Sample preliminary tests

[Legato]

I've seen a couple of preliminary tests posted, and I think it would be very useful to see many more, particularly if they are very easy to administer. There may be an archive of them I've missed somewhere.

I have many friends who believe in homeopathy, chi and other unproven phenomena, and I'd like to be able to point them at these tests. Similarly, if a dowser or homeopath is considering trying out, they could check the archive, try the test or at least a cut down version at home, or even email there objections to the test so that they could be dealt with in future preliminaries.

In particular, is there a specific test for a homeopath that doesn't come across as being too demeaning, and yet is foolproof?
For example, in conventional medicine, if you were testing pupil dilation eyedrops, you'd just stick a drop in each eye and be sure that the pupils dilated. For a full preliminary test you'd randomize water and the drops and get someone else to decide which pupils were massively enlarged.

A similar test for painkillers wouldn't be so obvious and would require a number of subjects and placebos.

 

[El Greco]

It's very difficult to devise such a foolproof test for homeopathy at home, for several reasons:

- "Medicines" have to be prepared with special equipment.
- Homeopathy cures "persons" not "ailments". if you go to 5 different homeopathic doctors they will probably give you 5 different medicines. Failures can be attributed to misdiagnosis.
- There is a variety of vague factors that homeopaths tend to blame when they fail. Did you drink coffee ? Did you have any mint ? Did you smell paint ?

 

[geni]

So far the simpleist and best way to test homeopathy that I've seen involves testing for proving effects. Testing for those in a placebo controlled double blind study would propbably be the best bet.

 

[Rolfe]

In particular, is there a specific test for a homeopath that doesn't come across as being too demeaning, and yet is foolproof?

Yes. Some of us are currently busting a gut to persuade a homoeopath - any homoeopath - to take it.

It's a test of the "proving" effect, which they all believe in, and which if false invalidates their entire philosophy. If you start arguing with one of them, sooner or later you're liable to be invited to prove to yourself that homoeopathic preparations have a biological effect by taking one and observing the effect it will have on you. This is what they do with all new "remedies", to establish the "like" which this "like" will cure.

They in fact do this with 30C preparations (i.e. magic water), so it's obvious that the entire thing is delusion and auto-suggestion. Like this bunch of fruitcakes here, who are so way out you just won't believe it. However, they're convinced that any little thing they feel after taking the stuff is caused by the stuff.

So all you have to do is to get hold of a remedy your homoeopath will agree provides him with unmistakable "proving" symptoms, and some dummy (unmedicated) pills (you can't buy these in the shops, but homoeopathic suppliers will supply them), and ask him to tell which he's been given by noting whether or not he gets the expected symptoms. Obviously he has to do it more than once, to show he's not just a good guesser, but you get the general drift.

For the account of the progress of the attempt to get a veterinary homoeopath to put his money where his mouth is, see this letters column here - the link is to the letter with the detailed protocol in it (hedged about with enough security to be suitable for the JREF Challenge), but the whole depressing trail can be followed both forward and back.

However, delusion is a stubborn thing, and even after this test is done, and done often enough to prove that the entire repertory of "provings" in their materia medica is a busted flush, they'll still find a way to rationalise themselves out of it. For a real insight into the double-think, look at this little lot Geni posted on another thread - read, and weep.

Rolfe.

 

[Legato]

Re: Re: Sample preliminary tests

Yes. Some of us are currently busting a gut to persuade a homoeopath - any homoeopath - to take it.

So all you have to do is to get hold of a remedy your homoeopath will agree provides him with unmistakable "proving" symptoms, and some dummy (unmedicated) pills (you can't buy these in the shops, but homoeopathic suppliers will supply them), and ask him to tell which he's been given by noting whether or not he gets the expected symptoms. Obviously he has to do it more than once, to show he's not just a good guesser, but you get the general drift.

Rolfe.

