Dr. Sheikh will prove homoeopathy works or quit!

[Mojo]

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1379773#post1379773), Dr. A Sheikh has stated that he (and others, presumably the rest of the MAS collective) will cease to practice homoeopathy if they fail to prove that it works in a double blinded test: We will prove it with double blind test. if we will fail then we will leave homeopathic practice for ever.

OK, Sheikh, get on with it. Put up or shut up.

You can use this thread to give us details of your proposed test protocol etc.

[Zep]

Oh, THIS will be good! I can't wait to see what protocol he comes up with! No doubt it will studiously avoid even the merest hint of the most basic logic and integrity that even a child of nine or ten could understand.

[BillC]

I suspect that it will be a new interpretation of the phrase 'double blind'.

[Zep]

They "doubly blind" themselves to the results. ;)

[Aepervius]

I suspect that it will be a new interpretation of the phrase 'double blind'.

I suspect we won#t even get an honest answer from him on this thread, meaning, we will not even get a protocol at all, jsut more question and dodging.

[Mojo]

Of course, in the event that he is unable to produce an adequate protocol and to successfully use it to prove that homoeopathy works, Dr. Sheikh is welcome to use this thread to post his confirmation that he has permanently ceased to practice homoeopathy.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

In this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1379773#post1379773), Dr. A Sheikh has stated that he (and others, presumably the rest of the MAS collective) will cease to practice homoeopathy if they fail to prove that it works in a double blinded test:

OK, Sheikh, get on with it. Put up or shut up.

You can use this thread to give us details of your proposed test protocol etc.

We are the most honest in the sense that you design db protocol for us. The choice is yours. We will just follow it.

[ReFLeX]

Dr. Sheikh, does your signature contain an argument anywhere in there?

[Czarcasm]

Will he be using a single silk thread as a homeopathetic "blindfold"?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

My signature represents skeptic point of view. I have collected from many other sites and including these pages of forum where they mostly post.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Will he be using a single silk thread as a homeopathetic "blindfold"?

never mind. I am replying where other members made some post. I am also facing difficulties.

[Mojo]

We are the most honest in the sense that you design db protocol for us. The choice is yours. We will just follow it.Why should we help you out with your homework?

Come on, Sheikh. Surely someone who knows your subject as well as you claim can do something as basic as designing a double blinded test protocol?

Post it here, and I'm sure someone will let you whether or not it's satisfactory.

[Mojo]

My signature represents skeptic point of view. I have collected from many other sites and including these pages of forum where they mostly post.Can you provide a link to somewhere where a sceptic has said that this is their point of view? Or are you prepared to admit that no sceptic has said this?

[Dr. A Sheikh]

scroll pages of nch and randi forums and also hpathy and otherhealth.

Mine signature is appearing for the last two months or so? why are you objecting today?

Why you don't have objection on rolfe signature. it is pure lie.

[Rolfe]

No, it's not. It even links to the forum pages proving exactly how true it is. Have a read, be my guest.

Rolfe.

[TobiasTheViking]

@Rolfe: love the b5 quote... though it makes me wonder if you are an addict :D

[Mojo]

scroll pages of nch and randi forums and also hpathy and otherhealth. You say a sceptic has said this. Prove it: provide a link.

Mine signature is appearing for the last two months or so? why are you objecting today? I've been complaining about it ever since I noticed it. For example, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1354232#post1354232) I am asking you to back up your assertion on January 2nd. You still haven't; because you can't.

Why you don't have objection on rolfe signature. it is pure lie.I can't see anything untrue in Rolfe's signature. Can you be a bit more specific as to what you think is a lie?

[TobiasTheViking]

I can't see anything untrue in Rolfe's signature. Can you be a bit more specific as to what you think is a lie?
The fact that the young mother who died was just a figment of everyones imagination. It was a hypothetical case, but had it been real, that would have been the outcome..


I must admit i agree with the homeopaths on that one, i think it should say hypothetical case.. but.. not my signature.

[Rolfe]

@Rolfe: love the b5 quote... though it makes me wonder if you are an addict :DAbout as addicted as they come, pal.

Rolfe.

http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/JREF/delenn.jpg

[Rolfe]

The fact that the young mother who died was just a figment of everyones imagination. It was a hypothetical case, but had it been real, that would have been the outcome..


I must admit i agree with the homeopaths on that one, i think it should say hypothetical case.. but.. not my signature.Once upon a time it did, then the new forum software truncated everyone's sig. Look, you can read all about it on the link. The only reason it never happened for real is that most of Snoopy's supposed patients are either hypochondriacs or imaginary.

Rolfe.

[TobiasTheViking]

About as addicted as they come, pal.

Rolfe.

http://www.b5-dark-mirror.demon.co.uk/JREF/delenn.jpg
O.O

[Nucular]

Actually, I think our friend the Sheikh is objecting to the other quote.

If medicine all came down to the numbers, and Sheikh et al. have not even demonstrated that they can count, let alone understand where the numbers come from in the first place, then of course they're going to disagree.

"I'll remove my sig saying that sceptics think the moon is made of sausages when it is in fact made of cheese, if you stop offending my sensibilities by asking me to understand complicated constructs like statistics when all I want to do is make a fast buck from some uneducated unfortunates."

... is perhaps what he means

[Z]

'Sat you, Rolfe? Somehow, I pictured you as more hirsute, with a bulbuous nose and long, floppy ears...

Nice costume, though.

[Tricky]

'Sat you, Rolfe? Somehow, I pictured you as more hirsute, with a bulbuous nose and long, floppy ears...

Nice costume, though.
I believe you're thinking of Rowlf
http://www.toughpigs.com/images/forum15.jpg

[Dr. A Sheikh]

I can't see anything untrue in Rolfe's signature. Can you be a bit more specific as to what you think is a lie?

where snoopy did it? prove it. I know snoopy she is very kind and highly educated then you.

also provide link at hpathy.

[ReFLeX]

scroll pages of nch and randi forums and also hpathy and otherhealth.Your signature is still just argument by assertion.
Mine signature is appearing for the last two months or so? why are you objecting today?This is the first time I've seen you.
Why you don't have objection on rolfe signature. it is pure lie.Well, because quoting someone can't really be a lie. It can be a misquote. Here is the post in original context. I found it in about 2 minutes. (http://www.hpathy.com/homeopathyforums/forum_posts.asp?TID=1716)

Posted: 04 July 04 at 16:48 | IP Logged

To give Rolfe his due...
ETA: That's the fifth post from the bottom.

