R E V I E W
      of the Good and Honorable Doctor
      James "the Amazing" Randi
      his "educational foundation"
      and the "Million Dollar" Challenge it poses to the world.
       
     On January 10th of 1999 we read an interesting announcement on the lyghtforce discussion group bulletin board.
          Syd Baumel, the editor of the Winnipeg Aquarian, posted the following message.
      Subject:    Randi's $1.2 million challenge
         Date:     11 Jan 99 00:05:27 -0600
         From:   "Syd Baumel" <sgb@escape.ca>
           To:      ALL <homeopathy@lyghtforce.com>
       
       
      Hello,

      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."
       

            What then followed was a long argument for and against between Syd and Happy Dog.
            But the basic question which Syd was posing to the 1400 students and practitioners of homeopathy was, "has anyone proven homeopathy, is anyone willing."

    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,

      "Perhaps he sits, even now, upon some celestial throne designated by Heaven  for the royalty of conjuring, flanked by Dunninger, Blackstone, Thurston, Cagliostro, and the many others who deserve their places in that firmament, and chuckles as we lesser personages strive to tell their story - - - as it really happened."
         This seems to be an admission by Randi of life after death. And even more puzzling is his reference to Cagliostro, who was a reported healer who lived in Hahnemann's time. There are indications that Cagliostro was using similium, i.e. homeopathy.
         It's only our in posing this question, but is Randi so sure, in his defamation of homeopathic science, that these men he places on an imaginary throne, that not one of them ever availed themselves of homeopathic treatment?
          Cast among the worshipping words of Houdini, we find an interesting statement by Dr. Randi. The emphasis is ours.
           "This interest in nonsense and nonscience (sic) has happily also brought about a revived interest in the legitimate frauds - - among whom I gladly number myself."
           "We who perform apparent wonders for purposes of entertainment, as did Harry Houdini, rejoice in this lucrative and satisfying interest shown by young and old currently. And I personally take this opportunity of calling upon my fellow conjurers to make sure their efforts are looked upon as genuine, but that they make very clear the real purpose of these deceptions - -  entertainment, nothing more, and certainly nothing less."
       
         So we see that this Challenge appears to be inspired by an entertainer, managed by an entertainer, both of whom readily admit that they are professional deceivers.
         So how is it that we are able to take the Psychic Challenge as being legitimate, unless, in Randi's words, a "legitimate fraud."
       
         We made the application, stating that we were accepting it as being made in good faith, and that we would make every reasonable effort to hold the "challenger" to articles of good faith,  and thus we submitted it,  and as of April 16th, we're still waiting for JREF to return it.
         What's so tough about simply returning it? Now we're informed indirectly by inferences that Dr. Randi has waylaid our claim in favor of others to try first.
          On April 10th, 1999, the renowned Swiss homeopath, Alain Jean-Mairet  proposed that we produce the protocol that Randi has said was necessary to be completed for a trial, a protocol the application to the challenge says is to be completed in agreement with him, and that we would be given a week to produce this protocol, or our application would be considered invalid.
           Randi then would be given another week to propose three dates to conduct a trial of our claim, and that if he failed, his challenge would be considered invalid.
         This offer was cc'd to a group of people, including Dr. Randi, Happy Dog and Syd Baumel. We readily accepted. But no response was received by us from Dr. Randi accepting this proposal, nor was any response to this proposal known to us to have been received by anyone.
         We nevertheless constructed the requested protocol  and posted it a day early.
          As of this date, Dr. Randi and JREF have not acknowledged receipt of the Jean-Mairet  proposal, nor have they commented on the protocol.
          How Dr. Randi and they have responded is to admit a second claim for homeopathy. Is this then to be construed as declining to conduct a test of our claim?
     
         And we're still waiting for the return of our application, or an indication as to when it will be returned, or what further we have to do to initiate its return..

    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.

       
         So we've put together a list of questions for information about JREF.
      Inquiring minds want to know:
     
      1. What is the stated mission of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF)? Reportedly JREF is listed as a Delaware 501 (c) 3 charitable corporation, although it's physical office and only officer known to us are in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. It's inferred mission is educational.  Are their other officers in the JREF corporation? Who are the board members? As of April 14th, we don't know of anyone else working for or directing JREF other than James Randi, with the exception perhaps of a man named Happy Dog, aka Wesley Thuro, who wages a hostile debate with applicants and supporters of the phenomenon JREF denies. He coincidentally lives in Randi's home town of Toronto, Ontario. JREF also has people working on it's web page, but other than these people we know of no one who is officially directed or employed by JREF. The answers to who else is involved or supports JREF isn't offered to the applicant to the Psychic Challenge.
           JREF also refers to a large list of contributors to the Psychic Challenge, people who have pledged money to support the Challenge, money reportedly that will either be paid to the claimant, or money that is perhaps to be used to replenish the claim should the million dollars be lost.. It's not clear to us to actual value of the award or who all, other than JREF, if anyone, will pay it.

      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.

 
     It is our opinion that without the guidance of fair and impartial mangers, the Challenge is not being conducted in a forthright and fair way. We ask the reader for a review of this.
         Skeptics hold to the JREF Challenge as proof that unidentified phenomenon that can't be identified through molecular analysis doesn't exist. But in obvious fact it does. There are now reportedly mechanical means of detecting the homeopathic signal. But these are not as efficacious at this time as the receiving mechanisms of common living things. In the previous centuries, a rubric has been established around homeopathy to support it tenets, a rubric that has been developed through innumerable case studies, through the observation of livening organisms when exposed to homeopathic substances.
         Homeopathy has been practiced for over 200 years. Yet skeptics deride it, and say that there is no proof for it. When evidence is presented, including double blind studies and applications on animals and plants, the response has been that this is only anecdotal evidence, and that real proof has never been obtained in a serious test by critical observers who can detect tricks.
         If homeopathy was a valid science, they say, it would easily pass the JREF Challenge and the claimant would collect a million dollars. But, they continue,  because no one has managed to prove homeopathy to JREF, it is an invalid science. And using this failure to prove itself to an officer of JREF and to collect the million dollars is proof then, they contend, that the doctrine is fraudulent.
         They claim that homeopathy is simply the complex use of placebos, and that the cures are either coincidental or in the heads of the practitioner and patient. This might well be, although homeopathy is now reportedly the second most practiced form of healing in the world today, second only to Chinese medicine.  This means that by putative acclaim, homeopathy is the preeminent medical discovery in the last 200 years.
         Yet in America, although it is practiced by a growing number of M.D.'s, current medical science denies its validity, and discourages people of availing themselves to it, pointing to its lack of proof. If it works, they say, why hasn't anyone collected the million? But in our experience, even with proof in hand,  collecting the million appears to be impossible. To us it's been like a rigged carney game. As serious applicants asking for a fair trial of our claim we are instead subjected to running a gauntlet of ad hominem abuse.
         And so the question we're posing here is, is the  Psychic Challenge being administered within the context of the inferred mission of an educational foundation? Or are people being systematically victimized by this constructed public "offer" for the purpose of furthering a career and avoiding taxes?

         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?

     

    John Benneth
    503 661-4842
    Please send comments or questions to
    "gian@cyberhighway.net"
    Remove quotes from address when replying.
    Quotes are placed there to defeat machine collection of this address.