What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[Tricky]

jref test is baseless it is disease based we do not claim to cure any disease.

As has been discussed here and by Randi himself, you do not have to cure anything. You really don't even have to treat any symptoms, although you could if you wanted.

As I understand it, you have two unlabeled bottles, one which contains a homeopathic mixture of solvent and solute of your own making, and one with containing nothing but the solvent (water, in most cases). If you can tell them apart in a statistically valid number of trials, you win. Nothing about a cure. Nothing about treatment even, although if you decided to use treatment of symptoms as the way to tell them apart, that would be permissable.

What could possibly be more fair? What could you possibly be afraid of? If you can tell them apart in any manner whatsoever, including by trickery, you win. But I will warn you, Randi's folks are hard to trick. If you are afraid of being caught at your trickery, that is a very valid fear.

Here's one I recommend. Cold sores, or fever blisters as they are sometimes called. They satisfy everything that could be needed for a proper test. They are very common. They are almost never dangerous, and they go away in a length of time that varies, but not widely. Also, they are a symptom, not a disease. The big bonus is that if you could show that you have a treatment that works, the Randi million would be chickenfeed.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

I understand it, but where we have to apply that mixture and for what condition?

 

[PixyMisa]

You don't.

You just have to identify it.

 

[steenkh]

I understand it, but where we have to apply that mixture and for what condition?

You are the one to decide how best to show that there is a difference between a homoeopathic remedy and pure solvent. Find the way that most effectively displays this difference. The best would be 100% certainty, but if you cannot reach that, even a 1% better performance by the real remedy will net the million (but in that case the number of tests to establish this difference will probably be prohibitively huge).

A word of advice: if you can do the test yourself before you apply, you can be saved the embarassment of a failure. If you suggest a protocol here before you apply, I am sure there are many here who will help you refine it.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

You don't.

You just have to identify it.

Where this is quoted by randi?

link?

 

[Mojo]

Where this is quoted by randi?

link?

Where is the statement in your signature said by a sceptic?

Link?

 

[steenkh]

Where this is quoted by randi?

link?

YOu can find Randi's challenge to homoeopaths here.

The JREF has for years offered the homeopathic community a simple challenge — one that we also made to Benveniste: simply show us that you are able to differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic preparations, by any means, and you win the million-dollar prize. By "any means," we mean chemical (qualitative or quantitative analysis), biological (in vivo or in vitro), physical (polarization, spectroanalysis, microanalysis), or metaphysical (Tarot cards, intuition, vibrations, auras, Kirlian, I Ching, guessing, spirit communication), or any other means. None of the homeopathic community has accepted the challenge. There's a message in there, somewhere.

 

[Mojo]

Where's your link, Sheikh?

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

YOu can find Randi's challenge to homoeopaths here.

Do you mean, if anyperson could prove the existance of anyother chemical in homeopathic potency by anymeans as mentioned in your link then that person can win one million prize?

 

[Tricky]

Do you mean, if anyperson could prove the existance of anyother chemical in homeopathic potency by anymeans as mentioned in your link then that person can win one million prize?

As I understand it, that is correct. I believe that homeopathic potencies involve dilutions to the point that there is, mathematically, none of the solute left in the solvent.

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

lets wait for another endorsement of this statement may be anor etc. Thank you.

 

[Z]

Or, you could just read the challenge. We know you can read.

 

[Rasmus]

lets wait for another endorsement of this statement may be anor etc. Thank you.

Of course, as part of the protocol you would have to specify exactly how you plan to derive at the final solution.

As I understand it, if your method of preparation is sound, then you could take the challenge.

Rasmus.

 

[Tricky]

lets wait for another endorsement of this statement may be anor etc. Thank you.

Why don't you send the question to
[email protected]

Someone will contact you within one business day to discuss your claim and what the protocol would be.

 

[Rolfe]

Do you mean, if anyperson could prove the existance of anyother chemical in homeopathic potency by anymeans as mentioned in your link then that person can win one million prize?

