit to such a long trial. This is where we need to get creative, and find ways to speed things up. Answers to Linda's questions would help.

[Mojo]

I'm not sure that JREF have the resources to commit to such a long trial.


See Rule 7: 7. All of the applicant's expenses such as transportation, accommodation, materials, assistants, and/or all other costs for any persons or procedures incurred in pursuit of the reward, are the sole responsibility of the applicant. Neither the JREF nor JR will bear any of the costs.

[Pixel42]

See Rule 7:
I'm not talking about the cost, I know that's borne by the applicant, I'm talking about a JREF rep spending weeks observing umpteen identical experiments.

Wasn't there an application recently where the amount of time an adequate trial would take was an issue for JREF?

[William Smith]

I'm not talking about the cost, I know that's borne by the applicant, I'm talking about a JREF rep spending weeks observing umpteen identical experiments.

Wasn't there an application recently where the amount of time an adequate trial would take was an issue for JREF?

Quite a few: Edge (Mike Guska), pavel_do (Pavel Ziborov), Homeoproofer (Jürgen) and the Ganzfeld guys in general.

[muntadev2in]

p.s. If I opened a thread in the science forum would you discuss the results of your blog with us?

Sure I will discuss my results in that science forum.

[muntadev2in]

You will need to be able to do this test many times (about 10 times) to make sure it is not a lucky guess.

Is it possible for you to test more than two subjects per day?

If you can only do two subjects per day, how long before you can test the same two subjects again (1 hour, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days...)?

Does it matter if the 1st one is for placebo and the 2nd one for medicine? If it does, why does it matter?

If I show you a reading, can you tell me if that reading came from a subject that took medicine or a subject that took placebo?

Thank you,
Linda

You will need to be able to do this test many times (about 10 times) to make sure it is not a lucky guess.

Is it possible for you to test more than two subjects per day?

If you can only do two subjects per day, how long before you can test the same two subjects again (1 hour, 12 hours, 1 day, 2 days...)?

Does it matter if the 1st one is for placebo and the 2nd one for medicine? If it does, why does it matter?

If I show you a reading, can you tell me if that reading came from a subject that took medicine or a subject that took placebo?

Thank you,
Linda

Open this and keep it minimise first http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

Then read this,

yes it is possible to test more than 2 subjects a day, but I need more than two sensors, if I have 20 sensors I can test 20 subjects, in just 10 mits.

randomly the subject can take covered bottles, I will record the data for 10mits just, with in half an hour experiment will be completed.

But I have only 2 sesors,

After getting a sensor, we have to test the sensor acuracy and variability. (There will be sensor variability some times)

In case of my gelsemium subjects you see, I have tested sensor variability, I There are 8 subjects, 4 days, two per a day you see,

1st day:
sensor 1 - subject 1 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

2nd day:
Sensor 1 - subject 3 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 4 - placebo - time x

day 3:
Sensor 2 - subject 5 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 1 - subject 6 - placebo - time x

Day 4:
Sensor 2 - subject 7 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 1 - subject 8 - placebo - time x

You see in case of this Exp I have taken 2 sec interaval readings for 10 mits,

In case of gelsemium given subjects - you observe peaks in meduim frequency are at the same level.but amplitude is different in case of sensor 2 gelsemuim subjects.


In case of my in case of Suphur 200 experimet

There are 6 subjects, 4 days, two per a day you see,

1st day:
sensor 1 - subject 1 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

2nd day:
Sensor 1 - subject 3 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 4 - placebo - time x

day 3:
Sensor 1 - subject 5 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

Day 4:
Sensor 1 - subject 6 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

You see in case of this Exp I have taken 1 sec interaval readings for 10 mits,

The medium frequency shows peaks at same level. amplitude also not varying much.

In case of gelsemium exp, placebo subjects given alcohol mixed sugar pills.
In case of suphur exp, placebo subjects given just sugara pills.

You see from the graphs - alcohol also produces the peaks in medium frequency but not at a fixed frequenct as medicine produces.

please give me suggestions on protocol, based on this given experiment details.

Thanks,

Dr.Devendra Kumar

[JWideman]

If the test only takes 10 minutes, then I'm not sure why you can only use the sensor once per day. Can you tell us more about the sensors themselves?

[Pixel42]

If the test only takes 10 minutes, then I'm not sure why you can only use the sensor once per day. Can you tell us more about the sensors themselves?
As I understand it, the effect muntadev2in is looking for only occurs if the subjects take the remedy at one specific time of day.

So the obvious solution is to obtain more sensors. Perhaps he can get some of his fellow homeopaths to chip in to buy some more, or a local hospitial/university can be persuaded to lend him some.

[Mojo]

In case of my gelsemium subjects you see, I have tested sensor variability, I There are 8 subjects, 4 days, two per a day you see,

1st day:
sensor 1 - subject 1 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

2nd day:
Sensor 1 - subject 3 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 4 - placebo - time x

day 3:
Sensor 2 - subject 5 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 1 - subject 6 - placebo - time x

Day 4:
Sensor 2 - subject 7 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 1 - subject 8 - placebo - time x

You see in case of this Exp I have taken 2 sec interaval readings for 10 mits,

In case of gelsemium given subjects - you observe peaks in meduim frequency are at the same level.but amplitude is different in case of sensor 2 gelsemuim subjects.


In case of my in case of Suphur 200 experimet

There are 6 subjects, 4 days, two per a day you see,

1st day:
sensor 1 - subject 1 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

2nd day:
Sensor 1 - subject 3 - gelsemium 200 - time x
sensor 2 - subject 4 - placebo - time x

day 3:
Sensor 1 - subject 5 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

Day 4:
Sensor 1 - subject 6 - gelsemium 200 - time x
Sensor 2 - subject 2 - placebo - time x

You see in case of this Exp I have taken 1 sec interaval readings for 10 mits,

The medium frequency shows peaks at same level. amplitude also not varying much.

In case of gelsemium exp, placebo subjects given alcohol mixed sugar pills.
In case of suphur exp, placebo subjects given just sugara pills.

You see from the graphs - alcohol also produces the peaks in medium frequency but not at a fixed frequenct as medicine produces.

please give me suggestions on protocol, based on this given experiment details.


I am assuming that these experiments were not blinded (i.e. you knew at all times which subjects had been given remedy and which had been given placebo).

If you were to use basically the same method, but blind it so that neither the subjects nor you knew who had been given the remedy, and then attempt to identify which was which from the results, then this could form the basis for an acceptable protocol.

You will need to specify what remedy you propose to use, and at what potency.

[Crispy Duck]

You will need to specify what remedy you propose to use, and at what potency.


Sounds like he'll need to specify exactly what the placebo will be, too:

In case of gelsemium exp, placebo subjects given alcohol mixed sugar pills.


It might be a bit too easy to distinguish between someone given nothing and someone given alcohol?

[muntadev2in]

If the test only takes 10 minutes, then I'm not sure why you can only use the sensor once per day. Can you tell us more about the sensors themselves?

The pattern of wave the remedy produces changes from time to time.

I know the wave patern only at a particular time of day. if u we obtain wave patern of a medicine that it can produce all along 24 hours, we can conduct exp at any time, but is very difficult.

This all depends on my proposed natural laws:

“The physical and physiological parameters of natural regulatory mechanisms are variable in the universe.”

“The variability in physical and physiological parameters of the natural regulatory mechanisms in the universe is similar at a given time.”

“Individuals differ due to space or time effect.”

Have a look at my "theory of variability" from discussion part in my blog.
http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

Thanks,

Dr.Devendra Kumar

[Crispy Duck]

Hello Dr Kumar,

It sounds like you've run your experiment at different times of day, and only produced good results at one particular time of day. If so, would you be able to distinguish readings taken at the right time of day from readings taken at the wrong time of day?

[muntadev2in]

Hello Dr Kumar,

It sounds like you've run your experiment at different times of day, and only produced good results at one particular time of day. If so, would you be able to distinguish readings taken at the right time of day from readings taken at the wrong time of day?

yes I conducted at various times, fixed convenient time for me and subjects,

It is also possible to fix some other time.

Thats why I pasted a link to my discussion part, please try to understand the natural priniciples.

[Mojo]

Thats why I pasted a link to my discussion part, please try to understand the natural priniciples.


As far as the challenge is concerned, the principles are irrelevant: see Rule 3 (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html), and the comment immediately following Rule 16.
We have no interest in theories nor explanations of how the claimed powers might work; if an applicant provides us with such material, it will be ignored and discarded.PLEASE: Do not burden us with theories, philosophical observations, previous examples, anecdotal evidence or other comments! We are only interested in an actual demonstration.


All that matters is that you clearly state what you intend to do, how you intend to do it, and what will constitute success. Note that the results must be of a self evident "yes/no" type; nothing involving judgment would be allowed.

From what you have posted here and on your website it appears that you claim that there are characteristic differences in graphs of skin temperature between subjects that have been given homoeopathic remedies and subjects that have been given placebo. Is that correct?

If so, all you would need to do to claim the million is to demonstrate that you can reliably identify which is which from the data without knowing in advance who had been given the remedy. Can you do this?

Have you already carried out a test of this type yourself? Merely pointing out alleged differences between graphs would not be acceptable, as this would involve judgment.

[JWideman]

Ah, I understand now. You can only take 2 measurements each day, at 8am. It seems to me that a simple alternative is to just give you 10 charts, and you identify which ones indicate medicine. Or even just the raw data, which you can chart yourself.

[PingOfPong]

Sure I will discuss my results in that science forum.


Actually I thought better of it and realized that I shouldn't distract you from your negotiations. I'm still interested in how you produced your spectral graphs but it's not that important. Good luck with your protocol.

[steenkh]

As far as the challenge is concerned, the principles are irrelevant: see Rule 3 (http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-application.html), and the comment immediately following Rule 16.
But muntadev2in is constructing a protocol intended to prove his paranormal event, and while the JREF is not interested, it may well be that the underlying principles are important for the demonstration to be successful.

[Mojo]

But muntadev2in is constructing a protocol intended to prove his paranormal event, and while the JREF is not interested, it may well be that the underlying principles are important for the demonstration to be successful.


I disagree.

The underlying principles are irrelevant to the Challenge, and the rules are quite explicit on this.

Muntadev2in claims that he can distinguish a homoeopathic remedy from a placebo by measuring the skin temperature of volunteers who have taken remedy or placebo. Fine. All we need is a protocol designed to allow him to do this. A discussion of the "principles" involved will only delay discussion of the actual protocol.

