JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Million Dollar Challenge
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags homeopathy

Reply
Old 27th July 2008, 01:44 PM   #1
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Homeoproofer's Challenge Thread

"If you build it. They will come"

Well, it does seem about time for "Homeoproofer" to present his final version of a viable Challenge.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 02:58 PM   #2
GoodGuysEatPie
Constructive Interference
 
GoodGuysEatPie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westchester, New York
Posts: 426
Waiting...



~Good Guy~
__________________
~Good Guys Eat Pie~

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the Universe." - Carl Sagan
GoodGuysEatPie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 03:59 PM   #3
Acleron
Master Poster
 
Acleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: In a beautifully understandable universe
Posts: 2,290
Just going to run downstairs and make a cup of coffee, give me a yell when it happens, wouldn't want to miss anything
Acleron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2008, 11:44 PM   #4
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
Cool Homeo-remedyfinder

Thanks for the help to open this thread!

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

My claim is:

I can identify a homeopathic remedy by smelling!

How it is done:

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

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


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


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


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

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

What is scientifically accepted and will satisfy the JREF?

My troubles:

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

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

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

Other question

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

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


Thanks for all the help!

Jürgen

Last edited by Homeoproofer; 28th July 2008 at 12:20 AM.
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:19 AM   #5
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,362
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??
While I'm not the JREF, the probability of 1:10 seems a tad high even for a preliminary test.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group

Last edited by ddt; 28th July 2008 at 12:20 AM.
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:32 AM   #6
Jackalgirl
Ping Jockey
 
Jackalgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I'm on a BOAT!
Posts: 1,810
Hi, Juergen!

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
I can identify a homeopathic remedy by smelling!
Cool! This should definitely be testable. There are likely to be some other issues with the rest of your protocol, though.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
How it is done:

To prepare the bottles:
Two balls out of a globulie-bottle have to be resolved in a bottle with 100ml alcohol(70%)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this: two balls of what? Also, could you clarify what you mean by "70%"? Do you mean that the first bottle is 70% alcohol and 30% of whatever the substance is that's to be diluted?

If so, what substance do you propose to dilute?

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
This has to be done n-times...
and x-bottles h
ave to be filled with 70%alcohol(same 100ml)
Please tell me if I'm understanding you properly: for each dilution, the new bottle will be filled with 70% fresh alcohol, and the other 30% will come out of the bottle of mixture. You'll do this n times. Have you decided how many times you have to do it? Better math minds than mine will come along, I'm sure, but Wikipedia (taken with a grain of salt) says that a potency of 12C is unlikely to have any of the original substance in it. What potency are you shooting for?

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
How I will analyse the content of the bottles:
After shaking the closed bottle (1 after the other) I smell then the air out of the bottle and need up t one day to tell if it is a remedybottle or only a alcoholbottle.
Here's the first sticking point: I highly doubt that JREF is going to have their rep or proctor sit around for an entire day watching you decide whether the bottle is the remedy bottle or not. You are not going to be allowed to take the bottle out of the sight of the proctor/rep/observer(s). Can you speed up the process?

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
After I found 1 remedybottle of the n remedybottles out of the x bottles, I need 2-4 weeks to recover my analysationability and can search further for the next bottle...
This might also be a problem, although it's possible that the JREF will find a rep patient enough to deal with this. Note, though, that you will most probably not be able to find the result of your first attempt until ALL attempts are completed. So if, for example, you take one month per attempt and you're doing 10 attempts, you won't find out how you did until 10 months later.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post

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


For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??
I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
My troubles:

I have a visual disability and this is not always same in the effect at my lowvision...
It is possible that I come into a condition where it is not possible for me to analyse the bottles, while this has nothing to do with a risk for my health at all- just for winning the challenge.
Since you're doing the test by smell, and since what you're doing is going to have to be observed by someone, your vision shouldn't be a problem. The bottles will probably be labeled something like "A", "B", "C", etc. and all you have to do is show the observer or recorder which bottle you think is the remedy. He or she will record it (and it'll all be on video, too, to ensure accuracy).

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post

Other question

It is about homeopathy, and is it out of that needed for me, to have an academic supporter or a puplic publication?
Your team has to have some kind of media presence. This means that either you or your assistant has to have been featured in the media somehow, or have published a book or paper, etc. There might be more specific requirements for the media presence -- you might want to shoot an email to challenge@randi.org to get this properly clarified.

Good luck! : )

-- JG
__________________
>> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo
I don't like Sylvia Browne

Last edited by Jackalgirl; 28th July 2008 at 12:38 AM. Reason: Clarity. Arrrgh.
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:41 AM   #7
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,486
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
To prepare the bottles:
Two balls out of a globulie-bottle have to be resolved in a bottle with 100ml alcohol(70%) .