And note: Rolfe has already said it was hypothetical, (not a real case).

[Rolfe]

Hey, how did you find that? I thought the original had fallen to Stalin's airbrush.

Rolfe.

[dogbite666]

Dr. A Sheikh,

are you going to continue to obfuscate or get on with defining a test protocol?

First of all you say:

We will prove it with double blind test. if we will fail then we will leave homeopathic practice for ever.

Then you refuse to define your own protocol:

We are the most honest in the sense that you design db protocol for us. The choice is yours. We will just follow it.

So, I'll do it for you. Earlier I emailed you a simple test protocol concerning your claims with homeopathic Camphor. For everyone else's sake heres what I wrote:

Please tell us how you would control the test you suggested in the thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=37460&page=29
How would you know if it was the Camphor remedy having an effect on the patient or placebo, or even if their condition changed by chance?

If I were to carry out this test I would take 3 groups. One group would be given a homeopathic remedy, one a placebo and one group is given nothing. I would ensure that the patients and the people prescribing the homeopathic remedy and judging the results didnt know which patients belonged to which group.

If homeopathic Camphor remdy is effective in treating patients with the ailments you described then the group which were given the remedy will show greater improvments than the other 2 groups. DO YOU AGREE Dr. A Sheikh???

Now then Dr. A Sheikh, Do you agree that the protocol I have described would be a suffcient test? Do you agree to stand by your words and take a test using the protocol I have described and if this test proved that homeopathic camphor didnt work would you give up your practice? Are you going to do anything you say Dr. A Sheikh? or are you going to continually make claims then run away?

Its time to put up or shut up Dr. A Sheikh!

[ReFLeX]

Hey, how did you find that? I thought the original had fallen to Stalin's airbrush.

Rolfe.
I googled hpathy, then clicked on hpathy.com and then the forum link. Then I tried to figure out what had happened. Realizing the problem, I closed the giant ad then I searched for "Rolfe" and the thread was 10 or 15 lines down.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Dr. A Sheikh,

are you going to continue to obfuscate or get on with defining a test protocol?

First of all you say:



Then you refuse to define your own protocol:



So, I'll do it for you. Earlier I emailed you a simple test protocol concerning your claims with homeopathic Camphor. For everyone else's sake heres what I wrote:



Now then Dr. A Sheikh, Do you agree that the protocol I have described would be a suffcient test? Do you agree to stand by your words and take a test using the protocol I have described and if this test proved that homeopathic camphor didnt work would you give up your practice? Are you going to do anything you say Dr. A Sheikh? or are you going to continually make claims then run away?

Its time to put up or shut up Dr. A Sheikh!

I am ready to use that protocol. Now where are the camphor patients? I am ready to carryout DBT.

[Mojo]

Now where are the camphor patients? Don't you have any patients, "doctor"?

Remember, you are the person who has promised to prove that homoeopathy works in a double blind test. It's up to you to do it.

ETA: Or, as promised, permanently quit practising homoeopathy.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

I said send camphor patients. Where I could search for camphor patients? Gather some camphor patients for me. I don't have camphor patients yet. I am seriously thinking to quit homeopathy if DBT fails over homeopathic remedies.

[dogbite666]

I am ready to use that protocol. Now where are the camphor patients? I am ready to carryout DBT.

Are you kidding? First you ask me to design a protocol for you to prove your claim, now you want me to carry it out for you!!!!!

You make the claim, you prove it! surley you have some patients, your are a 'doctor'! if you apply for the JREF challenge with the protocol I suggested I'm sure they'll have someone in Pakistan come and vist you and your patients in your own practice.

[steenkh]

OK, you are a brave man, Sheikh. But as you well know, there are serious logistic obstacles that prevent us from helping you: Most of us are not practising doctors, and we have no access to a base of patients tthat may be willing to participate in a test. Even if we were, there would be the problem that you live in Pakistan, and most of us do not. And last but not least, if we supplied the patients, you could afterwards claim that we had supplied you with the wrong type of patients.

So, any testing will have to be performed by yourself. If you do not regularly encounter camphor patients that could be willing to participate in a test, perhaps you test some other remedy where it will be easier for you to find suitable patients?

[Tricky]

I said send camphor patients. Where I could search for camphor patients? Gather some camphor patients for me. I don't have camphor patients yet. I am seriously thinking to quit homeopathy if DBT fails over homeopathic remedies.
If you're planning to apply for the Randi million, you might want to read this part: (http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#5.4)



5.4. Who pays for my expenses, and why? (http://forums.randi.org/)
You do. It's spelled out in the Challenge rules. Remember that your position in the Challenge is that of defendant. But it's also important to realize that there is an important difference between this and a court of law: you are not innocent until proven guilty. Rather, you are normal until proven paranormal, and it is up to you to prove your paranormality. This means that you have to pay for travel, you have to pay to build any devices you want to demonstrate, and so forth. All the ingredients required in proving your claim are yours and yours alone. The JREF will under no circumstances incur such costs.
5.5. Who pays for the JREF's expenses, and why? (http://forums.randi.org/) Again, you do, and again, it's spelled out in the Challenge rules. The reason is that the JREF doesn't see any reason for it to spend any money to help you defend yourself. However, all observers work on a volunteer basis, so no JREF associate or investigator will present you with an expense bill following testing. The JREF will not surprise you with such added costs. You are expected to arrive at testing with everything you need, and it is your job to make the necessary provisions beforehand. The JREF will in no way assist you in these matters.

JREF is under no obligation to provide patients for you to test. Thats one reason why you might consider trying some other way of differentiating the homeopathic solution from the inert solution. The obvious way would be to test if you can detect the active ingredient. If you insist on a medical test, you'll probably have to work with some medical facility to provide patients, and it won't be free. Perhaps you could find some university to provide a research grant. Sorry, but that's the way medicine works. That's why being a quack has such appeal: The up-front expenses are few.

If you are doing this for your own edification and not the Randi million, then obviously it is up to you to find patients. However, don't expect anyone here to believe your results unless you have your work peer-reviewed by legitimate medical journals.