We do need to know some practical details, such as how long the test will take, whether it has to be carried out at certain times etc. It is up to muntadev2in to make his requirements clear.

The test should be reasonably simple to set up. The only potential difficulty I can see is the fact that, as currently proposed, it will need to be carried out over several days. We need to prevent the possibility of collusion between muntadev2in and anyone who knows which is remedy and which is placebo (I'm not suggesting that muntadev2in would get up to anything underhand, just that we need to avoid any possibility of this happening). Since the individual tests will apparently only take a short amount of time each day, I would suggest randomising the samples to be used on each day immediately before use.

[fls]

The pattern of wave the remedy produces changes from time to time.

I know the wave patern only at a particular time of day. if u we obtain wave patern of a medicine that it can produce all along 24 hours, we can conduct exp at any time, but is very difficult.

If I understand correctly, if you know the wave pattern for a particular time of day for a particular medicine, you can look at two graphs and say "the wave pattern is present" or "the wave pattern is absent". Is this correct?

The sensor variation and subject variation cause changes in the amplitude of the wave, but not in the frequency of the wave. Is this correct?

How difficult would it be for you to repeat your experiments at different times of the day (maybe at two hour intervals) so that you know the wave pattern for 5 different times? That way we could do the test in 2 days, which may be acceptable for the Challenge.

Linda

[Cainkane1]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

I am Dr.Devendra Kumar munta viswakarma MD(Homeo).Long back I had posted a thread "Homeopathy not a placebo". It is known to the JREF regular users.

I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic medicines.

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.

Prior to comment, you can have a look at my experimental results and my proposed natural laws upon which Homeopathic dilutions effecting living beings on the earth.

Please have a look at http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

You can reach me@: muntadev2in@yahoo.co.in

Have a brainfeed.

Ready for challenge.

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta
MD(Homeo)
Herbal medicine is not worthless. This is how modern medicine began in fact. To this day the herbs and potions of healers in primitive societies are found to be useful in the treatment of disease.

[steenkh]

I disagree.

The underlying principles are irrelevant to the Challenge, and the rules are quite explicit on this.

Muntadev2in claims that he can distinguish a homoeopathic remedy from a placebo by measuring the skin temperature of volunteers who have taken remedy or placebo. Fine. All we need is a protocol designed to allow him to do this. A discussion of the "principles" involved will only delay discussion of the actual protocol.
But Muntadev2in needs to take the underlying principles into account when he makes the claim and states a protocol. If he thinks the underlying principles make it more advantageous to make the test during full moon (or whatever), then he needs to make a claim and protocol that reflects this. The JREF does not have to know anything about the underlying principles, but here on the forum, if we want to help Muntadev2in construct a claim and a protocol to test for the claim, we will be in a better position to know something about these underlying principles also. Otherwise we may risk proposing protocols that do not take essential principles of the claim into account.

We do need to know some practical details, such as how long the test will take, whether it has to be carried out at certain times etc. It is up to muntadev2in to make his requirements clear.
At this stage, Muntadev2in has not even made a workable claim, and "we" are not going to test him anyway. The JREF will test him, and "we" can choose to help him getting his act together, or not. We do not need to know the underlying principles (which we assume are BS anyway), but if Muntadev2in is unable to formulate a claim (as they often are), we may be able to help if we an idea of what he is thinking.

The test should be reasonably simple to set up.

I agree. But I predict that a workable claim will not be forthcoming nonetheless.

Since the individual tests will apparently only take a short amount of time each day, I would suggest randomising the samples to be used on each day immediately before use.
I agree completely. I think that Muntadev2in has in fact not understood the need for blinding at all, and we may have to explain what it is and why it is necessary.

[Mojo]

But Muntadev2in needs to take the underlying principles into account when he makes the claim and states a protocol. If he thinks the underlying principles make it more advantageous to make the test during full moon (or whatever), then he needs to make a claim and protocol that reflects this. The JREF does not have to know anything about the underlying principles, but here on the forum, if we want to help Muntadev2in construct a claim and a protocol to test for the claim, we will be in a better position to know something about these underlying principles also. Otherwise we may risk proposing protocols that do not take essential principles of the claim into account.


He says he can tell the difference using certain equipment. In principle, all we need to do is set him up in a room with his equipment, and give him a couple of volunteers and remedy and placebo to give them. He then does his thing and says which is which. We don't need to know what his "principles" are; just what he claims to be able to do. If he insists that we demonstrate an understanding of his "principles", the whole thing will just get bogged down in irrelevancies.

At this stage, Muntadev2in has not even made a workable claim, and "we" are not going to test him anyway. The JREF will test him, and "we" can choose to help him getting his act together, or not. We do not need to know the underlying principles (which we assume are BS anyway), but if Muntadev2in is unable to formulate a claim (as they often are), we may be able to help if we an idea of what he is thinking.


If he's unable to formulate a claim, I suspect he will also fail to adequately explain his "underlying principles".

I think that Muntadev2in has in fact not understood the need for blinding at all, and we may have to explain what it is and why it is necessary.


He certainly seems to have managed to avoid answering any of the posts that have explicitly mentioned blinding.

[Ocelot]

I think I can reduce the time required for a definitive test.

If I'm correct muntadev2in can distinguish not just between a single homeopathic preparations and a placebo but between muliple homeopathic preparations.

He also has two sensors.

With one homeopathic preparation (A) and one placebo (X) there are four combinations that may be given to two volunteers.

AA
AX
XA
XX

Pick one combination at randon and apply it to the volunteers. Correctly determining the true combination has a 1 in four chance of success, by chance alone.

To raise this to the 1 in 1000 chance usually used for a preliminary test we'd need 5 repetitions.

100% accuracy after 5 repetitions (10 trials) would have a 1 in 1024 chance of sucess by chance alone.

However if muntadev2in claim to be able to perform the following test thing start to look up.

Two homeopathic preparations A or B and a placebo X are prepared. Each volunteer may be given one of these at random - there are 9 combinations.

AA
AB
AX
BA
BB
BX
XA
XB
XX

A 100% accuracy over just 4 repetitions (8 trials) is now an adequate test having odds of sucess by chance alone of just 1 in 6561.

Introduce a third homeopathic preparation and we're good with just 3 repetitions (6 trials) a 100% accuraccy would require a 1 in 4096 longshot.

With four homepathic preparations (and still one placebo) we still need 3 repetitions (6 trials). Getting 100% accuracy is a one in 15,625 longshot.

With 5 homeopathic preparations and 1 placebo, correctly guessing who got what, with 100% accuracy over just two repetiaions (4 trials) is a 1 in 1296 longshot.

At this stage we start to think why not do three repetitions (6 trials) and set 5 out of 6 sucessess as the pass mark (1 in 1505)

If muntadev2in can indeed distinguish between multiple different preparations in a single test then I shall prepare some stats to further illustrate what pass mark is required for number of trial vs number of preparations in play. It'd reduce the workload to know the maximum number of different options (including a placebo) that muntadev2in can distinguish between.

[William Smith]

But muntadev2in is constructing a protocol intended to prove his paranormal event, and while the JREF is not interested, it may well be that the underlying principles are important for the demonstration to be successful.

I agree with Mojo.

1. Claim + application.
2. Protocol negotiations.
3. Test.

If muntadev2in delivers two successful tests, he could write (and sell) books about the underlying principles.

Plain and simple: I want to see a proper controlled test showing positive results. Nothing more, nothing less.

[steenkh]

I agree with Mojo.

1. Claim + application.
2. Protocol negotiations.
3. Test.

If muntadev2in delivers two successful tests, he could write (and sell) books about the underlying principles.

Plain and simple: I want to see a proper controlled test showing positive results. Nothing more, nothing less.
Of course.

But what is our role in this sub-forum? Some people here offer to help the applicants formulating their claims and protocols, because of the curious inability exhibited by most applicants of forming coherent thoughts by themselves ...

[Mojo]

But what is our role in this sub-forum?


Trying to get a definitive claim, for a start. And explaining the concept of blinding.

Then maybe we can move on to a protocol.

[JWideman]

Of course.

But what is our role in this sub-forum? Some people here offer to help the applicants formulating their claims and protocols, because of the curious inability exhibited by most applicants of forming coherent thoughts by themselves ...

But that doesn't mean we have to understand the principles, nor is discussion of such helpful. He says that there are identifiable patterns and has images which he believes display these patterns. Thus, all he needs for a successful demonstration is to reliably identify the homeopathic preparations by their patterns. Unless I'm missing something important, he can do two readings per day for five days and identify all ten on the fifth.

[muntadev2in]

For the question why have u taken readings at a perticular time I asked to go through my principles.

You no need to consider my principles. Just agree to the time I specified.

I must be able to differentiate which one is medicine and which one placebo. thats it.

Before that I want to conduct a blind study. But even I am confidential. I can perform the test now.

At this stage I can only differentiate a Homeopathic preparation from placebo. but not two preparations.

So protocol should be like this,

8 samples - some are homeopathic preparations, some are placebo (sugar pills without alcohol mix I prefer, but even alcohol mix if you want)

Cover the bottles, keep it in a box and lock, keep it with third party, open the box every day before 1/2 hour the trail starts.

4 days trail period,

8 subjects - 2 per a day - 10 mits record readings per day, at time X (8am - 8.10 am),

4th day - analysis of data for 1 hour - reveal which one medicine and placebo,

uncover the bottles and check results.

thats it,

Is this protocol considerable?

[Pixel42]

You no need to consider my principles. Just agree to the time I specified.
Fine. That's part of the protocol then.

I must be able to differentiate which one is medicine and which one placebo. thats it.
So you need volunteers to take a placebo and a medicine each day? Or are you happy for them to select a bottle at random, so some days they might both take placebos and other days both take the medicine? This is an important point because it significantly affects the probability of you getting the right answers by chance, and hence the number of trials you need to do.

Before that I want to conduct a blind study. But even I am confidential. I can perform the test now.
I urge you again to do a blind study before even applying.

At this stage I can only differentiate a Homeopathic preparation from placebo. but not two preparations.
That's fine, but again it increases the number of trials you need to do to produce a result which is significantly better than chance.

So protocol should be like this,

8 samples - some are homeopathic preparations, some are placebo
For a statistically significant trial (see below) you need 10 homeopathic preparations and 10 placebos, and the volunteers need to be able to choose randomly from all 20 each day.

