Traces found in homeopathic Potency 14c

[AnotherSillyAlias]

I would disagree with that assessment, ASA. I am fairly certain that the Pakistani homeopaths' fundamental problem is of education in science, or more accurately, the lack thereof.

Many of their proposed ideas in support of homeopathy seem to have a basis in rather childish notions of how the world works. The very basic principles of chemistry and physics and mathematics often seems to leave them baffled. No wonder, then, that they like to fall back on the simplest explanations for their "science" - they are the only ones they understand at present. And this has become a sort of "comfort rut" they love to stay in, despite entreaties to the contrary.

.

Looked at that way, you could be correct but I get this uneasy feeling that they know quite well what we are talking about but hide behind a facade of ignorance, to a certain extent, so they have an excuse to avoid recognising the real science involved.

Let's face it, their livelihoods depend on selling this stuff to the gullible.

Maybe I'm just waaaaay too cynical and your judgement is the correct one.

 

[Rolfe]

Not only that, the degree of evasiveness shown in their posts argues against real honesty. Most of the time we're left trying to guess what they mean, and I don't think this is just due to language difficulties. MAS kept posting a photograph of that potentising machine, making it a big mystery, and all along, rather than state straight out what their position is, they have hedged and hinted and asked ambiguous questions.

Sometimes I think we're all being led by the nose through a "serious" discussion on why the moon is really made of green cheese, by a bunch of people who are simply having a laugh.

Rolfe.

 

[Zep]

In the case of MAS (or perhaps the MAS collective), I suspect you are right. He/they seem to think their childish and juvenile antics are a joke for their friends. Little realising that THEY are actually the joke.

 

[Darat]

Looked at that way, you could be correct but I get this uneasy feeling that they know quite well what we are talking about but hide behind a facade of ignorance, to a certain extent, so they have an excuse to avoid recognising the real science involved.

Let's face it, their livelihoods depend on selling this stuff to the gullible.

Maybe I'm just waaaaay too cynical and your judgement is the correct one.

Reporting in the Pakistani "Daily Times" seems to support your view:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-5-2005_pg7_36

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\01\17\story_17-1-2006_pg7_54

 

[Dr. MAS]

This is not the matter of math or chemistry subject. I never said to you to apply avogadros equation on homeopathic potency. I was saying our homeopathic potency have molecules other than ethanol and water (solvent). You claim that there is no molecules present in homeopathic potency at above 12c level. You also offered to prove it? Don't you?

I claim that homeopathic potencies have starting material in 13c or 14c etc. other than ethanol+water. For this purpose, we want to prove the prescence of molecules in any homeopathic potency which is avaialble in the market at the moment. Will you proceed with this competition? YES or NO?

If your answer is in "No" it means, you have withdrawn your previous arguments. If you accept, traces can be found in 14c then I am ready to raise the potency upto 15c.

About Challenge prize money. I am ready to file court documents that if we win we will not claim any prize from jref. Rather I will pay 1 million ruppees to jref as donation. I think, jref is doing great service to mankind. If 1 million can solve our problem then it is not a bad buisness.

Iqra, hhomeopharma and like pharmacies are agreed to sponsor the prize money to jref.

You are all requested to help us out in winning that challenge.

 

[MRC_Hans]

MAS, read my posts in other threads on this subject. The JREF challenge is a paranormal challenge. How is the presense of molecules in a sample a paranormal thing?

What source do you propose the molecules you may find come from? Are they a product of a correctly executed serial dilution, or are they a product of contamination?

If you find a few molecules, how will they affect the patients getting the remedy? Perhaps you should name a remedy and explain which effects you assume to get from various concentrations?

Hans

 

[steenkh]

Dr. MAS, have I got it right that your claim is really that the actual production method in all homeopathic potencies which are available on the market at the moment, are leaving traces of MT in the potency? That is, nobody are using proper Hahnemannian methods, but all are using methods that do not require the cleansing of vials and tubes between potentisations?

 

[Mojo]

This is not the matter of math or chemistry subject. I never said to you to apply avogadros equation on homeopathic potency. I was saying our homeopathic potency have molecules other than ethanol and water (solvent). You claim that there is no molecules present in homeopathic potency at above 12c level.

No. The claim is that there will be no molecules originating in the mother tincture at above 12c/24x. It is inevitable that there will be substances other than ethanol and water present as contaminants, as it is simply not possible to produce absolutely pure ethanol and water. These contaminants will almost inevitably include trace amouts of the same substances that are present in the mother tincture, but they will not have originated there. the challenge to you is to tell the difference between a homoeopathic preparation at over 12c and a sample of the stock solvent used in its preparation, or the difference between a homoeopathic remedy pill at that potency and a blank (but otherwise identical) pill. You will also need to do this enough times to eliminate the possibility that you are merely a lucky guesser.