[ReFLeX]

I am seriously thinking to quit homeopathy if DBT fails over homeopathic remedies.I am seriously thinking you know those studies will never be done to your satisfaction.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Are you kidding? First you ask me to design a protocol for you to prove your claim, now you want me to carry it out for you!!!!!

You make the claim, you prove it! surley you have some patients, your are a 'doctor'! if you apply for the JREF challenge with the protocol I suggested I'm sure they'll have someone in Pakistan come and vist you and your patients in your own practice.

At the moment, I have no camphor patient. You don't have to carryout the DBT for me. I will do it for myself. Thank you. The problem is for proving camphor symptoms you require few patients almost thirty plus for three groups atleast 10 in each group. From where I could have thirty patients in a row? Please follow this point. If you kindly favour me in finding patients then I will be grateful to you.

[Mojo]

You promised to do the test. It's up to you to do the work now.

If you can't do it, you shouldn't have made the promise in the first place.

[Mojo]

And if you can't find sufficient patients for this protocol, I suggest that you concentrate on devising a protocol that can be carried out using the resources that you have available.

[dogbite666]

At the moment, I have no camphor patient. You don't have to carryout the DBT for me. I will do it for myself. Thank you. The problem is for proving camphor symptoms you require few patients almost thirty plus for three groups atleast 10 in each group. From where I could have thirty patients in a row? Please follow this point. If you kindly favour me in finding patients then I will be grateful to you.

How am I going to help you find 30 patients? I live in the UK not Pakistan. How many patients come you on a daily basis? why dont you use them? they dont have to be Camphor patients, find out what the most common ailment you treat is, then use the same protocol with those patients!!! Jeeeez!

[steenkh]

If you are doing this for your own edification and not the Randi million, then obviously it is up to you to find patients. However, don't expect anyone here to believe your results unless you have your work peer-reviewed by legitimate medical journals.
That is partly right. If Dr. A Sheikh decides to quit homoeopathy after a negative result, I think we will believe the results and even congratulate him on his integrity.

If he gets a positive result, I think we should not dismiss it out of hand, unless we have reason to doubt his honesty. We would of course scrutinise his protocols and report very carefully, looking for flaws, but the most obvious course would be to advise him to repeat the experiment for the JREF million.

Publishment in a recognised, peer-reviewed medical journal is not easy to get if you are not a recognised medical doctor or researcher, and I think it would be wrong to demand something that we know is next to impossible. I would certainly not like to go to record as one who has rejected a coming Nobel laureate!

[Dr. A Sheikh]

So, any testing will have to be performed by yourself. If you do not regularly encounter camphor patients that could be willing to participate in a test, perhaps you test some other remedy where it will be easier for you to find suitable patients?

Sir with my humble request, try to follow the point, we have to carry out to prove http://www.abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Camph. "camphor proving symptoms" through DBT. Do you Agree?

Please again please pick this point we are going to prove "symptoms of camphor", at my clinic only one patient might visit in a month. On that patient we can verify or prove only one symptom of the camphor (or any other remedy of homeopathy), then I have to wait for another month and it is possible to see two patients in a month but this is also possible that no camphor patient visit at my clinic within two months.

Ok, leave camphor and select anyother remedy but again where are the patients? Whatever you will suggest to solve this problem, in my humble campacity I am ready to follow it. Even I am ready to travel to visit different clinic of my city but I could find five to six patients of camphor and all of them have different symptoms of camphor then what I have to do? We can only conduct DBT on single symptom as mentioned at http://www.abchomeopathy.com/r.php/Camph.

Please advice!

[Psiload]

I said send camphor patients. Where I could search for camphor patients? Gather some camphor patients for me. I don't have camphor patients yet. I am seriously thinking to quit homeopathy if DBT fails over homeopathic remedies. There are much easier ways to "prove" homeopathy by DBT other than rounding up a bunch of "camphor patients"... whatever they are.

Isn't there some sort of homeopathic "remedy" which will cause a consistent effect, aggravation, result... in anyone who takes it? Just pick a remedy which you believe will have some detectable effect on a person, or yourself for that matter. Administer that remedy 50/50 alongside a batch of unpotentiated stock solvent, or blank pill. Do this blinded, and to a statistically significant level of sucess in indentifying the "active" remedy, and you win the prize... What does 1 million bucks come translate to in ruppees?

It's really that simple. No mass recruiting of camphor patients required.

FYI... the fact that this simple test has NEVER, EVER been successfully accomplished by ANY homeopath should really tell you something...

if you're willing to listen.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Camphor symptoms: MIND

mind; behaviour; shrieking;
insecure, uncertain, scared; anxiety;
insecure, uncertain, scared; anxiety; during chill; ;
insecure, uncertain, scared; fear; night; ;
restlessness, nervousness;
HEAD

head; pulsating; back of head (occiput); standing;

EYE

eye; sparkling;

NOSE

nose; coldness;
pointed;

FACE

face; coldness; cholera;
coldness; in hydrocephalus (water on the brain: headache, drowsiness, vomiting);
expression; anxious;
lips; discoloration; bluish;
lips; upper lip pulled up, exposing teeth;
perspiration;
perspiration; cold;
skin; discoloration; bluish;
skin; discoloration; pale;
skin; discoloration; pale; during chill; ;
sunken;

MOUTH

mouth; sensation of coldness; tongue; ;
cold breath;
dryness; tongue; ;
tongue; cold tongue;
tongue; flabby;
tongue; trembling;

ABDOMEN

abdomen; bladder; urging to urinate (unhealthy desire);
kidneys; suppression of urine; from suppressed gonorrhoea;
stomach; coldness;

RECTUM

rectum; cholera;
diarrhoea; hot weather; ;

STOOL

stool; copious;
watery; like rice water;

URINE

urine; burning (includes hot);
colour; greenish;

GENITALS

genitals; male; sexual passion; suppressed;
female; sexual intercourse; desire increased;
urethra (urinary part of genitals); pain; burning;
urethra (urinary part of genitals); pain; burning; during urination; ;

RESPIRATION

respiration; asphyxia; in new-born infant; ;

CHEST

chest; anxiety; region of heart; ;
congestion;

EXTREMITIES, LIMBS

extremities, limbs; coldness;
coldness; with diarrhoea;
coldness; yet warm bed unbearable;
coldness; upper limbs; hands; ;
coldness; lower limbs; foot; icy cold;

SLEEP

sleep; sleeplessness, insomnia; coverings are warm though limbs are cold;

