Horizon

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Jan & Colleagues

Of course the programme was excellent in the ways that Jan describes but
some may see it excellent at putting up a fair ground 'aunt Sally' to be
knocked down. It the proceeded to knock down the aunt Sally very effectively
in the eyes of the sceptical or wavers.

What Concerns me is having a level playing field.

It will not be the first time that 'scientist' have cooked up experimental
results. The difference with homoeopathy is that every day we see the truth
of homoeopathy in our patients' reactions. At the same time I think we have
every right to question the actions/involvement of a man who is world famous
at being a conjurer. After all what is a conjuror? - nothing but a
PROFESSIONAL cheat. They pretend at the truth. In the olden days they even
may have been regarded as a prophet! But they are cheats and nothing else.
On stage we laugh and even applaud them. But in the Lab, the results can be
devastating especially when there could be conflicts of interest.

Then when the same professional cheat bets $1m against something and
experiments that have been repeated over and over again satisfactorily then
appear not to work after some one fiddles with coding and recoding, I get to
wonder. Where is the $1m coming from? Did they say? I have to watch the
tape again.

As I stated, no one questioned the FACT why there was still a reaction
taking place. This was such an important outcome of the experiment. As far
as the experiment is concerned, I think the reaction of the histamine and
the cells is an automatic reaction. The disease (if any) of the animal is
irrelevant as it can be assumed that this is the same stuff that had shown
the experiment to work before.

We had positives and negatives right the way through at both labs. The
ratios were similar at 9/11 and 11/9 [which they said was nothing but
random results !!]. It was not as if there were no positives. If there were
no positives, then I would have said OK this exp has demonstrated
EFFECTIVELY that at extreme dilutions there is no reaction.

As I said what concerns me, is the fact that there were positive reactions
where none were thought possible. So either ordinary water (diluted and
succussed) has similar powers to the histamine solution diluted and
succussed or that there was some kind of a switch. We need to find out.
If you want to have the transcript, pls go to the following site
Please see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/
and from that site explore the Homeopathy story in depth:
· Programme summary
· Questions and answers
· Transcript
· Weblinks
May the ever lasting truth win the day!
Soroush

Message: 23
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 10:59:48 +0100
From: "Jan Klüssendorf"
Subject: RE: Horizon - Homeopathy

Dear Friends,

Pls, don't let us react like a sect.
It was an EXCELLENT program, which explained Homeopathy very well (except
maybe the Vital Force principle) and was totally neutral in its approach.
Let's not be bad losers.
Yes, the outcome was not what we had hopped for, but instead of putting this
under the carpet and start blaming people and reproach them of being
dishonest, why don't we accept a fact as a fact.

Maybe Simon was right when He says:
"They forgot to find out what the symptoms were of the
creature from whom the blood (histamine) sample was
taken and match the remedy accordingly."

But then the Homeopaths which participated at the program should have
thought about that in ADVANCE.

And reproaching to the program(makers) and this Randi person that he would
have switched the labels is really a poor insinuation.
And don't forget, not everything about the program was negative or bad:
* they explained H very well
* they mentioned very clear how many people use H, even very famous ones
* they reported that there were done a lot of tests which proved that H
worked even better then placebo
* they mentioned very explicitly that H is an excellent treatment for
animals

The *only* thing what failed was the test which had to prove HOW H works.
Big deal !!!!
There will be other experiments.

And if Homeopathic society (and lab's etc....) would put their forces
together to conduct and or support much more of this basic work, instead of
focussing on dubious para-normal phenomena like paper remedies, dream
provings, ART etc....we would be at this VERY moment much further then we
are today, acting the injured party.

Jan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Soroush,

on 11/27/02 4:58 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:

At the same time I think we have

I think this is an *excellent* point. Thinking about it, what does it tell
us, that this ballyhooed and widely aired TV program centers on (a) a (to
use Soroush's lovely description) professional cheat, who is (b) known to be
anti-homeopathy and desirous of discrediting it? (And do you mean that he
"earned" $1 million by showing it to "not work"? I didn't see the show.)
Sorry, but this seems transparent and ... well, rather beyond belief. Am I
missing something???

Shannon

[Jasbir Kaur Villaschi]

Randi the Magician was willing to pay out $1 million if and only if someone could prove Homeopathy could work and explain how.

considering his track record (he was member of that panel of three so-called experts to decide if it had validity in the 'Nature watch ' magazine article a while back)I severely doubt he wanted to prove anything like that. Yes I agree the program did make Homeopathy high-profile but I think it failed to make the very valid point that Science as it stands is not up to the task....it's much like asking Vatican clerics of that period to prove Galileo's observations were true. How much is it in their benefit to say we were wrong and Hahnnemann's right??....

One good thing is that my husband who taped it for me ... was arguing for homeopathy rather than against and could see the holes in the program...being of the'prove it' mindset it was pleasing to see that his internal sense of logic detected the blips ....despite the lack of 'scientific solution'

Jas
Robert&Shannon Nelson wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, thank you.
I suppose it's better that he "saved" $1million by its faiure, rather than
"earning" it... (huh?)
Shannon
on 11/27/02 8:34 AM, Jasbir Kaur Villaschi at jkv@which.net wrote:

[Jan Klüssendorf]

> Am I missing something???

Yes you are: this was not a 'Randi-show', but a high level BBC2 program, in
which Mr Randi merely played a guest role of scientific watch guard.
I'm sure he will at NO MOMENT have interfered directly (I mean with his
hands) with the coding or the conducting of the experiment.
Randi has supervised the experiment in the same way as the homeopaths
involved have done.
All the direct handling has been done my scientists under the eye of the
camera.

Jan

[Jan Klüssendorf]

Sorry, but I don't agree here again.
If the test would have been successful (in favour for Homeopathy), it's the
BBC who would have earned this $ 1 Million.
So the 'incentive' (in favour of H.) was VERY high.
And not only for the money part.
Can you imagine what big publicity a successful experiment (which proofed
H.) would have meant for the BBC2 program Horizon?

If the experiment failed, which it did, it certainly can not be attributed
to lack of objectivism or interest from the side of the BBC.
It 's clear that they would have loved to be able to be the first to proof
that, as they called it, 'water has a memory'.

Jan

[Shannon Nelson]

I'm relived to hear that.
It *still* seems like a weird choice of "scientific watch guard",
particularly given his skills (cameras or no!!!), and particularly given his
bias. Sends a weird message, doesn't it???
on 11/27/02 9:19 AM, Jan Klüssendorf at jk@airstop.be wrote:

[Dave Hartley]

Hi Soroush,

Your line of reasoning is impeccable with regard to the predetermined
purpose of the TV show.
In general, we must be aware that homeopathy is antithetical to corporate
interests, and BBC is very much a lapdog of corporate interests.

Anything where Randi the professional cheat is involved is quite obviously a
fixed (rigged, predetermined) game.
Such a person will never risk his public persona in a "level playing field"

Naturally, the show must be made to appear as if it is unbiased, and will
therefore give out some decent information, but in the end the "aunt Sally"
as you call what I am more familiar with as "the strawman" has the stuffing
knocked out, and to the (predetermined) "victor" go the "spoils" (the
illusionary $1mil) plus the REAL reward of having done a nice little hatchet
job as a hired-gun of corporate interests.

Someone with the time to spend and some resources could undoubtedly find the
pharmaceutical industry behind this.

regards,
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

[Meriem B Laouiti]

It's really frustrating!
I get only your messages, JAS, and none of the others who are ovbiously "chatting" and commenting away to and fro!!!!
What am I doing wrong in this group?
I'd realy like to be in on the discussions.......
M.