Thanks. I'm not after persuading homeopaths directly; it would be a little much to expect a complete change of world view based on a single experiment, no matter how convincing, but if a homeopath agrees that something is a fair test, perhaps a few dabblers might have a rethink. This thread makes me think you are onto a good thing with this test. Has any homeopath ever agreed to be tested? I wonder if there are any believing, reasonable homeopaths with any kind of scientific background who might be willing to help. Or am I wildly over-optimistic?

Similarly, I know good-natured people who would happily submit to a test of their "chi" powers. I thought of using 100 sugar cubes, half marked with an invisible marker, the other not, and have them "chi-up" one lot, then ask them to sort them out. Any precautions I should take? This would be informal.

 

[geni]

Re: Re: Re: Sample preliminary tests

I wonder if there are any believing, reasonable homeopaths with any kind of scientific background who might be willing to help. Or am I wildly over-optimistic?

As far as I know no homeopath has ever agreed to take a test. Their abiltiy to dodge anything is quite impreesive.

Similarly, I know good-natured people who would happily submit to a test of their "chi" powers. I thought of using 100 sugar cubes, half marked with an invisible marker, the other not, and have them "chi-up" one lot, then ask them to sort them out. Any precautions I should take? This would be informal.
Make sure whoever marked them is not in the room when the test is done. Carry out an open test where they know which is which to that they have less wrigle room afterwards. Make sure that the invisible marker really is invisible and does not leave some trace behind.

Should be interesting to see what happens

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Sample preliminary tests

I wonder if there are any believing, reasonable homeopaths with any kind of scientific background who might be willing to help. Or am I wildly over-optimistic?

Well, the response of the veterinary homoeopath mentioned above was

How can (Rolfe) expect to understand the philosophy and theory of homoeopathy without making a proper study of it? If she bothered to attend one of the courses for veterinary surgeons that have been accredited by the Faculty of Homeopathy, she would have more knowledge of the subject and be in a position to debate it more sensibly.

The "Test" that she has proposed that I should undertake is completely unreasonable from a homoeopathic viewpoint and I regret that I must decline her invitation to participate in a circus act. If any of your readers would like me expand upon this they may contact me at Lyme Regis and we can discuss the matter rationally on an individual basis. I am, however, greatly concerned by her choice of language and obsession with illusion, deceit and shams, and by her apparent fixation upon monetary gain. There is no place for an illusionist in any laboratory that undertakes serious work. In fact, were one present then I would be more concerned for the location of my belt, braces, wallet and watch than I was for my work.

Note the insistence on the critic taking homoeopathy training, and the expected contemptuous rejection of anything to do with JREF as a "circus act". Note also the twisting of the argument - the prize had been presented as a way to achieve credibility and prestige for homoeopathy, and I had even suggested that if he didn't want the actual money, give it to charity or research, but no, I'm obsessed with monetary gain. And "sham" is actually the correct term for what is usually termed a "placebo" in this sort of trial, being a scientist naturally I used the correct word. So, no surprises here.

Then, the very next paragraph, what have we?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of homoeopathy is in the sucking. All good pharmacies and health food shops stock bottles of tablets that have been medicated with the 30cH potency of the most commonly used homoeopathic medicines.

All that anyone has to do to test (or prove) a homoeopathic medicine is to enter such a shop and purchase a bottle of such tablets. One tablet should then be sucked slowly twice a day. Most provers begin to exhibit symptoms associated with the medicine within three days....

.... and so on. All right, have I got this straight? The following in the post to the editor of the journal in question:

Mr. Hoare, however, suggests a simple test. Just take a few homoeopathically medicated tablets and wait to be amazed by the unmistakable symptoms which will result.

My own suggested protocol was to my mind strikingly similar. Just take a few tablets, either homoeopathically medicated or unmedicated (not knowing which), then state which they were by observing whether or not any symptoms do in fact result. It's a pity both gentlemen have declared their withdrawal from the correspondence, otherwise one of them might have been able to explain why the first test is acceptable while the second is "completely unreasonable from a homoeopathic viewpoint". Can anyone else offer any suggestions?

Of course we're not expecting any sensible answer, but we're working up to Mr. Taylor putting forward a lower-key non-JREF version of the test which is coincidentally quite similar to what's currently being discussed on the Horizon message board. If he gets any takers, well and good. We'll see if they can do it!

However, the more realistic expectation is to raise awareness of the mass of the profession about the sheer lunacy which is the truth of homoeopathy. There's just a bit too much distracted "well, we must keep an open mind", and reluctance to come out and criticise a colleague's practices. And when the freebie advert-sheets are a bit short of copy, of course there's always a homoeopath ready with a touchy-feely case report. This lot is at least giving the sceptic side of the argument an airing, and allowing the homoeopaths enough rein to say some pretty stupid things.

We've already succeeded in getting the RCVS to change the new edition fo the Register (came out last week) to include a statement to the effect that it doesn't approve of homoeopathy and only includes a list of the culprits as a public information service (or words to that effect). And central to the case for that was a sheaf of declarations that homoeopathy is "an RCVS recognised speciality" which appeared in connection to that correspondence thread.

Never expect a homoeopath to convert. However, they've had too much uncritical press recently. If you see every attempt as part of redressing the publicity balance, and maybe a few of the uncommitted will realise the real score, you're probably about right.

Rolfe.

 

[Legato]

Homeopathy

As soon as you use sceptical language, scoff, or use words like "illusion" and "magic" you'll immediately alientate the homeopaths and possibly the lurkers, too. Absolute reason, no fun poking, and Socratic dialog is the key. There are hundreds of homeopaths, and I'm sure that most of them believe sincerely in their efficacy as practitioners. It's important not to trigger that prickly defensiveness. If we found a confident and research-minded homeopath, they might even be prepared to run with this. An advert in a homeopathic magazine might do the trick.

If it were possible to reach such practioners, and based on what has been said on this thread, I would propose the following test:

Each practioner is sent two identical pills, A & B, with A & B being assigned randomly to placebo/acceptable proving by a neutral party.

Each homepath is sent the two pills in sealed containers.

The homeopath takes a pill, waits however long they want for an effect, then the other pill.

They report back with the pill they think is the proving.

Now, this that was legitimate and above board. Would the following be ethical?

Place an ad in a homeopathic forum/magazine, asking for homoepaths to try a new proving, rather than test homeopathy. Let them know that they will also be sent a placebo. They should state which is the placebo and which is the proving.

A possible extra, so that they won't be publicly humiliated in the event that they can't do it. They are kept anonymous, with just a check by an existing recognised homeopathic institute that they are members.

The next stage will be to agree with homeopaths on a proving that will have a noticeable effect on the majority of people who try it, regardless of symptoms.

 

[Rolfe]

Pretty much this is already being done.

However, I think most of the the homoeopaths will say they need more than one pill. And in fact it is simpler to give them one or the other and ask them to tell whether what they have is real or "fake". You can repeat this as often as you like or with as many homoeopaths as will hold still for it until you get enough data for statistical significance.

One get-out I was presented with recently was that the homoeopath couldn't do it on his own, he had to have a group of ten people to do a "proving". This was in flat contradication to what he'd said previously (which was that if only I, myself, would take a few pills, I'd be convinced by what I'd feel), but never mind. It doesn't matter how they tell real magic pill from fake magic pill, and they can use however many peple they want.

Actually, it doesn't seem to matter whether you mention the JREF challenge to homoeopaths or not. They always find a reason not to do it, however you phrase it. They just like to use the "magic tricks" excuse when the subject of the challenge is introduced. The main usefulness of the challenge seems to be in making ordinary, sensible people think. I've had several colleagues say to me, you're right, if they could get that money so easily, it's a bit telling that not one of them has tried.

Just look at the thread I linked to above, and our very own Kumar trotting up his usual excuses - so far, I think I've spotted....

• people used to think the earth was flat
• can't we just leave each other alone?
• it's not fair, "real" medicine already has the lion's share
• wouldn't it be better just to listen to the stories of all the people who've been cured by homoeopathy?
• maybe homoeopathic remedies don't actually cure the same symptoms as they cause
• not all remedies are ultramolar, some actually have some molecules in them

Hey, why not just step up and do the test? It's not so hard, is it?

