EDITH ROTHERMEL, German Homepathy Applicant

[ChaosEngineer]

Gah, what a pain that would to be to test...

Does the set-up make sense? I can see how the nose would normally be cooler than the forehead because it radiates more heat. But would "poor circulation" really make a noticeable difference?

Other than that...if someone is dizzy and you give them a homeopathic remedy, then there's a good chance that they won't be feeling dizzy ten minutes later. That doesn't seem supernatural, though.

 

[petre]

It seems to me that the 'paranormal' aspect of homeopathy is where it claims the ability to cure ailments or produce other effects that traditional medicines cannot. The described effect appears, to a layman such as I, to be within the ability of modern medicine and not paranormal.

For example, if I claimed that with my 'pastapathic' medicine I had the ability to induce vomiting, that would not be paranormal since there are a good many known substances that do exactly that already.

 

[eri]

And he says something about the cure being a high dosage of some sort. How do you determine it doesn't contain aspirin? A friend of mine has some liquid cure for cold sores that he swears by. It's labelled 'homeopathic' but it's obviously not the 'one molecule per ocean' type we usually call homeopathic - it has ingredients and it's not completely see-through. How do we determine at what dosage something becomes paranormal?

 

[StoatBringer]

I don't see how this can be tested adequately. How can you get a group of people who all feel "dizzy" and can be measured before and after, with the homeopathic treatment and with controlling for placebo?

Perhaps if she could determine the difference between the homeopathic preparation and a plain sugar-pill instead, that might be easier to test?

 

[Ed]

All they have to do is whip up their version of something psychoactive. The principle should be tested, not something as subjective and difficult to measure as "healing".

If you use the principles of Homeopathy and create say an amphetamine analog, objective testing on various tasks would be childs play.

 

[Mojo]

It looks a bit contradictory. She stipulates that the subjects must be healthy and not on meds, but suffering from circulation problems causing restriction of blood supply to the brain.

 

[Mojo]

And he says something about the cure being a high dosage of some sort.

No. What is suggested is a high potency remedy:

I would like to proof, that the high potency homeopathic remedies (D30) have a measurable impact on the temperature regulations of humans.

Homoeopathists claim (among other things) that the more dilute a remedy is the more powerful it is. A D30 remedy has been sequentially diluted 1:10 30 times. This takes it far beyond the point at which there will be any of the "active" substance present. There will literally be nothing in it apart from the stock solvent used (or, if it's administered as a sugar pill, er, sugar).

 

[Rolfe]

Why do they always have to make it so impossible to test? They all claim that the magic sugar pills have a very definite effect on healthy people (proving effects), which can be detected subjectively at least. So surely it should be possible to use this effect to tell magic sugar pills from ordinary sugar pills, to the required statistical power.

Do they really not want the money, or are they just too dim to work out how to get it?

Rolfe.

 

[Nucular]

It seems to me that the 'paranormal' aspect of homeopathy is where it claims the ability to cure ailments or produce other effects that traditional medicines cannot.

I disagree: there are probably lots of substances in existence which have the ability to cure ailments or produce effects traditional medicines cannot - they just haven't been discovered, described and studied properly yet.

The 'paranormal' aspect of homeopathy is usually considered to be its claim to be able to elicit any measurable effect whatsoever from its dosages, which infinitessimal, or in real terms, no dosage. This fact alone renders the claim itself a paranormal one - there are no known (science-based) reasons to think this kind of effect could happen, and plenty to think it can't. Homeopaths themselves often dress it up still further in magical/paranormal clothing - talking of 'energies', 'energy imprints', etc., but it's the basic fact of the dosage-effect claim which renders it eligible for the prize.

 

[Nucular]

Do they really not want the money, or are they just too dim to work out how to get it?

Rolfe.

Yeah, I hope Kramer's discussion with her covers the easier ways of testing the central premises of her claim. But I suspect there are many homeopaths who seek simply to muddy the waters, and in that sense are not after the money directly. I wonder if this is a genuine one? A google on the name turns up very little, just some ecological leanings.

 

[Mojo]

Yeah, I hope Kramer's discussion with her covers the easier ways of testing the central premises of her claim. But I suspect there are many homeopaths who seek simply to muddy the waters, and in that sense are not after the money directly. I wonder if this is a genuine one? A google on the name turns up very little, just some ecological leanings.

If a protocol can't be agreed I suppose we'd better keep a look out for her popping up elsewhere saying that she's applied for the challenge but the JREF refused to test her...

 

[Rolfe]

Yeah, I hope Kramer's discussion with her covers the easier ways of testing the central premises of her claim.

I don't think he does that. I think he believes it's up to the applicant to propose the protocol.

When I tried to ask him if a particular protocol was likely to be acceptable, so that we could suggest it to the homoeopaths who keep coming by saying that they can win the money and then proposing to do it by making one person's cold go away within a week or something like that, he wouldn't answer, and all I got was "apply, or go away."

Rolfe.

 

[eri]

No. What is suggested is a high potency remedy: Homoeopathists claim (among other things) that the more dilute a remedy is the more powerful it is. A D30 remedy has been sequentially diluted 1:10 30 times. This takes it far beyond the point at which there will be any of the "active" substance present. There will literally be nothing in it apart from the stock solvent used (or, if it's administered as a sugar pill, er, sugar).

Ah, that's what she meant. Thanks.