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

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

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

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

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:41 AM   #8
Jackalgirl
Ping Jockey
 
Jackalgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I'm on a BOAT!
Posts: 1,810
Ah hah! I see that Baron Samedi is the smarter probability person. He's right -- if you want to know if 3 out of 20 is enough to pass the Challenge, send an email to challenge@randi.org. That's what you'll have to do -- this Forum is for people like me (who like Challenges, but who do not represent the JREF) to discuss Challenges, and the JREF folks don't generally answer questions here. So email challenge@randi.org and let us know what they say. : )
__________________
>> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo
I don't like Sylvia Browne
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:53 AM   #9
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,362
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.
There were a couple of mathematicians in the original thread (me being one).

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

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

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

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

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

In all cases, the probabilities are for identifying them all correctly when there's nothing else involved than pure chance.
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 01:17 AM   #10
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,920
I'd like to reiterate what I said in the original thread: as far as I'm aware the "1 in a 1000" probability requirement was something thrown out at random by Randi as an example of the sort of probability someone would have to beat to win the million. It's certainly not mentioned in the rules as a requirement for either the preliminary or the final test, and I seem to recall Randi saying in Swift when the rules were revamped that it's not a fixed requirement. I'm pretty sure JREF would be happy with a much smaller probability of chance success, at least for the preliminary test.

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

So some way in which Homeproofer's representative can be satisfied that the bottles have been prepared and labelled correctly without actually seeing the labels would have to be devised.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 02:14 AM   #11
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,486
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This is the problem I see with the suggested protocol. I can see no obvious way in which Homeoproofer's representative can be satisified that no cheating has taken place when the bottles are prepared AND JREF's representative can be satisfied that Homeproofer's representative hasn't told Homeoproofer which bottles contain the remedy. This would not normally be an issue because no-one present when the bottles were being prepared would have contact with the participants until the test is over, but as you say that is impracticable when the test lasts weeks rather than hours.

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

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

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 02:25 AM   #12
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,920
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Perhaps Homeoproofer could do some sort of multi-stage test. He can, presumably, identify a single bottle from a group of 10 in a single session lasting one day, as he wouldn't need any recovery time before identifying the remedy
As I understand it, he needs a day to determine if any one bottle contains the remedy. Presumably it takes that long for symptoms to develop after sniffing the remedy - if they develop it's a dosed bottle, if they don't it isn't. So he needs a day before sniffing another bottle, even if the bottle he's just sniffed is not dosed.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 02:39 AM   #13
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,486
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
As I understand it, he needs a day to determine if any one bottle contains the remedy. Presumably it takes that long for symptoms to develop after sniffing the remedy - if they develop it's a dosed bottle, if they don't it isn't. So he needs a day before sniffing another bottle, even if the bottle he's just sniffed is not dosed.

Yes, you're right - I'd misread what he'd posted, and thought that he only needed a day to identify one out of ten.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 02:57 AM   #14
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kayfabe, Upper Canada
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post

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


For the preliminary test:
is 1 bottle out of 10 enough to be found correctly ??
No. If there are 20 bottles in total, and 3 contain the homeopathic solution, you must correctly identify all 20 bottles (i.e. which 3 are homeopathic)
Baron Samedi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 03:14 AM   #15
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 18,373
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I'd like to reiterate what I said in the original thread: as far as I'm aware the "1 in a 1000" probability requirement was something thrown out at random by Randi as an example of the sort of probability someone would have to beat to win the million. It's certainly not mentioned in the rules as a requirement for either the preliminary or the final test, and I seem to recall Randi saying in Swift when the rules were revamped that it's not a fixed requirement. I'm pretty sure JREF would be happy with a much smaller probability of chance success, at least for the preliminary test.
Very unlikely. This was discussed in a thread a while ago. The 1/1000 is not an absolutely fixed rule because there are some things for which it's not appropriate. For example, the most recent test involved someone claiming to make a person urinate, which either happens or not, there is no probability involved. The same has been true for other claims in the past, such as making aliens appear. However, when winning by chance is a possibility, it is very unlikely that the JREF will allow a lower probability than usual. As always, the only way to get a definite answer is to ask RemieV or Randi himself.

There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 03:23 AM   #16
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,920
Originally Posted by Baron Samedi View Post
No. If there are 20 bottles in total, and 3 contain the homeopathic solution, you must correctly identify all 20 bottles (i.e. which 3 are homeopathic)
Homeoproofer and JREF will mutually agree the success criteria before the test. I doubt if JREF would consider correctly identifying 1 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 sufficient to pass the preliminary test, but they might well accept identifying 2 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 as sufficient. No-one here can speak for JREF, these are the sort of details Homeoproofer must discuss with them directly.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 03:29 AM   #17
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,920
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
As always, the only way to get a definite answer is to ask RemieV or Randi himself.
Agreed.