When that challenge was first proposed, one homoeopath did come forward, but after that nothing, just Kumar arguing incoherently with three or four sceptics. I hope the challengers are publicising their challenge a bit more widely.

Rolfe.

 

[Legato]

Unfortunately, the thread you pointed at uses some of the naughty words I referred to "quacks", "demonstrate it isn't fraud", etc. Now, if we imagine that homeopaths consider their profession in the same way as physicists, biologists, doctors, I suspect you'd get a similar reaction if you used similar terms to this group. I'll try to practise what I preach when I have found the right forum. I do sympathise: they are a slippery and infuriating bunch.

Most people think sceptics are a bunch of spoil-sports with their fingers in their ears and a pedantic attitude. I completely understand why Randi is so aggressive, but that doesn't impress the average punter. That's why a gentle spirit of enquiry, forcing homeopaths not to agree with a request that is the acme of reasonableness, is the approach to take.

As to the method in my proposed trial by which the homeopaths determine which is the proving and which the placebo, they can feed it to a dog, give it to a patient or consume it themselves; I don't mind. The difficulty will be finding a proving that a number of homeopaths agree will have an effect on a large number of people.

Simon

 

[Rolfe]

Now, if we imagine that homeopaths consider their profession in the same way as physicists, biologists, doctors, ....

The environment in which I'm usually dealing with this is a forum of my professional colleagues, some of whom seem to think that water (or lactose) have therapeutic properties. The very idea that this delusion should be accorded respect similar to the respect accorded to legitimate branches of medicine is to a large extent the whole point of the argument.

One of the reasons homooepathy has managed to keep its knees under the table of real medicine for so long is the excessive professional politeness of medics and vets who don't feel comfortable criticising a colleague, no matter how daffy said colleague.

Personally, I don't mind if they're offended. I know they'll weasel out of any test no matter what. No way am I likely to look as if I respect these guys. They are a disgrace to the profession, and "respect" only makes them more inclined to claim that their deluded pseudoscience is accepted by the profession as a whole.

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

At the Oswego lecture, James Randi mentioned homeopathy has such a foothold in the US because it was grandfathered in. It (homepaths) were established before mainstream medicine, so the grandfather clause kicked in. (I'd like to kick that grandfather-clause somewhere.)

Mr Randi mentioned this after he told about his display of consuming an entire box of homepathic sedatives in front of Congress. He was then told they could do nothing about homepathy, because of that clause.

 

[Legato]

Personally, I don't mind if they're offended. I know they'll weasel out of any test no matter what. No way am I likely to look as if I respect these guys. They are a disgrace to the profession, and "respect" only makes them more inclined to claim that their deluded pseudoscience is accepted by the profession as a whole.

Rolfe.

I'm not denying that there is a need for harsh criticism, even ridicule, but if we want to get them to agree to a protocol, we have to take a different approach. Perhaps you are right - they may never agree, but they've certainly performed double-blind trials in the past. The ideal intermediary is a friendly homeopath who really believes in his or her stuff and is willing to cooperate. Could such a beast be found?

 

[Rolfe]

The ideal intermediary is a friendly homeopath who really believes in his or her stuff and is willing to cooperate. Could such a beast be found?

Yes, I have a friend who has "such a beast" as a colleague, and he's making some plans to rope him in to help supervise a test he is proposing. It's well worth a shot. I also know a couple of homoeopathic colleagues who are only "mad nor-nor-west", and who might be induced to join in. Plans are afoot.

Nevertheless, I think that the really committed homoeopaths will just find some other reason to dismiss the protocol, and insist that the whole thing violated every known principle of homoeopathy. Any usefulness of the exercise will be in a different direction - as the Horizon broadcast certainly didn't convert any homoeopaths, but it did spread the (slightly inaccurate) word that "Horizon showed that homoeopathy was a load of b*llsh*t" around the land.