(sugar pills without alcohol mix I prefer, but even alcohol mix if you want)
If the homeopathic preparation uses an alcohol solvent then the placebo must use the same alcohol solvent. If the homeopathic medicine is water based then the placebo must be water. The only difference between the medicine and the placebo must be that the medicine is solvent that has been homeopathically treated. You do understand that such a medicine contains not a single molecule of the original tincture, and is hence indistinguishable from the solvent by any scientific means? That is the paranormal power you are claiming: that you can tell the difference between two solvents which appear identical to science by giving them (neat, or on sugar pills) to volunteers and monitoring their skin temperature.

Cover the bottles, keep it in a box and lock, keep it with third party, open the box every day before 1/2 hour the trail starts.

4 days trail period,

8 subjects - 2 per a day - 10 mits record readings per day, at time X (8am - 8.10 am),

4th day - analysis of data for 1 hour - reveal which one medicine and placebo,

uncover the bottles and check results.

thats it,

Is this protocol considerable?
If you need volunteers to take a placebo and a medicine each day, no. There's a 50% chance you could get the right answer by chance each day, so the chances of getting four right answers by chance is 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 X 0.5 i.e. 1 in 16, which is nowhere near the 1 in 1000 usually required for the preliminary test. I calculate 10 days of trials are required to produce the required odds against chance success with this protocol. If you're happy with the possibility of both volunteers taking either two lots of placebo or two lots of medicine each day, Ocelot's calculations suggest 5 trials are required.

[JWideman]

For the needed 1 in 1000 odds, you'll need 10 samples. Each sample should randomly be either placebo or homeopathic medicine. Also, the bottles should be labeled by a third party with a code, with the code key held until you've completed your analysis.
Each day you take out any two untested bottles, record their labels and take your readings. For the code itself, I think the numbers from 10 to 19 (to avoid confusing 6 with 9 or 2 with 5) will be sufficient.
On the 5th day, you make your analyses and pass it on to the third party with the code key.
With the coded labels, and the code known only to the third party, there is no need for you to keep the bottles with another 3rd party.
That's basically how you do a double-blind test.

[Ocelot]

For the question why have u taken readings at a perticular time I asked to go through my principles.

You no need to consider my principles. Just agree to the time I specified.

I must be able to differentiate which one is medicine and which one placebo. thats it.

Before that I want to conduct a blind study. But even I am confidential. I can perform the test now.

At this stage I can only differentiate a Homeopathic preparation from placebo. but not two preparations.

So protocol should be like this,

8 samples - some are homeopathic preparations, some are placebo (sugar pills without alcohol mix I prefer, but even alcohol mix if you want)

Cover the bottles, keep it in a box and lock, keep it with third party, open the box every day before 1/2 hour the trail starts.

4 days trail period,

8 subjects - 2 per a day - 10 mits record readings per day, at time X (8am - 8.10 am),

4th day - analysis of data for 1 hour - reveal which one medicine and placebo,

uncover the bottles and check results.

thats it,

Is this protocol considerable?

Under this protocol where you already know that in each day one person gets a placebo and the other gets a homeopathic preparation the odds are not good enough for the JREF to stake $1 million.

The chance of getting your first test right by chance alone is 1 in 2 or 0.5 or 50%.

The chance of getting all four tests correct is 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.0625 or 6 1/4 % or 1 in 16

That would be a nowhere near significant result. Even given that this is a preliminary test and that the same test must be repeated before the $1m is awarded there's a 1 in 256 chance that somebody just guessing could win the million.

If those odds were acceptable to the JREF every gambler in vegas who could come up with a protocol that cost less than $3,900 to test would jump at those odds. The JREF would be inundated with people claiming to be able to correctly guess the toss of a coin four times in a row.

As I've said above, there is a way to do this in just 5 repetitions, (10 trials)

Under that protocol, instead of knowing that one of your pair has been given the homeopathic preparation and one has been given the placebo, you deall with each person individually. All you know is that on the toss of a coin there's a 50% chance that they'll have been given the placebo and a 50% chance that they've been given the homeopathic preparation.

As such, for every repetition there are four rather than two possible outcomes.

Both have been given the placebo,
The first has been given the placebo whilst the second has been given the homeopathic preparation.
The second has been given the homeopathic preparation whilt the first has been given a placebo.
Both have been given the homeopathic preparation.

Over the course of 5 repetitions (10 trials) there are 1024 possible combinations which I won't list here except for to mention that they include nobody being given the placebo or everybody being given the placebo.

It's equivalent to being able to guess the toss of a coin 10 times in a row. Enough to scare away the gamblers.

I believe such a test should fullfill the requirements of the JREF.

[arthwollipot]

Herbal medicine is not worthless. This is how modern medicine began in fact. To this day the herbs and potions of healers in primitive societies are found to be useful in the treatment of disease.That's because herbal medicine differs from homeopathy in actually having an active ingredient.

[muntadev2in]

For the needed 1 in 1000 odds, you'll need 10 samples. Each sample should randomly be either placebo or homeopathic medicine. Also, the bottles should be labeled by a third party with a code, with the code key held until you've completed your analysis.
Each day you take out any two untested bottles, record their labels and take your readings. For the code itself, I think the numbers from 10 to 19 (to avoid confusing 6 with 9 or 2 with 5) will be sufficient.
On the 5th day, you make your analyses and pass it on to the third party with the code key.
With the coded labels, and the code known only to the third party, there is no need for you to keep the bottles with another 3rd party.
That's basically how you do a double-blind test.

this is acceptable to me,

No where I have mentioned, one for medicine and one for placebo,

subject can pick up samples randomly.

out of 10 samples there is no limit for medicne and placebo samples. is then ok?

[William Smith]

this is acceptable to me,

No where I have mentioned, one for medicine and one for placebo,

subject can pick up samples randomly.

out of 10 samples there is no limit for medicne and placebo samples. is then ok?

Perhaps you meant to say this: The subject is given a randomly selected sample.

Neither you nor the subject nor any person present in the room must know what the subject has been given. That would be proper double blinding.

What do you think of Ocelot's protocol proposal?

[Pixel42]

out of 10 samples there is no limit for medicne and placebo samples. is then ok?
Then 5 days of trials would be sufficient for a statistically significant result (note the 4 days you proposed would still not be).

We seem to have arrived at a workable protocol. Are you happy to put it all together and restate your proposed protocol in a form that you can submit to JREF, or do you need more help from us?

[Mojo]

Perhaps you meant to say this: The subject is given a randomly selected sample.

Neither you nor the subject nor any person present in the room must know what the subject has been given. That would be proper double blinding.


Or anyone who might communicate with muntadev2in during the course of the test. This might cause problems with a test lasting several days (remember Homeoproofer's long-running test and his demand that his representative be present for the blinding procedure?). Muntadev2in is proposing to do something highly implausible. If it is in any way possible that he could have been told which is which, this immediately becomes a more plausible explanation for a successful outcome than that he can tell the difference between two apparently identical preparations.

Muntadev2in, would you be prepared for all blinding to be carried out by the JREF or their representatives, without any representative chosen by you being present, or knowing which is which until after the test is finished?

[0m3g4]

Muntadev2in, would you be prepared for all blinding to be carried out by the JREF or their representatives, without any representative chosen by you being present, or knowing which is which until after the test is finished?

I guess, the blinding procedure could be filmed with the video being presented to Muntadev2in after the end of the test, thus proving that JREF did not cheat.
The samples/potions/remedies could be secured in a safe under JREF control with the code only known to Muntadev2in.

[Ocelot]

Suggested Protocol

Required

2 independent observers Observer 1 and observer 2 – to be appointed by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense.
1 independent technician qualified to prepare homeopathic remedies. – to be appointed by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense.
2 hotel rooms, one for Muntadev2in and the other for the independent technician. Each in separate hotels, previously searched by the observers to remove telephones and other means of communication. Each observer should hold the key to these rooms so that the occupant can leave in the event of an emergency but cannot regain entry.
2 hotel rooms on for for the observers. Each in the same hotel as the person they are to observe.
A box with facility to be locked by two padlocks. To be provided by Muntadev2in
A padlock to be provided by Muntadev2in for which he will retain the key.
A padlock to be provided by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense for which observer 1 will retain the key.
Sufficient clean glassware to measure and store the homeopathic preparations. To be provided by Muntadev2in
A lockable room. To be provided by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense.
A video camera, tripod and tapes to be provided by the tester at muntadev2in's expense.
10 envelopes to contain the blinding information provided by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense.
Paper and pens provided by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense.
Skin temperature monitoring equipment to be provided by Muntadev2in
Preparation day 1


A video recording is started.
10 volunteer test subjects are picked. All must be passed as suitable by both muntadev2in and the testers.
Contact details an availability will be taken for all volunteers in case the test ends early and later volunteers are not needed.
2 volunteers are asked to return on all three of the following 3 days (Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4) at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 5, Day 6 and Day 7 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 8, Day 9 and Day 10 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 11, Day 12 and Day 13 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 14, Day 15 and day 16 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
Muntadev2in decides upon a homeopathic preparation. For a positive result to demonstrate a paranormal claim this preparation must be beyond the molar limit of dilution. A potencies of 16C and above will be sufficient.
Muntadev2in provides a source solution ready for homeopathic dilution and instructions on how it is to be prepared.
Common tap water will be used as a placebo solution.
Both Muntadev2in's source solution and the placebo solution will be labelled on the toss of a coin as AC0 and BC0
An independent homeopath picked by the testers with Muntadev2in's approval will carry out a dilution and succussion on each of the source solutions.

One part of the source solution will be added to a fresh clean container and diluted with 99 parts of the chosen solute (either water or alcohol).
The resulting solution will be succussed.
The solution resulting from AC0 will be labelled as AC1 and the solution resulting from BC0 will be labelled BC1

Step five will be repeated until muntadev2in's required potency is achieved. NB To prevent contamination, glassware used for measuring is not to be reused to measure a more dilute solution at each stage a fresh clean container is to be used.
Muntadev2in is to acknowledge that the potentisation has been carried out in accordance with his instructions leading to two solutions he believes can be distinguished by his methods.
10 doses are poured into fresh clean containers from the homeopathic preparation and labelled as such.
10 doses are poured into fresh clean containers the placebo preparations and labelled as such.
Muntadev2in is to be led from the room by observer 1, to a place where he cannot see, hear or otherwise determine what is going on in the room.

Observer 1 should monitor muntadev2in at all times for signs of communication.

10 more doses are poured into fresh clean containers. Each dose will on the toss of a coin (recorded by camera) come from either the homeopathic preparation or the placebo preparation.

