Traces found in homeopathic Potency 14c

Shiekh (a member of this forum) contacted me and asked me to write to JREF organization for proving the existence of molecules in 14c potency.

If www.drmas.org organization have proved the existence of molecules in a homeopathic potency at 14c level, then is it applicable/allowed?

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Uh, how about you send me the prize money. I need to pay off my student loans, and, I'd love to buy some property too. Oh, and I need new juggling equipment!

The JREF challenge is for demonstrating a supernatural event. Some molecules in a vial of water/alcohol is hardly supernatural. More likely, it is due to sloppy laboratory practice.

Now, if you could present research that proved that Avogadro's limit does not apply to serial dilution (and succussion), I'm sure you would be eligible for some kind of prize or recognition (although I doubt it is Nobel material), but it still would not be supernatural, hence not eligible for the JREF challenge.

Come on, MAS: You know and I know that all this is just smokescreening to avoid actually answering the pertinent questions that have been put to you and the other homeopaths.

Hans

Dr. MAS said:

Shiekh (a member of this forum) contacted me and asked me to write to JREF organization for proving the existence of molecules in 14c potency.

If www.drmas.org organization have proved the existence of molecules in a homeopathic potency at 14c level, then is it applicable/allowed?

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

Glad to see you're well enough to type, MAS. You can find information about how to apply for the challenge here. If you wish to apply, you will need to contact the JREF yourself. If you don't want the money, you could always give it to a suitable cause.

By the way, the link to your website is just linking to a placeholder at the moment.

Dr. MAS said:

Shiekh (a member of this forum) contacted me and asked me to write to JREF organization for proving the existence of molecules in 14c potency.

If www.drmas.org organization have proved the existence of molecules in a homeopathic potency at 14c level, then is it applicable/allowed?

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

Your question is being put to the wrong individuals. Contact JREF directly regarding the challenge (i.e. find appropriate details on this website). The advice you receive here is merely an opinion and not pertinent to the challenge.

MRC_Hans said:

The JREF challenge is for demonstrating a supernatural event. Some molecules in a vial of water/alcohol is hardly supernatural. More likely, it is due to sloppy laboratory practice.

Now, if you could present research that proved that Avogadro's limit does not apply to serial dilution (and succussion), I'm sure you would be eligible for some kind of prize or recognition (although I doubt it is Nobel material), but it still would not be supernatural, hence not eligible for the JREF challenge.

Come on, MAS: You know and I know that all this is just smokescreening to avoid actually answering the pertinent questions that have been put to you and the other homeopaths.

Hans

Click to expand...

Here is the specific challenge MAS needs to address:

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.

Click to expand...

I would like to know how you detected these molecules in the solute.
I would also like to know how this solute was prepared, handled and diluted.
From what I have seen so far, your preparation methods are open to bad preparation and cross-contamination.
How did you ascertain that the solute was 100% pure before the experiment?
What was the method used to detect these molecules?
How many molecules were found in your experiment?
Was the experiment repeated?
Can we see your test results?
What are your margins of error in the detection process?
How did you ensure sterility and cleanliness of your equipment prior to your test?
If we were to give you a homeopathic medicine, made by another laboratory, would you be able to tell the difference between that and pure solvent?

Come on, folks! Don't ask MAS any hard questions! He's already offered to test his own preparations using his own methods to get his own answers and to write up his own results - what more do you want from this man!

I think MAS hasn't quite understood what he has to do. Maybe Randi needs to be a bit more specific.

Of course what has to be done is to distinguish the (properly-prepared by homoeopathic pronciples to the satisfaction of both parties) homoeopathic potancy from the stock solvent. Distinguishing a water-alcohol-diluted homoeopathic preparation from tap water won't cut it, for example. He has to show that there's some difference between the remedy and the unpotentised solvent.

Question. Is it enough to simply use the stock solvent bottle as the control, or should the control also go through all the diluting and succussing, just using some more of the solvent instead of the mother tincture? That's how they did it on the Horizon broadcast. What do you guys think?

Rolfe.

Rolfe said:

IIs it enough to simply use the stock solvent bottle as the control, or should the control also go through all the diluting and succussing, just using some more of the solvent instead of the mother tincture? That's how they did it on the Horizon broadcast. What do you guys think?

