New Questions on New Day of 2006

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Thanks. So even at the wildest stretch possible, you can't get to 13C.

Sheikh, do you understand any of this?

It would be interesting to have this discussion if the parties of the other part were actually capable of understanding the argument. Unfortunately (and I don't care if I do get a warning for this), it's looking as if Sheikh and MAS and their colleagues (and socks) are simply incapable of understanding the chain of logic being employed.

Rolfe.

If you understand it then you must apply for a prize money. MAS organization http://www.drmas.org (password protected) believe in paying the money seriously.

 

[Mojo]

If you understand it then you must apply for a prize money. MAS organization http://www.drmas.org (password protected) believe in paying the money seriously.

If MAS is serious about people applying for the alleged prize money, why would he have password protected it? Yet more evidence that his offer is not genuine.

Actually, it doesn't seem to be password protected, but the link just goes to:

This is the placeholder for domain hostingcare.net. If you see this page after uploading site content you probably have not replaced the index.html file.

This page has been automatically generated by Plesk.

i.e. nothing there.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Are you saying that it was Dr. MAS who claimed that "medical drugs in homeopathy cannot show any physiological effect in 1x"?

No those were skeptics.

 

[Mojo]

No those were skeptics.

You told us to search for MAS. If it was skeptics who said this, who were they?

Provide some evidence to back up your claim. Provide a link to somewhere you think a skeptic has said what you are stating as the "Skeptics Point of View".

 

[Antiquehunter]

OK - this topic is totally out of my league - so if I say something stupid, please don't flame me.

So - basic chemistry. If I dissolve salt in water, and then evaporate out the water, I'm left with some salt.

If one took a homoepathic sugar pill that supposedly had belladonna in it, dissolved it in water, evaporated the water, I'd have sugar and a really minute amount of belladonna left, no? (Apart from whatever other impurities were in the solvent / sugar pill)

So - would a homeopath be able to win the JREF prize if they could prove that measurable quantites of belladonna (for example) exist in a really weak solution (30C for example) - since at those levels the skeptics position is that there were insufficient quantites of the original solute to be present in the final solution? (As I understand it, the probability is extremely low) Could a test based on this premise be designed - perhaps using an ion scanner type of unit like what is used at the airport? Make a homeopathic concoction of heroin for example, and then see if the ion scanner picks up the heroin.

One barrier I see is that 1 molecule of heroin or belladonna may already have a random chance of being present in your average glass of water anyways...

Pure speculation on my part.

-AH.

 

[PixyMisa]

If someone could show, consistently, that a 30C solution contained molecules of the original substance, they would not only win the JREF prize but the Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics and the Fields Medal as well.

It would be a more profound upheaval of human knowledge than would a working perpetual motion device. Come to think of it, it would be a perpetual motion device.

 

[anor277]

If someone could show, consistently, that a 30C solution contained molecules of the original substance, they would not only win the JREF prize but the Nobel prizes for Physics, Chemistry, Medicine and Economics and the Fields Medal as well.

It would be a more profound upheaval of human knowledge than would a working perpetual motion device. Come to think of it, it would be a perpetual motion device.

There are in fact a few papers in the literature that do purport to identify "ghost" molecules in homepathic solutions by spectroscopy. Rey's 2003 Physica A paper is one example, which identified 10^-30 g solutions of LiCl and NaCl by thermoluminescence; and while several of his conclusions are wrong his science does seem to reliable. The problem is of course at these levels the chances of contamination are very high indeed, and only a few papers have cited the 2003 paper and none have replicated his work.

 

[PixyMisa]

The problem is of course at these levels the chances of contamination are very high indeed, and only a few papers have cited the 2003 paper and none have replicated his work.

That's one of the problems, yes.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If you understand it then you must apply for a prize money. MAS organization http://www.drmas.org (password protected) believe in paying the money seriously.

As opposed to paying the money light-heartedly?

 

[delphi_ote]

If you understand it then you must apply for a prize money. MAS organization http://www.drmas.org (password protected) believe in paying the money seriously.

Wow. An unregistered domain. Sounds like you're making up more nonsense.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

delphi and others

sorry guys, I made a mistake, that registered domain has nothing to do with prize offer. I was told, that site would be personal.

On mojo and other honourable members, the changes were requested to authorities and now at http://www.nchpakistan.com links have been diminished.

The offer is available at the following link:
http://www.nchpakistan.com/news&events2.htm
(that is about paranormal behaviour of homeopathy)

 

[anor277]

delphi and others

sorry guys, I made a mistake, that registered domain has nothing to do with prize offer. I was told, that site would be personal.