Quote:
There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.
Oh, excellent suggestion. Even if the symptoms vary for different people, there should presumably be some symptom that Homeoproofer can identify. A couple of volunteers per bottle should do it. What say you, Homeoproofer?
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 03:41 AM   #18
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 12,362
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Homeoproofer and JREF will mutually agree the success criteria before the test. I doubt if JREF would consider correctly identifying 1 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 sufficient to pass the preliminary test, but they might well accept identifying 2 of 3 dosed bottles out of 20 as sufficient.
Probability of identifying at least 2 out of 3: 52/1140, approx. 1/21.9
__________________
Proud member of the Solipsistic Autosycophant's Group
ddt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 04:57 AM   #19
chillzero
Domestic Godless
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Top of the world, ma!
Posts: 15,538
I'm surprised no one has put this one to bed yet:

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Is the result out of this thread then, accepted by the JREF in my application?
No. Only a formal application made to the JREF, according to the MDC rules and FAQs will be accepted, after the JREF review and decide on it. This forum is not the JREF, and no one here (other than Jeff Wagg and RemieV) speak for the JREF.
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 05:19 AM   #20
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
Cool

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Cool! This should definitely be testable. There are likely to be some other issues with the rest of your protocol, though.
i see no problems for he fair test.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this: two balls of what? Also, could you clarify what you mean by "70%"? Do you mean that the first bottle is 70% alcohol and 30% of whatever the substance is that's to be diluted?
Don´t you know that you can buy alcohol ina drugstore with a percentage?
pure alcohol is impossible...

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
If so, what substance do you propose to dilute?
I do not want to give liquid substances into the alcohol, I want to dissolve globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy.


[quote=Jackalgirl;3896323]
Please tell me if I'm understanding you properly: for each dilution, the new bottle will be filled with 70% fresh alcohol, and the other 30% will come out of the bottle of mixture.
[quote]

No.

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
You'll do this n times. Have you decided how many times you have to do it?
No, this is the question here.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Better math minds than mine will come along, I'm sure, but Wikipedia (taken with a grain of salt) says that a potency of 12C is unlikely to have any of the original substance in it. What potency are you shooting for?
LM potency which is 1:50000 and also called Q(greek:50000)
L(50-greek)M(1000-greek)

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Mind you, one of the major claims of homeopathy is that the more dilute the substance is, the more potent it is, and that the quality of the substance is maintained beyond the 12C point -- that is, that there is some kind of "echo" or "essence" (my terms) of the substance that does its...well, its magic. Most skeptics, and I imagine the JREF as well, are going to consider anything less than 12C as not homeopathic. So I highly suggest that you shoot for a target potency of 12C or higher.
I agree with you, but skeptics are satisfied with C30 and up, as I have seen without knowing the reason for.
LM12 should be more difficult to believe to have a substance in it and is as far as I know, the highest suggested potency for using out of the LM-range.
it is quite interesting for me, that I have not seen a skeptic writing and complaining about LM-potencies or Q-potencies...
(altough they believe to know enough to complain)


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Here's the first sticking point: I highly doubt that JREF is going to have their rep or proctor sit around for an entire day watching you decide whether the bottle is the remedy bottle or not. You are not going to be allowed to take the bottle out of the sight of the proctor/rep/observer(s). Can you speed up the process?
I see a missing logical thinking:
what shall I do with a bottle filled with alcohol?
analyse it to see that it is alcohol?

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

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
This might also be a problem, although it's possible that the JREF will find a rep patient enough to deal with this. Note, though, that you will most probably not be able to find the result of your first attempt until ALL attempts are completed.
If it is like you think, it takes a month to state the result of testing 20 bottles.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
So if, for example, you take one month per attempt and you're doing 10 attempts, you won't find out how you did until 10 months later.
10 times, isn´t it a little bit much desired?
But it is possible with changing the remedy I guess, because who would test a medicineeffect for 10 months long, and risk a discomfort for this time?
The claim is not necessarely that there is only 1 remedy that is different to plazebo, it is the claim that every remedy of homeopathy is effective.

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
I'm afraid I can't help you here, because I'm hopeless at probability. However, if I recall correctly, JREF wants you to have a 1000:1 chance of success (if you were just guessing). Someone smarter than I will surely weigh in here and give you the numbers.
I can do whatever is possible in the remaining time of the challenge!


