Homeopathy - I am ready for open challenge

[Pixel42]

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

Then 5 days of trials would be sufficient for a statistically significant result (note the 4 days you proposed would still not be).

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

 

[Mojo]

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

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

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

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

 

[0m3g4]

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

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

 

[Ocelot]

Suggested Protocol

Required

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

• A video recording is started.
• 10 volunteer test subjects are picked. All must be passed as suitable by both muntadev2in and the testers.
• Contact details an availability will be taken for all volunteers in case the test ends early and later volunteers are not needed.
• 2 volunteers are asked to return on all three of the following 3 days (Day 2, Day 3 and Day 4) at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
• 2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 5, Day 6 and Day 7 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
• 2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 8, Day 9 and Day 10 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
• 2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 11, Day 12 and Day 13 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
• 2 other volunteers are asked to return on Day 14, Day 15 and day 16 at a time of Muntadev2in's choosing
• Muntadev2in decides upon a homeopathic preparation. For a positive result to demonstrate a paranormal claim this preparation must be beyond the molar limit of dilution. A potencies of 16C and above will be sufficient.
• Muntadev2in provides a source solution ready for homeopathic dilution and instructions on how it is to be prepared.
• Common tap water will be used as a placebo solution.
• Both Muntadev2in's source solution and the placebo solution will be labelled on the toss of a coin as AC0 and BC0
• An independent homeopath picked by the testers with Muntadev2in's approval will carry out a dilution and succussion on each of the source solutions.
  • One part of the source solution will be added to a fresh clean container and diluted with 99 parts of the chosen solute (either water or alcohol).
  • The resulting solution will be succussed.
  • The solution resulting from AC0 will be labelled as AC1 and the solution resulting from BC0 will be labelled BC1
• Step five will be repeated until muntadev2in's required potency is achieved. NB To prevent contamination, glassware used for measuring is not to be reused to measure a more dilute solution at each stage a fresh clean container is to be used.
• Muntadev2in is to acknowledge that the potentisation has been carried out in accordance with his instructions leading to two solutions he believes can be distinguished by his methods.
• 10 doses are poured into fresh clean containers from the homeopathic preparation and labelled as such.
• 10 doses are poured into fresh clean containers the placebo preparations and labelled as such.
• Muntadev2in is to be led from the room by observer 1, to a place where he cannot see, hear or otherwise determine what is going on in the room.
  • Observer 1 should monitor muntadev2in at all times for signs of communication.
• 10 more doses are poured into fresh clean containers. Each dose will on the toss of a coin (recorded by camera) come from either the homeopathic preparation or the placebo preparation.
  • The containers will be labelled 1 to 10
  • The contents of each container will be recorded on individual slips of paper which will be placed into a corresponding envelopes labelled 1 to 10
  • The envelope will be sealed
  • As with all stages of the procedure this is to be videoed. The blinding process should be conspicuously recorded by video with each slip and envelope being shown to the camera
• The independent homeopath is lead out of the building by observer 2 neither to have any further contact with muntadev2in or observer 1
• Muntedev2in is lead back into the room by observer 1
• The envelopes and all 30 doses are placed in a box locked with two padlocks, one provided by Muntadev2in and one provided by the observer 1 at Muntadev2in's expense. Each retains their own key.
• The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
• Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.

Day N+1 Non-blinded test

• Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
• The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
• The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
• The box is unlocked.
  • Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • The tape from Day 1 is placed inside the box
  • One dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation and one dose labelled as a placebo are removed from the box.
  • The box now also containing the first day's tape is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in
• At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation.
• At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as a placebo.
• Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained.
• The volunteers are asked to return at the same time on the following day.
• The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
• Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.

Day N+2 Non-blinded test part 2

• Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
• The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
• The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
• The box is unlocked.
  • Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • One dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation and one dose labelled as a placebo are removed from the box.
  • The box is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in
• At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as a placebo. This is the reverse of the previous days test so that the volunteer previously given the homeopathic preparation is now given the placebo.
• At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as a homeopathic preparation. This is the reverse of the previous days test so that the volunteer previously given the placebo is now given the homeopathic preparation.
• Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained.
• The volunteers are asked to return at the same time on the following day.
• The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
• Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.

Day N +3 Blinded test

• Muntadeve2in and observer 1 arrive
• The video recording is restarted with a new tape.
• The Nth two volunteers arrive prior to the test time set by Muntadev2in. They are connected to Muntadev2in's monitoring equipment for baseline readings to be taken.
• The box is unlocked.
  • Observer 1 affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • Muntadev2in affirms for the camera that there have been no signs of tampering.
  • The doses labelled N and N+1 are removed from the box.
  • The box is locked by both padlocks with Observer 1 and Muntadev2in
• At the appointed time, the first volunteer is given the dose labelled as N.
• At the same time the second volunteer is given the dose labelled as N+1
• Muntadev2in confirms for the camera that he is satisfied with the experimental set up and the readings obtained..
• From the data gathered Muntadev2in will attempt to determine whether dose N was Homeopathic preparation or placebo.
• Muntadev2in will affirm his prediction for the camera and will write his prediction on a piece of paper and sign it.
• The box will be unlocked. And the envelope labelled N will be removed.
• The box will be relocked by both parties
• The envelope will be unsealed and read on camera by observer 1
• If Muntadev2in's prediction was incorrect he has failed, the test is over. Other wise continue.
• From the data gathered Muntadev2in will attempt to determine whether dose N+1 was Homeopathic preparation or placebo.
• Muntadev2in will affirm his prediction for the camera and will write his prediction on a piece of paper and sign it.
• The box will be unlocked. And the envelope labelled N+1 will be removed.
• The box will be relocked by both parties
• The envelope will be unsealed and read on camera by observer 1
• If Muntadev2in's prediction was incorrect he has failed, the test is over. Other wise continue.
• The video is switched off and the room is locked by observer 1
• Observer 1 accompanies Muntadev2in to a hotel booked by the testers at Muntadev2in's expense, and takes all reasonable precautions to ensure no communication with 3rd parties.
• N is incremented
• Steps 25 to 66 are repeated until either Muntadev2in has failed in one of his predictions or he has successfully identified all ten doses.
• If Muntadev2in correctly identifies 10/10 doses he has passed the test.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Dear critics of Homeopathy,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have a brainfeed.

Ready for challenge.

Dr.Devendra Kumar munta
MD(Homeo)

You've convinced me!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

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

Try to understand Homeopathic priciples before making any comments.

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

Dr.Dev

Do you know Dr. Mas?

 

[chillzero]

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

 

[fls]

Ocelot,

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

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

Linda

 

[Ocelot]

Ocelot,

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

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

Linda

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cuddles]

Ocelot,

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

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

Linda

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

 

[fls]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda

 

[steenkh]

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

 

[jojonete]

My thoughts:

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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

 

[muntadev2in]

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

 

[muntadev2in]

protocol

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

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

I prefer only potencies above 200c,

200c most preferable.


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

10 subjects - ask to come 2 per a day.

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

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

these I required.

 

[muntadev2in]

My thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[Pixel42]

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

The problem with getting homeopathic medicines from a shop is that there is no way of knowing if they were prepared correctly. The preparation needs to be monitored but it doesn't need to be done on the day of the testing as long as the prepared medicine is then safely locked away until it is used.

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

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

 

[Cuddles]

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

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

 

[Jackalgirl]

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a proposed basic listing of steps:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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