Recently, I've become embroiled in a Usenet debate on the scientific
validity of homeopathy. I've taken the side that says the weight
of
controlled clinical research favors homeopathy, so it is no longer
reasonable to dismiss it as unscientific. My most vociferous
opponent
has finally played the Randi card, i.e., if it really works, then why
doesn't some homeopath take James "Amazing" Randi up on his offer to
hand over $1.2 million to anyone who can prove any paranormal phenomenon,
homeopathy included. To check, I emailed Randi and asked him if a) a demo
that an h. remedy (diluted beyond Avogadro's number) significantly bettering
a visibly identical placebo would win the challenge, and
b) if any homeopaths have taken him up on it. His reply: "Yes,
and
no."
I had just finished reading a book by Dr. Jean Elmiger entitled "Real Medicine" in which Elmiger claimed that homeopathic solutions had been identified through the use of Kirlian photography.
I myself had been in a debate with several homeopaths over the unicist theory of practice in homeopathy, and over Christmas, one of the homeopaths had asked me what I thought to be shining example of what should be done to improve homeopathy.
I had taken a long time to answer the question, and went to the bookstore to look for inspiration. What I found was Elmiger's book, and I reported on it saying that the most important contribution that could be made to homeopathy would be to reveal it's motive force.
So when Syd posted his inquiry, I was surprised that he hadn't seen my previous post, which had been posted only a couple of days previously. I had reported on the means to detect the homeopathic signal and here it seemed was somebody who was reporting on an offer of a million dollars for the method.
I was puzzled as to why no one else was responding to Syd's inquiry with constructive evidence. I was surprised no one was really joining in on highlighting the importance of the discovery of a method for a mechanical homeopathic analysis. It is the proof we're looking for. It seemed as if we're so used to working without it that when it appears, its importance has been forgotten.
With this meager assurance that there were mechanical means to identify homeopathic substances, I decided to take Randi up on the Challenge. I contacted Chris Wodtke, "the Wizard of Light", (elecheal@fwi.com) and using specially constructed Kirlian photography equipment subsequently obtained from Chris photographic evidence that Elmiger's claim had substance.
But in context of the challenge this was only
anecdotal evidence
So adapting the collective stance, we
moved ahead and placed things in their present terms. We've taken JREF
and the supporting skeptics up on their claim, by saying that the motive
force of homeopathy is a radiant phenomenon that can be detected, and that
homeopathic solutions by their intrinsic nature, can be identified as such
and picked out of a crowd of chemically identical but homeopathically inert
substances.
After four months of bickering with Randi
and other skeptics, notably this man who goes by the name of Happy Dog,
who appears to us to speak for JREF, what we've discovered in response
to our application and the analysis of reports by others who have applied,
is what seems to us to be a process of defamation of the applicant, evasiveness,
and omission of necessary information by JREF, information we think is
required to do a reasonable test of a claim.
We don't feel our claim has been taken
seriously or within a legal context. It doesn't appear to us to be
a scientific inquiry, but rather a publicity stunt designed to inure Dr.
Randi through the questionable use of a tax exempt educational mission.
We find ourselves being accused by Dr. Randi,
supported by JREF, of the very things we're observing Dr. Randi and JREF
to be doing: Using the Challenge as a means to seek publicity for ourselves
and evading the actual trial of our claim.
What's egregious to us is that some self styled
scientists side with JREF, and use this claim to continually defame a growing
doctrine of medicine. We feel that this is a defamation of science for
merely the aggrandizement of the challenger.
So we in turn are making this
investigation into the true nature of the Challenge. We're asking simple
questions of the original hypothesis and claimant, that an entire doctrine
of medicine is false, that a popular phenomenon that is felt and enjoyed
by millions is simply coincidental or a product of placebo action.
Rather than being an investigation into
the possibilities of unknown or undiscovered phenomenon, what we see is
a stunt, cast in the mold of Dr. Randi's idol, Harry Houdini.
In Dr. Randi's 1976 book "Houdini, His
Life and Art" co-authored with Bert Randolph Sugar, we find at least nine
reproductions of Harry Houdini's posters boldly featuring the word "CHALLENGE".
The concept of a challenge is featured
prominently in most of Houdini's marketing. The challenge however, is to
Houdini. It is not made to an entire doctrine of healing. Homeopathy was
also practiced in Houdini's time. But did Houdini, a world class debunker
of seances, necromancers and frauds, also attack homeopathy as being false?
Randi writes of Houdini,
While we wait for something that is as of this writing is months overdue,
we pose this inquiry. These are the questions that we think good investigators
public and private would be putting to Dr. Randi, the James Randi Educational
Foundation (JREF) or others who have knowledge of this organization and
it's history.
