Homeopathy lays claim to a powerful system of medicine, with low toxicity and material costs.
Medical Insurance companies would be very interested in such a system.

As for multiple tests. The rules of the challenge are quite straight forward. You have to do the test twice – first, a quick and simple test to make sure that your claim has some merit. You make this as quick and simple as you like to demonstrate your powers and show you understand basic testing protocols. The second test is then the formal test for the prize. A protocol is agreed that, should you pass, you will win the money. It it that simple. I know few people who would sniff at the euqivalent of #500,000. Maybe the homeopathic book trade is better than I thought!!

I am sure, should you win, then that money would not be the end of it as you would be an instant celebrity.

The challenge was my idea, but I do not think I can be unique in proposing such a protocol. There is nothing clever about it and it is just amazing that nothing like it has been done.

My test is not about money or celebrity. It is just about the willingness of the homeopathic community to subject itself to basic and objective tests of its claims. And for homeopaths, I would imagine a straightforward chance to silence their critics. Clinical trials are by their nature complex, expensive and can be ethially problematic. They can be difficult to interpret and, as far as I can see, most homeopaths do not understand the nature and interpretation of accuracy and precision within such trials. But clinical trials are not the only way of testing. Medical trials got through many stages of pre-clinical test before full blown trials. I amazed that homeopathy has failed show an experimental base of any sufficient sort given the length of its history.

I am being rather cheeky and asking for more money as that is standard business practice in the modern world. If homeopathy is mere quackery then Randi and any other sceptics have nothing to fear whether I accept for three shillings and sixpence halfpenny or ten million quid. So why not ten million?
When the prize of a million dollars was first announced it was a lot of money. These days it will hardly buy a cramped noisy flat in Fulham. That is not much for contradicting the laws of physics.
As I explained the project would no doubt have to be repeated many times until Randi accepts to pay. I have a mortgage to pay and a business to run. I have a wife to keep happy and a house to maintain.
I am not naive and would expect no end of suspicion if results were highly positive. The process would hardly be uncomplicated. It would involve getting out of bed far more than once (!) and lots of people having a dig.
I will though, discuss this with various colleagues. I must say that the general idea of having to label six bottles of homeopathic remedies from a list of six names is clever and it is amazing that nobody to my knowledge has thought of this before. Was it your idea?
If it was I must congratulate you.

Regarding the unfortunate lady who died of malaria, I don’t believe this was picked up by the press so I don’t have any references unfortunately.

Stewart

Homeopaths need not fear Randi’s challenge. He makes it quite clear that he would not be involved. All he wants to do is approve a protocol. Come up with a way of testing the provings, Randi agrees, off you go.

And I am amazed that it would take you ten million dollars to get out of bed. A million not enough? Indisputable proof of homeopathy not enough?? I find that bizarre to say the least!

These effects must indeed be subtle. The sceptic in me can only conclude ‘non existent’.

But I am glad you deplore the wilder claims of homeopaths. That is all I really object to too. Do you have a reference for the tragic case of the homeopath in the Congo? It could certainly prevent more misadventures of that type.

BR,

Andy

Thanks for taking the time to challenge homeopaths – Hopefully you will end up provoking a response. Unfortunately, I think you will find though that most have little interest in proving themselves to sceptics.
Few meaningful or genuinely exciting things benefit from desperately trying to go mainstream and some of the current wooly and fluffy homeopathic advertising/ propaganda is a case in point. Like you I deplore ‘prophylactics’ for malaria, Yellow fever etc. It is not part of the homeopathic philosophy even if a minority of people calling themselves homeopaths give this terrible advice. I knew a lady homeopathic devotee who sadly died of malaria on a mission to the Congo (!)
Take care
Stewart

I do, however, find it difficult to accept that it would be that difficult. I have seen a number of homeopaths challenge sceptics recently to do a proving. “Take a remedy and then deny there is not an effect”. ‘Strong’ remedies like rus tox are suggested. If such a demonstration is supposed to be undeniable to a sceptic, then I find it difficult to believe that trained homeopaths need to group themselves up into huddles of a dozen or so before they can eek out the signature of a remedy. It also just does not square with the general statements of the ‘powerful nature of homeopathy’ that we hear so much of.

Secondly, I do not buy the argument that even Randi’s million dollars is not sufficient incentive. Even if the million is taxable (are you sure about prize winnings like this), let’s take a marginal rate of 40% and an exchange rate of ~2 and 12 x 6 homeopaths, that’s £4000 for each tester just for taking one sugar pill. Are homeopaths that well off that this would not be tempting?

Stewart – as a homeopathic book shop owner, and with your obvious keenness to test, you are in a perfect position to do both my test and/or Randi’s. As an incentive, be upfront and say, you will keep half the prize money for your work in organising the test, and offer (say) two grand to each person you test. Should be easy to recruit people from your book shop lists.

If money does not interest you, then keep it simple and do my test and claim the fame? Why not?