The containers will be labelled 1 to 10
The contents of each container will be recorded on individual slips of paper which will be placed into a corresponding envelopes labelled 1 to 10
The envelope will be sealed
As with all stages of the procedure this is to be videoed. The blinding process should be conspicuously recorded by video with each slip and envelope being shown to the camera

The independent homeopath is lead out of the building by observer 2 neither to have any further contact with muntadev2in or observer 1
Muntedev2in is lead back into the room by observer 1
The envelopes and all 30 doses are placed in a box locked with two padlocks, one provided by Muntadev2in and one provided by the observer 1 at Muntadev2in's expense. Each retains their own key.
The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.
Day N+1 Non-blinded test


Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
The box is unlocked.

Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
The tape from Day 1 is placed inside the box
One dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation and one dose labelled as a placebo are removed from the box.
The box now also containing the first day's tape is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in

At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation.
At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as a placebo.
Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained.
The volunteers are asked to return at the same time on the following day.
The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.
Day N+2 Non-blinded test part 2


Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
The box is unlocked.

Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
One dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation and one dose labelled as a placebo are removed from the box.
The box is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in

At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as a placebo. This is the reverse of the previous days test so that the volunteer previously given the homeopathic preparation is now given the placebo.
At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation. This is the reverse of the previous days test so that the volunteer previously given the placebo is now given the homeopathic preparation.
Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained.
The volunteers are asked to return at the same time on the following day.
The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.
Day N +3 Blinded test


Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
The box is unlocked.

Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
The doses labelled N and N+1 are removed from the box.
The box is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in

At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as N.
At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as N+1
Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained..
From the data gathered Muntadev2in will attempt to determine whether dose N was Homeopathic preparation or placebo.
Muntadev2in will affirm his prediction for the camera and will write his prediction on a piece of paper and sign it.
The box will be unlocked. And the envelope labelled N will be removed.
The box will be relocked by both parties
The envelope will be unsealed and read on camera by observer 1
If Muntadev2in's prediction was incorrect he has failed, the test is over. Other wise continue.
From the data gathered Muntadev2in will attempt to determine whether dose N+1 was Homeopathic preparation or placebo.
Muntadev2in will affirm his prediction for the camera and will write his prediction on a piece of paper and sign it.
The box will be unlocked. And the envelope labelled N+1 will be removed.
The box will be relocked by both parties
The envelope will be unsealed and read on camera by observer 1
If Muntadev2in's prediction was incorrect he has failed, the test is over. Other wise continue.
The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.
N is incremented
Steps 25 to 66 are repeated until either Muntadev2in has failed in one of his predictions or he has successfully identified all ten doses.
If Muntadev2in correctly identifies 10/10 doses he has passed the test.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

I am Dr.Devendra Kumar munta viswakarma MD(Homeo).Long back I had posted a thread "Homeopathy not a placebo". It is known to the JREF regular users.

I am back again with my positive experimental results with Homeoapthic medicines.

Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water.

Prior to comment, you can have a look at my experimental results and my proposed natural laws upon which Homeopathic dilutions effecting living beings on the earth.

Please have a look at http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com

You can reach me@: muntadev2in@yahoo.co.in

Have a brainfeed.

Ready for challenge.

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta
MD(Homeo)

You've convinced me!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I spent 8 1/2 years of my life time to study homeopathic science (BHMS 5 1/2 + MD(Home0) 3 years. My qualification is not questionable. I am asking, how many of you Know Homeoopathic principles.

Also I have a doubt JR offering million $, why can,t he have his own script to run his website and forum..... why he is using open sources if he have million dollars? My doubt he is not having that much money.

Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.

Thanks, I will meet you 2maro by 10am,

Dr.Dev

Do you know Dr. Mas?

[chillzero]

Scrut - please stay strictly on topic in the MDC section of the forum.
Thanks.

[fls]

Ocelot,

I think the need for round-the-clock observers, hotel rooms and padlocked boxes can be eliminated by simply removing the ability of any person to communicate useful information. This can be done with a little more attention paid to the blinding proceedure so that he can communicate with anyone he wants to. Then Dr. Kumar can simply be handed a box of 20 remedies and told to come back in a week or two with them sorted into 'remedy' and 'placebo'.

Also, there should be one unblinded test at the start to confirm with Dr. Kumar that the conditions are satisfactory for his success.

Linda

[Ocelot]

Ocelot,

I think the need for round-the-clock observers, hotel rooms and padlocked boxes can be eliminated by simply removing the ability of any person to communicate useful information. This can be done with a little more attention paid to the blinding proceedure so that he can communicate with anyone he wants to. Then Dr. Kumar can simply be handed a box of 20 remedies and told to come back in a week or two with them sorted into 'remedy' and 'placebo'.

Also, there should be one unblinded test at the start to confirm with Dr. Kumar that the conditions are satisfactory for his success.

Linda

You're probably right. The round the clock observation is of course no more onerous than the conditions applied to certain juries but would start to rack up considerable expense.

I put them in anticipating a requirement that the homeopathic preparations only be handled by a person with a qualification in homeopathy. I cautiously took it as a given that for this person to pass muster in Muntadev2in's eyes they must be sympathetic to his claim.

If Muntadev2in is happy for observer 2 to handle the blinding - still being recorded by video of course, then the independant homeopath can leave the room along with muntadev2in and observer 1. There would then be no need for the extra surveilance.

I feel that the locked box is still required to preserve the security of the unblinding infomration.The testers should not trust Muntadev2in to have unobserved access to the tape or envelopes. Equally with $1million at stake Muntadev2in should not trust the testers with that same information. Moreover after the results are in the loosing party should not be able to play upon doubts about the security of the blinding as an explanation for an unwelcome result.

Even if Muntadev2in were to agree now to the unblinding infomration being held by the testers I would not want him to have the opportunity afterwards, should he fail the test to regret that decision and blame his failure on tampering. However I do see that there might be a problem sourcing such a box. My search hasn't found any that are designed to accomodate more than one padlock.

Perhpas a box inside a box or even Muntadev2in locking the box and the testers locking the room would be sufficient.

For the cost of a simple metal toolbox and a padlock I can't see a major objection.

I can see where you're coming from with the unblinded test. Just like dowsers are encouraged to confirm that their equipement functions in the test environment when they know there's water there Muntadev2in should not be able to claim that the test environment interfered with his experiment should he somehow fail.

You'll note that even though this tripples the total duration of the test, I have included 2 unblinded tests to be used as source data in the final analysis of the blinded test. Muntadev2in didn't explicitly say that this was necessary but in his shoes it's something I'd like to have at my disposal. I can't see that much would be added by an additional unblinded test, though there's little harm in it. If Muntadev2in says that the repeated unblinded tests I've proposed are unecessary I'd have to agree that at least one unblinded test should be insisted upon.

[Cuddles]

Ocelot,

I think the need for round-the-clock observers, hotel rooms and padlocked boxes can be eliminated by simply removing the ability of any person to communicate useful information. This can be done with a little more attention paid to the blinding proceedure so that he can communicate with anyone he wants to. Then Dr. Kumar can simply be handed a box of 20 remedies and told to come back in a week or two with them sorted into 'remedy' and 'placebo'.

Also, there should be one unblinded test at the start to confirm with Dr. Kumar that the conditions are satisfactory for his success.

Linda

I think this would be by far the best way of doing it. As long as the randomising is compeltely isolated from Muntadev2in, the protocol and test really don't have any interest in how he tries to sort the bottles out. Label bottles 1-10 (or however many you need), publish an encrypted file with the answers and then when he thinks he has sorted them publish the key. Assuming that the one person who knows which bottle is which is trusted, there is no possiblity of any cheating.

[fls]

You're probably right. The round the clock observation is of course no more onerous than the conditions applied to certain juries but would start to rack up considerable expense.

I put them in anticipating a requirement that the homeopathic preparations only be handled by a person with a qualification in homeopathy. I cautiously took it as a given that for this person to pass muster in Muntadev2in's eyes they must be sympathetic to his claim.

If Muntadev2in is happy for observer 2 to handle the blinding - still being recorded by video of course, then the independant homeopath can leave the room along with muntadev2in and observer 1. There would then be no need for the extra surveilance.

I think our main concern should be the preparation (that the remedies are otherwise identical), the blinding and the security of the information. It is Dr. Kumar's responsibility to determine whether he is comfortable that the information cannot be tampered with by the JREF reps. But we should also have an interest in that to counter any excuses made after failure.

After that the remedies can simply be handed off to Dr. Kumar. We don't need to observe his experiments or have any other interest in developing them. All we need to know is how much time to give him before he comes back with his answers.

I feel that the locked box is still required to preserve the security of the unblinding infomration.The testers should not trust Muntadev2in to have unobserved access to the tape or envelopes. Equally with $1million at stake Muntadev2in should not trust the testers with that same information. Moreover after the results are in the loosing party should not be able to play upon doubts about the security of the blinding as an explanation for an unwelcome result.

Even if Muntadev2in were to agree now to the unblinding infomration being held by the testers I would not want him to have the opportunity afterwards, should he fail the test to regret that decision and blame his failure on tampering. However I do see that there might be a problem sourcing such a box. My search hasn't found any that are designed to accomodate more than one padlock.

Perhpas a box inside a box or even Muntadev2in locking the box and the testers locking the room would be sufficient.

For the cost of a simple metal toolbox and a padlock I can't see a major objection.

I think a double locked box (such as a box inside a box) is a good idea for storing the blinding information and the video tape.

I can see where you're coming from with the unblinded test. Just like dowsers are encouraged to confirm that their equipement functions in the test environment when they know there's water there Muntadev2in should not be able to claim that the test environment interfered with his experiment should he somehow fail.

You'll note that even though this tripples the total duration of the test, I have included 2 unblinded tests to be used as source data in the final analysis of the blinded test. Muntadev2in didn't explicitly say that this was necessary but in his shoes it's something I'd like to have at my disposal. I can't see that much would be added by an additional unblinded test, though there's little harm in it. If Muntadev2in says that the repeated unblinded tests I've proposed are unecessary I'd have to agree that at least one unblinded test should be insisted upon.

I forgot that you did have the unblinded tests in there already. I would suggest that after the remedies are prepared, but before they are divided up into 20 packets, that Dr. Kumar run one unblinded test with two subjects to confirm that he can distinguish the remedy from the placebo. Only after this is successful would we go through the process of randomization and blinding.

Dr. Kumar will need to describe to us how the remedy and placebo are prepared.

You can break the chain of knowledge for the observers by preparing the packets in one room and having a third party take the packets to another room where they are rearranged and relabeled, with different groups of people in each room.

Linda

[steenkh]

As for which kind of box would be secure against tampering, I think that Randi is probably the best judge for that. After all, he has made a living out of tampering with boxes and locks.

