Dr. Sheikh will prove homoeopathy works or quit!

Ririon said:
Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Yes, 10-15 should do it. (So that reduces it to 10 bottles.) It's pretty pointless, anyway. It's all been done before (as you have pointed out and provided links to).
 
Doesn't reduce it to only 10 bottles, just to 10 bottles that get used. You still have to prepare all the remedies the homoeopath thinks he might want for the trial, maybe several bottles of each, and then a matching number of sham preparations.

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

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

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

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

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

Rolfe.
 
rolfe, homeopathic remedy is not fake. What is the concept of fake in your mind. When you finalized the meaning of fake do inform me.
 
Please show where I used the word "fake", MAS. I think you'll find I didn't.

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

Rolfe.
 
sorry I misrepresented you. I was reading the posts and it was got jummbled up. sorry. Mojo you are singing old song. :D we have already crossed that limit. sing any new song. :p
 
Dr. MAS said:
Mojo you are singing old song. we have already crossed that limit. sing any new song.
Click to expand...
You mean you have some good evidence that homoeopathy works? I suggest that you write it up and send it to the Lancet. I'm sure they would be very interested in publishing that sort of ground-breaking research.

The Nobel prize committee might be interested as well!
 
Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.
 
Dr. MAS said:
... Lancet has no value to us.
Click to expand...
Of course not. They publish the results of scientific studies. You want nothing to do with that, you fakir. I just feel bad for all the people in your country who are dying because of your phoney treatments. It is happening here, too. You monsters are killing people and thriving on it.
But you aren't the only ones.
Consider Dick Cheney.
 
Dr. MAS said:
Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.
Click to expand...
Why do you not accept what the Lancet has published earlier? Do you have valid reasons not to accept it, or is it just because you do not like it?
 
Dr. MAS said:
Sending article homeopathy does work to lancet means we are accepting what they have published earlier. No. Lancet has no value to us.
Click to expand...
That is an extremely weird notion. The Lancet is a journal for publishing articles; it is a form of debate forum like this, only more advanced. The PURPOSE of the Lancet and journals like it is to publish opposing views.

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

MAS, you are truely a strange character.

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

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

What the hey, I'll bite.

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

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

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

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

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom