What is paranormal in Homeopathy

[Flange Desire]

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

Clowns... the lot of you.

I'll second that!

 

[Mojo]

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!

I suppose I'd better add to this that there may be some limitations on the specific methods you can use. The JREF will not approve any test that is likely to result in harm to any of the test subjects, for example. Read the rules and FAQs.

 

[Rolfe]

I suppose I'd better add to this that there may be some limitations on the specific methods you can use. The JREF will not approve any test that is likely to result in harm to any of the test subjects, for example. Read the rules and FAQs.

That's true, but I doubt very much that the JREF would have any real reservations regarding consenting adults taking a sugar pill.

I'm thinking, has Sheikh disappeared? The explanations regarding running out of atoms seem to have been water off a duck's back, but could it be that the realisation of how easy the million dollars would be to win if there was any truth whatsoever in homoeopathy has brought him up short?

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

That's true, but I doubt very much that the JREF would have any real reservations regarding consenting adults taking a sugar pill.

They would if it meant witholding actual medication from someone suffering from a potentially life-threatening position, such as in the recent application from Sanjay Vashi who said he could cure diabetes using homoeopathy.

I'm thinking, has Sheikh disappeared? The explanations regarding running out of atoms seem to have been water off a duck's back, but could it be that the realisation of how easy the million dollars would be to win if there was any truth whatsoever in homoeopathy has brought him up short?

His response to that one did seem a little startled. I was thinking maybe little dollar signs were lighting up in his eyes (for some reason I seem to be picturing him as Wile E. Coyote) but it may be that he's taken fright.

 

[Zep]

I'm suspect he is off trying to devise a protocol that he can cheat with (since he hasn't the technical nouse to be able to win it fairly). For a simple example, putting a drop of coloured dye in the "homeopathic remedy" so it can be distinguished by eye. Or some other less obvious "tracer" method.

Little does he realise that a properly planned protocol would prevent such tactics being employed!

 

[Mojo]

...for some reason I seem to be picturing him as Wile E. Coyote

It might be something to do with the picture of the "Acme" homoeopathic remedy making machine he keeps posting...

 

[Rolfe]

They would if it meant witholding actual medication from someone suffering from a potentially life-threatening position, such as in the recent application from Sanjay Vashi who said he could cure diabetes using homoeopathy.

That's very true. Given the open-ended protocol I suggested, I wonder how involved the JREF would want to be in what was done? I mean, if we just say, here's the preparation, do what you like to figure out whether it is the real remedy or the stock solvent, what's the position if the claimant then told a diabetic to stop taking the insulin?

I don't see any objection to "risking" someone getting the sham instead of the homoeopathic remedy that Sheikh divined would make a difference in the case, since obviously I don't believe that the real remedy would do any good either. Presumably it would be sufficient for Sheikh himself to be happy that a patient in such a trial wouldn't be seriously harmed by what might be a short delay in getting the treatment decided on.

His response to that one did seem a little startled. I was thinking maybe little dollar signs were lighting up in his eyes (for some reason I seem to be picturing him as Wile E. Coyote) but it may be that he's taken fright.

I think both. I think it was just like Kumar. He thinks it must be possible, so he's in the money, then he realises as he thinks it through that he simply can't do it.

Rolfe.

 

[Ririon]

It might be something to do with the picture of the "Acme" homoeopathic remedy making machine he keeps posting...

Let me carefully stay out of the homeopathy discussion and support bloating and derails with this link (1902 Sears catalog ad): Anvil!

 

[Dr. A Sheikh]

you are saying, at above 13c potency, there is no molecules exisit. Right. How about the idea to prove "something" in 14c potency? Do you agree?

 

[steenkh]

you are saying, at above 13c potency, there is no molecules exisit. Right. How about the idea to prove "something" in 14c potency? Do you agree?

You are quite right, but according to homoeopathic theory, 30C, or 200C would be much stronger. Would it not be easier for you to get an effect out of a stronger preparation than a weaker one?
Why did you choose 13C? Is that because you are not quite sure that the calculation is correct, and that you hope therefore to be able to locate something that otherwise would not have been there?

You do believe in homoeopahy, don't you?

 

[Rolfe]

I think it was just like Kumar. He thinks it must be possible, so he's in the money, then he realises as he thinks it through that he simply can't do it.

Well, he's back. I suspect it's going to be a simple matter of not being able to afford to carry out the test that would net him a million dollars.

Rolfe.

 

[steenkh]

Maybe he should settle for half a million dollars and find an investor who can sponsor the test?

 

[Psiload]

Well, he's back. I suspect it's going to be a simple matter of not being able to afford to carry out the test that would net him a million dollars.

Rolfe.

What's to afford?

I hear tell that homeopathic camphor will make a healthy person feel sick. So, you mix up fifty bottles of "strong" camphor... 200C... and fifty bottles of un potensiated stock solvent(make sure you keep them well apart- don't want any of that pesky "grafting" contamination between bottles). Scramble them up and blind yourself to which is which, then dose your(healthy) self each morning with a sample from a bottle. Keep track of which days you feel the effect of the camphor, and which days you don't. At the end of 100 days, compare your "sick" log to your camphor/blank list.

Cheap, easy, definitive.

No recruiting of patients, corporate sponsorship, large expediture of ruppees, etc...

 

[Rolfe]

The get-out for that was provided by a woo from Otherhealth called Anna Bryant. She was quite surprised to realise that winning the prize was so easy, and wondered why nobody had done it yet. She then remarked that she could do with the money, and wouldn't it be a great boost for homoeopathy if a homoeopath were to win it?

