New Questions on New Day of 2006

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Of course we can prove (statistically) that homoeopathy does not work,

does randi accept statistical information for his offer of 10 million dollars?

you have to prove with practical means.

 

[Darat]

Of course we can prove (statistically) that homoeopathy does not work,

does randi accept statistical information for his offer of 10 million dollars?

you have to prove with practical means.

There is no offer of 10 million dollars.

 

[Mojo]

Dr. Sheikh, are you going to keep your promise to prove that homoeopathy works in a double blind test, or to leave homeopathic practice for ever? There's a thread for you to post your proposed protocol here.

 

[delphi_ote]

does randi accept statistical information for his offer of 10 million dollars?

you have to prove with practical means.

There is no offer of 10 million dollars.

And yes. Probability and statistics frequently play a big role in the test procedures.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

There is no offer of 10 million dollars.

sorry mistaken.

 

[steenkh]

does randi accept statistical information for his offer of 10 million dollars?

you have to prove with practical means.

Yes, Randi is using statistics all the time, but in order to win the million you have to be able to prove your claim with a probability that is extremely high.

If you are thinking of the odds of the Lancet report disproving homoeopathy, I think that the certainty is only something like 95% or 97%. So if Dr. MAS's fake prize needs better odds than that, we must accept that the fake prize will not be taken for some time. But on the other hand, what value has a medical system that has 95% chance of being false?

 

[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.

What would be the point, when those claiming to offer the prize do not seem capable of understanding the explanation?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Sheikh, go back a bit.

Repeatedly, people on this thread have shown that even if you have the maximum possible number of atoms present in your original mother tincture, and the material is capable of dissociating into these individual atoms, repeated 1:100 dilutions will still come to the point where no atoms are present by the 13th dilution.

No matter what sort of mixture or compound or elemental material you want to start with, it is impossible to pack in enough atoms of any sort to avoid this outcome. There is no way you can split atoms down to smaller parts in homoeopathic processing.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Yes, Randi is using statistics all the time, but in order to win the million you have to be able to prove your claim with a probability that is extremely high.

If you are thinking of the odds of the Lancet report disproving homoeopathy, I think that the certainty is only something like 95% or 97%. So if Dr. MAS's fake prize needs better odds than that, we must accept that the fake prize will not be taken for some time. But on the other hand, what value has a medical system that has 95% chance of being false?

I just talked to dr. mas on his mobile number and he said, if lancet proves that its report is true, he offers one million rupees. Anybody who can prove the Lancet original report can win one million rupees. Ask to lancet to publish that news and send true copy at WHCC address.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

Sheikh, go back a bit.

Repeatedly, people on this thread have shown that even if you have the maximum possible number of atoms present in your original mother tincture, and the material is capable of dissociating into these individual atoms, repeated 1:100 dilutions will still come to the point where no atoms are present by the 13th dilution.

No matter what sort of mixture or compound or elemental material you want to start with, it is impossible to pack in enough atoms of any sort to avoid this outcome. There is no way you can split atoms down to smaller parts in homoeopathic processing.

What is so difficult for you to understand about this?

Rolfe.

12c or 13c, please clarify. You have moved one step up. I will drag to at 30c.

 

[steenkh]

I just talked to dr. mas on his mobile number and he said, if lancet proves that its report is true, he offers one million rupees. Anybody who can prove the Lancet original report can win one million rupees. Ask to lancet to publish that news and send true copy at WHCC address.

Are you claiming that the Lancet report is faked, and if it is "proved" not be faked, Dr. MAS will award his non-existent prize to the authors?

 

[H'ethetheth]

12c or 13c, please clarify. You have moved one step up. I will drag to at 30c.

Clarify?
Bah! If you would have made the effort to actually read any posts, you would see that it is possible to still have solute particles at 13c, but you have to do strange things like dissolve 2.4 kg of boron. You won't have to "drag to at 30c", because as I calculated, that would entail dissolving at least several huge stars.

 

[Rolfe]

12c or 13c, please clarify. You have moved one step up. I will drag to at 30c.

Clarification. If we pack in the maximum number of solute atoms possible to a litre of mother tincture, 12C is the last potency that is likely to have some atoms left, assuming full dissociation. By 13C the probability is that there are no atoms left.

This is what we have been saying all along. We have merely confirmed that it holds at the maximum possible atoms in the original preparation. For practical purposes, where mother tinctures are relatively dilute, and solutes do not dissociate to their component atoms, the limit will come sooner. It cannot come later.

You have been talking about 18C, though we never understood why. No way can you drag it to 18C, never mind 30C.

I repeat. There are only so many atoms you can pack into a preparation. Even if you pack in as many as you can, and allow complete dissociation, you run out of these atoms before reaching 13C.

Drag it any way you like, them's the facts.

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

so you both have different oppinions one is saying 13c don't have and other is saying it has, it means your equation is wrong.

 

[Mojo]

so you both have different oppinions one is saying 13c don't have and other is saying it has, it means your equation is wrong.

If you read carefully, you'll see that H'ethetheth is saying that in certain circumstances it might be theoretically possible under certain extreme circumstances for there to be some left at 13c (but not possible beyond that), while Rolfe is saying that at 13c the probability is that there are no atoms left. Not much disagreement there.

 

[anor277]

so you both have different oppinions one is saying 13c don't have and other is saying it has, it means your equation is wrong.

Then make it easy for us simpletons. Simply tell us how much mass of belladonna in any form there remains in a 30C preparation.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

If you read carefully, you'll see that H'ethetheth is saying that in certain circumstances it might be theoretically possible under certain extreme circumstances for there to be some left at 13c (but not possible beyond that), while Rolfe is saying that at 13c the probability is that there are no atoms left. Not much disagreement there.

If the equation is same, if the formula is same, if the method of preparation of potency is same, then why two results? It means there is something wrong in understanding or in calculations.

 

[ClusterBoy]

If the 12C dilution is the last one at which there is any chance at all there may be some left, then it follows that the 13C dilution is the first dilution (before going to 14C, 15C, and dragging it out if you like) at which there is none. There really is no disagreement or difference in understanding

 

[Metullus]

If the equation is same, if the formula is same, if the method of preparation of potency is same, then why two results? It means there is something wrong in understanding or in calculations.

The only person evidencing a lack of understanding here is you. The calculation involves 6th grade math skills and an understanding of basic chemistry.

There is no difference between the two results, as Mojo poined out. Do you understand the meaning of the word "disingenuous"?

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

you sent cluster boy here. come with your real poster name.