CHILL

chill; chilliness (see also whole body; temperature);
external; ;
external; as in cholera;
icy coldness of the body;
with fever, but chill predominating;
shaking, shivering, rigors;
uncovering, undressing;

FEVER

fever; internal heat; with external chill;
when walking in open air; ;

PERSPIRATION

perspiration; clammy;
cold;

SKIN

skin; coldness;
coldness; icy;

INJURIES AND ACCIDENTS

injuries and accidents; shock from injury;

GENERALITIES

generalities; general physical anxiety;
blood vessels; blue discoloration (from lack of oxygen in blood);
collapse;
collapse; after diarrhoea; ;
after measles; ;
pain; sore, bruised; internally; ;
pulse; imperceptible; almost;
pulse; small;
pulse; weak;
suppression of sexual desire;
temperature (felt and effects of temperature); cold feeling; lack of vital heat;
temperature (felt and effects of temperature); cold air;
weakness (see lethargic, weariness); from perspiration;

(in above proving you can only prove typical symptoms of camphor other are general symptoms of all remedies.)

[Dr. A Sheikh]

steenkh advice is sensible

__________________
According to the Skeptics Point of View, modern medical drugs can have a physiological effect at 1x and can be used to treat certain diseases at 1x. But the same medical drugs in homeopathy cannot show any physiological effect in 1x. Neither it cannot bring any physiological change in the body nor it can treat any disease. After knowing the opinion of skeptics, can any one discuss with them on scientific ground? (Remember, many medical drugs are same in both Homeopathy and Allopathic systems)

[Dr. A Sheikh]

psiload, we have crossed that step now we are moving to some more positive steps to complete the task, don't beat the drum behind us.

[Mojo]

As I've already said, if you can't carry out the protocol proposed here, you need to devise your own protocol which you can carry out using the resources available to you.

Try Psiload's suggestion: Just pick a remedy which you believe will have some detectable effect on a person, or yourself for that matter. Administer that remedy 50/50 alongside a batch of unpotentiated stock solvent, or blank pill. Do this blinded, and to a statistically significant level of sucess in indentifying the "active" remedy

[Almo]

You guys wouldn't really trust a study done by him, would you?

[steenkh]

I really do not see why you cannot choose some other remedy than camphor - unless it is the only remedy that you can test ethically without endagering your patients.

I admit that one camphor patient in a month is a bit too few, but even so, there is no obligation that all the patients have to come in a short time. All you need to do is having two sets of remedy prepared: a normal set and a set of pure solvent (placebo), both in identical glasses. Then have somebody else that is not connected to your clinic in any way code the glasses and mix them randomly, keeping the code sealed where you cannot inspect it. Then use the remedy normally (but inform your patients of the test; if they object to the test, you must have a set of normal uncoded remedy for those patients that will not be part of your test).

Now, if you only have a camphor patient once a month, it could take you 30 months to perform the test (or more if some patients opt out), but if you can reach more patients, the test could be faster.

Only after all 30 (or 20 patients if you drop the group that get no treatment at all) have been evaluated, do you contact the person holding the code. Ideally, somebody else should evaluate the results (triple blind testing) but you can also do it yourself.

If you choose something entirely different than curing symptoms, you might find easier going. If you choose something that is crucial to your understanding of homoeopathy, like perhaps proving symptoms, you could just ask a number of people, such as cured patients if they will participate, and so you could reach the desired number much faster.

[steenkh]

You guys wouldn't really trust a study done by him, would you?
Apart from possible misunderstandings (admittedly, he has a blind spot about homoeopathy), I have not seen any evidence that he is dishonest.

Homoeopaths have exactly the same reaction when skeptics take loads of homoeopathic medicine to show that there is no effect: the homoeopaths are quick to disbelieve the results. Why should we behave in the same way?

[Rolfe]

How about the protocol I suggested in a different thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=997738#post997738)?So, purely hypothetical proposal. Both myself and the JREF witness the preparation by independent manufacturers of the necessary homoeopathic remedies and "sham" preparations, and the appropriate labelling, and their delivery to an independent and mutually trusted lawyer.

The lawyer agrees to send or deliver to me, one at a time and on request, either the remedy I ask for, or a sham. I take my time and decide whether I got the requested remedy or not (any way I please), and notify another trusted third party, who does nothing but keep a record of my decisions. I then notify the lawyer that I'm ready for the next one, and he sends it to me. And so on.

We do this, say, 15 times (which I think would allow for sufficient statistical power). After I have delivered my 15 decisions, the lawyer who was sending out the material compares notes with the person recording my decisions, and the number of correct calls counted. If this makes it to a less than 1 in 1,000 chance that I was guessing, the preliminary phase has been passed.

Naturally, I pay all professional fees accrued by this process.

I'm asking because sometimes homoeopaths complain that it's impossible to satisfy the demands of the challenge, and it would be nice to have a simple and practical protocol that (probably, I'm not asking for guarantees here) meets the requirements.

This one lets them pick the remedy they think they can identify according to what volunteers they can scare up with what symptoms, or "prove" it themselves or on other volunteers or anything, and it lets them take their time about deciding whether the effect is there, without anyone being locked up in a room or having to take a long holiday or provide a number of people with the same disease simultaneously.

I think it's fair, I think it's secure, and I think it would work. And frankly, if I believed in homoeopathy I'd be rushing to get my application in quick before somebody beat me to it. The fact that they're all so coy and can never agree on what they think they can do says to me as clearly as anything that they know they can't do anything.Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Apart from possible misunderstandings (admittedly, he has a blind spot about homoeopathy), I have not seen any evidence that he is dishonest. How about the porkie in his sig?

[Rolfe]

How about the whole "woman4ya" affair? He's as straight as a bent corkscrew.

Rolfe.

[Almo]

Homoeopaths have exactly the same reaction when skeptics take loads of homoeopathic medicine to show that there is no effect: the homoeopaths are quick to disbelieve the results. Why should we behave in the same way?

Excellent point.

[steenkh]

How about the porkie in his sig?
I tend to think that he believes it himself, but that he is too lazy or unable to use a search engine to find the original quotes. Besides, he would search in vain, because he only remembers his own misconceptions of the quotes.

Anyway, I agree, he would seem more serious if he changed his sig or if he produced the evidence of the quotes.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

steen and others you are not reading my entire posts. I said, I have no objection in selecting anyother remedy. Please read my posts again.

