A Simple Challenge to Homeopaths
Friday, December 07, 2007
Homeopaths are feeling under threat at the moment and are scrambling around wondering what to do about it. I think there are a number of things they could do: most importantly, they should better manage their own business by showing that they respect the boundaries of what they can reasonably assume is good practice, e.g. stop the dangerous nonsense of believing that can do anything about dangerous conditions such as malaria and AIDS; they can be much more complementary and less alternative.But there is something else that they can do too: start showing a desire to develop a base of data that can be relied upon, and respected, to support their methods. The focus to-date has been on clinical trials. Doubters say that trials show no evidence of efficacy. Supporters point to many positive trials. But it has been well documented that the many positive trials are most often poorly designed and reported, and are at best ambiguous in their results. There is not a compelling evidence base for homeopathy. If there was, there would be no argument.
So, let's take a step back. What sort of evidence would be required to convince me that there might be something in it? Fundamentally, my problem with homeopathy is its total implausibility - it contradicts what we know about the behaviour of matter. How can a plain sugar pill have any significant therapeutic effect on health? So, why not test the basic plausibility of homeopathy - can homeopathy pills do more than sugar pills in predictable way? There are a number of discussions about this going on in bloggerland and I would like to pick up on these and set a challenge...
Here is a rough outline of the sort of test I would like to see done...
- A trained homeopath selects six homeopathic remedies of any type and strength.
- The remedies are posted to an independent third party who removes the labels and replaces them with a code letter, A, B, C...F, and posts them back.
- The homeopath takes each remedy in turn and notes the 'totality of symptoms'.
- The homeopath writes down which remedy corresponds to which code letter.
- The third party 'breaks the code' and we note how many are right.
Pretty simple stuff. If the homeopath got all six right, then the odds of that being a fluke would be 1:720. (six factorial). This is far more significant than the typical outcome of a clinical trial, where the odds of a fluke result are more like 1 in 20. It would be pretty compelling if done fairly and a good start to building some real evidence.
Now, admittedly, this is not a full trial of homeopathy. It does not test the 'like-cures-like' part of homeopathic 'theory' and so does not demonstrate that homeopathy can be used to treat illness. But it does somewhat get over the hurdle of total implausibility. What this trial is testing is similar to what is going on in homeopathic provings - the supposedly predictable effects of a remedy on a healthy individual.
Would a trial like this convince me? Well, no single scientific experiment should convince anyone of anything. (There is always the possibility of experimental error or fraud in any experiment.) But a test like this would certainly get my attention. Rarely do experiments start with a 'big bang' and all encompassing approach. Most often, preliminary tests are done, 'proof of concept' runs and so on. If this worked , then it could easily be replicated by other homeopaths. Larger versions done and properly written up for a journal. More stringent statistical tests could be set. Then, I think all sceptics would have to admit that the principle of homeopathic potentized remedies has merit.
Now, admittedly, this is not a full trial of homeopathy. It does not test the 'like-cures-like' part of homeopathic 'theory' and so does not demonstrate that homeopathy can be used to treat illness. But it does somewhat get over the hurdle of total implausibility. What this trial is testing is similar to what is going on in homeopathic provings - the supposedly predictable effects of a remedy on a healthy individual.
Would a trial like this convince me? Well, no single scientific experiment should convince anyone of anything. (There is always the possibility of experimental error or fraud in any experiment.) But a test like this would certainly get my attention. Rarely do experiments start with a 'big bang' and all encompassing approach. Most often, preliminary tests are done, 'proof of concept' runs and so on. If this worked , then it could easily be replicated by other homeopaths. Larger versions done and properly written up for a journal. More stringent statistical tests could be set. Then, I think all sceptics would have to admit that the principle of homeopathic potentized remedies has merit.
This test is not totally fool proof. I could think of a few ways of cheating; some more devious than others. Do we think the odds of a homeopath cheating be more or less than 720:1? Nonetheless, I think it is a simple and good start that could be done with almost no money and would get the ball rolling. More rigorous tests along the same lines could take place afterwards. Conversley, should the test fail, then homeopaths would have a lot of explaining to do.
The great thing about this test is that it could be done with very little money. The actual costs would be a few pounds for some remedies and postage, and some volunteers' time. I doubt it would cost for than £50-60 (About $100). No need for the millions that 'Big Pharma' has. And, unlike a clinical trial, there are very few ethical issues - at least, no greater ethical issues than a homeopathic proving. This test is well within the means of a small group of homeopaths who wanted to show the world that they were not deluded. Homeopaths want to be taken seriously. Here is a good start. It's the $100 Challenge - that is all it would cost.
What is surprising to me is that I can find no instance of a test like this being done before. I would have thought that this was pretty fundamental - can homeopaths determine the effects of a remedy under blinded conditions? One would have thought that this would have been a staple experiment done at homeopathy school. If any homeopaths can enlighten me as to why this has never been done, then please tell me.
So - the challenge: do any homeopaths want to give this a go? All I would ask is that you do this in the true spirit of enquiry and are open and honest about this. What I mean is that if you want to try this challenge, please follow a few simple guidelines:
The great thing about this test is that it could be done with very little money. The actual costs would be a few pounds for some remedies and postage, and some volunteers' time. I doubt it would cost for than £50-60 (About $100). No need for the millions that 'Big Pharma' has. And, unlike a clinical trial, there are very few ethical issues - at least, no greater ethical issues than a homeopathic proving. This test is well within the means of a small group of homeopaths who wanted to show the world that they were not deluded. Homeopaths want to be taken seriously. Here is a good start. It's the $100 Challenge - that is all it would cost.
What is surprising to me is that I can find no instance of a test like this being done before. I would have thought that this was pretty fundamental - can homeopaths determine the effects of a remedy under blinded conditions? One would have thought that this would have been a staple experiment done at homeopathy school. If any homeopaths can enlighten me as to why this has never been done, then please tell me.
So - the challenge: do any homeopaths want to give this a go? All I would ask is that you do this in the true spirit of enquiry and are open and honest about this. What I mean is that if you want to try this challenge, please follow a few simple guidelines:
- Tell the world in advance that you are going to do this. Post your intention on a blog or web site, tell the world what you are going to do, be open to suggestions about how to simplify and make it a fair test. The more detail you publish, the more trust you will have. Remember, sceptics have a problem with trust of homeopaths.
- State in advance what you think would be a successful result and any caveats you may have. Think of ways in which the trial may go wrong in advance, and make efforts to minimise those risks. None of us want excuses afterwards if it does not go well.