[jojonete]

My thoughts: The idea of giving Munta 10 bottles (or however many) and letting him sort them out in a week or two sounds the very best. The actual subjects, connection to sensors, skin graphs, etc. doesn't need to be observed at all. If the previous point is done that way, unblinded tests are unnecessary. Munta just has to do what he has done many, many times before, in the very same conditions (I mean, no stressing observers, etc.). All his previous tests can be taken as unblinded baseline tests. Furthermore, he can run as many or as few baseline tests as he sees fit. I would not use any encrypted file unless Munta is personally familiar with encryption schemes. People don't trust things they don't understand. The idea of a doubly locked box (or a box in a box, or whatever) does not sound good. The box is supposed to be locked for several days. Many people would be able to open and re-lock the box in that time. I would not trust any locked box unless it's at all times in my full view. Linda's breaking of the chain of knowledge sounds good, though I'm not sure how the idea works exactly. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation.

[Ivor the Engineer]

May I suggest focussing on what Dr. Kumar considers an acceptable way to prepare both the homoeopathic active and inactive remedies? A method needs to be agreed upon which will not inadvertently introduce a difference between the two which is detectable by conventional means.

[muntadev2in]

I will be back soon, power problem in my room....I have gone through ur suggestions. i need little change in protocol.. i will write what i need. to day I will get power supply. hope tomarrow.

[muntadev2in]

It is a risky process to prepare homeopathic medicine on the day of testing..it is better to get it from a near by or any homeopathic medical shop or els you can bring one medicine bottle.

placebo, just sugar pills...without alcohol mix I prefer.

I prefer only potencies above 200c,

200c most preferable.


prior to test I want to conduct one or two unblind trials with the medicine you have provided. in presence of media.

10 subjects - ask to come 2 per a day.

trials will be at my home. becoz easy to get subjects. subjects will not be over vexed or exerted prior to trial if so.

medicine must be mixed with sugar pills in presence of a homeopath.... you can keep him with u... till the end day of test.

these I required.

[muntadev2in]

My thoughts: The idea of giving Munta 10 bottles (or however many) and letting him sort them out in a week or two sounds the very best. The actual subjects, connection to sensors, skin graphs, etc. doesn't need to be observed at all. If the previous point is done that way, unblinded tests are unnecessary. Munta just has to do what he has done many, many times before, in the very same conditions (I mean, no stressing observers, etc.). All his previous tests can be taken as unblinded baseline tests. Furthermore, he can run as many or as few baseline tests as he sees fit. I would not use any encrypted file unless Munta is personally familiar with encryption schemes. People don't trust things they don't understand. The idea of a doubly locked box (or a box in a box, or whatever) does not sound good. The box is supposed to be locked for several days. Many people would be able to open and re-lock the box in that time. I would not trust any locked box unless it's at all times in my full view. Linda's breaking of the chain of knowledge sounds good, though I'm not sure how the idea works exactly. I'd like to see a more detailed explanation.


this is very interesting... you can send 10 bottles of 1 dram sugar pills.....

any number of placebo( with alcohol misx) and medicine(only single medicine of 200c potency) bottles send then to my postal adress....

Code the bottles and send them to my adress..... I will reveal which one is medicine and which one is placebo.

this can be treated as trail test. after that you can come to my place for preliminary test.


Arrange cameras in room just no body should be in my exp room....which makes subjects to feel anxiety.

[Pixel42]

It is a risky process to prepare homeopathic medicine on the day of testing..it is better to get it from a near by or any homeopathic medical shop or els you can bring one medicine bottle.
The problem with getting homeopathic medicines from a shop is that there is no way of knowing if they were prepared correctly. The preparation needs to be monitored but it doesn't need to be done on the day of the testing as long as the prepared medicine is then safely locked away until it is used.

placebo, just sugar pills...without alcohol mix I prefer.
Again, that's fine if and only if the solution used for the homeopathic preparation was also water, not alcohol. The only difference between the medicine and the placebo must be that the medicine has been homeopathically prepared.

[Cuddles]

placebo, just sugar pills...without alcohol mix I prefer.

You can't choose what the placebo will be without knowing what the remedy is. The two must be identical in every way except that one has been prepared as a homeopathic remedy. If the remedy is just sugar pills with no alcohol, then your prefered placebo would be fine. On the other hand, if your remedy is an alcohol solution, your placebo must be as well.

[Jackalgirl]

Again, that's fine if and only if the solution used for the homeopathic preparation was also water, not alcohol. The only difference between the medicine and the placebo must be that the medicine has been homeopathically prepared.

I'm bolding this 'cause it's important. Can't stress it enough:

If the preparations are made with alcohol, the placebo has to be made with alcohol.

If the preparations are made with lactose, the placebo has to be made with lactose.

If the preparations are made with water, the placebo has to be made with water.

Here's a proposed basic listing of steps:

1) a randomly-derived combinations of preparations and placebos* are bottled in exactly the same way and are randomly numbered. A list of what number corresponds to what prep/placebo is made by the preparer and a hash of the list is posted.**

2) All of the bottles are sent to Dr. Munta. He sorts them out and generates a list of what each numbered bottle is within the alloted time frame. He posts his list.

3) The preparer's list is posted. Anyone can make sure that the hash of this list matches the preparer's original hash.

4) If x** number of the bottles' contents is correctly identified, the test is a success.

* I am fond of dice (for what it's worth)

**I think that the hash will need to include some random words and changing format in order to make sure that it can't be reverse-engineered. Something like:
1 = snickerdoodle preparation
2 is elephant placebo
three = placebo barbarian****
Trump Tower 4 is a preparation
Five blithering is a placebo
...and so forth. I am sure, however, that smarter crypto-types will be able to suggest specifics.

***Where x generates 1:1000 odds for the number of bottles.

Details to be worked out include the source of the preparations, how to make the placebos, ways to assure that the preparer hasn't monkeyed with the preparations and has prepared the placebos correctly, and other ways to ensure that the whole preparation process was done according to spec (so that Dr. Munta can feel confident that he has not been cheated in this step).

Jojonete, I understand your objection to encryptions, but it also is an extremely easy way to make sure that everything's good. What we should probably do is a dry run to make sure that Dr. Munta understands the process and has done it enough times to feel comfortable with it (if he does not and is not already).

[Dave Barry]
**** I think that "Placebo Barbarian" would make an excellent name for a band.
[/Dave Barry]

[Mojo]

placebo, just sugar pills...without alcohol mix I prefer.You can't choose what the placebo will be without knowing what the remedy is. The two must be identical in every way except that one has been prepared as a homeopathic remedy. If the remedy is just sugar pills with no alcohol, then your prefered placebo would be fine. On the other hand, if your remedy is an alcohol solution, your placebo must be as well.


An important point about the sugar pills: they are prepared by dropping a potentised liquid preparation onto them and allowing it to evaporate. Is it possible that this could give the surface of the pills a slightly different appearance than that of blank pills that have not had liquid dropped onto them?

To avoid any possibility of muntadev2in simply identifying which pills have been wet at some stage, we need to make sure that the "placebo" pills have had the same solvent dropped onto them as used for the remedy.

[Mojo]

medicine must be mixed with sugar pills in presence of a homeopath.... you can keep him with u... till the end day of test.


The test will take 5 days. Are you proposing that this homeopath be held incommunicado for almost a week? I don't think this is likely to be feasible.

[Ocelot]

The test will take 5 days. Are you proposing that this homeopath be held incommunicado for almost a week? I don't think this is likely to be feasible.

At least six days, we will also need at least one unblinded test, we've yet to hear back from Dr Kumar if he would like more.

It's feasible, juries have such conditions imposed upon them regularly. However it is expensive. Since Dr Kumar would be footing the accomodation and catering bill for both the homeopath and the required observer, such a set up may not be in his best interests. In fact it might prove to be cheaper to invest in or hire more temperature sensors so that the 10 trials required can be accomplished that much sooner.

However as Linda correctly pointed out above it is not informaiton about the homeopathic preparation which much be kept from Dr Kumar but the blinding information.

If Dr Kumar can agree to a blinding procedure that only requires the presence of an observer appointed by the testers (on camera for later verifaction, of course) then the problem disappears.

I am sensitive to Dr Kumars needs to have the remedies and placebos handled only by those competant to do so but I think a way round can be found.

Under observation the appointed homeopath prepares a 200C solution of each of two solutions provided to him, they are labelled A and B. The homeopath isn't told which solution is a source for homeopathic remedies as specified by Dr Kumar and which is a dummy provided by the testers. (though depending on the source solution Dr Kumar specifies, this may be obvious, we'll examine that obstacle if and when we come to it - though first thought is that making that blind may not be necessary and second thought is that one homepath can potentitize the solutions up to 30 C, these could be blinded and passed to a second homeopth who potentizes it the rest of the way)

20 pill pots are provided, each is has a label tag numbered 1 to 20 attached by a plastic band stretched over the neck. On the toss of a coin the appointed homeopath prepares a pill from either the 200C A or 200C B solutions. The observer records which pots contains A pills and which contain B pills. The post are sealed.

Both leave.

A second observer enters. They have a bag containing either 20 sticky labels marked 1 to 20 and another 20 tokens also marked 1 to 20. They pick one label at random from the bag and one token from the other bag. They apply the label to the pot with the tag corresponding to the random token. That token is discarded. The numbers are recorded and the tag removed from that pot. This is repeated for the remaining pots.

At no point does this observer handle the pills themselves.

If Dr Kumar would be happy with such a blinding procedure then there would be no need to cloister the homeopath.

If not then there are still other options. There may be qualified homeopaths (or ex homeopaths) that the JREF would be happy to perform the blinding, secure in the knowledge that they would no collude with Dr Kumar. And I'm not just talking about the many members of this forum who have diploma mill qualifications in homeopathy but anyone from Dr Edzard Ernzt down to less recognisable names.

Dr Kumar need sto let us know exactly what sort of qualification he expects from the person who is to prepare these solutions. Would for example a current solid belief in the efficacy of homeopathy be required?

[Mojo]

At least six days, we will also need at least one unblinded test, we've yet to hear back from Dr Kumar if he would like more.

It's feasible, juries have such conditions imposed upon them regularly. However it is expensive. Since Dr Kumar would be footing the accomodation and catering bill for both the homeopath and the required observer, such a set up may not be in his best interests. In fact it might prove to be cheaper to invest in or hire more temperature sensors so that the 10 trials required can be accomplished that much sooner.