[Nucular]

Why not simply advertise for volunteers? You'll find there are a great many people out there with 'camphor' (anxiety) symptoms who haven't sought any kind of help yet.

It might be an idea to check you're not breaking the laws of your country by conducting illegal medical research, though.

But if you check that, and design maybe a poster with all relevant information on it, you might get more people who fit the bill. Put it outside your clinic, or wherever.

Just a thought.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

good idea! I have no objection. Who will be the sponsor?

[Rolfe]

What do you mean, sponsor?

Rolfe.

[steenkh]

We are not sponsoring anything. We already know the result of this test: after all the Lancet report summarised loads of such tests. You are the one who believes that there is an affect, and you should make the test to satisfy yourself - or prepare yourself for grabbing the JREF million.

We can help with the protocol, nothing more. We do not find test persons for you, neither do we sponsor anything.

[Mojo]

I tend to think that he believes it himself, but that he is too lazy or unable to use a search engine to find the original quotes. Besides, he would search in vain, because he only remembers his own misconceptions of the quotes. But where did he get it from in the first place? It's a complete fabrication.

[Mojo]

good idea! I have no objection. Who will be the sponsor?You offered to conduct the test (or to quit homeopathic practice). It's up to you to organise the necessary resources.

[PixyMisa]

Camphor symptoms: MIND

mind; behaviour; shrieking;
Prabably been debating a homeopath.

HEAD

head; pulsating; back of head (occiput); standing;
If your head is pulsating, you have a real problem, camphor or no camphor.

NOSE

nose; coldness;
pointed;
:confused:

FACE

face; coldness; cholera;
Cholera of the face?

ABDOMEN

abdomen; bladder; urging to urinate (unhealthy desire);
kidneys; suppression of urine; from suppressed gonorrhoea;
Suppressed gonorrhea?

RECTUM

rectum; cholera;
diarrhoea; hot weather; ;
Hot weather?

STOOL

stool; copious;
watery; like rice water;
Ricewater stool is a symptom of cholera. If you give the patient camphor and nothing else, they will very likely die. Which would be a shame, as it is quite easily treated.

URINE

urine; burning (includes hot);
colour; greenish;
Burning Green Urine would be a good name for a rock band.

INJURIES AND ACCIDENTS

injuries and accidents; shock from injury;
Are you saying that camphor causes injuries and accidents, or that injury and accidents cause camphor? Just want to make sure I understand you.

[Zep]

Actually, it's a bit like a bigger version of Cluedo. You just jumble the patient's symptoms up and then try to guess the answer!

It's...

CHOLERA...with burning green urine...and Suppressed gonorrhea...in the rectum!

[Psiload]

Actually, it's a bit like a bigger version of Cluedo. You just jumble the patient's symptoms up and then try to guess the answer!

It's...

CHOLERA...with burning green urine...and Suppressed gonorrhea...in the rectum!

Rectum? It damn near...

nevermind.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

What do you mean, sponsor?

Rolfe.

I have no money for advertisement. I am a government employee.

[drfrank]

The lawyer agrees to send or deliver to me, one at a time and on request, either the remedy I ask for, or a sham. I take my time and decide whether I got the requested remedy or not (any way I please), and notify another trusted third party, who does nothing but keep a record of my decisions. I then notify the lawyer that I'm ready for the next one, and he sends it to me. And so on.

I like Rolfe's protocol, although I'd personally state specifically that the fake/real remedy should be chosen randomly by picking a number out of a hat or similar (as coin tossing would not be appropriate if there were X real and X fakes), and not leave it to choice.

Although there won't be any feedback in the trials, there is the possible problem of inadequate randomisation (a la the staring experiment): the lawyer may tend to alternate much more than by expected by a proper random process if based on personal choice, so if the homeopath has a lucky first guess they may get significantly over what is expected by chance (although probably not enough to pass the test).

Some quick numerical results to show how this may raise issues (though this considers a case where each there are not necessarily equal numbers of real/fake remedies in the trial for simplicity).

* Lawyer selects first solution randomly
* For subsequent trials, lawyer selects different solution with probability p = 0.8 and same solution with probability q = 0.2
* Homeopath selects first guess randomly
* Homeopath alternates guesses each trial deterministically.

With this scenario and 20 trials, there is about a 10% chance that the homeopath will guess more than 15 correctly, whereas with a properly randomised test this would be only 0.5%. That's a biiiig difference.

For probability of changing of p = 0.7 this value is about 5%, and for p = 0.6 about 2%.

So, my point is that without proper randomisation you probably won't pass the test, but after a few trials you'd probably start hearing about arguments about statistical significance that would be true, but not for the reasons they think ;)

[Rolfe]

I like Rolfe's protocol, although I'd personally state specifically that the fake/real remedy should be chosen randomly by picking a number out of a hat or similar (as coin tossing would not be appropriate if there were X real and X fakes), and not leave it to choice.Why?

The point of this protocol is to allow the homoeopath as much freedom as possible. Supposing you insist that belladonna is used for the test, but the homoeopath doesn't have the wherewithal to test for belladonna, and would rather pick something else?

The idea is, maybe a patient comes along, and the homoeopath is certain that if given a dose of 30C arnica, this patient's condition will change markedly. So he asks for 30C arnica, gives it to the patient and then decides if the expected change has happened or not. Not much use if you insist that you want to give him pulsatilla at this point.

We've had so many "of no I can't work under these circumstances" complaints from homoeopaths that over the years the protocol has been refined to put as little constraint on their practices as possible. The only possible complaint about this one is that there may be a time delay in obtaining the desired remedy, but if that is deemed to be very important it can be addressed by using a lawyer very clost to the homoeopath and arranging for speedy delivery.

In what way do you think the test would be invalidated by allowing the homoeopath to decide which remedy he wants to test at any given trial?

Rolfe.

[drfrank]

The point of this protocol is to allow the homoeopath as much freedom as possible. Supposing you insist that belladonna is used for the test, but the homoeopath doesn't have the wherewithal to test for belladonna, and would rather pick something else?

Aha, I wondered what you meant for a second, but I see this is a simple misunderstanding :)

What I meant was the choice of whether a real homeopathic remedy or fake one is used in a given trial should be random, not the choice of the type of homeopathic remedy itself.