Personally, I wish that Professor Ernst would take up this protocol. He has the scientific outlook to carry it out properly, and the facilities to get it done. I'm not entirely sure why he hasn't, actually, but I wonder if he might get involved in the project mooted on the BBC board?

 

[Legato]

This site appears to be attempting an experiment similar to the one discussed. They are homeopaths. I've asked them for details of their protocols, independent observers, etc. I'll keep you posted with their response.

 

[Rolfe]

This site appears to be attempting an experiment similar to the one discussed.

Oh, it's Harald Walach again! He's the nuttiest fruitcake of the entire collection!

He's strange. He is the author of two of the four currently-available studies which demonstrate that a group of provers can't tell remedy from placebo. However, the protocol was different - he had the subjects fill out pre-prepared questionnaires about which symptoms they experienced, some of which were expected with the remedy (belladonna) and some of which weren't. Both groups reported symptoms, but the remedy group were no more likely to report the "right" symptoms than the control group.

Guess what? This protocol isn't suitable.

But it's more complex than that. He seem to think that it's all terribly important and terribly significant when a controlled trial like this "fails" - because that shows the effect is, er, quantum or magic or something like that.

He published my all-time favourite homoeopathy paper in 2000, Magic of Signs, a non-local interpretation of homeopathy. Then in 2002 he collaborated in the invention of a whole new field called Weak Quantum Theory which seems to have the distinction (according to Wipeout) of ditching Planck's constant. This theory allows homoeopathy (and all other sorts of weirdness) to claim that it's all because of quantum physics. Which of course the rest of the homoeopaths have latched onto like leeches.

I was so confused I actually emailed him to ask if he was serious. He emailed back to say that he was, and this was the cutting edge of 21st century science. Oh, and by the way here are the proofs of two more articles currently in press on the same subject. Soon after that one of them was published, and the Guardian's Bad Science correspondent had a field day.

Unfortunately he the new proposal seems to be to check two "remedies" against each other, rather than to see whether any of the experienced provers can actually tell remedy from placebo. And when he finds out that they can't tell one from the other, or even from placebo (assuming he did that bit), he'll still just elaborate the quantum theory to cover it. Last time he said that the placebo group had become entangled in the quantum effect of the remedy, and so had experienced symptoms similar to the test group.

Still, it's all good data, no matter what he makes of it.

Roilfe.

 

[Lost Boy]

Oh, it's Harald Walach again! He's the nuttiest fruitcake of the entire collection!He published my all-time favourite homoeopathy paper in 2000, Magic of Signs, a non-local interpretation of homeopathy.

Walach:

'Magical presence and effects are wrought by signs, not causes'

Fascinating use of a Thesaurus. Might I suggest that a 'sign' that 'wrought' an 'effect' was a cause of that effect??!!

He then tells us about 'acausal effects'. It may an issue of semantics, but is it possible even to use the word 'effect' without a 'cause' being implied: an implication that cannot simply be negated by conveniently prefacing it with 'acausal'.

I've not previously tried to read all of his mad witterings and I have failed again now. I can't get through a single paragraph without wanting to shake him until his teeth rattle.

One thing that is unclear to me is the basis on which he personally continues to believe homeopathy works at all. Never mind that his explanation is nonsense, I am left unable to see why he feels any need to invoke any mechanism at all having summarised for us all the reasons for us to believe homeopathy does nothing whatsoever. Have you worked out his basis of belief?

Walach also flies in the face of the horrible truth that the homeopaths claiming their cures actually seem to be delusional. We have seen time and again that when debating in the abstract they are very willing to claim cures, but when it comes to particulars the cures disappear. We are all wary of using anecdotes, but it is striking how their precious anecdotes wither under a sceptical gaze, and without their anecdotes they have nothing.

 

[Rolfe]

I've not previously tried to read all of his mad witterings and I have failed again now. I can't get through a single paragraph without wanting to shake him until his teeth rattle.