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Since you're doing the test by smell, and since what you're doing is going to have to be observed by someone, your vision shouldn't be a problem. The bottles will probably be labeled something like "A", "B", "C", etc. and all you have to do is show the observer or recorder which bottle you think is the remedy. He or she will record it (and it'll all be on video, too, to ensure accuracy).
misunderstanding...
I have not mentioned that I would have a problem in seeing the bottles, I ment that it could happen that I am in a condition where I would not like to smell remedies.
I never give up the hope to cure what noone could cure yet: LHON
and if this could happen I would not like to disrupt the cure with such a trial. but I can include the trial into the cure, otherwise.
I want to use remedies, where I know that they have a positive effect for my vision and that is then also the difference what it will make in smelling at remedies or at plazebos...
the plazebo has NO positive effect at my eyes, even if I would believe it is a remedy, but the remedy has.

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


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

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

Thanks from Jürgen

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
There may be a way round the problem with time in the test though. Homeoproofer originally wanted to have his wife smell the alcohol, and would work out if it was homeopathic or not from the effects on her. Presumably this would work for anyone, not just his wife. With enough volunteers, the whole test could be done in one day.
Unfortunately this would not be my claim then, it would be the claim of a mass of people...
And not so many people are capable of testing remedies in such a short time or such a way as I plan to do it.

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This is the problem I see with the suggested protocol. I can see no obvious way in which Homeoproofer's representative can be satisified that no cheating has taken place when the bottles are prepared AND JREF's representative can be satisfied that Homeproofer's representative hasn't told Homeoproofer which bottles contain the remedy.
I see it as possible to do so:
The "checker"(=qualitysecurity) is present when the bottles are prepared and it has then to be ensured that nobody can touch the bottles anymore after that, until I get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
This would not normally be an issue because no-one present when the bottles were being prepared would have contact with the participants until the test is over, but as you say that is impracticable when the test lasts weeks rather than hours.
This did not come to my mind yet...

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

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
For the blank bottles, it will be necessary that two "balls" that have not had a remedy added to them are dissolved in them, so that there is no difference between the "remedy" bottle and the blanks other than the alleged presence of the remedy. Being able to detect whether or not alcohol has had sugar dissolved in it would not be considered paranormal. This has already been explained to you on the other thread.
There was no agreemtnt in the other thread- if somebody telle me his opinion in the other thread it does not mean that it is a rulfe or law and that it is correct and accepted.

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


Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
You will also need to specify what remedy you propose to detect, and at what potency. Just saying "a globulie-bottle" will not be considered precise enough.
Why not?
If it has to be a remedy chosen by a homeopath and the potency was already stated with LM12 I think...
Any globulies with a potency higher than C30 are defined as plazebo by skeptics...
Out of that it is completely unimportant and not explainable I think, why it is important to know the remedyname before already when applying for the challenge(or accepting the challenge)

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

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



Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
It will also, of course, be necessary for the test to be double-blind, which is not mentioned in your protocol.
I have mentioned it already in discussions many times, just in the suggested first post of mine here, it may be forgotten.

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Neither you, nor anyone who will come into contact with you during the test, can know which bottle(s) contain the remedy. The fact that you need 2-4 weeks to recover after finding a remedy bottle will obviously cause problems here. If a witness chosen by you is present when the bottles are prepared, there will be no way of preventing communication other than by incarcerating one or both of you.
incarceration is only one idea, but there are more possibilites:
Like I have seen already in a video about a former homeopathyproofing in the challenge which was not told in the other thread, it is possibble too, to make the labels of the bottles invisible for me, by taping them...

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

The bottles would stay in a secured place where nobody can touch them and also if I could take the bottles with me, it would be impossible for me, to find out about the content with cheating!
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 05:52 AM   #21
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,920
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
there is NO possivility to recognize 1 microgram of sugar in a 100ml alcohol with 70% concetration, nor it is possible for any person on our planet to do so!
And yet you are so sure that something that is no longer even present will be detectable by its effect on you ...

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

So it would be impossible to tell me anything.
That might well be a workable solution to the problem.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 06:31 AM   #22
Czarcasm
Muse
 
Czarcasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 987
"globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy"
What specifically is the substance you wish to dilute with the 70% alcohol solution?
__________________
The sun is out, the birds are singing and all is right with the world.
I loooove my meds!
Czarcasm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:54 AM   #23
Coveredinbeeees
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
I smell then the air out of the bottle and need up to one day to tell if it is a remedybottle or only a alcoholbottle.
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
If my wife would do the testing, she would not need to see a differnce in her vision, of course, because, she could feel the effect of every remedy after a few minutes yet!
It seems to me that you wife would be the better candidate for the test. She does not have a medical issue which could prevent her from performing and she is able to detect the remedy "after a few minutes" rather than "up to one day." Why not just have your wife take the challenge so that it need not take a year?
Coveredinbeeees is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:14 AM   #24
Jackalgirl
Ping Jockey
 
Jackalgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I'm on a BOAT!
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
maybe a look into the thread "homeoproofer" would help you to understand better...
Yup -- I probably should have read that first. But I think I understand what you're thinking, thanks to your explanations and other people's comments. Your protocol consists of you or your wife sniffing a bottle, then waiting for some kinds of symptoms to occur (or not occur).
I think that's do-able. I'll be quite interested in what RemieV or Jeff have to say (when they respond to your email).