You're right, of course: the homeopath should be given free reign to choose belladonna/arnica or whatever else they think they can identify.

[Rolfe]

Ah, we're in agreement. Perhaps my wording was poor. What I meant was that the homoeopath tells the lawyer who is keeping the remedies the name of the remedy he wants. The lawyer then flips a coin to see whether he should send the actual remedy or the sham, then sends whichever the coin dictates.

Of course this would cost a little bit of money to do. You'd have to pay for the remedies to be made, and you'd have some legal bills. Not much, and certainly well worth the investment if you're sure of getting a million dollars at the end of it. But enough to deter those who are just sounding off.

Rolfe.

[drfrank]

Ah, we're in agreement. Perhaps my wording was poor. What I meant was that the homoeopath tells the lawyer who is keeping the remedies the name of the remedy he wants. The lawyer then flips a coin to see whether he should send the actual remedy or the sham, then sends whichever the coin dictates.

lol I think we both misunderstood what the other meant ;)

My point was that it was important to have the randomness in selection otherwise, even without feedback, you may well observe very different results. Of course, I see now that you intended such randomness in selection even though it wasn't explicitly written in your protocol :)

[Rolfe]

You're right, it needs to be added that whether or not the chosen remedy or the sham is sent is decided by coin-toss, and a secret record kept of which was sent each time.

Rolfe.

[steenkh]

Or have the lawyer blinded by having a fourth party code and mix the preparations so that the lawyer simply needs to hand out the preparation and note the code.

Too much blinding? I mean, which party is paying the lawyer?

[Rolfe]

Or have the lawyer blinded by having a fourth party code and mix the preparations so that the lawyer simply needs to hand out the preparation and note the code.

Too much blinding? I mean, which party is paying the lawyer?I think it's OK as it stands so long as the lawyer and the applicant don't meet (that is, a messenger or the post is used to deliver the remedies). If you have too many stages, you increase the chance of a mistake.

The applicant is paying the lawyer.

Rolfe.

[Ririon]

I think it's OK as it stands so long as the lawyer and the applicant don't meet (that is, a messenger or the post is used to deliver the remedies). If you have too many stages, you increase the chance of a mistake.

The applicant is paying the lawyer.

Rolfe.
If legal costs and time is an issue, why don't the homeopath just get a batch of numbered bottles/pills/whatever, and the lawyer could just keep a piece of paper with the information about which numbers were real/placebo? From my experience, calling your lawyer a hundred times costs you a lot of money. The homeopath would then use bottle 1 on patient 1 and so on.

[Rolfe]

Somehow, it has to be arranged that when the homoeopath decides he wants to test a particular remedy, he is given a bottle which has a 50% chance of being the remedy he asked for and a 50% chance of being a sham. How does your protocol allow for that?

This would not be prohibitively expensive to anyone who seriously thought they could win a million dollars. All that would be required would be to explain to the lawyer what he was required to do - that is the whole protocol - and agree a fee to cover the whole thing. There are plenty of small-town solicitors who don't charge enormous fees.

Rolfe.

[Ririon]

Somehow, it has to be arranged that when the homoeopath decides he wants to test a particular remedy, he is given a bottle which has a 50% chance of being the remedy he asked for and a 50% chance of being a sham. How does your protocol allow for that?
Rolfe.

In the same way as the original protocol. The lawyer just sends out all the bottles at one time. I assume that we are testing a limited number of remedies that the lawyer has stored in an appropriate place, and that homeopathic remedies don't have a very limited shelf-life (I mean: How would anybody know what the shelf-life was...).

The homeopath can get an assortment of his favourite remedies:
Marked: Beladonna 30C (bottle #1 - bottle #100), Mercury 25X (bottle #1 - bottle #100) etc.

Only the lawyer would know that bottle #1 was real, bottle #2 was real, bottle #3 was placebo etc. Isn't this roughly how it is done with real medicines, (except you don't use lawyers)?

[Rolfe]

I suppose. It seems more complicated, and might allow more opportunity for the homoeopath to break the blinding, but hey, who cares, it's the principle of the protocol that's important, the exact "how this is achieved" is for working out. Like exactly how the remedies and sham preparations are prepared and numbered and how the blinding code is worked out and kept secret.

Rolfe.

[Ririon]

I suppose. It seems more complicated, and might allow more opportunity for the homoeopath to break the blinding, but hey, who cares, it's the principle of the protocol that's important, the exact "how this is achieved" is for working out. Like exactly how the remedies and sham preparations are prepared and numbered and how the blinding code is worked out and kept secret.

Rolfe.
Sure.

My suggestion would make it easier for the lawyer, since he wouldn't be bothered by a homeopath every day (like some people I know...) and make it cheaper for the applicant (one easy out less).

My suggestion would reduce the contact between the homeopath and the lawyer, thus reducing the chance of breaking the blinding. (You could use a lawyer far away from the homeopath if you wanted to.)

My suggestion would also reduce the interference with the normal operation of the homeopath, and the patient could get the "medicine" immediately. (another possible out taken care of.)

Ririon

[ChristineR]

Camphor symptoms: MIND

mind; behaviour; shrieking;
insecure, uncertain, scared; anxiety;
insecure, uncertain, scared; anxiety; during chill; ;
insecure, uncertain, scared; fear; night; ;
restlessness, nervousness;
HEAD

head; pulsating; back of head (occiput); standing;

EYE

eye; sparkling;

NOSE

nose; coldness;
pointed;

FACE

face; coldness; cholera;
coldness; in hydrocephalus (water on the brain: headache, drowsiness, vomiting);
expression; anxious;
lips; discoloration; bluish;
lips; upper lip pulled up, exposing teeth;
perspiration;
perspiration; cold;
skin; discoloration; bluish;
skin; discoloration; pale;
skin; discoloration; pale; during chill; ;
sunken;

MOUTH

mouth; sensation of coldness; tongue; ;
cold breath;
dryness; tongue; ;
tongue; cold tongue;
tongue; flabby;
tongue; trembling;

ABDOMEN

abdomen; bladder; urging to urinate (unhealthy desire);
kidneys; suppression of urine; from suppressed gonorrhoea;
stomach; coldness;

RECTUM

rectum; cholera;
diarrhoea; hot weather; ;

STOOL

stool; copious;
watery; like rice water;

URINE

urine; burning (includes hot);
colour; greenish;