- Find a genuine independent third party - someone with no stake in the outcome. Publish who they are and ensure they are happy to field questions from people after the trial. (People will want to know that protocol was followed).
- Publish your results on the web before the code is broken to reveal how well you have done.
Feel free to jig around with the form of the trial. Add extra homeopaths or remedies if you like. Pick whatever remedies you think will maximise your chances of success. As long as the central rule of running the trial totally blinded (only the third party knows the code) then most variants ought to be fair. But publish what you intend to do so that others can judge the fairness of the test. Be open to comments and suggestions about how to make it a fair test. The most important thing you can do, if you want to impress the sceptics, is to convince people the test was properly blinded - that is, there was no way that the testers could know or guess which remedy they were taking.
I think such a trial could be conducted in a week or two. The hardest part may be finding a third party. For the record, I am willing to act as that party. The sceptics will trust me - but the problem is that I suspect the homeopaths may think I will cheat and expose the remedies to moth balls or some other spoiler. I would suggest you could use a local newspaper editor, a GP (you do work with them and trust them, don't you?), a priest or local politician. Basically, someone with no interest in the result and a reputation to loose if they cheated.
I see no reason why a trial like this could not be done. Instead of lots of homeopathic whining about how the sceptics are picking on them, this trial would be a big step forward in proving your case. I can see many homeopaths taking the line, "Why should I do this? I see proof in my practice every day". If that voice is you, then rest assured the critics of homeopathy will not go away, because there is every reason to believe you are been fooled by the placebo effect, regression to the mean, and wishful thinking. They will see you as dangerously deluded.
I think such a trial could be conducted in a week or two. The hardest part may be finding a third party. For the record, I am willing to act as that party. The sceptics will trust me - but the problem is that I suspect the homeopaths may think I will cheat and expose the remedies to moth balls or some other spoiler. I would suggest you could use a local newspaper editor, a GP (you do work with them and trust them, don't you?), a priest or local politician. Basically, someone with no interest in the result and a reputation to loose if they cheated.
I see no reason why a trial like this could not be done. Instead of lots of homeopathic whining about how the sceptics are picking on them, this trial would be a big step forward in proving your case. I can see many homeopaths taking the line, "Why should I do this? I see proof in my practice every day". If that voice is you, then rest assured the critics of homeopathy will not go away, because there is every reason to believe you are been fooled by the placebo effect, regression to the mean, and wishful thinking. They will see you as dangerously deluded.
If it is not done, then I can only conclude that homeopaths are frightened of the results.
What is to stop you? Let's go...
Labels: $100 challenge, homeopathy
posted by Le Canard Noir at
5:45 PM
117 Comments:
May I volunteer to assist with this trial? I am prepared to act as:
- subject of the homeopathic medecines (provided it desn't affect my work)
- person swapping the labels
- unbiased observer of any of the above.
Thanks BobP. I think homeopaths ought to be the ones taking the medicine. It gives the test the best chance of success because they would undoubtedly claim to be be more 'in tune' to the remedies and able to spot all their 'subtle effects'.
Why not extend an olive branch to the SoH and ask them to formally participate? You could even ask Ben Goldacre to get involved and make him promise to publish the results in his column. I'm sure the SoH and other organisations would love to make him look less smug.
I am sure that if the homeopaths do this openly and honestly it will make big news. The stupidest thing they could do would be to try to do this in private. It would convince no-one and not move the argument forward.
The result of such a test, whether positive or negative, is important for all sides. If it passes then we are on the brink of the biggest breakthrough in homeopathy and medicine for two centuries. If it fails then that tells us important things too. I just cannot think why homeopaths would not want to show us this test tomorrow?
"I just cannot think why homeopaths would not want to show us this test tomorrow"
I can.....
I second what gimpy said. I'd like to know what the SOH has to say, as well as Ben Goldacre, and the doctors who have been campaigning against homeopathy in Britain. As I've said on my blog, I'm not a researcher and this would be a large undertaking. (I'd be happy to take part, though.) I wouldn't want to do it half-way because then the results would just be dismissed, by either side. But if enough skeptics agree to publicly say, "Maybe we were wrong about homeopathy," we'll find someone to do the experiment.
I still don't understand why this particular test seems so much more exciting to you that other tests, but I think I came up with the idea, spurred on by Bata Kali, so I'll support it as best I can on my side if you'll do the same on yours.
Woo Woo Science,
Good to see you here. First off, us sceptics are not an organised bunch of people so getting all of them to agree to your request will be hard. That is the very nature of scepticism. What I can say is that I will be very impressed with a result if 6 out of 6 get it right. I am highly confident that others will be too, and it will set the web alight if done well. That should be prize in itself. There will be criticism - that is the nature of science. As I say, this experiment would be the first step in proving a genuine effect with homeopathy. Do you want to make the first step?
Secondly, you say this is a large undertaking. No it is not. It will cost a few quid and take a few weeks as far as I can see.
Thirdly, it will impress me more than clinical studies because it will be open to less ambiguity. If you get 6 out of 6 right, there are three possibilities:
1) Homeopathy has a genuine effect
2) It was a 1 in 720 fluke
3) Fraud or carelessness in blinding was taking pace.
If another group of homeopaths replicates the work, then we can get more confidence in 1 and less in 2 and 3. That is how science works. And then you win.
This is a beautifully simple idea, I really hope you can make it happen.
If the Homeopathic community cant rustle up someone to do such a cheap and simple test it will be pretty damning.
To reduce quibbles about cost you could always set up a paypal donate button to cover the 50quid or however much money is required to do this test.
For now, I think if the homeopathic community does not want to stump up for six remedies and some postage then that will be telling in its own right.
If they pass this test, then I will undoubteldy want to rope in more people, set up a PayPal donate button, to replicate this. I am sure the sceptic community would be happy to cough up some dosh to help see a definitive test done in partnership with homeopaths.
I'm no fan of homeopathy (it being dangerous and pernicious nonsense, and all that), but I can also see why they won't be taking up this test.
Their magic water is prescribed supposedly to treat specific conditions - hence the long consultations and careful weighing up of the patient's needs. In the magical universe, homeopathic remedies are created on the principle of "like cures like" - and your testing homeopath won't have the conditions that the remedies have been created to treat.
In the world of logic, your test's a good 'un. In the world of homeopathic logic, it's unworkable.
Dudley - I disagree totally. Quoting from the Society of Homeopaths web site:
The ‘proving’, in which the highly diluted substances are tested blind on a group of healthy volunteers who then record the symptoms they experience. Where there is agreement amongst provers, the symptoms are documented in a Repertory.