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
LM potency which is 1:50000 and also called Q(greek:50000)
L(50-greek)M(1000-greek)
If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.

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

(According to that bastion of accuracy, Wikipedia, 1:100,000,000 is the amount of arsenic allowable in US drinking water.)

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
If it is like you think, it takes a month to state the result of testing 20 bottles.
You mentioned that you would need 2-4 weeks to "reset" between attempts, which means it'll take a lot longer than one month to test the results. Or are you saying that you'll only need 2-4 weeks to "reset" after you've found a remedy bottle?

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
10 times, isn´t it a little bit much desired?
But it is possible with changing the remedy I guess, because who would test a medicineeffect for 10 months long, and risk a discomfort for this time?
The claim is not necessarely that there is only 1 remedy that is different to plazebo, it is the claim that every remedy of homeopathy is effective.
I'm not sure I understand. But I think that the point of this test is to demonstrate that you are capable of recognizing a homeopathic solution (as opposed to just a solution).

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

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
And what is the problem of a test over 10 months if this is necessary for proofing something?
Well, understand that the Million Dollar Challenge is different from a scientific study. It's just a paranormal challenge using a controlled demonstration. You won't necessarily be proving anything -- but if you can pass the Challenge, you'll be demonstrating that there's something worth further study here.

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

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

If my wife would do the testing, she would not need to see a differnce in her vision, of course, because, she could feel the effect of every remedy after a few minutes yet!
It seems to be a kind of wonder, but other people think it is only sugar and wnat to pay a million for.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are describing the means by which you'll identify the remedy bottle by either your physical reaction, or your wife's physical reaction. If so, no worries. I am willing to bet a case of Diet Coke that the JREF will not care how you do it, just that you do it.

Can't wait to hear what they say -- I'd also like to see what they say about the custody issue (i.e., how the bottles are stored when they're not in use).
__________________
>> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo
I don't like Sylvia Browne

Last edited by Jackalgirl; 28th July 2008 at 11:22 AM.
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 11:26 AM   #25
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 18,373
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.
Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 12:54 PM   #26
Jackalgirl
Ping Jockey
 
Jackalgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I'm on a BOAT!
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.
I agree. One of the basic steps of the test is to understand exactly what everyone's saying when he or she says "homeopathic".
__________________
>> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo
I don't like Sylvia Browne
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2008, 10:38 PM   #27
leonAzul
Illuminator
 
leonAzul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nowhere Land
Posts: 3,920
Cut to the chase.

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

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

Either it works, or it doesn't.

My money's on science.
__________________
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits."
- Satchel Paige
leonAzul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 12:43 AM   #28
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
calculate better please!

Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.
I do not want to usell LM1!
I want to use LM12!

This is much higher diluted as 1:50000!
It is 1:2,44140625e+56 (Windows calculator)
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 01:00 AM   #29
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
little explaination

at first a little abstrakt part :

Originally Posted by leonAzul View Post
Cut to the chase.

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

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

Either it works, or it doesn't.

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

How dare to expect this fair!

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

Now the explaination:

Just if you do not know:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so lets discuss further...
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 01:05 AM   #30
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
"globulie-remedies of classical homeopathy"
What specifically is the substance you wish to dilute with the 70% alcohol solution?
Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

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

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 01:56 AM   #31
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,486
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

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

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

Are you prepared to have someone else select a remedy for you?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:01 AM   #32
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kayfabe, Upper Canada
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Like I said, this is a point I like to agree at first with the prof.homeopath.
It is either not necessary to know if there is no molekul of the substance in the globulie or the alcohol, right?