GENITALS

genitals; male; sexual passion; suppressed;
female; sexual intercourse; desire increased;
urethra (urinary part of genitals); pain; burning;
urethra (urinary part of genitals); pain; burning; during urination; ;

RESPIRATION

respiration; asphyxia; in new-born infant; ;

CHEST

chest; anxiety; region of heart; ;
congestion;

EXTREMITIES, LIMBS

extremities, limbs; coldness;
coldness; with diarrhoea;
coldness; yet warm bed unbearable;
coldness; upper limbs; hands; ;
coldness; lower limbs; foot; icy cold;

SLEEP

sleep; sleeplessness, insomnia; coverings are warm though limbs are cold;

CHILL

chill; chilliness (see also whole body; temperature);
external; ;
external; as in cholera;
icy coldness of the body;
with fever, but chill predominating;
shaking, shivering, rigors;
uncovering, undressing;

FEVER

fever; internal heat; with external chill;
when walking in open air; ;

PERSPIRATION

perspiration; clammy;
cold;

SKIN

skin; coldness;
coldness; icy;

INJURIES AND ACCIDENTS

injuries and accidents; shock from injury;

GENERALITIES

generalities; general physical anxiety;
blood vessels; blue discoloration (from lack of oxygen in blood);
collapse;
collapse; after diarrhoea; ;
after measles; ;
pain; sore, bruised; internally; ;
pulse; imperceptible; almost;
pulse; small;
pulse; weak;
suppression of sexual desire;
temperature (felt and effects of temperature); cold feeling; lack of vital heat;
temperature (felt and effects of temperature); cold air;
weakness (see lethargic, weariness); from perspiration;

(in above proving you can only prove typical symptoms of camphor other are general symptoms of all remedies.)


I am a camphor patient!:eek:

[Rolfe]

Sure.

My suggestion would make it easier for the lawyer, since he wouldn't be bothered by a homeopath every day (like some people I know...) and make it cheaper for the applicant (one easy out less).

My suggestion would reduce the contact between the homeopath and the lawyer, thus reducing the chance of breaking the blinding. (You could use a lawyer far away from the homeopath if you wanted to.)

My suggestion would also reduce the interference with the normal operation of the homeopath, and the patient could get the "medicine" immediately. (another possible out taken care of.)

RirionI think it's likely that it would take more than one day for a homoeopath to make up his mind. And it's not actually necessary to do very many repetitions. Nine right out of ten tries has been agreed to be enough to satisfy the preliminary testing requirements. I think for the definitive test you might be looking at 15 tries.

Still, you have a point about the immediacy of availability of the preparations. If the logistics can be made foolproof, perhaps it's a better way.

Rolfe.

[Ririon]

I think it's likely that it would take more than one day for a homoeopath to make up his mind. And it's not actually necessary to do very many repetitions. Nine right out of ten tries has been agreed to be enough to satisfy the preliminary testing requirements. I think for the definitive test you might be looking at 15 tries.

Still, you have a point about the immediacy of availability of the preparations. If the logistics can be made foolproof, perhaps it's a better way.

Rolfe.

Yes, 10-15 should do it. (So that reduces it to 10 bottles.) It's pretty pointless, anyway. It's all been done before (as you have pointed out and provided links to).

[Rolfe]

Doesn't reduce it to only 10 bottles, just to 10 bottles that get used. You still have to prepare all the remedies the homoeopath thinks he might want for the trial, maybe several bottles of each, and then a matching number of sham preparations.

In fact I think you'd need fewer bottles if you used my original idea, as only one stock of sham might be needed rather than matching the real thing bottle for bottle, but then your idea has its advantages too.

Rolfe.

[Ririon]

Doesn't reduce it to only 10 bottles, just to 10 bottles that get used. You still have to prepare all the remedies the homoeopath thinks he might want for the trial, maybe several bottles of each, and then a matching number of sham preparations.

In fact I think you'd need fewer bottles if you used my original idea, as only one stock of sham might be needed rather than matching the real thing bottle for bottle, but then your idea has its advantages too.

Rolfe.
I see your point.

[Rolfe]

This could all be worked out in advance though, and the number of bottles and their actual contents decided on, and then a suitably unbreakable code devised to satisfy the requirements of blinding and yet allow the blinding to be broken once the trial was completed.

I think your idea is more complicated in that respect, but it has other advantages that might make it the preferred option even so. Of course this is just detail, the principle of the trial is the main thing.

Rolfe.

[Dr. MAS]

rolfe, homeopathic remedy is not fake. What is the concept of fake in your mind. When you finalized the meaning of fake do inform me.

[Mojo]

Homeopathic remedy is not fake. What is the concept of fake in your mind. When you finalized the meaning of fake do inform me.There's a reasonable concept of "fake" in this recent study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16125589&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum): This finding is compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are placebo effects.A placebo is a sham, or fake, treatment.

[Rolfe]

Please show where I used the word "fake", MAS. I think you'll find I didn't.

I note that the word has been used by others to describe the control or sham preparation, which has to be distinguished from the genuine homoeopathically-potentised article. So, you have simply repeated your claim that the homoeopathic remedy is different from the control preparation. We understand that you believe this is the case. What we would like is for you to actually prove it.

Rolfe.

[Dr. MAS]

sorry I misrepresented you. I was reading the posts and it was got jummbled up. sorry. Mojo you are singing old song. :D we have already crossed that limit. sing any new song. :p

[Mojo]

Mojo you are singing old song. we have already crossed that limit. sing any new song. You mean you have some good evidence that homoeopathy works? I suggest that you write it up and send it to the Lancet. I'm sure they would be very interested in publishing that sort of ground-breaking research.

The Nobel prize committee might be interested as well!

[Dr. MAS]

Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.

[Jeff Corey]

... Lancet has no value to us.
Of course not. They publish the results of scientific studies. You want nothing to do with that, you fakir. I just feel bad for all the people in your country who are dying because of your phoney treatments. It is happening here, too. You monsters are killing people and thriving on it.
But you aren't the only ones.
Consider Dick Cheney.

[steenkh]

Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.
Why do you not accept what the Lancet has published earlier? Do you have valid reasons not to accept it, or is it just because you do not like it?

[MRC_Hans]

Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.That is an extremely weird notion. The Lancet is a journal for publishing articles; it is a form of debate forum like this, only more advanced. The PURPOSE of the Lancet and journals like it is to publish opposing views.