Inducing symptoms in healthy people is part of the homeopathic methodology for testing remedies. My test looks at whether remedies really do induce symptoms in healthy people, and if so, if this is consistent. If the above statement by SoH is correct, then my test ought to be a walk in the park.
If homeopaths want to do the test in groups to improve their accuracy, that is fine by me.
Ah, fair enough. Consider that objection dealt with. I shall join in the "pointing and laughing at homeopaths who duck the challenge" fun!
To deal with another objection,
Soroush Ebrahimi has been posting on another thread about homeopathic challenges.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2224877,00.html
He wanted to give Ben Goldacre a pill and make him ill. Soroush would say in advance how Ben would be ill and then seal it in an envelope.
I think this test is not a good test for these reasons. I responded,
Firstly, it is too subjective. If Ben claims an earache and you have written headache then you might claim the ear in on the head and thus success. We do not want to argue such points if there is any interpretation involved. Secondly, if you fail, then you might claim that Ben was not reporting his symptoms correctly or even lying. That again would not be acceptable.
My challenge to you and other homeopaths removes such problems. It is a simple test to see if you can do what you claim to be able to do. No sceptics will be involved in the test. There is no way we could subvert it. Only an independent third party will be used to label bottles. You will either pass or fail.
Soroush has responded,
The Quackometer's offer entails a number of tests together which may confuse the results. This is because the practising homoeopath may or may not select the correct remedy correct. So in effect it is a test of skill as well as the properties of the homoeopathic remedy.
That sounds remarkably like he does not want to take the test because he may get it wrong.
Of course it is a test of skill as well as of the properties of homeopathic remedies. No more a test of skill than your proposed test, but it removes the subjective elements and the risk of sceptical cheating.
In short, my test maximises the chance of success for the homeopath. I do not see why you would not want to demonstrate your powers.
It sounds like a good enough idea to me, providing the person who is labelling the remedies is honest..??! I suppose a way round that would be to have a respected homeopath witness the handling, labelling and postage of the remedies etc. Or perhaps we could use a well respected pharmacy such as Helios in Tunbridge Wells to do this with a sceptic being present. This would ensure the administration and handling of the remedies adhere to the rules that homeopathic remedies should only be handled by the person taking them, as they are sensitive energetically. Under such conditions I would be happy to volunteer in this experiment.
The trial would take much longer than two weeks though.
To those who have no idea what homeopathy is, having not picked up any of the books with documented cases and provings (our way of testing remedies), yet are ignorant enough to say it doesn't work, to prove six remedies and document the results accurately would take a lot longer than just two weeks!! Homeopathy is not a chemically based medicine, it is energy based. Also the way individual remedies work differ, some are deeper acting and so it may take a few weeks or even months for the full effect to be seen in such remedies.
Perhaps if the remedies selected were for 'acute' conditions, ie Arnica being one for shock/trauma, Belladonna being one for high fever etc. These remedies may produce quicker proving results? I cannot say this with conviction, but I would be happier to prove such remedies under the given conditions.
I have taken part in a proving as a student at college and this was the biggest confirmation for me that homeopathy works in ways that cannot be explained by 'rational' science. The whole group experienced so many mental/emotional/physical symptoms in common with each other that it could NOT just be pure coincidence. Especially as so many provings have been conducted on thousands of remedies with the same results, a theme or pattern which arises from the specific remedy being proven. To take part in the proving, we all had to record our mental, emotional and physical symptoms as they arose in our own personal notebook as well as report to a supervisor on a regular basis so that our symptoms could also be viewed objectively (a different supervisor to each prover). The proving I took part in even had dream themes which were very similar in some of the provers.
Some sceptics may ponder that provers influence each other if they are in the same group. This is not so, provings of one remedy conducted in one country will have very similar or identical results to provings of the same remedy in another country. Provers are not aware of what they have been given either, until their notebooks have been handed in a couple of months later and the person controlling the study finally tells them what the remedy source is.
Homeopathy and other holistic, alternative and complementary medicines are based on the transmission and curative manipulation of energy to the subtle energy field of the human body-mind; this is what is criticised by many scientists/sceptics as 'superstitious', 'non rational', 'placebo' etc. However I'd like to ask all those sceptics a question. Are you ALL atheists? We cannot prove if God exists after all. If so, perhaps your next mission might be to ban all known religions!
Possibly there are some scientists from the materialist based scientific community who may not be atheists. They may go to a communion service and partake of 'the body and blood' of Christ which on a materialist level is nothing but a piece of non leavened bread. However they are happy to have enough faith in their religion to take part in such a ritual (that same wafer of bread had previously been resting on an altar at which a priest or vicar has, assisted by the energy of the congregation, engaged in a ritual service to invoke the energetic spiritual essence of say, Christ). The next day one of those scientists may write a scholarly article denouncing complemantary therapeutic treatment as 'placebo' because there is no chemical substance in the treatment.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that you need to believe in God, or a certain religion for homeopathy to work.
'Placebo' is the term scientists use when they have chosen to ignore and discredit any of the alternative and complementary therapies; it is also the means for avoiding recognition of the vital energy fields which animate, surround and permeate every cell and organ of our bodies.
We know that we would not be able to survive on this planet without the energy of the sun. I see astronomy as a scaled up version of using a microscope to detect cells in the body. It is accepted that we cannot live without the energy of the sun. Scientists also know that dark matter exists but are unable to explain it due to the limitations of their own ignorance in being able to find a way to explain it (yet). The same could be said for homeopathy, don't diss it until you actually KNOW what it is!
So bring it on!! I'd be happy to take part in such a trial (providing it was conducted in a fair way, as explained above). The trial to me just seems to be exactly like a proving of six different remedies in consecutive order. But if you are that ignorant of the facts staring you in the face, ie the many provings that have already been conducted, we shall try this approach instead, which is really just a remedy comparison!
Sarak K - glad to see you taking this up. Fantastic news.
First of all, let me deal with some of your points. I hope this can be done quite quickly. I am not asking for you to provide a complete remedy picture (as this could take months). Rather you just need to pick remedies where you could reliably differentiate them from each other. Choose remediies with vastly different profiles. Major symptoms etc. Pick a high potency remedy and this could occur quite quickly?
As for the trust thing. I am happy for you to pick a third party to do the labeling. As long as (as I have said) they have no stake in the outcome (so Helios is out) and that I can have an email address or phone number to check (after the test) that protocol was followed and understood. They should also have no possibility of contact with you throughout the test.