Yes. Any way at all of distinguishing between the stock solvent and the potentised remedy. It doesn't have to involve curing people (though it might), or demonstrating "proving" symptoms (though that seems to me to be a good way to try it), or even showing that there is any belladonna in belladonna. Just any difference at all from the stock solvent that allows you to reliably say, this is the homoeopathic preparation.

Go for it.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Why don't you send the question to
[email protected]

Someone will contact you within one business day to discuss your claim and what the protocol would be.

This is true.

If you are having difficulty coming up with a possible protocol, then you could try the one I posted in another thread.

Both myself and the JREF witness the preparation by independent manufacturers of the necessary homoeopathic remedies and "sham" preparations, and the appropriate labelling, and their delivery to an independent and mutually trusted lawyer.

The lawyer agrees to send or deliver to me, one at a time and on request, either the remedy I ask for, or a sham. I take my time and decide whether I got the requested remedy or not (any way I please), and notify another trusted third party, who does nothing but keep a record of my decisions. I then notify the lawyer that I'm ready for the next one, and he sends it to me. And so on.

We do this, say, 15 times (which I think would allow for sufficient statistical power). After I have delivered my 15 decisions, the lawyer who was sending out the material compares notes with the person recording my decisions, and the number of correct calls counted. If this makes it to a less than 1 in 1,000 chance that I was guessing, the preliminary phase has been passed.

Naturally, I pay all professional fees accrued by this process.

I cannot guarantee that this protocol will be acceptable to the JREF, the only way to test that is to approach them with this as a serious proposal. Nevertheless, if i thought there was any way to do this, this is the protocol I would suggest. You can have it. As a present.

Note that this allows you to use any means you like to tell whether you have the real thing or not. Treat a patient, look for "proving" signs in a volunteer, demonstrate some specific molecules - or dowse for it or read its horoscope or take a good guess. If you can do it reliably, you win.

Good luck with that.

Rolfe.

 

[steenkh]

And remember to mention us in your address to the Nobel committee when get the prize!

 

[Psiload]

jref test is baseless it is disease based we do not claim to cure any disease.

Are you for real?

"An important basic difference exists between conventional medical therapy and homeopathy. In conventional therapy, the aim often is to control the illness through regular use of medical substances, even if the medication is nothing more than vitamins. If the medication is withdrawn, however, the person returns to illness. There has been no cure. A person who takes a pill for high blood pressure every day is not undergoing a cure but is only controlling the symptoms. Homeopathy's aim is the cure: "The complete restoration of perfect health," as Dr. Samuel Hahneman said."

That's taken right from the Introduction to Homeopathy section of the National Center for Homeopathy's webpage:

http://www.homeopathic.org/differ.htm

Dude... seriously...

you're a clown.

***edited to add***

I refer you back to the first page of this very thread, where you will find the following:

"If you detail us (homeopaths) to treat 10 AIDS / Hepatitis etc confirmed patients and if we succeed in curing 8 out 10 then you might confirm that "Homeopathic medicines have good healing effects / property against human diseases".

Dr. MAS

At the very least you Bozos should try and get your stories straight.

Clowns... the lot of you.

 

[Mojo]

Do you mean, if anyperson could prove the existance of anyother chemical in homeopathic potency by anymeans as mentioned in your link then that person can win one million prize?

Actually, you don't even have to prove the existence of a particular chemical in a high potency homoeopathic preparation (I suspect that it would need to be over 24x/12c to be acceptable to the JREF). As Rolfe has pointed out, all you need to do is tell the difference between a high potency homoeopathic preparation and a sample of the stock solvent used in its preparation, or between a homoeopathic pill at that sort of potency and a blank pill.

You can try to tell the difference in any way you like: you could analyse the preparation or pill to prove the presence of the original solute, you could administer them to test subjects to observe the proving symptoms, or you could even administer them to patients and see whether or not their condition improves. The choice is yours!

Can we expect to hear about your application soon?

 

[Mojo]

Oh, and by the way, Sheikh, can you provide a link to any evidence at all to back up the claim that you have in your signature about the sceptical point of view?