However as Linda correctly pointed out above it is not informaiton about the homeopathic preparation which much be kept from Dr Kumar but the blinding information.


I may be wrong on this, but I was assuming that when he posted "medicine must be mixed with sugar pills in presence of a homeopath" muntadev2in was referring to the blinding procedure (i.e. the randomising of the potentised pills with the blank sugar pills) rather than the preparation of the remedy. If this is the case it would be necessary for the homoeopath to be under observation at all times to make sure no attempt to communicate with muntadev2in is made, as any homoeopath will obviously have a vested interest in an outcome showing that remedies are different from placebo.

If they are to be present while the remedy is being prepared, it will also be necessary to avoid any possibility that they could adulterate either remedy or placebo so as to make it identifiable, again because of their vested interest in a positive outcome.

muntadev2in, do you mean that the homoeopath must supervise the manufacture of the remedy, or that they must witness the blinding procedure (or both)?

[muntadev2in]

At least six days, we will also need at least one unblinded test, we've yet to hear back from Dr Kumar if he would like more.

It's feasible, juries have such conditions imposed upon them regularly. However it is expensive. Since Dr Kumar would be footing the accomodation and catering bill for both the homeopath and the required observer, such a set up may not be in his best interests. In fact it might prove to be cheaper to invest in or hire more temperature sensors so that the 10 trials required can be accomplished that much sooner.



This will be the best.... I will try to get some more sensors with multi channel datalogger. Then It can possible to conduct exp in a single day with in 1/2 hr to 1 hr.

I will not believe hand made preparations will have tht much efficasy over mechine stokes. that also I hv tested 200c n over potencies can produce rapid change in physiological variabiity.

preparation up to 200c hand made is difficult. one possible thing is, we have to go to a homeopathic pharmacy and get prepare a HM in presence of independent observer qualified homeopath (who know the method of HM preparation, Who studied the homeopathic pharmacy at bachlor level)

[steenkh]

preparation up to 200c hand made is difficult. one possible thing is, we have to go to a homeopathic pharmacy and get prepare a HM in presence of independent observer qualified homeopath (who know the method of HM preparation, Who studied the homeopathic pharmacy at bachlor level)
That sounds reasonable. At the pharmacy it would be possible for the test officials to obtain the same stock of solvent, and the same bottles for the placebo. Whether the HM is made by machine or by hand is not important as long as you feel confident with it.

[JWideman]

Unless I misunderstand something, isn't a sugar pill dissolved in water detectably different from homeopathic medicine? The placebo should be the same substance as the homeopathic medicine, which is to say water.

[Mojo]

Unless I misunderstand something, isn't a sugar pill dissolved in water detectably different from homeopathic medicine? The placebo should be the same substance as the homeopathic medicine, which is to say water.


Homoeopathic medicines are usually administered in the form of sugar pills which have had the homoeopathic water dropped onto them and allowed to evaporate. The placebo the pills will be compared to will be "blank" sugar pills, although as I've observed above it might be necessary to drop "blank" water onto them in the same way as the remedy pills have been prepared in case this procedure causes any change in their surface appearance.

[Pixel42]

Unless I misunderstand something, isn't a sugar pill dissolved in water detectably different from homeopathic medicine? The placebo should be the same substance as the homeopathic medicine, which is to say water.
AIUI a drop of the solution is put on the sugar pill and allowed to evaporate. For the medicine it's a solution that's been homeopathically prepared, for the placebo it's the untreated solution. As long as the solution itself is the same (either alcohol or water) the resulting pills have no detectable difference between them. Unless, of course, Dr Kumar can detect one with his skin sensors.

[steenkh]

Homoeopathic medicines are usually administered in the form of sugar pills which have had the homoeopathic water dropped onto them and allowed to evaporate. The placebo the pills will be compared to will be "blank" sugar pills, although as I've observed above it might be necessary to drop "blank" water onto them in the same way as the remedy pills have been prepared in case this procedure causes any change in their surface appearance.
Perhaps it is also important to know if Dr. Kumar is aware of homoeopathic "grafting". According to this theory, which I understand goes back to Hahnemann himself, homoeopathic pills stored close to blank pills will transfer their magical properties to the blanks, effectively creating more homoeopathic pills. If Dr. Kumar thinks this could be a risk, it will also be necessary to keep all pill bottles (or other bottles: grafting can be used with liquid remedies too), separated by a sufficient distance to prevent grafting.

[Ocelot]

This will be the best.... I will try to get some more sensors with multi channel datalogger. Then It can possible to conduct exp in a single day with in 1/2 hr to 1 hr.

That would be good. I seem to remember you saying your datalogger had room for ten inputs. We'd still need to do an unblinded test the day before but we could blind some samples the next day and would only have to keep the blinding infomration secure for a the hour maximum it'd take for the subsequent test.

I will not believe hand made preparations will have tht much efficasy over mechine stokes. that also I hv tested 200c n over potencies can produce rapid change in physiological variabiity.

Yes it'd be best to test as close as possible to what you've already confirmed for yourself. It's your claim after all. However to qualify for the MDC your claim must be paranormal. After all I can't claim that I can eat three shredded wheat for breakfast and expect a million when I prove it.
In your case, for your claim to qualify we'll need to demonstrate that the machine does indeed produce solutions well beyond the molar limit of dilution. Due to the way solutions cling to the sides of a container, this wouldn't be the case if, for example, only a single container was used, repeatedly being shaken up, habving 99% emptied out and then toppped up with water again for another round.

If that's the case we have allready have a possible explanation for your findings - your test subjects are reacting to the actual pressence of, for example sulphur, rather than the water's paranormal memory of sulphur.

To be honest with you, I wasn't aware that machines were used in the preparation of your homeopathic remedies. Would it be possible to find out more about the machine.

Does the machine produce just solutions or does it take the process all the way through to pills?

preparation up to 200c hand made is difficult. one possible thing is, we have to go to a homeopathic pharmacy and get prepare a HM in presence of independent observer qualified homeopath (who know the method of HM preparation, Who studied the homeopathic pharmacy at bachlor level)

Glad to have your requirements for the independant homeopath. I guess a former homeopath and current skeptic like Dr Edzard Ernzt for example would be acceptable to you then.

However if the preparation right the way through to pill production is to be done by machine then we may not need an independant homeopath - so long as you're happy with the sort of blinding procedure I mentioned above.

[Mojo]

To be honest with you, I wasn't aware that machines were used in the preparation of your homeopathic remedies. Would it be possible to find out more about the machine.


They certainly are for high dilutions such as the 200C that muntadev2in proposes using. See here (http://www.helios.co.uk/technical.html), for example. High Potencies
In 1994 after two years of research and development, Helios was proud to be the first British company to have its own high potency succussion machine. To make a high potency by hand would take weeks or months and is extremely labour intensive. In designing the Helios potentiser we have adhered as closely as possible to the human arm action of dilution and succussion "against a hard but elastic object" (aphorism 270 ) as per Hahnemann's instructions. The machine repeatedly empties and refills in a single vial (Korsakov method) until the desired potency is reached, the whole process being computer-controlled to ensure stability and accuracy.


Note, however, that these machines invariably seem to use the "Korsakov Method" (otherwise known as "rinsing"), in which a single vial is repeatedly emptied, refilled, and succussed, and it is assumed that exactly one hundredth of the solution remains in the vial each time. Whether this would have the potential for contamination of the sample may need to be investigated.

See here (http://www.sulisinstruments.com/korsakovian.html) for a description of the Hahnemanian and Korsakovian methods of dilution.

[Ocelot]

They certainly are for high dilutions such as the 200C that muntadev2in proposes using. See here (http://www.helios.co.uk/technical.html), for example.


Note, however, that these machines invariably seem to use the "Korsakov Method" (otherwise known as "rinsing"), in which a single vial is repeatedly emptied, refilled, and succussed, and it is assumed that exactly one hundredth of the solution remains in the vial each time. Whether this would have the potential for contamination of the sample may need to be investigated.

See here (http://www.sulisinstruments.com/korsakovian.html) for a description of the Hahnemanian and Korsakovian methods of dilution.

Ah this might prove a sticking point with the JREF. I rememebr that in the Homeopathy test for the Horizon TV programme, Randi was very careful to specify that the containers not be reused so as to prevent contamination.

Do we think that a 200C solution of say Sulphur produced by this method might contain detectable levels of sulphur?

If so then we might not have a paranormal claim to test.

Dr Kumar,

Have you done any tests on homeopathic remedies prepared through the more traditional method of using a clean fresh container every time?

[Mojo]

Have you done any tests on homeopathic remedies prepared through the more traditional method of using a clean fresh container every time?


I would doubt that small amounts of contaminants would have the effects on temperature that muntadev2in describes. However, they might be detectable in other more mundane ways.

[Rolfe]

Homoeopathic medicines are usually administered in the form of sugar pills which have had the homoeopathic water dropped onto them and allowed to evaporate. The placebo the pills will be compared to will be "blank" sugar pills, although as I've observed above it might be necessary to drop "blank" water onto them in the same way as the remedy pills have been prepared in case this procedure causes any change in their surface appearance.


While I agree that using stock sugar pills moistened with stock solvent for the placebo sham would almost certainly be perfectly OK, I have to admit a preference for doing it properly.

By properly, I mean to prepare the placebo solution in exactly the same way as the remedy, with the only difference being that the placebo has no mother tincture added at the beginning. It is succussed and diluted and "potentised" in exactly the same way, otherwise.

Note Rustum Roy's experiment. He tested an unpotentised blank (stock solvent) and a potentised blank (solvent that had gone through the entire rigmarole, only excepting the presence of the mother tincture at the beginning). He allegedly found significant differences. I would like to be sure that what is being demonstrated is actually related to the presence of the mother tincture, and not some esoteric property of the shaking and diluting.

Rolfe.

[petre]

While I agree that using stock sugar pills moistened with stock solvent for the placebo sham would almost certainly be perfectly OK, I have to admit a preference for doing it properly.


I'm pretty sure the JREF is comfortable allowing an applicant to test an unsuccessed solvent vs. the homeopathic preperation. While the extra step of successing the placebo would make for a more impressive demonstration, I think we're fine leaving that out of the protocol. My standard for adding something to a protocol is always based on making it more likely JREF will accept it ;)

[Ocelot]

We'll have to see. On the test for the Horizon Programme the placebo was succussed.

[JWideman]

Okay, now that my misunderstanding has been cleared up, moving on... :D

I don't see the point of succussing the placebo. Certainly detecting the difference between succussed and non-succussed water would be a paranormal claim all by itself.