As you can see, my involvement will be almost nothing. I will only get involved once you have passed just to verify that it all went to plan. So, it is up to you to pick your remedies, say what you are going to do, pick a third party and get on with it.
I would appreciate a discussion about how you brief the third party so that they properly understand the necessity for blinding and how to check for possible problems with blinding. You can get my email address from the 'About' section of this blog if you want to discuss those things.
Good stuff.
PS Don't let Sarah volunteering stop other homeopaths come forward - the more the merrier! Multiple testers getting this right would be astonishingly good evidence.
Ok, give me some time to think this through, find a third party and a supervisor etc. I shall be in touch once I have come up with a plan. But don't expect instant results within two weeks!!
Remedy interaction is another problem that arises when trying to prove six remedies in consecutive order. You need to space the provings out a bit to ensure the complete symptom picture isn't being affected by another remedy which has been administered, especially if it is in a high potency (as you suggested).
I could prove one at a time and you can log the results as and when.
What you are asking is a huge task, so please be kind enough to bear this in mind and don't expect instant results.
If taking them sequentially is a problem, the feel free to rope in other homeopaths and take then in parallel. Each homeopath can decide which remedy they have taken. Might be hard to agree amongst you, but would still be an impressive demonstration. (Or 3 take 2 pills etc) Feel free to think ways of making this quick, cheap and easy.
The problem with society today is that everyone expects instant results, that is why problems arise from suppressing illnesses such as headaches/migraines with instant painkillers etc. Suppressing a problem doesn't cure it!
I will not be told to hurry up and get on with it. I have a busy life and will conduct this trial as efficiently and effectively as possible in my own time. I will try to make it one of my priorities though.
Well done Sarah it's good to see someone is willing to have a go. I'll be following with interest.
Sarah - I am not trying to rush you - as I hope you can see, I am trying to make this as cheap and undemanding as possible, so that it is easy to take part.
I genuinely do not understand why this should take a huge amount of time. I am rigging the test in the homeopaths favour by saying they can use any remedy they like. Choose easy ones. No subtlety required.
For example, Nelson's sell a mixture of 6c homeopathic Kali brom, coffea, passiflora, avena saliva, alfalfa and valeriana under the trade name Noctura. I would be happy for something like this to be one of the chosen remedies. Nelson's customers would naturally expect a response from this in a few hours, not one over several weeks.
Anyway, looking forward to hearing from you.
This will take some time as I said before, because you cannot take six remedies in two weeks without ruling out the possibility that the remedies may interfere with each other's actions. I'd say you need at least two or three months between each remedy for the results to be clear and fair. Seeing as we are in such a hurry to conduct this trial, I shall try and find other homeopaths who are willing to participate in this, though I can understand why many would not wish to. It is not something we should have to do in order to prove anything to you sceptics.
You can't understand why it should take so long because you haven't spent four years training to be a homeopath.
Anyone whose genuinely interested to see the results of properly conducted provings can find these in books such as Dynamic Provings Vols 1, 2 and 3 by Jeremy Sherr. These are written for homeopaths and students of homeopathy but you may be able to get a general idea of what is involved.
Homeopaths are educated as to how conventional medicine works, why not educate yourselves a bit more on homeopathy before asking us to take part in experiments that have been conducted countless times before? The only difference being that we are not required to guess which remedy out of six it is that we've taken!
Thanks Sarah. Although you sound remarkably close to saying that homeopathic remedies have unquantifiable long term side-effects. I do though, bow to your superior knowledge of the remedy pictures.
Nonetheless, I might naively think that (say) a homeopathic insomnia remedy would have large short term effects (sleepiness) and only minor long term side-effects. I would hope that six remedies could be chosen with clear and distinct short term signatures and only minor, more subtle long term side effects that would not interfere too much. But I will leave it up to your training to determine what those might be.
I only wish such experiments had been done before. I think you may be a homeopathic first.
I would be interested to know if homeopaths regularly inform their patients that: "you cannot take six remedies in two weeks without ruling out the possibility that the remedies may interfere with each other's actions. I'd say you need at least two or three months between each remedy for the results to be clear".
Nathan, there are remedy relationships, ie some work well following on one from another.
When it comes to proving remedies it is a different matter. I don't have time to educate you lot, it would take up far too much of my valuable time. REad some books before criticising!
I cannot monitor what is being said here 24 hours a day, and I have much work to do now with the task in hand.
"What is surprising to me is that I can find no instance of a test like this being done before. I would have thought that this was pretty fundamental - can homeopaths determine the effects of a remedy under blinded conditions?"
Actually this has been done, so I guess you weren't looking hard enough.
First, a pilot study involving one remedy vs placebo: A Vickers, R McCarney, P Fisher and R van Haselen. Can homeopaths detect homeopathic medicines? A pilot study for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled investigation of the proving hypothesis. Homeopathy (2001) 90.3.126-130 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1054/homp.1999.0475)
Then a full study between 2 remedies and placebo: G Dominici1, P Bellavite, C di Stanislao, P Gulia and G Pitari. Double-blind, placebo-controlled homeopathic pathogenetic trials: Symptom collection and analysis. Homeopathy (2006) 95.3.123–130 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2006.04.003)
Well neither test is as simple and straightfoward as mine.I cannot find a similar example to my test. Both these tests involve placebos and more complex measures. More ambiguity.
The first concluded that there was not enough statistical power to confirm an effect (very few responses). The second is calling for further studies to confirm their results.
I hope this is an encouragement for others to come forward.
After thinking about all this, I've realised just what an impossible task it is for me to test the remedies by myself. Provings are conducted on GROUPS of people, not just one person (as in most other trials of a medical nature, involving lots of people who are monitored by a professional body). When proving a remedy, it is the collective similar symptoms of the group as a whole which forms the basis of a remedy picture or pattern. If the trial were to be conducted by a professional body such as the Society of Homeopaths or Alliance of Registered Homeopaths on a group of willing students or homeopaths then it may be more plausible. Under such conditions I would be more willing to take part.
I also do not want to waste my time on conducting such a trial for people I don't even know on a web blog site stating that homeopaths are quacks.
I make my apologies to the homeopathic community for getting drawn into such a stupid idea in the first place. I have only recently graduated this year, and feel I need to focus on the people who do care for homeopathy, not the ones who don't.
Apologies too for raising the hopes of some of you sceptics, I hope you understand the predicament. I can see why people are sceptical, it's just because they do not understand how homeopathy works.
Sarah - that is a great shame.