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

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)
This is very standard for the test. You are asked to clearly state your claim, and all parameters. You claim to be able to detect homeopathic remedies at LM12. The JREF will most certainly ask which remedies you have tested yourself so that way the test is as fair as possible. If you have tried it yourself and have a reaction to Nat Mur LM12, the test should be on Nat Mur LM12. If the test suddenly uses Rhus Tox and you fail, you have an instant excuse as to why you failed. That's why it's important to both you and the JREF for you to say exactly which remedies you have tested and claim to be able to detect and at what potency.
Baron Samedi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:09 AM   #33
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Yup -- I probably should have read that first. But I think I understand what you're thinking, thanks to your explanations and other people's comments. Your protocol consists of you or your wife sniffing a bottle, then waiting for some kinds of symptoms to occur (or not occur).
I think that's do-able. I'll be quite interested in what RemieV or Jeff have to say (when they respond to your email).
indeed

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Thanks for clarifying the alcohol question -- or, at least, let me make sure I'm getting it right: you've got a solution of 70% alcohol, 30% water. You're talking about rubbing alcohol, correct?
I do not know what "rubbing alcohol" means- but I am sure you may know what it means when you read 5% alc. on a beerbottle!


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

If you have, what is the weight or volume of a globulie?
it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.

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

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
If you haven't asked JREF specifically, you might want to ask them what potency they will consider to be homeopathic. The JREF might not accept something as low as 1:50000.
I never said that I want to use 1:50000!
Because I wrote LM12 and that is 12 times 1 part in 50000.

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Again, a 12C solution (1:10x24) is likely not to have any of the original substance in it, and is also considered to be more potent by homeopathic standards, which is where a lot of the criticism of homeopathy comes from: how can something that does not have any of the original substance in it be effective? In fact, how could you tell between it and a bottle of solvent? And that's the substance of the test, as I understand it: that you can tell. So I imagine that JREF is going to want to have a potency a bit higher than 1:50000.
And indeed - they get it!
And btw: there is not only C30, I just used today a C200 against a swelling after a biten by insects...
(and I read about the usage of C1000 too, but as you could imagine, is this too strong for me in the trial)

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

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

You mentioned that you would need 2-4 weeks to "reset" between attempts, which means it'll take a lot longer than one month to test the results. Or are you saying that you'll only need 2-4 weeks to "reset" after you've found a remedy bottle?
Only a break after a remedy, and I try every bottle- not that it would be necessary for me, out of the fact that I can be sure that there can´t be another bottle after I found all of them.

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
In this case, it'll still take longer than a month, no? Even if the very last bottle of the set of 20 is a remedy bottle, this still means that in two other attempts you'll have to wait 2-4 weeks each to "reset" (for a total of 4-8 weeks, which is one to two months of total waiting time).
RIGHT.
but it was only ment as the maximum time for me that I like to request.
It could be much shorter time...
But what, if I have a immunreaction and need longer time...

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

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Another question to ask the JREF (if you haven't already) is whether they'll let you stop the test once you've found the three remedies, or whether they'll want you to test all 20 regardless. I suspect they will want the latter (they have in the past, but with a different kind of test).
As I was so often told in the other thread, it is not interesting or requested by the JREF to see a symptom, but only important what I tell about the bottles.
Out of this, it would not seem to be a necessarity, to smell all the bottles after I said that I am sure about the 3 remedybottles.

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

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

This test won't actually establish the efficacy of (any given) homeopathic remedy. What it will do is demonstrate that a homeopathic solution is measurably different from a non-homeopathic solution.
Oh my goodness, if it would be measureable, I could not get the million...
but you are right in a way...

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

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

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Please understand that in all of this, I'm using my skeptic-layman's understanding of what "homeopathic" means, which is "something that has been diluted so many times that none of the original substance still exists in the solution, but which somehow maintains some 'essence' of the original substance that causes a measurable effect." I do know that, technically, a 1X (1:10) solution prepared according to the procedures of homeopathy is homeopathic, but the extraordinary claims of homeopathy lie in the efficacy of solutions prepared beyond 12C.
Yes, and just because of this single fact, that there is nothing in the homeopathic remedy which could get measured, it shall be prohibited?
Oh my goodness, what a good reason is that!

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Well, understand that the Million Dollar Challenge is different from a scientific study. It's just a paranormal challenge using a controlled demonstration. You won't necessarily be proving anything -- but if you can pass the Challenge, you'll be demonstrating that there's something worth further study here.
if it is so well done with scientific and fair rules, it should be seen as a proof!
Otherwise it would make the challenge a little bit untrustable, or not?

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
To determine efficacy, you'll have to do something along the lines of a full-blown, fully-controlled, double-blind medical study. The JREF might be interested in that, but bear in mind that you'll bear the expenses of such a study.
How much could such a study cost?
if it is done in the same way as other medical studies, with the only difference that it has to be done with respecting of a different understanding of the laws of nature which means then according to homeopathy and not to Allöopathy.

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


Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are describing the means by which you'll identify the remedy bottle by either your physical reaction, or your wife's physical reaction. If so, no worries. I am willing to bet a case of Diet Coke that the JREF will not care how you do it, just that you do it.
this would be simpler as it is:
it is not only a reaction of mine or my wifes body at the remedy- it is much more a reaction of MYSELFS or my wifes PERSON and it´sensitivity at a remedy!