 

[graeylin]

Not that I would think of cheating, but I can think of plenty of herbal supplements that can cause localized cooling or temp changes in skin near the source of application. Mint, for one, or capsacin both have thermal affects.

And, if I included those in the final mix (not in the initial, but in the final batch of "carrier water/solution" at the last dilution), i could get some temperature changes that could possibly be felt or measured. Any protocol should ensure that all potential chemicals in the dilution are accounted for, and not just the "active" ingredient.

 

[Kiless]

I don't think he does that. I think he believes it's up to the applicant to propose the protocol.

When I tried to ask him if a particular protocol was likely to be acceptable, so that we could suggest it to the homoeopaths who keep coming by saying that they can win the money and then proposing to do it by making one person's cold go away within a week or something like that, he wouldn't answer, and all I got was "apply, or go away."

Rolfe.

Would that be something you've got time for? Rather like the GSIC test? http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?p=1170192&highlight=deja+gateward#post1170192

 

[Rolfe]

http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?postid=997738#post997738

Rolfe.

 

[Kiless]

Ah. Thanks, wasn't aware it was open on the boards. Apologies.

This interested me - Kramer:
Remember, the JREF does NOT prescribe the test, and we have no real standards for testing a specific claim.
It is clearly stated in the Challenge rules that the APPLICANT proposes a test protocol that he/she believes will verify the claim.
That's how the process and the negotiations begin.

This is where I think Kramer can be reinterpreted (and I'll see if in rereading this, if I actually make sense... ):
I don't think it's necessary, as in the GSIC case, to actually BELIEVE it'll work.

Just that the person can attempt to verify the claim that is made about the product, as it is widely accepted by its supporters.

The CSIC didn't have a believer behind it, but the product was set out as it was claimed to be able to do.

I guess the belief there was on the behalf of the manufacturers and what they said it could do - the GSIC claimant was just offering themselves as a conduit 'listener', much like a person who says that the dead want to communicate through ouija boards and anyone can do it and offer themselves as a representative conduit.

The "Don't be daft, I don't think it's possible to tell magic sugar pills from ordinary sugar pills" doesn't actually matter, IMHO. But it should to those who manufactured the bottle of 'magic sugar pills', whose product are being used in the test.

I also am under the impression that Kramer is warding of thousands of 'hypotheticals' that may appear to waste his time. Not that I think yours is a time waster, per say, but I can see it being interpreted as an open invitation for others to produce some on the boards.

As you said "If your currently-in-discussion proposal gets somewhere, I'll be right in the front row cheering. But mostly the ones that seem as if they might go for it are so dense that they can't even think of a protocol that wouldn't get laughed out of court."

Then I'd say that's their problem. I'd also be interested in the formal proposal mentioned that is currently going through, than some of the less coordinated ones who pop up here. If they can't seem to get their heads around it, then perhaps they should look at other claims already made by people that have gone through and certainly seek advice by people on the boards here... and even if their application isn't fully worded out, I've noticed that once it is logged as a claim, there's some genuine efforts to tinker it out to allow it to go through to the test stage. I also feel the 'Keep it simple' strategy is the best, as Edith Rothermel's appears to be... although I don't see many who appear to adhere to that notion on the boards in terms of the homeopathy group...

"It would be nice to be able to say to them, look, no guarantees, and you have to negotiate with Kramer and the JREF yourself, but if you propose something like this, it's probably a good start and doesn't have any obvious fatal torpedoes in it." - yes, true, but wouldn't it give them an out, to say 'well, it wasn't MY designed challenge to begin with and what X suggested was flawed'? Maybe I'm just being mean there...

(edited to nicely space out the paragraphs )

 

[Rolfe]

The "Don't be daft, I don't think it's possible to tell magic sugar pills from ordinary sugar pills" doesn't actually matter, IMHO. But it should to those who manufactured the bottle of 'magic sugar pills', whose product are being used in the test.

Well, I know LostAngeles did try the GSIC chip, even though she didn't believe in it. However, the claim regarding what it was supposed to do was clear enough, and if it had worked then any reasonably discerning audiophile should have been able to detect the effect.

However, homoeopathy is so arcane that I don't see how any lay person (in that respect) could possibly give it a try.

There are two obvious ways to test a remedy. One is to use it on a patient in a suitable situation. So, if the homoeopath had a patient who was obviously a belladonna case, for example, they could try the purported "belladonna" and try to determine whether it was doing what it was expected to do. For that, you'd need to be a homoeopath who had patients and who knew a belladonna case when you saw it.

The other is to try a "proving" of it. Homoeopaths are adamant that every remedy produces recognisable signs when taken by a healthy person. Some say that you need a group of people to do the test, others say that not everybody is a good "prover", but given a free hand, and a situation where all you have to determine is whether you have the named remedy you think you have, or an inactive blank, it should be perfectly possible to design a test. However, for a non-homoeopath to try to do this, given all the arcane ifs and buts in homoeopathic theory and practice, would be well-nigh impossible.

Rolfe.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Plus, like with the GSIC and anything else, a skeptic getting a negative result would really prove nothing to beievers. It HAS to be one of their own the even merit their attention.

Hans

 

[Kiless]

Plus, like with the GSIC and anything else, a skeptic getting a negative result would really prove nothing to beievers. It HAS to be one of their own the even merit their attention.

Hans

Hmm. So perhaps Randi's negotiations are the best bet?