There is an opportunity here to show that I am talking rubbish.
And let's be plain speaking here. I believe homeopaths are unable to assess their own competence and unable to police the boundaries of their work. This leads them to being unable to assess their own effectiveness and ends up with beliefs such as that dangerous illnesses can be cured with homeopathy (malaria etc). I criticise homeopaths because of this.
If simple tests like this can be done then it shows a willingness to objectively assess competence. I see little evidence that this is taking place.
I do hope that other homeopaths have not disuaded you from taking part. There are many out there who fear the results.
Anyway, good luck and I hope you find a way to take part.
You say: "And let's be plain speaking here. I believe homeopaths are unable to assess their own competence and unable to police the boundaries of their work. This leads them to being unable to assess their own effectiveness and ends up with beliefs such as that dangerous illnesses can be cured with homeopathy (malaria etc). I criticise homeopaths because of this."
Just how did you come to this conclusion? There are many many cases to show that homeopathy has cured people with dangerous illnesses. We are trained to assess our cases in a competent way, and competent homeopaths would never put their patients lives at risk. Conventional medicine does have a good role to play when it comes to some serious conditions and I would recommend my patients to go and see their GP if I thought this the case. We do not have the surgical skills to mend a broken arm, however we can help the patient by selecting remedies that will help speed up the healing process; Symphytum is a remedy we use for helping the bone repair itself and this would be given to the patient after their bone has been set with a cast. The results have proven time and again that Symphytum helps speed up the healing process.
I do not believe that homeopathy is the cure all for everything, we are not taught to think like this (unlike doctors of conventional medicine.. the big pharma companies being behind this).
You also state "If simple tests like this can be done then it shows a willingness to objectively assess competence".
Some of the older remedies have been proven again and the same results have been seen in the remedy pattern that's resulted from these provings. And as I said yesterday, one remedy may be proven by a group of homeopaths in one country and the same remedy in another. The results are then compared to show that the pattern or theme is very similar or identical.
I think I could be on here forever trying to answer your questions or fill you in on the facts. Unfortunately I cannot do this.. I really must get on with my life!
There is a very useful book called 'The practical handbook of homeopathy' by Colin Griffith which I think is moderately priced at £12.99 (you can order this from Helios Pharmacy, they have a website). There are around 360 pages covering why homeopathic remedies are effective, when to prescribe at home and when to seek professional advice - homeopathic or medical, when to combine homeopathy with other remedies or alternative therapies for better results, how to recognise signs and symptoms and how to prevent ailments, how to recognise an emergency and how to handle it etc.
I hope you can find the time to educate yourself a bit more with books such as these, why not even try some remedies? You could surprise yourself!!
Dear Sarah, I believe homeopathy is dangerous because of its refusal to engage with serious allegations that it puts the health and lives of its customers at risk. This was highlighted starkly by the SoH refusal to condemn their own members who were prepared to offer homeopathic malaria prophylaxis. Their subsequent actions looked exactly like a whitewash. This is well documented on this site and others. Instead of engaging with this criticism, the SoH issued legal threats to my web site hosts for me pointing out these simple facts.
Furthermore, I see no evidence that suggest homeopathic remedies have any evidence base behind them. Practicing without an evidence base is the definition of incompetence. Anecdotes are not evidence. Homeopathic proving practices are deeply flawed as is pointed out by academic homeopaths like George Lewith at Southampton University. My test would show whether this is a reasonable criticism.
I find it irritating that so many homeopaths try to tell me to educate myself. I know a lot about homeopathy and enough to see its inherent contradictions and weaknesses. I point these out. I may not know the detailed remedy pictures, but that is irrelevant to make my criticisms. You may well have studied these remedies for years, but if the foundations of homeopathy are rotten then your education has been useless. That is a cold prospect to face, I am sure.
I do not need a degree in unicorn studies to point out that they don't exist. The little boy who told the Emperor he was wearing no clothes did not have to study invisible textile design at art college for four years to point out the bleedin' obvious.
I am pointing out the bleedin' obvious about homeopathy: its evidence base is shabby, it contradicts well established laws of physics, and its practitioners do not appear to care to much about these things, and whose delusions endanger vulnerable people.
If someone wants to humiliate me by passing this simple test then please go ahead. I welcome it and I am confident in the outcome.
I think you must be quackers!! You just can't stop quacking. Be careful what you say as well, have you got a physics degree? What laws are these you talk about? I wasn't suggesting you need to know about the remedies themselves, it is the philosophy behind homeopathy you seem to know nothing about.
On the subject of malaria, I myself took a conventional medicine called Larium years ago (which is meant to act prophylactically) and suffered some of the awful side effects which have been documented in tv documentaries. The Campaign for Truth in Medicine highlights many more drugs that are used by conventional medicine which are just as dangerous or more so (see www.campaignfortruth.com), yet the media do not make such big news of this. Ask yourself why?
I'll leave off here, no doubt you will continue quacking with more derogatory comments about homeopathy but I'm not playing this stupid game anymore.
According to this post most homeopaths have seen a 50% drop in their customers
http://dcscience.net/?p=197
Presumably then some of them must have a bit of time on their hands to do this experiment. Just think of the positive publicity they would get as well.
ps Avogrado's number is no longer a relevant argument against homeopathy.
Homeopathy is in contradiction with the atomic theory of matter. It is a rock solid theory. Quantum theory - now integrated with the atomic theory - does not rescue homeopathy, despite what some pseudo-intellectual homeopaths claim. They either have no idea what they are talking about or are deliberately bamboozling. Most homeopaths do not have the knowledge to make an assessment of this. And yes, I have a doctorate in physics - but that is immaterial.
Avogadros number is at the heart of the problem. You casually state that it is no longer an issue, but I am afraid you are very wrong. If you want to rely on so called memory of water effects, then you are again treading in areas of utter ignorance. No-one has been able to demonstrate a lasting water memory effect. No one can consistently and repeatable show a difference between water and homeopathic dilutions. Those that claim they can have not been able to show that it is not experimental/instrumental noise, contamination or interference - the staple problems of analytical material science. Avogadro still lives.
As for malaria pills - yes drugs do have side effects - get over it - the task is to weight up the risks of catching malaria with the risks of experiencing a side effect. When side effects do show in some people, they can be managed by changing regimes. But larium has been shown to prevent malaria - it has a benefit. No homeopathic remedy has ever been proven to provide a benefit in similar trials. And problems with real drugs in no way get homeopaths off the hook of these criticisms - you are trying to deflect argument.