If your answer is in "No" it means, you have withdrawn your previous arguments. If you accept, traces can be found in 14c then I am ready to raise the potency upto 15c.

The argument was not that the preparation will be absolutely pure ethanol and water, but that there will be no molecules in it originating in the MT. If you are merely talking about detecting molecules other than ethanol and water in the remedy, raising the potency will not make any difference, as other substances will continue to be introduced as contaminants. Nobody has suggested that the solvent itself is going to be absolutely pure. The challenge is to show that the preparation is detectably different from the stock solvent.

 

[NeilC]

Surely their MIGHT be the odd molecule of the originating substance in SOME of the test vials?

 

[Rolfe]

Nobody has suggested that the solvent itself is going to be absolutely pure. The challenge is to show that the preparation is detectably different from the stock solvent.

This has been said so often that it is getting tedious. MAS either doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand.

The challenge also specifically relates to properly prepared Hanemannian potencies. Prepared according to the method of the master, as used in many, in fact probably the large majority of homoeopathic pharmacies around the world.

If MAS is simply claiming that he has some sort of machine with such a huge carryover problem that the dilutions are not properly carried out, then frankly, so what.

If he is also claiming that therapeutic activity of the resulting remedies is dependent on this carryover, and that remedies prepared without such carryover are inactive, then I think his argument is more with the homoeopathic establishment (which has been using Hahnemannian potencies for 200 years, and continues to use them with claims of success) than with the JREF.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Surely their MIGHT be the odd molecule of the originating substance in SOME of the test vials?

Well, once you get beyond the potency at which there is roughly one molecule per vial, the chances get very small very quickly. For a "C" preparation, and assuming it's been properly prepared, in the next dilution you will have a 1 in 100 chance of a single molecule, in the next 1 in 10,000, in the next 1 in 1,000,000 and so on. Remember that homoeopaths commonly use, for example, 30c potencies, which is about another 15 steps on from this, and even 200c. I really can't be bothered to type out all those zeros.

There will of course inevitably be molecules of the target substance present that have originated as contaminants in the solvent used for the dilutions, so merely demonstrating that a few molecules of the substance are present is not good enough; it is necessary either to demonstrate that these came from the mother tincture (and as one molecule of a substance is the same as any other this will be impossible, unless, I suppose, something like radiolabelling is used) or that there is a detectable difference between the stock solvent and the preparation. To rule out the possibility that some other contaminants are being introduced (for example via some sort of machine being used) it might also be necessary to include in the test protocol a stipulation that it is necessary to tell a potentised remedy from a sample of the solvent that has gone through the same potentising process but without the initial addition of the mother tincture.

 

[Mojo]

Surely their MIGHT be the odd molecule of the originating substance in SOME of the test vials?

And don't call me Shirley!

 

[petre]

This is not the matter of math or chemistry subject. I never said to you to apply avogadros equation on homeopathic potency. I was saying our homeopathic potency have molecules other than ethanol and water (solvent). You claim that there is no molecules present in homeopathic potency at above 12c level. You also offered to prove it? Don't you?

I claim that homeopathic potencies have starting material in 13c or 14c etc. other than ethanol+water. For this purpose, we want to prove the prescence of molecules in any homeopathic potency which is avaialble in the market at the moment. Will you proceed with this competition? YES or NO?

If your answer is in "No" it means, you have withdrawn your previous arguments. If you accept, traces can be found in 14c then I am ready to raise the potency upto 15c.

About Challenge prize money. I am ready to file court documents that if we win we will not claim any prize from jref. Rather I will pay 1 million ruppees to jref as donation. I think, jref is doing great service to mankind. If 1 million can solve our problem then it is not a bad buisness.

Iqra, hhomeopharma and like pharmacies are agreed to sponsor the prize money to jref.

You are all requested to help us out in winning that challenge.

Will camphor suffice then? I'll get to work writing up an application for you. We can always change it later if you feel there is a better one to test with, or a better means of detection.

 

[petre]

Alright, here's a ready-made protocol for you, my notes are in chevrons (<>) and should be removed before you print. Don't forget to print out the application cover page (http://www.randi.org/research/challenge.html) and have all the pages notarized.

If you have difficulty getting access to a printer, perhaps we can locate someone that would print it out for you, let us know.

If you have difficulty figguring out how to get something notarized, let us know. Someone here might be able to help with that as well.

Finally, let me repeat that no one in these forums is a JREF representative, including myself. We can assist you in applying, but we cannot guarantee success. Alright then, here's the protocol:




Dr. MAS <it is advised that you use your full legal name here, as JREF will insist that you be identified in a legally-binding specific way>, hereafter referred to as THE APPLICANT proposes to demonstrate the existence of non-solvent in a 14C (or greater) homeopathic preparation of camphor.