[muntadev2in]

my concentration nw is on getting multichannel datalogger with some more sensors.... and getting sufficient time to conduct experiments with HM. As per ur suggestions I will test the medicines and placebo in all aspects

[William Smith]

So far, so good. I would very much like you to take the MDC, muntadev2in. Keep up the good work.

[geni]

Okay, now that my misunderstanding has been cleared up, moving on... :D

I don't see the point of succussing the placebo. Certainly detecting the difference between succussed and non-succussed water would be a paranormal claim all by itself.

Cleaning glass is dull. So significant risk of contamination with say detergent.

[muntadev2in]

So far, so good. I would very much like you to take the MDC, muntadev2in. Keep up the good work.

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.

There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.

[Mojo]

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.

There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.


Oh well, three and a half pages before we got the "I don't want the money" excuse and conspiracy theories isn't bad, I suppose.

[Pixel42]

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.
The MDC is for proof of the paranormal. If you succeed in telling a homepathically treated solution from one which is not so treated, despite the fact that they are scientifically indistinguishable by any means up to and including examination with an electron microscope, you will have proved the existence of the paranormal.

If your aim is to get homeopathy removed from the MDC you need to come up with a scientific explanation of it. Simply demonstrating that it works would only be the first step, though an essential one.

[Jackalgirl]

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.

There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.

Bear in mind that if you succeed, all you are demonstrating is that you're capable of telling a homeopathic preparation from a similarly-prepared placebo.

This proves nothing about the efficacy of homeopathy itself.

So I am not sure that Randi will remove it from the list of testable things.

Though it would be a very interesting first step towards a demonstration of homeopathic effectiveness. Maybe more legitimate institutions would be interested in trials if it could be demonstrated that there actually is a difference between a homeopathic solution and a solution of solvent prepared in exactly the same way, only without the "mother tincture".

[Akhenaten]

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.


No problem, Dude. Prove yourself, win the million (for charity of course) and the Challenge ceases to exist. Your work here will be done and hopefully your intensions eased.



There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.


When will this occur? Might one ask for evidence of this claim?

[Jackalgirl]

There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.
When will this occur? Might one ask for evidence of this claim?

If what Dr. Munta meant to say was "Homeopathy is included as a paranormal effect in the MDC Application due to pressure from allopathic pharmacies", then I have a couple of points:

1) is there evidence that a pharmacy is "allopathic" vice "homeopathic"? Or, in other words, if homeopathic remedies were regularly demonstrated to have an effect beyond placebo, wouldn't they then be regular medical remedies and, thus, be "allopathic"? (I'm probably misunderstanding the meaning of allopathic, but I take this comment to be a take on the standard "Big Medicine is Out to Suppress This Wonderful Cure!" canard.)

2) I don't think that any pharmacy or medical group actually gives much thought to the Million Dollar Challenge. In other words, I highly doubt that any legitimate medical research entity (much less pharmacies) would consider using the MDC as a research venue, or "pressure" the JREF to "include" or "exclude" anything. However, I do think you might be able to argue that something deserves more testing on the basis of having successfully passed the Challenge.

Edited to add: I'm sorry if I missed this, but Dr. Munta, what's the status of your Application? Have you sent it in yet? If so, might you post a copy of it here? Thanks!

[Zep]

Quick explanation: "Allopathy" is a term used only by homeopaths to refer to any modern pharmaceutical medicine. It's a broad but nebulous term. For example, some homeopaths will include surgery under that heading, others will not.

In reality, it is a term invented by the founder of homeopathic theory, Hahnemann, to describe the so-called practice of using drugs that create the opposite symptoms to those being treated in an attempt at a cure. Whereas homeopathic drugs supposedly produce symptoms like those being treated, hence their claimed modus for homeopathy of "like cures like". In fact, modern pharmacy (and, in fact, reality) has never operated in an "allopathic" or "homeopathic" way at all. But that has somehow escaped the homeopathic notice for some 200 years now... ;)

[Jackalgirl]

Hi Zep --

Thanks for the clarification -- I figured that "allopathic" meant "not homeopathic", but your explanation clears it all up.

[Zep]

Over the 200 years since dear old cranky-pants Hahnemann invented the term, "allopathy" has devolved to become a form of insult plus categorisation used by homeopaths to describe just about anything scientific or medical they know nothing about and were never taught in homeopathy college. In their eyes, "allopathy" and "allopaths" are seen pretty much as dangerous drug-dealers of death in the pay of Big PharmaTM, trying to suppress all that is good and wonderful and light-filled with homeopathy. Consequent collisions with real science, proper testing protocols, and the hard facts of medical realities usually results in a rapid retreat back to the "safer" company of the faith-keepers and their chanting.

So sadly, until Dr Munta and his ilk lose this attitude, they will have a hard time coming to grips with the MDC.

[steenkh]

No problem, Dude. Prove yourself, win the million (for charity of course) and the Challenge ceases to exist. Your work here will be done and hopefully your intensions eased.
Or graciously donate the money to the JREf in order to continue the MDC against the real paranormal claims, that will now exclude homoeopathy!

[Cuddles]

1) is there evidence that a pharmacy is "allopathic" vice "homeopathic"? Or, in other words, if homeopathic remedies were regularly demonstrated to have an effect beyond placebo, wouldn't they then be regular medical remedies and, thus, be "allopathic"?

More to the point, every single pharmacy I have seen stocks homeopathic remedies as well as real medicine. Why would they pressure Randi to criticise a significant source of their income?

[JonathanS]

"""Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water."""

Meh..

That's unfair to all the patients of homeopathy. Prove your 'medicine' works like conventional medicine.

[Rolfe]

"""Now I am ready for open challenge to prove that Homeopathic dilutions are different from alcohol or water."""

Meh..

That's unfair to all the patients of homeopathy. Prove your 'medicine' works like conventional medicine.


Nope. His offer is by far the most interesting one.

We know that even conventional medicine "works", to a certain extent, by taking advantage of coincidental recovery and by gently persuading the patient into a more positive outlook on their situation. It's called "placebo". Don't knock it. Awfully useful for minor but annoying ailments. Also known (copyright to DeeTee) as "Daddy kiss it better" therapy.

Homoeopathic remedies have exactly the same effect. The problem, of course, is that this is all the effect they have.

The really scientifically interesting question, as far as an insight into the workings of the universe is concerned, is whether there is any way at all of distinguishing a potentiised homoeopathic remedy from the stock solvent or carrier material. Of course, one way of doing this would be to take advantage of any therapeutic property the potentised remedy has, over and above the stock solvent, and the failure to claim the prize by this method may be interpreted accordingly.

However, any way at all of showing that the remedy is different from the stock solvent would rock the basis of physics and chemistry to its foundations. Whether or not any therapeutic benefit could be demonstrated.

Rolfe.

[JonathanS]

Point taken, Rolfe.

Thing is, I've been on the 'receiving end' of homeopathy before, as well as alternative medicine. I have GERD (gastro esophageal reflux disorder, if I'm not mistaken) which made me miserable for years until I (or better yet my family doctor) finally found a solution - 20mg of Omepradex and a fundamental change in lifestyle. I tried pretty much everything under the sun but the only thing that really helped was conventional medicine.

I guess I was responding to the thread as a disgruntled patient of homeopathy.

I do, however, appreciate the scientific implications of this challenge and will be following this one closely, so best of luck to you, muntadev2in.

[JWideman]

However, any way at all of showing that the remedy is different from the stock solvent would rock the basis of physics and chemistry to its foundations. Whether or not any therapeutic benefit could be demonstrated.

Rolfe.

Not only that, but it no doubt will lead to legitimate research and eventually result in a reliable medical treatment. I know what I'd do with a million dollars at the start of that.

[Mojo]

Also known (copyright to DeeTee) as "Daddy kiss it better" therapy.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=56614

However, any way at all of showing that the remedy is different from the stock solvent would rock the basis of physics and chemistry to its foundations. Whether or not any therapeutic benefit could be demonstrated.


In addition, it avoids infringing the stipulation that "JREF will also NOT test claims that are likely to cause injury of any sort" (as withholding medication from people who are actually ill is likely to do).

[Adavidson]

I just figure that if homepathy actually worked, there wouldnt really be any questions about it, the Dr. posting this wouldnt have to justify his rights and his methods. We dont question the effect of western medicin, because it actually does work, the fysiological effects are there, they are documented though years of test and trials and there is no doubt. The results will always vary depending on different age and health, but they are still there, undisputable.

Im sorry, and I honestly mean this with all respect, I could never dedicate almost 9 years of my life to study something that "might" work and "could" be real.

[arthwollipot]

fysiologicalOh, you were so close.

[MRC_Hans]

While I agree that using stock sugar pills moistened with stock solvent for the placebo sham would almost certainly be perfectly OK, I have to admit a preference for doing it properly.

By properly, I mean to prepare the placebo solution in exactly the same way as the remedy, with the only difference being that the placebo has no mother tincture added at the beginning. It is succussed and diluted and "potentised" in exactly the same way, otherwise.

Note Rustum Roy's experiment. He tested an unpotentised blank (stock solvent) and a potentised blank (solvent that had gone through the entire rigmarole, only excepting the presence of the mother tincture at the beginning). He allegedly found significant differences. I would like to be sure that what is being demonstrated is actually related to the presence of the mother tincture, and not some esoteric property of the shaking and diluting.

Rolfe.Agreed. The reference must be prepared in the same way, otherwise there could be a difference that has nothing to do with homeopathy.

As for Roy's experiment, I seem to remember that his reference "stock solvent" was not necessarily even from the same source as the remedy.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Thanks, but I dont have desire to take dollars..... my intension is to ask Randi to remove homeopathy from MDC.

There will be a strong reason to include homeopathy in MDC that might be pressure from the side of allopathic pharmacies.Unfortunately, you have a long way to go. You and I have discussed your experiment earlier, elsewhere, and from analysing your data, I'm quite certain that whatever patterns you see are artefacts deriving from your sampling frequency.

Hans

[muntadev2in]

I will be back with my blind studies. I am not getting time to conduct experiments I told you, I am working as Researc asst My equipement at my home town. I hope I will get tranfer soon. I will surely claim for MDC.

Aslo I have to plan how to escape from your mazical statistics.

Hope we all will meet at a desk soon.

Thanks,

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta.

[Acleron]

Aslo I have to plan how to escape from your mazical statistics.



I hope that word is not 'magical'.

[Akhenaten]

I will be back with my blind studies.


We'll see.



I am not getting time to conduct experiments


Try saving some time in a bottle and then use it to prepare a batch of homeopathic time. You'll have heaps more than you need.