With you so far, Anna.

But then she decided that "proving" a remedy would make her ill, and she wasn't prepared to make herself ill that often, even for a million dollars. Not only that, but many homoeopaths declare that one person can't prove a remedy many times in succession, it screws up the vital force or something.

This was the point where we decided that maybe what was needed was a group of people, each willing to prove the remedy once. If enough people got it right, a win. This led to a small digression where it was discussed whether the multi-person test was still under the control of one person, who decided whether each person had "proved" or not, or whether each individual was to make their own decision as to whether they had had the real remedy.

This seemed to be such a good test that a friend of mine decided actually to try it for real. He advertised for practising, experienced homoeopaths who were sure that they could prove a remedy. At first it was to be belladonna 30C, but then the protocol was modified to let the homoeopath choose what they wanted to prove (because some homoeopaths said they wouldn't be sure about belladonna but they were sure they could prove bryonia or whatever). He arranged with a commercial homoeoapthic pharmacy to provide the required remedies and sham preparations, and together with a homoeopath he knew personally, they worked out a randomisation and blinding protocol.

After a bit of correspondence, in the end only six homoeopaths actually came forward to try it. Three were correct about what they were given, three were wrong.

But yes, it's that easy. The above protocol is pretty much the same idea, except that it's geared to a single applicant, and it doesn't demand that a proving be done (though it seems to me that is the obvious way to do it), it allows complete freedom of any means of identification at all. The only way to cheat would be to break the blinding.

I really can't see why a group of homoeopaths doesn't get together and do this. Even if there were half a dozen of them co-operating, it's still a decent slice of cash apiece.

Oh wait I do know why they don't.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

But then she decided that "proving" a remedy would make her ill, and she wasn't prepared to make herself ill that often, even for a million dollars. Not only that, but many homoeopaths declare that one person can't prove a remedy many times in succession, it screws up the vital force or something.

This was the point where we decided that maybe what was needed was a group of people, each willing to prove the remedy once. If enough people got it right, a win. This led to a small digression where it was discussed whether the multi-person test was still under the control of one person, who decided whether each person had "proved" or not, or whether each individual was to make their own decision as to whether they had had the real remedy.

This seemed to be such a good test that a friend of mine decided actually to try it for real. He advertised for practising, experienced homoeopaths who were sure that they could prove a remedy. At first it was to be belladonna 30C, but then the protocol was modified to let the homoeopath choose what they wanted to prove (because some homoeopaths said they wouldn't be sure about belladonna but they were sure they could prove bryonia or whatever). He arranged with a commercial homoeoapthic pharmacy to provide the required remedies and sham preparations, and together with a homoeopath he knew personally, they worked out a randomisation and blinding protocol.

After a bit of correspondence, in the end only six homoeopaths actually came forward to try it.

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something here, but shouldn't a remedy being "proved" produce symptoms in any healthy individual, not just in trained homoeopaths?

Couldn't a homoeopath administer remedy or placebo to each of a group of healthy volunteers and then tell which has had which by asking tham what symptoms they experience?

 

[ClusterBoy]

Couldn't a homoeopath administer remedy or placebo to each of a group of healthy volunteers and then tell which has had which by asking tham what symptoms they experience?

well exactly this has been done. can't link yet but if you google "placebo-controlled proving" and get the first hit which is at soton.ac.uk then you will find it has happened. Can you guess what the result is?

 

[Mojo]

A pig flew past the lab?

 

[Mojo]

OK, here's the link: Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects.

So no flying pigs, huh?

 

[ClusterBoy]

Yeah. Sorry to disappoint on the pigs front. Apparently placebo proved in a higher percentage than belladonna did. But it was statistically insignificant. It makes me quite cross that money is still wasted on these trials.

 

[Rolfe]

Correct, the homoeopath is free to use a third party to prove the remedy.

I know of five papers showing controlled proving trials, all negative. I posted them here.

Please have a look at all the published trials of the "proving" effects of Belladonna.

G[SIZE=-1]OODYEAR[/SIZE], K., L[SIZE=-1]EWITH[/SIZE], G. & L[SIZE=-1]OW[/SIZE], J. L. (1998) Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of homoeopathic 'proving' for Belladonna C30. J. R. Soc. Med. 91(11), 579-82.

B[SIZE=-1]RIEN[/SIZE], S., L[SIZE=-1]EWITH[/SIZE], G. & B[SIZE=-1]RYANT[/SIZE], T. (2003) Ultramolecular homeopathy has no observable clinical effects. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proving trial of Belladonna 30C. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 56(5), 562-568.

W[SIZE=-1]ALACH[/SIZE], H. (1993) Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study. J. Psychosomatic Res. 37(8), 851-860.

W[SIZE=-1]ALACH[/SIZE], H., K[SIZE=-1]OSTER[/SIZE], H., H[SIZE=-1]ENNIG[/SIZE], T., & H[SIZE=-1]AAG[/SIZE], G. (2001) The effects of homeopathic belladonna 30CH in healthy volunteers - a randomized, double-blind experiment. J. Psychosomatic Res. 50(3), 155-160.

All studies failed to find any difference between the effect of Belladonna 30C and a placebo on healthy people in a "proving" trial. All studies were carried out by homoeopaths (both Lewith and Walach are strong advocates of homoeopathy) and the protocols approved by homoeopaths. Yet they found no effect attributable to the belladonna.

All were carried out by believing homoeopaths. There may be more now. I know that Walach in particular is so convinced the effect is real that he was last heard of trying to organise a complex, multi-centre protocol he thought would come up with something. I'm not holding my breath though.

Rolfe.