Alain:  I don't want to be accused of making the preliminary test too
expensive -- and therefore perhaps impossible -- for Benneth.  And I won't
allow him that escape-hatch.

For that reason, I propose that he "show the yeast-test as a preliminary."
But that demonstration can be double-blinded, which I insist upon.
Question:  How long does the yeast-test take?  If Benneth wants to show up
with the needed supplies, meet with my biochemist and prepare the samples,
then have the biochemist -- or another person -- randomize them and
perform
the yeast-test right there, I would be interested.  The "active"
ingredient
to be diluted would have to be independently obtained, to make sure is
could not be "poisoned," of course.

Alain, you wrote:  "I meant that John Benneth wanted to give the mere
explanation, or open demonstration of the yeast test as a preliminary,
without any blinding."  Why without blinding?  It can easily be blinded.

You wrote:  "For example, he could have shown the test quite openly to
your
biochemist, who could have decided then . . .  if there was enough
evidence
of an effect for launching the burden and cost of the real
challenge."  Yes, but this required a "decision" by my biochemist.  That
leaves Benneth with the opportunity of claiming that the biochemist was
biased.  I find here a repeated pattern of bringing in situations where a
decision has to be made, and arguments can be produced to rationalize
failures.  I repeat: there will be no judges nor decisions needed in any
tests I use.  I will commit myself to the evident results of any test, and
I expect everyone else to do the same.

We need to know: how long does the yeast-test take?

                                Randi

(To everyone: please bear in mind that I am corresponding only with Alain
on this matter. All other "proving" postings are being ignored.  It would
take me far too long to respond to all the nonsense that Benneth continues
to put out, and I will not react to any of that.  Alain is the go-between
here.)