I told you, I am working as Researc asst My equipement at my home town.


Perhaps you should stop telling us things like this. But since you have, then I might as well ask why you don't move Your Researc equipement and dictionary closer to where you are, and get started on the MDC.



I hope I will get tranfer soon. I will surely claim for MDC.


It's truly amazing to see the barriers that are thrown up by Kismet and the Cosmos to prevent potential MDC claimants from realizing their ambitions.



Aslo I have to plan how to escape from your mazical statistics.


Why don't you just ask Aslo to keep the cages locked?



Hope we all will meet at a desk soon.


That would be a big desk. Who's bringing the cake?



Thanks,

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta.


Dr. doesn't mean the same thing in all places, does it?



Akhenaten,

Now even more diluted and potent than before.

[Pixel42]

I hope that word is not 'magical'.
I think he means mazical as pertaining to a maze, in the way magical pertains to magic. A word which doesn't exist in the English language, but ought to. In fact as far as I'm concerned it now does :)

Though the fact that he appears to believe the word is applicable to a straightforward request that he demonstrate that his hit rate is significantly better than chance is a little concerning.

[JWideman]

There's nothing "mazical" about statistics. In fact, they seem very good at repelling "mazic".

[MRC_Hans]

I will be back with my blind studies. I am not getting time to conduct experiments I told you, I am working as Researc asst My equipement at my home town. I hope I will get tranfer soon. I will surely claim for MDC.

Aslo I have to plan how to escape from your mazical statistics.

Hope we all will meet at a desk soon.

Thanks,

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta.Before you make any blind studies, you need to answer a question I have put to you elsewhere (and wich you have carefully ignored): In the data you have already collected and published (I have attached it below), you claim that there is a difference between the placebo and the medicine signals.

Please state exactly what this difference is.

If you can't do that, there is no need to proceed further.

Hans

[ruckenheim]

I think we "Randi Forum fornicators" may have seen the last of him:

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8526&PID=80283

[William Smith]

I think we "Randi Forum fornicators" may have seen the last of him:

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8526&PID=80283

"I am the visionary, you come up with the nuts and bolts."

Bart Simpson



Muntadev2in, will you come up with nuts and bolts for your MDC protocol? MRC_Hans' inquiry seems a good place to start.

[Pixel42]

I think we "Randi Forum fornicators" may have seen the last of him:

http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=8526&PID=80283
Oh dear, that's a pity. I really thought we might get to a workable test protocol with this one.

I hope he's smart enough to respond to comments like "We all know that homeopathy works" with "Well it should be simple to prove it under laboratory conditions then, shouldn't it?" and persevere with his double-blind self-testing at least. But I'm not optimistic :(

[Mojo]

I hope he's smart enough to respond to comments like "We all know that homeopathy works" with "Well it should be simple to prove it under laboratory conditions then, shouldn't it?"


I fear that the response is more likely to be "yes, we all know it works, but the skeptics deny this because they're in the pay of Big Pharma (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4168867#post4168867)".

[Cuddles]

Stay on topic to the challenge. Any other subjects should be discussed in the appropriate section.

[Adavidson]

Sorry. Moved to Norway at 7, been living here ever since. After my father died I havn`t been speaking english much so I`m a bit rusty.

[catbasket]

Sorry. Moved to Norway at 7, been living here ever since. After my father died I havn`t been speaking english much so I`m a bit rusty.

I suspect arthwollipot was complementing you on your English in a joking kind of way ... the rest of your post was top quality :D

Back on topic - I take it there's still no sign of any communication from the good doctor. I wonder if he got unexpected results from blinded self-testing ;)

[William Smith]

The thread title should read: I am ready to spout unsubstantiated crap, point to my degree in baloney, bitch about critical attitude towards the former and hence am in no way ready for an open challenge which includes two controlled tests.



Ah, perhaps he simply got paid off by Big Allopathy.

[JWideman]

I suspect arthwollipot was complementing you on your English in a joking kind of way ... the rest of your post was top quality :D

Back on topic - I take it there's still no sign of any communication from the good doctor. I wonder if he got unexpected results from blinded self-testing ;)

I think that's why he was talking about "escaping [our] mazical statistics".

[MattC]

I do not understand what you hope to accomplish by passively insulting potential applicants.

~ Matt

[arthwollipot]

I suspect arthwollipot was complementing you on your English in a joking kind of way ... the rest of your post was top quality :DYes - my apologies if I was misinterpretable. I wasn't aware of whether English was your first language or not, but "physiological" is a tricky word and a lot of native speakers in my experience tend to spell the tricky words phonetically. Otherwise your English was impeccable.

[Adavidson]

Its fine, as I said I have not been able too use the language that much sicne we moved to Norway. Over here they don`t use PH as F. It was just a glip. I`ll pay better attention next time;)

[RossFW]

Dr Mutadev2in,

I wonder if you could answer a question for me regarding homeopathy.

You talk here about a 200c solution, or 10^201. This represents a solution something of the magnitude of a drop of water in a body of water the size of the sun.

Your fellow Homeopaths admit that at this dilution, not a single molecule of the active ingredient is in the remedy, but claim there is a "Memory" effect in the water used, at some sub-atomic level.

My question is this- If water has this property and "Remembers" the ingredient you add, wouldn't it also remember any other impurity that had ever been in it or any body of water it had been a part of? And as we are talking about such a tiny dilution, wouldn't all the water on earth have been exposed to just about every molecule that exists on the planet, and retain the "Memory" of that molecule?

Would not, in fact, every glass of water you use to prepare you remedies have a much higher concentration of every molecule of every remedy known to homeopathy than that of the solution you are preparing? And as higher doses reduce the effects of your remedies, would not that make ANY homeopathic solution using water ineffective?

[petre]

My question is this- If water has this property and "Remembers" the ingredient you add, wouldn't it also remember any other impurity that had ever been in it or any body of water it had been a part of? And as we are talking about such a tiny dilution, wouldn't all the water on earth have been exposed to just about every molecule that exists on the planet, and retain the "Memory" of that molecule?


IANAH but IIRC the general response is that the homeopathic method of succession alone can potenize a preperation. That natural mixing, while similar to the homeopathic process, is not sufficient to achieve similar effect.

[screensnot]

My question is this- If water has this property and "Remembers" the ingredient you add, wouldn't it also remember any other impurity that had ever been in it or any body of water it had been a part of? And as we are talking about such a tiny dilution, wouldn't all the water on earth have been exposed to just about every molecule that exists on the planet, and retain the "Memory" of that molecule?

Each time you dilute the mix, you have to bang it against a magical book, and utter a secret chant, while sacrificing a cat.

[Mojo]

You talk here about a 200c solution, or 10^201. This represents a solution something of the magnitude of a drop of water in a body of water the size of the sun.


Not quite: 200C is a 1:10400 dilution ("C" represents a 1:100 dilution). There are about 1080 atoms in the universe, so 200C is equivalent to 1 atom in 10320 universes (assuming, of course, that the universes are on average about the same size as ours).

:boggled:

[Ocelot]

Wow!

I was aware of all that information but hadn't ever seen it put together like that before. Also I just remembered what google (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol) used to mean.

[jsiv]

I did B.sc.,BZC (Botony, zoology, chemistry) after that joined in Homeopathy Did BHMS(batchler of Homeopathic medicine & surgery) and then MD(Homeopathy)
Dr.Dev

Could someone enlighten me as to just what a homeopathic surgeon is?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Could someone enlighten me as to just what a homeopathic surgeon is?

You make a teeny-tiny cut near where the problem is? Or, in the case of a broken leg, you break the patient's pinky finger? :boggled:

[arthwollipot]

successionMinor nitpick, but the word is succussion.

[chillzero]

Everyone, please remember to keep threads in this section strictly on topic to the MDC.

[Anna Karenina]

I'm confused I thought the million dollar challenge was for people who could demonstrate paranormal powers? As far as I know homeopaths claim their potions work on science (which I lol at), not magic?

[Anna Karenina]

I think we "Randi Forum fornicators" may have seen the last of him:


OH MY GOD SO MUCH LOL MATERIAL ON THAT THREAD
This was my favourite:

"We all know that homeopathy works. Don't bother beating a dead horse with the idiots of the world. They are the forgotten ash heap of history. Move on. Take that secret you know and build things with it. Don't bother trying to convince the skeptics; for you can never win an argument with twits. Just let the preponderance of the evidence continue to grow.

2) Now, we are war with Allopathy's fortress. It is a tightly held castle -- more like a prison complex and Nazi SS concentration camp -- which genocides millions of people per year. But, they go silently in the night not even as prisoners, but usually as loyal believers -- both stupid and deserving to die and with the innocent among them. "

[Zep]

I'm confused I thought the million dollar challenge was for people who could demonstrate paranormal powers? As far as I know homeopaths claim their potions work on science (which I lol at), not magic?Randi has made it clear that the claimed properties of ultra-molar homeopathic remedies definitely qualify for the MDC. Homeopaths are invited to make a simple test as a result: Distinguish an ultra-molar remedy from its base solvent using any method they like but under proper observing (i.e. scientific) conditions.

If it works as claimed by homeopaths, that should be a doddle and we can argue the modus later. So far, all excuses in the world, but no takers.

[steenkh]

I'm confused I thought the million dollar challenge was for people who could demonstrate paranormal powers? As far as I know homeopaths claim their potions work on science (which I lol at), not magic?
Randi is offering the MDC for many products and abilities which the owner claims is within the laws of nature. For instance, the audiophile products that have attracted his attention are claimed to be scientific, but are in fact based on superstition, and Randi wants to prove it.

[Mojo]

For instance, the audiophile products that have attracted his attention are claimed to be scientific, but are in fact based on superstition, and Randi wants to prove it.


Or rather, he wants them to prove that their products actually work.

[Mojo]

I'm confused I thought the million dollar challenge was for people who could demonstrate paranormal powers? As far as I know homeopaths claim their potions work on science (which I lol at), not magic?Randi has made it clear that the claimed properties of ultra-molar homeopathic remedies definitely qualify for the MDC.


See, for example, http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#8

The JREF has for years offered the homeopathic community a simple challenge — one that we also made to Benveniste: simply show us that you are able to differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic preparations, by any means, and you win the million-dollar prize. By "any means," we mean chemical (qualitative or quantitative analysis), biological (in vivo or in vitro), physical (polarization, spectroanalysis, microanalysis), or metaphysical (Tarot cards, intuition, vibrations, auras, Kirlian, I Ching, guessing, spirit communication), or any other means.