You do realise that it is Walach who provides the basis for all the rantings about "quantum mechanics" we've heard from Peter Gregory and his mates. Lionel Milgrom's first paper leans very heavily on Walach's 2000 paper, that's where I got on to it. But of course this is the "research" which is validating homoeopathy as the cutting-edge science of the 21st century.

One thing that is unclear to me is the basis on which he personally continues to believe homeopathy works at all. Never mind that his explanation is nonsense, I am left unable to see why he feels any need to invoke any mechanism at all having summarised for us all the reasons for us to believe homeopathy does nothing whatsoever. Have you worked out his basis of belief?

Nope.

I think he's like Kumar, just better educated and more literate. (By the way, Kumar's still wittering on, please feel free to join in.) He's utterly convinced of effectiveness by argumentum ad populum, so when the objective evidence fails to materialise he accepts that his belief is magical, and then proceeds to try to demonstrate that magic actually works by some sort of "quantum" effect.

I've been thinking more about what you said earlier about science being that which is refutable. We got into this in the Therapeutic Touch argument, where Emily Rosa's father was criticised for asking the practitioners to state a test which could theoretically disprove the effect. Of course he was right. They agreed to Emily's test, but when they failed they then moved the goal posts and declared that the test protocol wasn't suitable. So, what test is suitable?

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there is no test the homoeopaths would agree could theoretically refute their position. We've been looking at the provings, and from our scientific point of view it seems self-evident that if experienced provers can't tell remedy from sham, the whole thing falls apart. However, I very much doubt that Walach thinks that.

If you look at his writings, and those of Milgrom, Fisher, and Peter Gregory et al., you keep coming across the statement that homoeopathy works, no question, that is a given. All they want to talk about is how it might work, and they don't even care very much about that. "No amount of placebo-controlled trials will convince me that the effects of homoeopathy (which I see daily in my practice) are a delusion."

Therefore, for these guys, it is not refutable. It's the ultimate in closed-mindedness.

They keep their place within regular medicine because of the strength of this belief, which makes others uncomfortable, is embarrassing to challenge, and from the point of view of scientists tends to suggest that there must be some justification for the belief. I therefore think that refutation has to be aimed at non-homoeopathic professionals, to make it easier to criticise and marginalise the deluded.

Rolfe.

 

[Lost Boy]

I therefore think that refutation has to be aimed at non-homoeopathic professionals, to make it easier to criticise and marginalise the deluded.

I agree. Unfortunately, any reasonable trial requires the homeopaths to co-operate in their public humiliation. Encouraging one to take part is a tricky business.


Perhaps the subterfuge suggested by Legato (I think) of recruiting homeopaths to a 'proving' by advertising in their own press could be a necessity. Perhaps one should announce that it will involve remedy and placebo and request on the prover's return documentation that they record whether they had received remedy or placebo so they are induced to reveal to the compiler whether they are will and able to guess correctly. However, I think there could be problems. What if a prover had a heart attack and snuffed it while we had sent out our mysterious white pills and ulterior motives that would be obvious on questioning.


What we really need are some who are so full of themselves that they view any trial as a platform to promote the art of homeopathy. Once enticed, even a subsequent backing out can be used for PR purposes.

Enough conspiracies. We've got friends round, beer in the fridge and Pirates of the Caribbean on DVD!

 

[geni]

Perhaps the subterfuge suggested by Legato (I think) of recruiting homeopaths to a 'proving' by advertising in their own press could be a necessity. Perhaps one should announce that it will involve remedy and placebo and request on the prover's return documentation that they record whether they had received remedy or placebo so they are induced to reveal to the compiler whether they are will and able to guess correctly. However, I think there could be problems. What if a prover had a heart attack and snuffed it while we had sent out our mysterious white pills and ulterior motives that would be obvious on questioning.

There is another alturnative that could even make you a bit of money. Start a company making homeopathic remidies but send out boiled water instead of messing around diluting stuff until there is nothing left. Since this should lower your production costs you will be able to undercut everyone else in the market. Ask for custermer feed back. After a coulple of years anounce what you were doing then go into hidding.