It looks like your homeopathic teachers have taught you well, Sarah!
Does any homeopath want to provide me with a metaphorical punch in the face by passing my test?
To quote: 'Sure it's going to kill a lot of people, but they may be dying of something else anyway' - Othal Brand, Texas Pesticide review board, on chlordane.
That seems like quite a big side effect to me!
We have now gone back to discussing that homeopathy doesn't work because it cannot be physically proven. Yes, if that's so, why do conventional medicines have one up on homeopathy because they are able to prove their chemical substance? If you have bothered looking at the website for the campaign for truth in medicine (www.campaignfortruth.com) you will find alarming statistics of deaths caused by conventional medicine.
You say 'Practicing without an evidence base is the definition of incompetence'. I wouldn't agree with you there, when you can see what conventional medicine is capable of doing, even with an evidence base!
Quack on!
Plausibility is absolutely a big issue. Without plausibility, it is far easier to believe that homeopathic effects are essentially delusions. No need to re-invent the laws of physics to believe that. It's Occam's Razor. People are easily deluded.
And, The tired old falacious 'allopathic iatrogenic harm' argument is not an argument in favour of homeopathy. Homeopathy has to stand on its own two feet. Is Homeopathy true or is it not?
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/07/quack-word-20-iatrogenic.html
Are there any homeopaths out there wishing to prove what they are doing is not utter nitwittery?
"The first concluded that there was not enough statistical power to confirm an effect (very few responses)."
Errr hello ... pilot study ...
"The second is calling for further studies to confirm their results."
Well of course it is. That's a prudent conclusion where any trial produces good results that haven't yet been replicated.
This is a trial where two groups of provers totaling 21 people tested 2 remedies simultaneously and where each group of provers were also randomised 30% to placebo.
Quoting the results and conclusions from the study:
__________________________
Results
The principal results were:
• Placebo reported less symptoms than verum groups.
• Symptom distribution according to predefined classes (common symptoms increased in intensity and/or duration-, cured, old, new and exceptional) was statistically different between placebo and verum group at a high level of significance (P<0.001). Compared to verum, placebo provers reported less new and old but more common (increased in duration or intensity) symptoms.
• Within repertory categories, other differences were detected.
• The two groups differ in terms of the duration of each symptom and kinetics of symptoms: most symptoms were more persistent in verum than in placebo groups and verum provers recorded a decreasing number of symptoms with time. Placebo provers did not show such a temporal pattern.
Conclusions
If confirmed by other studies these results would demonstrate the non-equivalence between homeopathic medicines in high dilution and placebo and contribute to the improvement of proving methodology and evaluation.
__________________________
But there's something I'm having some difficulty understanding here. I hope you can enlighten me. Instead of taking this study seriously, you're proposing a challenge to a handful of homeopaths to identify 6 remedies. No requirement for a control group. No requirement for replicability. Smaller numbers than the study quoted above appear to be acceptable to you. And your challenge seems to be supported by a large number of other "sceptics", most of whom have stated they would find such an experiment convincing.
Yet -- and this is the bit I'm struggling to get my head around -- every time someone cites a study with positive results for homeopathy the chorus chimes in with "no control", "inadequate randomisation", "no replicability demonstrated", "too small a study". Is there some subtlety in your trial design I'm missing here, or are you all just a bunch of hypocrites?
aughingmysocksoff: first - yes pilot study and unreplicated study. Could well be a nasty case of publication bias here - why no follow up study, why no replications? Suspicious.
Anyway, you ask some more interesting questions: No requirement for a control group. No requirement for replicability. Smaller numbers than the study quoted above appear to be acceptable to you. And your challenge seems to be supported by a large number of other "sceptics", most of whom have stated they would find such an experiment convincing. ... Is there some subtlety in your trial design I'm missing here, or are you all just a bunch of hypocrites?
Yes, you are missing something and it is not even subtle. First, replication will be important as I say in the original challenge. One homeopath getting this right will be intriguing evidence. Several independent homeopaths getting it right will be a devastating slap in the chops for us sceptics. We just don't believe anyone could do this. Homeopathic pills are inert and have no effect on people.
As for a control group: these are required in clinical trails because you do not know what the 'baseline' is. You do not know how many people get well on their own without intervention; you do not know how powerful the placebo effect might be; you do not know what other reporting biases there might be. So you have a control group, taking a placebo, to establish that baseline. The problem is that you need lots of people to establish a statistically meaningful baseline. Hence, small clinical trials are usually rubbish.
This is not a clinical trial. This is a simple test to see if homeopaths can do what they claim to do. We know the baseline - we would expect the homeopath to get 0, 1 or 2 just by random chance - 3 if they are really lucky. 6 would be extremely impressive and warrant replications. it would - well - blow my socks off.
Let me give you an analogy: let's say you claimed to be an expert in recognising British birds - and I doubted you. I could ask you to select six photos of birds, any you liked, make it as easy as possible for you, blackbird, robin etc. I am not asking you to differentiate chiffchaffs and willow warblers - yet. Now, someone else takes the photos and runs a black marker pen over the captions and replaces them with the letters A to F. Can you tell which bird is which without reading the labels? There is no need for a control group here. No need for fake bird pictures to get a baseline. Just - can you do what you say you can do? If you pass then we might want to replicate it with harder birds. If you fail then you have no credibility to claim to be an 'expert' in recognising birds.
I hope my test is a easy as this for you to pass.
"Could well be a nasty case of publication bias here - why no follow up study, why no replications? Suspicious."
Why should it be suspicious that there's no replication for a study which was published only last year?! Trials regularly take a year to get published. And I imagine folk at the RLHH are far too busy fighting for the hospitals' survival to be spending much time doing trials these days.
How about addressing the trial itself? Here's 21 people able to demonstrate the differences between 2 verum remedies and placebo. How is that any less impressive than what you're proposing? If "publication bias" is the best you can do, it's a pretty lame excuse.
"And I imagine folk at the RLHH are far too busy fighting for the hospitals' survival to be spending much time doing trials these days."
Uum I think the best way they could ensure their survival would be to do some methodologically sound trials.
I'm not sure the RLHH study cited by laughingmysocksoff is as encouraging as he thinks. It says "Seventy homeopaths were randomised of whom 50 completed the trial. In the main analysis 60% correctly identified the bottle containing Bryonia". So 60% of 50 people got it right. When you do the maths, if 50 people guess and each has a 50/50 chance of being right, there is a 10.1% chance of 30 or more people being correct (as seen in the study). But there is an 11.2% chance of exactly 25 people guessing correctly. So there was almost exactly the same chance, by pure luck and guesswork, of observing the result seen in the study as observing exactly 50% of people getting it right - a result that would presumably be ascribed to blind luck.