We add some observations of our own and include
statements of fact.
Our application was mailed to JREF on January
24th. Inquiries to JREF have been made but have been rebuffed with what
has seemed to us to be outright hostility.
2. What is the Challenge as a legal instrument? Who made the legal
review? As of April 14th, 1999, we don't know. The information isn't
offered to the applicant of the Psychic Challenge.
3. What record is there of JREF and the offer made by it at the
Florida AG's office, the Charitable Better Business Bureau and the
Better
Business Bureau? Any prior complaints?
4. Why won't JREF reveal records of previous applications? We've asked,
but indications are that they either don't exist or are being withheld.
Why
aren't they kept for review by those who ask?
5. Why doesn't JREF have a standardized "protocol", an open known testing
procedure for claims? If it has one, it hasn't been presented to us
as of April 14th, 1999.
6. Why won't a JREF officer sign and return the application to
the Psychic Challenge or acknowledge it's receipt? We've asked repeatedly
for this. And James Randi continues to refer us to the "rules" as stated
in the application. Yet how can Dr. Randi expect us to be held to rules
we've agreed to unless he's willing to agree to them himself, and acknowledge
them by providing us with a signed copy of our agreement? The agreement
states provisions for both parties to mutually agree on various points,
so we have inferred that it is an instrument with which to initiate a discussion
of test and trial conditions. Dr. Randi informed us that there would be
no discussion of a test or trial without us first submitting a signed application,
which he predicted we would not sign. After signing and submitting
the application, however, Dr. Randi argued over the conditions of the test
without first signing the application himself and returning it.
To our knowledge, no one of the over 100 reported
applicants has ever received a signed copy of the agreement from Dr. Randi,
yet Dr. Randi apparently has every test of an applicants without it.
Why does JREF continue to conduct its investigations
into "challenged science" in such a manner?
7. Why does JREF insist on maintaining this hostile attitude towards
applicants? Most of the correspondence received by us from Dr.
Randi has been accompanied by name calling. Dr. Randi refers to John Benneth
as "the Desperate One" and addresses him directly as "dummy." Randi
has refused to answer direct questions regarding the test, and has refused
to correspond with us, complaining that he was receiving two copies of
e-mail correspondence. When he has corresponded, he has consistently done
so after removing the majority of CC'd names or sends e-mail mis-addressed
to Syd Baumel, the editor of the Winnipeg Aquarian, an impartial discussion
participant. Mr. Baumel was the initiator of our participation in the Challenge.
8. Why does JREF refuse to schedule a trial? We've asked repeatedly for JREF to schedule a trial and have been met with either silence or accusations that we're trying to avoid one.
9. Why does JREF demand irrelevant information from an applicant, and
then ignore it when it's rendered? The crux of the trial rests on results,
not on the method. Yet JREF has demanded to know what science will be used
after admitting that any method used to make the determination is acceptable.
10. Why does JREF accuse the applicant of stalling on the test without
providing the applicant with the information he needs to complete the
test? JREF has been repeatedly asked for elucidation on the meaning
of protocol, and has been repeatedly asked for suggestions regarding time
and place of the test.
11. What prior stories, records, lawsuits or incidents are there that
can be found regarding James Randi and JREF? What do the neighbors
and others say? Certainly there must be more information about Dr. Randi's
and JREF's behavior. According to renowned late night talk show host
Art Bell, it is the history of Dr. Randi to argue over the conditions of
the test until the applicant gives up. This report is consistent with our
experience.
12. Who's the manager of the Goldman Sachs account? What does she or he say? There's reportedly a million dollars in negotiable bonds kept at Goldman Sachs as collateral that back up the claim. What instructions do they have for the disposition of the million dollars in negotiable bonds that back up the Challenge? Is there another purpose for this money other than to support the Challenge? Who receives the interest from that account? How is the interest from that money spent within the stated mission of JREF?
13. Why does JREF conduct every trial informally? The rules to the challenge state that anecdotal evidence will not be accepted in determining the merit of a claim. However, without a formal trial of a claim, managed by fair and impartial observers, the evidence gathered by JREF in support of the Psychic Challenge is in itself merely anecdotal. Through this clause that allows for JREF to demand a preliminary test of an applicant, valid claims can be easily dismissed, denied and disparaged Is this why the clause that allows JREF to make a preliminary review of an applicant's claim has in every case that we know of, been enacted? Has JREF ever conducted a formal trial of a claim? We've asked, and have been told that the answer is "No." Therefore we can only assume that the entire testing procedure of applicants rests on the anecdotal evidence developed by JREF, apparently taken in private tests, mostly by James Randi.
What's the affect the Challenge has on the greater public interest? Is it dissuading people from availing themselves to an effective form of medical treatment?