On mojo and other honourable members, the changes were requested to authorities and now at http://www.nchpakistan.com links have been diminished.

The offer is available at the following link:
http://www.nchpakistan.com/news&events2.htm
(that is about paranormal behaviour of homeopathy)

You will note that the challenge is to prove that:

The managing director of www.hhomeopharma.com Dr. Hafiz Matie ullah announced to sponsor the prize money in support of World Homeopathic Computer Club's offer to prove "Homeopathy is paranormal in nature and scientific laws / principles cannot apply over homeopathy".

To win the challenge one must therefore,
(i) prove that homeopathy works
(ii) show that such working is paranormal.

As MRC Hans has pointed out, if one could prove (i) one could then apply to win the JREF prize, considerably more lucrative than the homeopathic offer, because all one has to do here is to show that homeopathy works.

 

[Ducky]

This thread has my response to this bullsh*t.

By my calculations that translates to $226,603.22 USD.

Surely you can raise more than that? Oh well never mind. How about this:

Please provide evidence that this money exists, and that upon completion of your challenge to the positive you are required by law to pay it out.

You see, the JREF provides that. That's how we know they're serious and honest about their testing procedures.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

This is not the matter of amount. A prize is a prize. It has link with the challenge and if you win a prize then actually you win your challenge.

 

[steenkh]

This is not the matter of amount. A prize is a prize. It has link with the challenge and if you win a prize then actually you win your challenge.

But as Hans pointed out, in order to win the prize one has to prove that homoeopathy works! And because this is impossible (homoeopathy does not work) nobody can ever win the prize!

 

[Metullus]

But as Hans pointed out, in order to win the prize one has to prove that homoeopathy works! And because this is impossible (homoeopathy does not work) nobody can ever win the prize!

And we come full circle...

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

But as Hans pointed out, in order to win the prize one has to prove that homoeopathy works! And because this is impossible (homoeopathy does not work) nobody can ever win the prize!

I agree with you, trial should be conducted on James Randi and Dr. MAS in one court.

Hans is wrong. you can prove that homeopathy does not work. Just like you claim about lancet report that it does not work.

All the previous double blind tests are done on diseases. or it was designed to check the effect of homeo medicine on diseases, like dbt is done on arnica to see the effect of arnica on a disease. Our claim is we cure symptoms. conduct dbt on arnica symptom written in its proving.

 

[steenkh]

Hans is wrong. you can prove that homeopathy does not work. Just like you claim about lancet report that it does not work.

Of course we can prove (statistically) that homoeopathy does not work, but Hans pointed out that the prize for a million non-existant rupees that Dr. MAS offers is granted to persons who can prove that homoeopathy works through paranormal means. How can we prove that homoeopathy works through paranormal means when homoeopathy actually does not work at all? You can only win the prize if homoeopathy really works and it is through paranormal means that it works.

If the prize was just for showing that homoeopathy does not work, then the authors of the Lancet-article have already won it!

All the previous double blind tests are done on diseases. or it was designed to check the effect of homeo medicine on diseases, like dbt is done on arnica to see the effect of arnica on a disease. Our claim is we cure symptoms. conduct dbt on arnica symptom written in its proving.

Yes, why not? Find a number of people with arnica symptoms and give half of them arnica and the other half placebo, but without you or the patients knowing which ones have got the arnica and which ones have got the pacebo. It is as simple as that!

Where do you see a problem?

 

[Nucular]

All the previous double blind tests are done on diseases. or it was designed to check the effect of homeo medicine on diseases, like dbt is done on arnica to see the effect of arnica on a disease. Our claim is we cure symptoms. conduct dbt on arnica symptom written in its proving.

So - you're the "doctor", you're the homeopath, you're the one with the patients and the surgery and the homeopathic potions and paraphernalia - YOU do the study, and let us know your findings, and where they will be published.

Before you do anything, though, for love of Ed, read this site thoroughly: the World Health Organisation research ethics page. I'm sure they'd answer any ethical queries you have, they're quite sympathetic to homeopathy, and indeed they're running a forum in Karachi next month. I wish at least someone from your club would be there, given what we've heard so far about the (un)ethical practices in Pakistani homeopathy from some of your previous incarnations, I mean colleagues (woman4ya).

I'm sure we'll all gladly help with design, methodology etc.

What design did you have in mind, Sheikh? Beyond a slightly amended individualised homeopathy RCT, of which there have already been several conducted, and your double-blind set-up, what other ideas have you had for conducting this study?

 

[Nucular]

Sheikh, I've just noticed there's a thread put aside for you to discuss your experimental design here.

I hope to read your methodological ideas soon.