Rolfe.

Click to expand...

I remember discussing the protocol of the Horizon programme with a homeopath after the show. She said that succussing the stock solvent actually potentized the solvent and therefore made the experiment void!!! Of course this is a completely ridiculous claim.

I personally think the experiment should be done with two controls. Use plain stock solvent as one control and succussed solvent as the other.

I think the reference should also be prepared like the remedy, from the same batch of stock solvent and using the same method, but without a mother tincture. Since the trial is about distinguishing them using any method, there is always the possibility that the remedy contains different contaminations or concentrations (if the solvent is a water/alcohol mix), if they are not prepared in the same way.

The claim that potentized stock solvent voids the experiment should be received with gratitude, as this is an acknowledgement that homeopathic remedies are nothing but shaken water (water/alcohol) .

Anyhow, such a reservation is irrelevant for the JREF challenge as the claimant has to accept the protocol in advance.

Hans

Dr. MAS said:

Shiekh (a member of this forum) contacted me and asked me to write to JREF organization for proving the existence of molecules in 14c potency.

If www.drmas.org organization have proved the existence of molecules in a homeopathic potency at 14c level, then is it applicable/allowed?

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

Contact the JREF Challenge administrator Kramer either by PM to KRAMER or email to [email protected].

Be advised that the JREF are likely to be unavailable for about a week due to TAM.

Dr. MAS said:

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

That money could go a long way to help all the injured and dying earthquake vicitms in Pakistan. But no, you'd rather carry on these inane arguments. You're disgusting.

Dr. MAS said:

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

Ah, the good old cop-out. "I'd do it, of course, but then there's the EVIL money involved..."

Dr. MAS said:

Shiekh (a member of this forum) contacted me and asked me to write to JREF organization for proving the existence of molecules in 14c potency.

If www.drmas.org organization have proved the existence of molecules in a homeopathic potency at 14c level, then is it applicable/allowed?

It is intimated that www.drmas.org wants to participate in million-dollar challenge without the claim of the prize money. The organization is not interested in the prize money.

Please guide the organization how we could participate in the competition with the undertaking that we are not interested in the prize money. We are only willing to participate.

Click to expand...

I've offered to write up a protocol for just such a challenge (subject to approval by JREF, as always). All I need is for you to identify one homepathic preparation that you could take numerous times, which would produce noticable effects without being unnecessarily harmful, preferably with effects lasting the least amount of time to shorten the time required to complete the trials.

petre said:

I've offered to write up a protocol for just such a challenge (subject to approval by JREF, as always). All I need is for you to identify one homepathic preparation that you could take numerous times, which would produce noticable effects without being unnecessarily harmful, preferably with effects lasting the least amount of time to shorten the time required to complete the trials.

Click to expand...

To make things even easier, I would volunteer as the test subject.

I am also sure that others would volunteer at a specified concentration, and this would come at about 12-13c - as others have done in the past


Dave

MAS it's nice to see you cured your joint pain and posted yourself.


How about you do this:

Skip all the obfuscation by attempting to nitpick what you think are valid points of science about homeopathy, and prove it works.

How about you tell me how homeopathy cures cancer?

I am interested in Dr. A. Sheikh's and Dr. MAS's ideas about the 14C dilution. I don't see why people immediately make sarcastic remarks. Dr. MAS said he didn't want the prize, but he was still interested in entering the contest. Let's be fair; as long as he is interesting in taking the challenge he is not using an excuse. It's only an excuse if he uses that as a reason to duck out of the test.
Why do they want to enter the competition if they don't want the prize? Maybe because they wants to prove something about the basis of homeopathy. Lots of people have said it can't work because there are no remaining molecules at 12C. So Dr. MAS and Dr. A. Sheikh want to show that there ARE molecules left at 12C (or 14C). Why not respect their intention?

Unfortunately, while the absence of molcules at 12C and higher dilutions indicates that homeopathy could not work by normal scientifically defined means, the presence of molecules is not automatically going to convince anyone that it does work. The presence of molecules will just raise a new set of questions. This does not mean that we have changed our minds. People have always mentioned multiple ways in which homeopathic remedies would need to prove themselves. If the homeopaths were paying attention to ALL the arguments posted here, they would realize that, but I think they don't. It may be a problem with understanding the English.