Does your posting here mean you accept all that has been posted earlier?

MAS, you are truely a strange character.

Hans

[steenkh]

But MAS isn't really posting anything serious here. He just thinks he can outsmart us and make us look stupid (and he does not he gets it in his face). Has MAS ever posted a serious argument? Every point has to be pulled through his nose.

I have formed the picture of MAS as being a bunch of people who are not capable/not interested in science olr even homoeopathic theory. They look at it only through practical eyes: in their opinion it works, and one should not look too closely at how or why. And they also believe themselves to be great jokers, and trolling the boards is incredibly funny.

[Mojo]

And they also believe themselves to be great jokers, and trolling the boards is incredibly funny.Well, they often are quite funny, but I don't think it's intentional. ;)

[Complexity]

rolfe, homeopathic remedy is not fake. What is the concept of fake in your mind. When you finalized the meaning of fake do inform me.

The final meaning of fake is... <drumroll>... MAS.

[Dr. A Sheikh]

when you will ask a serious question, a serious answer will be given.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

when you will ask a serious question, a serious answer will be given.

What the hey, I'll bite.

In a bottle of 13C tincture, produced in your facilities, there are two possibilities:
1) It contains molecules/atoms of the MT
2) It does not contain molecules/atoms of the MT

If it is case (1) then their are three scenarios:
a) The process is not correctly succussed, and therefore the dilution is not consistent with a 13C tincture
b) The process contains contaminates
c) The process is correctly succussed, and an unknown phenomenon is occurring that appears to prove Avagadro's constant to be wrong

If it is case (2) then their are two scenarios:
a) The tincture is identical, in every measurable aspect, as the solvent used
b) The tincture is different, in some mearurable aspect, from the solvent used

Please state which of the above scenarios accurately describes a 13C bottle of product produced at your facilities and provide evidence (with references) supporting your statement. If none of the above scenarios accurately describe a 13C bottle fo your product, please explain why and provide a scenario which does.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh man! Now (s)he's suspended too. I never get to have any fun. *pout*

[Complexity]

At the moment, I have no camphor patient. You don't have to carryout the DBT for me. I will do it for myself. Thank you. The problem is for proving camphor symptoms you require few patients almost thirty plus for three groups atleast 10 in each group. From where I could have thirty patients in a row? Please follow this point. If you kindly favour me in finding patients then I will be grateful to you.

I have no intention of helping you.

I don't want your gratitude.

I despise you and your fraudulant, lying, sleazy, greedy, and just plain unwholesome ways.

Have a nice day!!! :D

[sionep]

rolfe, homeopathic remedy is not fake. What is the concept of fake in your mind. When you finalized the meaning of fake do inform me.

Fake , means delusion. That is a person who can't tell whats real and whats not. Water is real, however it is fake to a skeptic, since logical reasoning tells us that it is ridiculous to claim that water has memory, but to a homeopath it is regarded as a FACT and seem REAL as it is.

[Mojo]

By the way, it appears that Sheikh's promise also extends to MAS and all his cronies: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1407099#post1407099

Come on, Sheikh. What are you waiting for?

[Mojo]

Bumped because Sheikh now seems to be trying to go back on his promise by claiming (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1501199#post1501199) that double blind tests are not applicable to homoeopathy.

[Zep]

Which is amusing in the extreme because he hasn't even got a clue what a double-blind test actually is.

[steenkh]

Which is amusing in the extreme because he hasn't even got a clue what a double-blind test actually is.
I think he knows enough to realise that a double-blind test would be fatal to his convictions!

[Zep]

I think he knows enough to realise that a double-blind test would be fatal to his convictions!Probably only because it's real science, which they are pathologically allergic to.

However they also don't seem to know very much at all about basic chemistry, which I would have thought was highly germane to their profession. Even I, who last did a formal chemistry lesson nearly 30 years ago(!!!) at the start of my degree, seem to have more of working understanding of the subject than they do today. And yet they deign to lecture and pontificate to people here who are full-time highly qualified professional chemical engineers and researchers! I wouldn't dare to do that - I know my pathetic limitations! So clearly the MAS collective don't know enough to know that they don't know anywhere near enough to even be in the peewee league!

[Mojo]

Probably only because it's real science, which they are pathologically allergic to.

However they also don't seem to know very much at all about basic chemistry, which I would have thought was highly germane to their profession. Well, it might be if they were practicing proper medicine, but I don't see how basic chemistry is relevant to the activities of the MAS collective.

[Curnir]

Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.

Mr. Mas.
Real science and proper medical research 'has no value' to you?

Why am I not surprised?

[steenkh]

Well, it might be if they were practicing proper medicine, but I don't see how basic chemistry is relevant to the activities of the MAS collective.
The image that homoeopaths have of themselves is that their practice is based on science! Which is why MAS is claiming homoeopathy is not 'paranormal'. He just cannot back it up with facts.

[Zep]

And by "facts" we DON'T mean a whole lot of other homeopaths nodding along in unison saying "It works for us too!".

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Mas also informed that he also will quit homeopathy with me if homeopathy fails in dbt trial. So be happy now two more are leaving homeopathy. ;)

First suggest suitable protocol for homeopathic dbt. don't quote old protocol it is not applicable

[LTC8K6]

Double blind study is not applicable on homeopathic products. Give us a polio case having right should pain we will give sangunaria. Give us polio case having left arm pain, we will give spigelia.

Non-Mas-Sheikh unit, please make up your mind regarding double blind tests for homeopathy.

[Zep]

Mas also informed that he also will quit homeopathy with me if homeopathy fails in dbt trial. So be happy now two more are leaving homeopathy. ;)

First suggest suitable protocol for homeopathic dbt. don't quote old protocol it is not applicableSo you admit you have no idea how to set up a DBPC protocol? Do you even know what one is? How it works? What it's purpose is?

PS. No-one really cares if you and MAS say you will quit homeopathy. We know you won't, no matter what happens! You will always have an excuse! ;)

[Mojo]

First suggest suitable protocol for homeopathic dbt. don't quote old protocol it is not applicableNo, Sheikh, it's your trial. It's up to you to design an acceptable protocol (especially as you have stated that the "old protocol is not applicable", but not stated why).

So get on with it, Sheikh: design and post your protocol, run your trial, and publish your results.

Or quit homoeopathy.

[Mojo]

*Succuss*