Stop the teaching of Pseudo Science - Horizon Prog

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Best Regards
Soroush

@ Simon

Thank you for taking time to come up with your answer which failed to grasp the reality of the
matter.

Randi et al (including yourself and Andy) are of the opinion that the dilutions used in homeopathic
preparations render them effectively a placebo.

The Horizon experiment was to try and replicate the work of Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's
University of Belfast which was based on Jacque Beneviste's research (which was rubbished through
the efforts of Randi who actually did the physical labelling in Jacque Beneviste's Lab and only
Randi knows what sleight of hand was involved there). Prof Ennis's work had been replicated in
other labs before.

Then we come to the Horizon programme in 2005, which attempted to replicate this work. Firstly they
did not adhere to Prof Ennis's protocols.
Secondly if you guys are right and homeopathic preparations are just water, the expectation would be
that there would be no difference between the diluted water or the histamine solution and that
neither diluted solutions should have any effect on the basophiles. The expectation would be a
totality of NEGATIVE results. Importantly, water was used as a control because it is not expected
that water should cause any basophil degranulation.

Prof Bland was the statistician used by the Horizon Programme.

The following is msg I sent to him to his confirmed email address in 2008 which remains unanswered.

++++++++++
Dear Prof Bland
I have only just had sight of your article "The Horizon Homeopathic Dilution Experiment."
I note that you mention in your article that you did not quite understand what the experiment was
all about as such. Well simply put, it is like this:
When body cells are attacked by an invasive force, they produce and issue histamine. Basophils in
the blood are then in turn triggered by the histamine and in the process they degranulate and
produce and issue lots more histamine. This is part of chemical response to invasions. If there is
an over reaction then anti-histamines are prescribed.
The degranulation of basophils can be seen under a microscope and the number of such cells affected
can be counted.
However, under no circumstance would any one expect water to be able trigger such a response.
Ideally, those who challenge the potency of the highly diluted and succussed solutions would expect
ALL the samples to show negative results - because as mentioned above, one would expect water to
have no effect whatsoever on basophils and the highly diluted material is just like water anyway, so
it should behave just like water.
On the other hand, the expectation from the homeopathic aspect would be that there should be a
difference between the 'Active' (diluted and potentised Histamine) and the 'Control' (diluted and
potentised distilled Water). That is to say, Controls should have no effect on the basophils, but
the Actives should cause them to react and degranulate.
However, with reference to the results shown in Table 1 we have two observations: (out of 40 samples
each)
In Lab 1, 11 Controls (water) showed a positive effect and 11 actives showed a negative effect.
In Lab 2, 9 Controls (water) showed a positive effect and 9 actives showed a negative effect.
So in other words, we have:
In Lab 1, 11 Controls (water) as well as 9 Diluted histamine solution showed a FALSE or an
UNEXPECTED positive effect.
In Lab 2, 9 Controls (water) as well as 11 Diluted histamine solution showed a FALSE or an
UNEXPECTED positive effect.
So in total we have 40 Positive results (50%) whereas those who challenge the properties of highly
diluted and succussed solutions would expect NO positive results.
I am left with the following questions:
1- Was the 'Double blinding' procedure faulty?
2- What is the significance of the fact that the number of the UNEXPECTED results is the same in
control and test groups? For example, in lab 1, 11 Controls showed activity and also 11 Actives
showed a negative result. The same repeats for lab 2 at 9 each.
3 - Does the fact that we have in total 40 FALSE or UNEXPECTED positives indicate that the
experiment may have been flawed in some way?
I should be grateful if you would kindly advise exactly how the samples were labeled and relabeled
to effect 'blinding' and how this operation was supervised to avoid the possibility of Controls
being mis-coded as Active and vice versa.
What other - if any - explanations are possible?
+++++++++

No one has answered these questions. Can you?

At best one can assume that an error of blind-labelling took place. My great suspicion is that it
there may have been purpose behind it.

This was the reason behind my genuine request that let us get both sides seek the truth of the
matter and work carefully and co-operatively to examine various ways of finding out whether diluted
and succussed solutions have any effect. Sadly you have dismissed this request.