Homoeopathic provings

[Rolfe]

In this week's commentary, Randi states the following.the definition of homeopathic "proving" given above is incorrect. It actually consists of giving the full dosage of a substance to a test person, noting the symptoms, and then deciding that given dosages diluted down well beyond Avogadro's Limit, the symptoms of a sick person will be relieved. Look it up.He's wrong, actually.

I don't blame him, because it's the definition given by virtually all authors who try to explain homoeopathy to non-homoeopaths. It's what it says in HomeoWatch (http://www.homeowatch.org/) (sorry, I'm not sure which page to link to). Nevertheless, this is not what homoeopaths actually do.

Have a look at this letter from a veterinary homoeopath (http://www.vetpath.co.uk/voodoo/vettimes.html#hoare2) Admittedly, Dr Hahnemann's first experiments with Peruvian bark extract were carried out using material doses (Cullen, 1790), but he gradually reduced the size of the doses used in both proving medicines and treating patients. By 1833 he was recommending that the 30 cH dilution should be used for all provings.If any more confirmation is needed that the provings are done on the magic water, just look at the site being discussed by Randi's correspondent (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm). The very first substance being "proved" there is the blood of an AIDS patient. Unsurprisingly, this was done entirely on content-free preparations, the 30C noted by Mr. Hoare and also 200C.

In addition, all the scientifically-published studies of homoeopathic proving have used content-free preparations - because that is how homoeopaths do it.

G<FONT SIZE="-1">OODYEAR</FONT>, K., L<FONT SIZE="-1">EWITH</FONT>, G. & L<FONT SIZE="-1">OW</FONT>, J. L. (1998) Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of homoeopathic 'proving' for Belladonna C30. (http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/91/11/579) J. R. Soc. Med. 91(11), 579-82.

B<FONT SIZE="-1">RIEN</FONT>, S., L<FONT SIZE="-1">EWITH</FONT>, G. & B<FONT SIZE="-1">RYANT</FONT>, T. (2003) Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract) Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56(5), 562-568.

V<FONT SIZE="-1">ICKERS</FONT>, A. J., <FONT SIZE="-1">VAN</FONT> H<FONT SIZE="-1">ASELEN</FONT>, R. & H<FONT SIZE="-1">EGER</FONT>, M. (2001) Can homeopathically prepared mercury cause symptoms in healthy volunteers? A randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. (http://zerlina.ingentaselect.com/vl=31257457/cl=30/nw=1/rpsv/catchword/mal/10755535/v7n2/s5/p141) J. Altern. Complement. Med. 7(2), 141-8.

W<FONT SIZE="-1">ALACH</FONT>, H. (1993) Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=8301625&dopt=Abstract) J. Psychosomatic Res. 37(8), 851-860.

W<FONT SIZE="-1">ALACH</FONT>, H., K<FONT SIZE="-1">OSTER</FONT>, H., H<FONT SIZE="-1">ENNIG</FONT>, T., & H<FONT SIZE="-1">AAG</FONT>, G. (2001) The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers - a randomized, double-blind experiment. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=11316508&dopt=Citation) J. Psychosomatic Res. 50(3), 155-160.

It is interesting to note that most if not all of these studies were carried out by homoeopathic believers, and yet they all acknowledge that there was no discernible difference between the effects recorded for the magic sugar pills and the placebo.

It is a common misconception that homoeopathic provings are done on the crude substance, but it simply isn't so. It would be quite easy to "look up" references giving the wrong information, but when you actually look at the writings of homoeopaths themselves rather than those writing about them, the true situation becomes clear.

I'm not trying to bash Randi for this common and understandable mistake, but I think it's important that around the JREF people should be really clear as to the true situation. For the simple reason that if a single word of that drivel about provings was true, it would be the easiest thing in the world for a homoeopath to win the Challenge. Never mind complicated trials on clinical cases, just do a proving and show that you can recognise the symptoms.

There are many homoeopaths who confidently assert that they can easily identify the proving symptoms of certain content-free remedies. Including Mr. Hoare. However, when it's pointed out to them that demonstrating this will net them a million bucks, somehow there's always an excuse.

Rolfe.

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Rolfe
In this week's commentary, Randi states the following.He's wrong, actually...
*snip*


:clap: Wow... have you e-mailed Randi with this?!

It's amazing how inconsistent and confusing this "theory" is without ANY evidence it works at all. Why have so many brain cells worked so hard to cooking it all up?