To sum up, does that mean there's only a 10.1% chance of more than half the people guessing correctly? and only 11.2% chance of half the people getting it right?
An 11.2% chance of exactly half the people getting it right, and a 10.1% chance of 30 or more people getting it right. That's for 50 people each making one pure 50/50 guess.
"I'm not sure the RLHH study cited by laughingmysocksoff is as encouraging as he thinks."
If you're referring to the one I was just talking about, that isn't the one I was just talking about. The RLHH study was a pilot, vaguely promising, but not as interesting as the Italian study.
laughingmysocksoff - if you think that study means that 21 people could tell the difference between homeopathic remedies and water then you are seriously misinterpreting the results. A minor discrepancy in blinding or randomisation could account for such a result. I must defer to the wisdom of the authors of the paper and await independent confirmation with a statistically significant trial before getting too excited.
My test avoids a lot of the problems with such a trial. It tests directly the claims of homeopaths about the power of their pills. Anyone up for it?
Without wishing to put the dampners on things, much bigger trials (n = 253), have been done to show placebo controlled provings do not work,
e.g.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2125.2003.01900.x
Conclusion: No significant group differences in proving rates were observed [Belladonna provers N = 14 (13.9%); placebo provers N = 15 (14.3%); mean difference − 0.4%, 95% confidence interval − 9.3, 10.1] based on intention to treat analysis. Primary outcome was not affected by seasonality or the individual's attitude to complementary medicine.
Conclusion Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects.
This trial was done by a well known set of academic homeopaths.
I hope you don't mind but I politely emailed the SoH to alert them to your challenge and suggested maybe they could find one of their members to take part.
Strangely there has been no reply.
what's your conclusion if they don't reply.. can you weigh this up mathematically?
I like such a simple idea, in fact I was just thinking that I'd be happy to drink a 30C dilution of my own urine, or anyone else's.
Actually, any poison you can name and dissolve, I'd be happy to drink it at 30C. Succuss it all you like, or don't, either way I'm game.
oh dear, looks like there's some poisonous people on here, with poisonous remarks. Please do feel free to swallow your own urine or cr*p.
One Anon said "Actually, any poison you can name and dissolve, I'd be happy to drink it at 30C. Succuss it all you like, or don't, either way I'm game."
Another Anon replied: "oh dear, looks like there's some poisonous people on here, with poisonous remarks. Please do feel free to swallow your own urine or cr*p."
Actually, Another Anon, this shows that you do not understand what "30C" means. If someone created a homeopathy 30C dilution of urine or anything else, there would be very little chance of there being anything but water (or alcohol depending on what the solvent is).
You see a 30C dilution is 1 part to 10^60 (that is a "1" followed by 60 zeros). That is a dilution that is physically impossible. First with knowledge of how chemistry works, and simple knowledge how algebra works with Avogadro's Number works, PLUS knowing that even getting a solvent that pure is even impossible... you will understand the point of the "Simple Challenge>"
Paracelsus (born 1493)is acknowledged as the 'Father of Chemistry' by conventional science (he also introduced many drugs and noted the hereditary pattern of syphilis amongst other contributions). He recognised the importance of elimination of toxins from within the body and the harmful consequences from their accumulation within the human system. He realised that obstacles to the flow of the vital forces of the body resulted in toxicity and the death of living tissue. One of his basis for the five causes for disease is as follows:
Subtle influences acting upon the energy fields surrounding everyone, set in motion rates of vibration which permeate the physical body causing imbalance or biochemical conflict. These influences are due to the cumulative effect of solar and cosmic forces and rays operating upon the etheric or magnetic field surrounding the earth. These fields are invisible atmospheres which affect all creatures and life living within and depending upon them for their survival.
Science has since acknowledged it's not possible for a 'vacuum' to exist: 'the field is everywhere'. There may be no air separating the sun and planets of the solar system. It has become accepted that seemingly empty space is filled with fields and energies not directly detectable to the five senses which include interacting gravitational fields, magnetic fields, electromagnetic fields, solar wind, high energy sub atomic radiation, human produced electromagnetic frequencies, and other unmeasurable subtle energies.
Writing in the early 16th century, Paracelsus declared that many diseases originate in psychological causes, and that all intemperances of the mind and emotions lead not only to the immediate discomfort of the body, but by corrupting a person's psychic nature, cause some of the illnesses most difficult to diagnose and treat. He was the first to write that violent emotion may cause miscarriage, apoplexy (stroke), spasms and result in the malformation of the foetus of an unborn child; that anger can cause jaundice; and grief so depress a vital bodily function that death is the result.
He also noted that spiritual causes can result in serious illness. By disregard of conscience and that which the person knows to be right, spiritual confusion results with a loss of inner direction and appropriate self control in the balance of personal conduct in daily life.
Paracelsus is as relevant today as he was five hundred years ago. His model of the energetic relationship of matter, energy, and the vital force is fully consistent with the latest ideas, thoughts and models of 'new' and quantum physics.
Homeopathic remedies are unmeasurable subtle energies we use to treat people to good effect.
All well and goog, ckr. But it is total bollocks. Would you like to put your money where your mouth is an prove even the slightest part of what you believe?
We are waiting for one brave homeopath who really believes that inert sugar pills can create reproducable, distinct symptoms in healthy people. I think you are deluded.
No need for bad language on here.. negative attitudes and emotions could give you indigestion, you better get some Rennies eh?
Well people like ckr who post irrelevent rubbish that does not address the central question of this post deserve some straight talking.
I am beginning to think that is all we will ever get from homeopaths - nonsense, deflection, excuses, non sequiturs, whining, daftness and general avoidance of the issue - their claims are without merit and they should not be in a position of responsibility with patients because they are not aware of that fact.
"I am beginning to think that is all we will ever get from homeopaths - nonsense, deflection, excuses, non sequiturs, whining, daftness and general avoidance of the issue - their claims are without merit and they should not be in a position of responsibility with patients because they are not aware of that fact."
If they're really unaware that their claims are without merit, why the evasions?
Homeopaths' claims are not without merit, that is why it is the second most widely used system of medicine in the world, with chinese medicine being first.
After reading all that's been said in this blogsite, can you STILL not see why any homeopath would want to take part in such a trial? Hasn't it been said that remedies need proving on GROUPS of people, not just one individual? How would you like to do a test on say 6 different painkillers and then tell us which one is which? That's about as fair as what you're asking of homeopaths, under such conditions.