Ten samples of such a preparation, and ten samples of pure solvent will be obtained, through a process determined at a later time through agreement between JREF, hereafter referred to as THE CHALLENGER, and THE APPLICANT. <you may wish to further specify this part, my suggestion is to allow the independent observer mentioned in the next paragraph to obtain the samples for you, with funds provided by THE APPLICANT, as always>

The twenty samples will be randomly indexed and their contents recorded by an independent observer, agreed on by THE CHALLENGER and THE APPLICANT, and hereafter referred to as THE OBSERVER. The samples will then be given to THE APPLICANT in random order.

THE APPLICANT will then, by any means available, <I recommend that Dr. MAS drink each preparation, and note if it has the expected effect> identify if the given sample is a 14C preparation, or if it is pure solvent, within one hour. <you may adjust this time is more is needed, or if you feel you can confidently identify the effects in a shorter time, but I do recommend that you include the time required>. After a break of one hour <again, feel free to adjust the time period> the next sample will be tested. THE APPLICANT will thus identify four samples per day over a selected set of 5 days, agreed on by THE APPLICANT and THE OBSERVER.<feel free to adjust these numbers as necessary too>

After all 20 samples have been so identified by THE APPLICANT, THE OBSERVER will then reveal the true nature of the samples, and note the number of correct identifications made by THE APPLICANT. Correct identification of 16 out of the 20 samples will constitute a successful demonstration.

 

[steenkh]

Dr. MAS <it is advised that you use your full legal name here, as JREF will insist that you be identified in a legally-binding specific way>, hereafter referred to as THE APPLICANT proposes to demonstrate the existence of non-solvent in a 14C (or greater) homeopathic preparation of camphor.

I think this should be changed to:

Dr. MAS <it is advised that you use your full legal name here, as JREF will insist that you be identified in a legally-binding specific way>, hereafter referred to as THE APPLICANT proposes to demonstrate the a difference between a homeopathic preparation of camphor and the solvent used for this preparation.

 

[petre]

I think this should be changed to:

Dr. MAS <it is advised that you use your full legal name here, as JREF will insist that you be identified in a legally-binding specific way>, hereafter referred to as THE APPLICANT proposes to demonstrate the a difference between a homeopathic preparation of camphor and the solvent used for this preparation.

Of course that would be acceptable, it just seems to be his desire to demonstrate the presence of molecules. If he's just as happy demonstrating that there is any difference at all, I'd think JREF would accept that as paranormal as well (even MORE likely to accept, I'd think).

Oh, and I did not research any indications of gender on the part of THE APPLICANT, I am simply using my own chosen rules of grammer and using male pronouns when gender is unknown.

 

[Mojo]

Ten samples of such a preparation, and ten samples of pure solvent will be obtained,

For reasons I've mentioned in this thread, and which MRC_Hans has more eloquently stated here, the blanks should be prepared by the same procedure as the homoeopathic preparation but without the mother tincture.

 

[Mojo]

Of course that would be acceptable, it just seems to be his desire to demonstrate the presence of molecules.

It is quite possible that molecules of the target substance will be present as a contaminant (perhaps this is why he feels so confident about his ability to demonstrate that they are there), so simply demonstrating that they are there would not be sufficient to win the challenge. MAS needs to demonstrate that there are molecules from the mother tincture present, as well as molecules present as a contaminant in the solvent (for homoeopathy to be valid, these molecules from the MT would also have to have some sort of special property distinct from those present as a contaminant, but that's a side issue here). The simplest way of doing this would be to tell the remedy from the solvent.

 

[rwguinn]

This is not the matter of math or chemistry subject. I never said to you to apply avogadros equation on homeopathic potency. I was saying our homeopathic potency have molecules other than ethanol and water (solvent). You claim that there is no molecules present in homeopathic potency at above 12c level. You also offered to prove it? Don't you?

<<<SNIP>>>>quote]

Watch out, folks---His "misunderstanding" of the English/American language is just such that he has an out here---"You claim that there is no molecules present in homeopathic potency at above 12c level."he says
Of course there are molecules in the solution-solvent and contaminants.
We can't go putting words in his mouth. Although we all understand that what you folks have said is that there will be no difference between the >12c potency homopathetic solution and the placebo (solute), he is twisting it just enough to give himself an out and claim "Foul!". So we need to be "vewy vewy caweful...hahahah"

 

[petre]

For reasons I've mentioned in this thread, and which MRC_Hans has more eloquently stated here, the blanks should be prepared by the same procedure as the homoeopathic preparation but without the mother tincture.

It is certainly possible that JREF would add this as a condition to the protocol. For simplicity, I excluded anything that might not be entirely necessary. Perhaps Dr. MAS could weigh in on whether he'd prefer this extra step be included, or excluded, or whether he doesn't care either way.

I wrote the protocol in the simplest terms possible that I felt would still give it a good chance of being accepted.