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Jackalgirl View Post
Can't wait to hear what they say -- I'd also like to see what they say about the custody issue (i.e., how the bottles are stored when they're not in use).
Out of the fact, that there is NO way to analyse the content of each bottle, it COULD be possible for me to take them home with me, and test it in a timely manner I like.

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

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

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

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

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

Jürgen
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:20 AM   #34
Homeoproofer
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 255
Originally Posted by Coveredinbeeees View Post
It seems to me that you wife would be the better candidate for the test. She does not have a medical issue which could prevent her from performing and she is able to detect the remedy "after a few minutes" rather than "up to one day." Why not just have your wife take the challenge so that it need not take a year?
It does not have to take a year anyway.

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

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

Jürgen
Homeoproofer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:23 AM   #35
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,367
Hi Homeoproofer,

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

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

I quote from the Challenge Application form page

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

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

Should the JREF accept your application though, I woiuld gladly volunteer my services and help your hammer out a test protocol asap. Your claim seems easily testable. With some tweaks to the protocol, you might have your claim tested this year.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:27 AM   #36
Baron Samedi
Critical Thinker
 
Baron Samedi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kayfabe, Upper Canada
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.

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

Aren´t you loyal to your own conviction?
(the name of the remedy will be acknowledged early enough)
Do you care to share the name of that remedy now? If it is olive oil, I'll be very disappointed.
Baron Samedi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:28 AM   #37
GzuzKryzt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,367
A helpful dictionary.
GzuzKryzt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 12:39 PM   #38
Dr H
Muse
 
Dr H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 837
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
Considering that many substances, in drugs, food and other things, are often measured in parts per million, or even billion, I think we can quite safely safe that there is no chance the JREF would accept 1 in 50,000. That's not even close to homeopathic and, depending on the substance, could be easily detectable by mundane means.
If I'm reading correctly the 12LM potency Homeoproofer is proposing is roughly equivalent to a 30C preparation. One part solute would be diluted with 49,999 parts solvent, and this would be repeated 12 times.

http://www.ritecare.com/homeopathic/guide_potency.asp
__________________
Dr H

"I have nothing to say and I am saying it and that is poetry."
-- John Cage
Dr H is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 02:37 PM   #39
Jackalgirl
Ping Jockey
 
Jackalgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: I'm on a BOAT!
Posts: 1,810
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
I do not know what "rubbing alcohol" means- but I am sure you may know what it means when you read 5% alc. on a beerbottle!
We're not talking about the same kinds of alcohol. There are different kinds. The alcohol in beer is ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Rubbing alcohol is also known as isopropyl alcohol (C3H8O), and you can find it in the drug store as a 70% (or 91%) solution.

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post

it is the small globulie size- I would need to search it in the net like everybody could do and at least the skeptics who like to complain about it should do, to know what they are talking about.
Well, sorry, but I have tried to research it. It's a German word, so I hit on a lot of German websites, and so far haven't been able to find a definition that includes a description of what a globulie is (or its weight/volume/mass). If you have that information, it would be most useful in figuring out exactly how to describe how you're going to get to a 12LM preparation.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
And it does not matter for the skeptic I think, what size it is while no molekul of the namegiving substance is in the globulie or in the alcohol later...
You're absolutely correct. But your description of how you're going to prepare the remedy is that you're going to do it "x" times to reach a 12LM preparation. In order for me (or anyone else) to be confident that that's what's happening, we have to know what you're starting with.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Aren´t you loyal to your own conviction?
(the name of the remedy will be acknowledged early enough)
Why not now? To be honest, I don't care what you use. But I'm curious. And I'm wondering why you're holding it back. There's no reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
I never said that I want to use 1:50000!
Because I wrote LM12 and that is 12 times 1 part in 50000.
Roger!
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Only a break after a remedy, and I try every bottle- not that it would be necessary for me, out of the fact that I can be sure that there can´t be another bottle after I found all of them.

Oh! If it is not necessary, I would not continue after the finding of all remediebottles!
Well, see what JREF has to say about that. In another Challenge (edge's dowsing claim), they didn't accept that. On the other hand, your claim isn't about dowsing.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
RIGHT.
but it was only ment as the maximum time for me that I like to request.
It could be much shorter time...
But what, if I have a immunreaction and need longer time...
Do you have to have an immune reaction in order to detect the substance? If not, pick a substance to which you don't have immune reactions and we should be good to go. If you've done this before (which I assume you have), then you should know which substances cause major problems and which ones don't.


Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Oh my goodness, if it would be measureable, I could not get the million...
but you are right in a way...
I don't think you need to worry about that. As far as I know, once you get past 12C, there's no way to measure the original substance in the solution using current methods. I could be wrong -- I often am, so someone please correct me if so -- but I don't think there's any way to differentiate the original substance as the original substance (that is, you'd find all of the impurities in the solvent, but there'd be no way to tell which one (if any) was the original substance).

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

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
This could mean then the conclusion that the claim that homeopathic remedis are only placebos, is nonsense...
Not at all. All you'd know is that there's something interesting going on. Knowing that there's something going on with the solvent beyond what our knowledge of chemistry says should be possible (or, rather, probable) simply means that our knowledge of chemistry is not entirely correct. It says nothing for the efficacy of homeopathic remedies in humans (or animals).

For that, you need properly controlled clinical trials.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
what the skeptic will think about it is a miracle for me only, but I can imagine what the world will think about it!
I think that skeptics and non-skeptics alike will be very interested! : )


Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
Don´t you know other things which can not be measured, but nobody would dare to hesitate to believe in it?
(but this belongs to the thread: "homeoproof")
Some things that can't be measured directly can be measured indirectly by their effects on other things. I'm assuming you want to claim this for homeopathy, but the truth is that no effects beyond the placebo have been firmly established (in a proper double-blind test that has been properly replicated).

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
How much could such a study cost?
if it is done in the same way as other medical studies, with the only difference that it has to be done with respecting of a different understanding of the laws of nature which means then according to homeopathy and not to Allöopathy.
That's the beauty of the scientific method. It doesn't matter what you believe or understand regarding the "laws of nature". It'll all come out in a properly controlled study. As for how much it will cost? No idea. A lot, I imagine. In fact, I imagine that it will be hugely expensive.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
this would be simpler as it is:
it is not only a reaction of mine or my wifes body at the remedy- it is much more a reaction of MYSELFS or my wifes PERSON and it´sensitivity at a remedy!
Yes. What you're testing here is whether you're (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy, when neither of you know what you're sniffing. This does not prove that a remedy is better than placebo at dealing with a specific disease or its symptoms. It just demonstrates that you are (or your wife is) sensitive to a remedy vice a non-remedy.

Frankly, I think that would be a terrific start.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
like I tried to describe it already before I think, this is also the reason why I can do it, or my wife can do it, but not just anyone could do it.
That sounds paranormal to me. I don't think you're in danger of losing your eligibility for the Challenge.

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

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

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

Only interesting would be, to have the opportunity to smell it more often (each bottle).
I don't think that'll be acceptable to JREF. You can't have any opportunities to monkey with the bottles in any way. It's just a matter of showing a proper chain of control.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
my imagination:;
The bottles are locked in a proper box and the key is kept by the lawyer or a trusted person, while the room for the box is also locked with the key which is kept by another trusted person independendly.
That sounds good to me. I'm sure the JREF would be okay with that too (though, of course, you'd have to ask them).

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
If I can occupy a room in a clinic, it is already enough to have a safe in a small storeroom, and the testing and the storage could be done in that clinic then! *perfect *

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

Jürgen
I agree. I don't think that JREF will care how you pay for the incurred expenses, just THAT you pay for the incurred expenses. As ever, you'd have to ask them, but I'm betting that'll be their answer. As for your suggestion of using a clinic, I think it's a good one, and one you should suggest (after you've found one willing to donate their space, of course). Good luck! : )
__________________
>> "An optimist tells you the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The cynic tells you that someone has been drinking out of your glass." -- Boo
I don't like Sylvia Browne
Jackalgirl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2008, 04:32 PM   #40
Coveredinbeeees
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
It does not have to take a year anyway.
That depends on the protocol you finally agree upon. The one day per sample testing time combined with the 2-4 week recovery time after each positive sample could easily lead to a year long test.

Originally Posted by Homeoproofer View Post
There is only a quicklier recodnization time possible but her recovery takes much longer out of her sensitivity.
This is helpful to know. Out of curiosity, roughly how long would your wife's recovery time be?

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

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

This is logical thinking!
(but maybe I miss some knowledge for this conclusion? You will tell me!)
It is important to know exactly what you intend to dissolve in the alcohol because you need to be certain that there will be no clues, other than the efficacy of the homeopathic content, that something has been dissolved in it. If the plan is to dissolve a non-homeopathic placebo in the remaining samples you need to be certain that those solutions will look and smell identical to the solutions containing a homeopathic pill.

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

Last edited by Coveredinbeeees; 29th July 2008 at 04:34 PM.
Coveredinbeeees is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » JREF Topics » Million Dollar Challenge

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:06 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.