Rolfe

Oh well, that's it then? You were talking about DBPC trials. What I suggested was actually a SBPC trial, but it would have been good enough for the purpose. I'll say it again. What you think you feel when you know in advance what you've taken is MEANINGLESS. The only way to demonstrate that you're not imagining it, to yourself as much as to anyone else, is to do a "blind tasting". Just like wine buffs do to prove they can tell Chateau Napoleon 1066 from Australian supermarket plonk. If you haven't done that, you don't know anything, no matter how often you've swallowed a few pills. I'm prepared to do you the courtesy of believing that you're sincere, and that even if I wasn't personally supplying you with the stuff, you'd follow the protocol. But you seem to be simply backing out. Why? What's the difference between me posting you the bottles exactly as I described, and you asking a friend to do it? Actually, the latter would be better from your point of view, as you'd know that I hadn't had any chance to interfere with the test. You expressed an interest to Francine/BGH in investigating DBPC trials of the provings. Now I agree with her that this is an excellent way to test the system. And to make it as fair as possible, it would be best if it was done by someone like you, with some experience of what the symptoms feel like and who wasn't subconsciously inclined to deny they were feeling anything. The single-blind test I suggested was by way of a preliminary, handing control over to you, but trusting to your honesty to do it properly. If you really did manage a significant score on that protocol, it might be possible to arrange a more controlled trial, perhaps. But no, you don't want to do it. You know what? Every time I see backpedalling like this, I start to think, is this person really sincere in their belief, or do they, deep down, know it's complete bunkum? Rolfe.

[Tried to delete, as this was covered by editing the previous post, but the system won't accept the delete - please ignore.]

Hmm, there are a few difficulties here, but they aren't fatal to a preliminary test. 1. As you say, getting hold of blanks is difficult. However, if you're prepared to try instead the (perhaps slightly more difficult) feat of telling apart two different remedies, then that would certainly do. Assuming the actual pills look and taste identical, which I think is usually the case. (Funny, that, in any other area of pharmaceuticals this would be unheard of, for safetly reasons.) 2. One trial isn't enough. It has a 50% chance of being a success through no more than a lucky guess. This would have to be repeated several times. What sort of a strike rate does Tim think he can achieve? 90%? 18 right out of 20, say? (If anyone has a set of t tables handy, what would you reckon would give significance at p<0.01?) 3. I'm not nuts about entering into snail-mail correspondence with anyone on an Internet forum, as a general principle. However, again as a preliminary test, I'd trust Tim's sincerity. He seems to believe what he says. So, in the first instance, why not ask a friend to do the blinding? This wouldn't necessarily prove it to MY satisfaction, but if Tim's honest, it would allow him to see for himself whether he can really do it. I'd suggest the following protocol. Choose two commercially-available remedies - Bryonia and Rhus toxicodendron, if you like, so long as the pills are indistinguishable to sight and taste. Buy enough for, say, 15 trials on each (to be on the safe side). Get a batch of 20 empty bottles, preferably identical. Just scratching labels off isn't enough to be sure of removing identities from the manufacturer's bottles. Give the purchased remedies and the empty bottles to your friend, and explain the object of the exercise. What he or she has to do is decide on a consistent coin-toss system of allocation - say, heads you get the Bryonia and tails you get the Rhus tox (or the other way round, but keep it both secret and consistent). Trial 1. Toss the coin, once, and put one trial's worth of the pill the coin indicates into one of the empty bottles. Note which remedy it is, secretly, and give you that bottle unlabelled. Wait till you've made up your mind which one you've got, then make a note of the result. Don't tell you whether you were right or not. Trial 2. Toss the coin again, and repeat. Repeat this for all 20 trials. After the last trial has been completed, your friend then reveals the results. How did you score? If this was done honestly, with a friend who was prepared to be scrupulously correct and secretive about the protocol, I'd certainly listen to Tim's account of the outcome. How about it? Rolfe.

I understand about DBPC trials. I'm just thinking that if the symptoms are as definite as Tim says, there's a relatively easy way to test this. Tim's sure that he could tell whether he's been given a remedy (Bryonia, or whatever he chooses) or a blank pill. Now it seems to me that the real crux of the argument is that the "scientists" say that there's nothing in the remedy pill which isn't in the blank pill, while the homoeopaths say that the remedy pill has very definite effects. These effects include the symptoms a healthy person would experience in a proving. So, surely this is a very easy way to tell whether it really is possible to distinguish a homoeopathic remedy from a blank. Can someone, anyone, reliably tell by observing whether or not the characteristic symptoms appear, whether they have taken the remedy or the blank? Can they do it often enough to convince a casual observer that they're not just making lucky guesses? I'm trying to make it easy by suggesting that the person could be Tim. He knows what he's looking for, he believes he can do it. If someone like Tim can actually tell in a blind trial (which is what this is) the difference between a remedy and a blank, I'm listening. Rolfe.

This is Rolfe. Humour me, because this is going the same place as the DBPC issue. Did you know what symptoms you were expecting to experience when you took the remedies you told us about above? Rolfe.

That's OK, I'm asking about you, you're the one who's tried it. When you did these informal provings, did you know what symptoms you were suppose to feel? From the reports of the formal, published provings, I mean? Rolfe.

And that would still be the case with potencies of greater than 12C or 24X? (Accepting that it might take longer to see the effect.) Rolfe

All right, pick Bryonia if you think that one is particularly good at producing symptoms that are easy to spot. Now, let's suppose.... I've got some Bryonia pills, and I've also got some pills which look and taste just the same, but which don't have any remedy in them (that is, they're "blank"). I give you one or the other - you don't know whether I've given you the bottle with the Bryonia or the bottle with the blanks. Would you be able to tell which I'd given you, just by waiting to see if the expected symptoms appeared? Rolfe

I've come across different ways of doing this (doses at 12-hour intervals, just one single dose, your 2-hour system and so on), but choosing whichever one you want, you'd be confident of recognising some symptoms if you took one of these remedies? Never mind the potency just now, you do think something happens? Rolfe?

I've seen these Nelson's remedies, you can get them anywhere as you say. However, I've been given to understand that Hahnemenn himself insisted that 30C potencies should be used for all provings. Wouldn't you have to use that potency to be consistent with his work? Rolfe

Tim, have you ever taken part in a proving yourself? Rolfe.