[Donks]

Originally posted by delphi_ote
:clap: Wow... have you e-mailed Randi with this?!

It's amazing how inconsistent and confusing this "theory" is without ANY evidence it works at all. Why have so many brain cells worked so hard to cooking it all up?
From what I've seen of homeopaths, and my interaction with them on this board, they simply start out with the premise that homeopathy works. That leaves them the task of figuring out how, and for that they have to build some pretty complicated explanations with no basis in reality. Just look at Kumar, the rate at which he comes up with new explanations, which sometimes tend to be rather contradictory to one another, is astounding. And he never really dismissed any of them, no matter what.

[treble_head]

Well, I'm trying to work out homeopathy, myself. I decided to mix my drinks with water this evening. Lots of it. I diluted a shot of vodka with a gallon of water, and after 4 hours, I am still not f-ed up. This seems dissapointing, but I assume the vibes are wrong or electromagnetic clusters of the energy of polarity pertaining to the reflexiveness of my inner child's chakras are desensitised due to karma. Plus, considering my past life as Cleopatra's concubine... Man, I won't even get into it.

At least I peed a lot, which is good for internal cleansing of my ummm... polar energy... points... daggit. I don't have enough pseudoscience in me to keep this up. My aura must be misaligned with Virgo in the third house of Capricorn. Damn... Where's the number of my chiropractor?

[GREATBLOKE]

LMAO Treble :)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Rolfe
If any more confirmation is needed that the provings are done on the magic water, just look at the site being discussed by Randi's correspondent (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm). The very first substance being "proved" there is the blood of an AIDS patient. Unsurprisingly, this was done entirely on content-free preparations, the 30C noted by Mr. Hoare and also 200C.

In addition, all the scientifically-published studies of homoeopathic proving have used content-free preparations - because that is how homoeopaths do it.And indeed, here's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870861842#post1870861842) a homeopath on this forum talking about proving a remedy at a potency of 200 (although he doesn't seem to say whether that's X or C - does anyone know what default these people use?).

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by treble_head
Well, I'm trying to work out homeopathy, myself. I decided to mix my drinks with water this evening. Lots of it. I diluted a shot of vodka with a gallon of water, and after 4 hours, I am still not f-ed up. This seems dissapointing, but I assume the vibes are wrong or electromagnetic clusters of the energy of polarity pertaining to the reflexiveness of my inner child's chakras are desensitised due to karma. Plus, considering my past life as Cleopatra's concubine... Man, I won't even get into it.

At least I peed a lot, which is good for internal cleansing of my ummm... polar energy... points... daggit. I don't have enough pseudoscience in me to keep this up. My aura must be misaligned with Virgo in the third house of Capricorn. Damn... Where's the number of my chiropractor?

Well actually, you would expect that to make you super-SOBER. The idea is like-cures-like. So go get plastered, down some homeo-alcohol and drive home! :(

[Francois Tremblay]

No no no, you got it all wrong. A substance, when homeopathically diluted, is supposed to give us opposite effects. So if you dliute alcohol, you're supposed to feel sober. That's what you did wrong ! You should dilute coffee !

[treble_head]

Originally posted by Francois Tremblay
No no no, you got it all wrong. A substance, when homeopathically diluted, is supposed to give us opposite effects. So if you dliute alcohol, you're supposed to feel sober. That's what you did wrong ! You should dilute coffee !

Yeah, well, with the way the office lady makes the coffee in the morning, I assure you it is already diluted to homeopathic levels. Believe me, if I could get drunk off that stuff, especially where I work, I'd be shellacked right now.

[Soapy Sam]

Does drinking homoeopathically dilute water make you thirsty?

[hodgy]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Does drinking homoeopathically dilute water make you thirsty?

No, its a cure for drowning.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
In this week's commentary, Randi states the following.He's wrong, actually.

I'm not trying to bash Randi for this common and understandable mistake, but I think it's important that around the JREF people should be really clear as to the true situation.

WHAT? Randi wrong? James Randi failing to research his comments properly? James Randi being less than fair to the people he attacks? Giving out information that isn't quite accurate or true?

Impossible. Utterly unheard of.
:i:

[BillyJoe]

Peter,

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Impossible. Utterly unheard of. No irony needed.

We all know that Randi makes mistakes.
Why do you think we are continually correcting them?
He is not God our Father.

Get over it.

BJ