I have wondered why the homeopaths seem to think there are molecules in 12C abd above. Is it because they can't follow the explanations and math showing how the dilutions work? This is too bad, if it is true, because the explanations are very clear and solid. Or is it because they have seen for themselves that there is material remaining in their higher dilutions? If so, that brings different questions.

If they use a machine that does not adequately dilute the remedies, and if it is the same machine that Boiron uses, does that say anything interesting about Big Homeo's remedies? If the remedies are then dripped onto sugar pills, does it matter? Even if there is a molecule of a remedy left, would that molecule be enough to have an effect? Very unlikely. Would it be enough to cure anything by its physical effect? Very unlikely. What if they can show a molecule remaining from one remedy? Does that mean there are molecules left in ALL the remedies? No. If all through the ages homeopathic remedies have been made in a way that leaves molecules at supposedly high dilutions, does this change our ideas about homeopathy?

If Dr. A. Sheikh and Dr. MAS don't care about the prize money and only want to enter the contest in hopes of convincing people that homeopathy has a physical basis, then they
don't even really need the JREF challenge. They can start right now and discuss this question with us openly. I want to know if their belief that there are molecules left above 12C depends on the use of the automatic potentizer or on the use of the Korsakoff dilution method.

I think they should get a sample of a mother tincture diluted to 12C or 14C with the automatic potentizer, and at the same time they should make a dilution of the same mother tincture by hand using the Hahnemannian method and compare the results themselves.

Here's another suggestion. Do a Hahnemannian dilution in this way: Start with a mother tincture and dilute it in 100 ml (or whatever the usual volume is). Make some kind of a scale to go on the side of the tube, dividing it into 5 or 10 segments vertically. Randomly choose which segment to put the end of the dropper when you take the sample for the next dilution. This would avoid a pattern of always taking a sample from the bottom, or from the top.

Or another way to do this would be to put one tenth of the 1C volume into each of nine fresh tubes;the last tenth can stay in the 1C vial. (Or use 10 fresh tubes and move 1/10 of the 1C dilution into each one.) Number the tubes. Have someone pick a number randomly from 1-10. Use that randomly chosen vial for the start of the next dilution: Take a tenth of that volume (making a one hundredth dilution) and put it in a fresh vial. Add the other 99/100 volume of
solvent to make the 2C dilution. Repeat this up to 12c. Doing it this way might get around the problem of undissolved material from the mother tincture - it should be diluted out randomly this way.
(Alternatively, dispense into 100 fresh tubes each time and pick one randomly to start the next dilution, but that uses a lot of tubes.)

In addition, they should be thinking about the different ideas that have been mentioned here for doing controls - like testing the solvent, or running solvent without any mother tincture through their diltuion sequence or theough the automatic potentizer.

If they don't care about the money and they DO want respect for homeopathy, they should be thinking and talking and testing their materials out of their own curiosity. And they should find some person with the English skills and the math and chemistry skills to explain the dilution equations to them if they are still puzzled.

flume said:

If they don't care about the money and they DO want respect for homeopathy, they should be thinking and talking and testing their materials out of their own curiosity. And they should find some person with the English skills and the math and chemistry skills to explain the dilution equations to them if they are still puzzled.

Click to expand...

I think if you get right down to it, they are not interested in trying to find any scientific proof for their snake oil. What they want to do is work out some way of making it LOOK like it has some legitimacy. They will keep trying until something gives them the answer they are looking for. That is all they want.

These are not honest people, I don't think we should be expecting honest motivations from them.

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.

This explains why they won't accept what we see as plainly obvious evidence - not that they are deliberately denying it, just that they do not have the cerebral tools sufficient to comprehend it. Yet.

This doesn't mean to say they are stupid either. I strongly suspect that if they got out of their rut and put some effort into taking in some science and maths education, they would rapidly be able to understand and appreciate more of what we are describing to them. Certainly very few of them seem to be deliberate frauds, or even unkind people at heart. But, as with any group of people, there are always a few fanatics, and also those low-lifes willing to take advantage of others in their ignorance...