Anonymous,
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
First off, the painkillers comparison is not helpful. The manufacturers of painkillers do not claim that their drugs can induce reproducable and dictinct symptom patterns in healthy people and so testing for this would be silly.
However, Homeopaths do make such a claim. The principle of 'provings' depends on it. Now, I am not asking you to look for subtle effects - I am happy for homeopaths to pick the most striking remedies they can. I amhappy to make it easy for them. Several homeopaths have told me that if I take one remedy it will have huge and predictable effects on me. I am simply asking homeopaths to demonstrate that in a convincing way.
Secondly, if a small group of homeopaths want to do this together, swap notes, look for common symptoms, then I am very happy. In fact, I am quite happy for them to do what they like as long as they are blinded.
This is just a simple test of the basic claims of homeopaths.
Everyone has different susceptibilities. These are shown in the symptoms that arise from a proving, and this is why it isn't possible to gather enough adequate information from just one person conducting a proving. It is the overall similar symptoms of the group as a whole which forms a remedy pattern/picture.
When someone takes a remedy, they are usually given the simillimum, in other words, the remedy that matches that person's symptoms most.
The 'huge and predictable effects' will be that these symptoms are removed from the person with the remedy working as a simillimum (like curing like). This is partly how homeopathy works, it is the very basics.
If a homeopath told you you could 'prove' a remedy by yourself then they obviously hadn't given it much thought before making this claim. An easy enough mistake to make, as some of these homeopaths may have had solid enough subjective proof themselves by taking part in a proving that may have had a huge effect on them as individuals. However, their experience may be totally different to yours in such a proving, which is one reason why groups are used instead of individuals.
EG There may or may not be a strong likelihood that you would come out in some symptoms such as digestive upsets, bad temper etc for a remedy such as Nux Vomica. If you did come out in these symptoms, it is because you have an underlying susceptibility to such symptoms and the remedy is bringing these to the surface in order to release them from your system. We cannot say who is susceptible to what without taking the remedies, or what the remedy's susceptibilities are in conducting a proving on just one person.
The provings have already taken place thousands of times, which is probably why the SoH do not wish to get involved in such a petty dispute. Also several links have been posted on this site showing relevant enough results. It has got heated to the extent that people are now swearing, which isn't going to clarify anything. I can't see how much clearer the point can be made to people such as yourself though.
Oops, sorry but I came up as anonymous. I'm quite willing to make myself known as the piss-drinking volunteer, after all, I drink piss almost every day.
HJ
There's a shallow pun in there, but the offer is serious.
After reading all that's been said in this blogsite, can you STILL not see why any homeopath would want to take part in such a trial?
Anon, I suspect that English is not your first language, that's why I'm not making fun of the quote above.
That sounds like wriggling to me. And you cannot prove anything you say. Homeopathic 'Provings' are not done in a properly blinded manner. They are almost undoubtedly exercises in 'confirmation bias'. Your own academic hoemopaths agree with me - people like lewith.
As I have said, more than one homeopath can work together on this. it would be an ideal project for a group of homeopathy students to do.
By doing this experiment we were learn something:
1) If the homeopaths pass - I will crawl back under my rock, ashamed.
2) If the homeopaths fail then you will have objective evidence to back-up your above claims and show your more assertive colleagues that they are talking rubbish.
But if you fail to take part, then all that says to me is that are totally uninterested in finding the truth, you show absolutely no curiosity about the basics of your practice and, so we should not be trusting any of your healing claims because you haven't got the guts to test them and they are undoubtedly just healing delusions.
Rubbish.
Rubbish?
I think another telling aspect of this challenge so far is that no homeopath has really proposed a way to improve the test to increase the chance of showing a positive result. Instead, excuses are found to not test. I have said clearly that the options is open for to you to alter the test to maximise your chance of success in pretty much any way. I could not be fairer than that or expose myself more to the chance of ridicule if you succeed. All I really am asking for is some openness, some proper blinding and adequate statistical significance.
This lack of engagement, even in trail design, says to me that homeopaths do not wanted to be tested - and we have to ask ourselves why.
Homeopaths have a simple choice: they can either start doing fair, cheap and simple tests like this one, or they can continue to face a barrage of criticism. You have the opportunity to laugh in the faces of us sceptics, to demonstrate to future customers you powers and prevent damaging attacks. I just do not see why you would not do this.
The unwillingness to test their beliefs suggests to me that deep down they know it doesn't work.
Oh aye, and the SoH didn't even reply to my polite email. A simple "fuck off" would have sufficed.
I would not expect anything else from the SoH.
The Society of Homeopaths is a business run by a non-homeopathic business woman with the aim of taking membership subscriptions off homeopaths and in return, giving them the faux credibility of an organisation that looks like a regulator. There is no way they would threaten their business model by subjecting their members' beliefs to objective tests that could undermine their very existence.
The SoH are the wrong organisation to ask, I'm afraid. There are other organisations we should be publicly challenging - and I fully intend to in the New Year, if we get no takers.
How about those quantum based machines designed by NASA, which are able to detect mineral deficiencies and illness etc. They have been used in combination with homeopathy to make an evaluation of what remedy is needed. Could they somehow be used to see what remedy a person is proving?
How about this for scary - using blood from someone with AIDS as a homeopathic therapy:
http://www.hominf.org/aids/aidsfr.htm
I found that while I was looking for references to 'proving'. I think I may have unfortunately found a flaw in your otherwise brilliant test, which is that 'provings' are done using the concentrated substance, not the diluted/succussed one. I bet I could correctly work out the symptoms caused by arsenic, but I don't really want to get multi-system organ failure.
"The process of proving has been credited to the founder of homoeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. The popular history of Hahnemann's first proving begins with his discovery of the poisoning effects of Cinchona bark. Hahnemann was struck by the similarity between the symptoms of Cinchona poisoning and the symptoms of malaria. He therefore decided to administer a dose of Cinchona Bark upon himself and record the symptoms that ensued. Thus in 1790, Hahnemann had conducted his first experiment, later termed proving".
http://www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/projects/homeopathic.htm
In other words, in a 'proving' you find nasty symptoms caused by a substance, and the homeopathic assumption is that if you then dilute and succuss that substance to kingdom come, it will relieve that symptom - nux vomica (aka Strychnine) causes vomiting etc., so homeopathic nux vomica 'cures' vomiting.
Back to the drawing board for the test, I think.