Tim, if by prejudiced you mean that I currently believe that homeopathy does not work, you are absolute correct. If from that you are trying to imply that I know little about it, then you would be wrong. Neither of those are important. I know a good deal about homeopathy, and I have "judged" it. However, I am entirely willing to examine further evidence. If the evidence is good, I will gladly switch positions and be a proponent of homeopathy. Homeopathy makes testable claims. It does not matter what I do or don't know about how or where those claims come from. I can see the prediction and compare the prediction to a measurable reality. If the prediction and reality (experimental result) match, we have a theory that might be useful. Otherwise, we do not. Not too complicated. The point of a double blind trial (in particular) is that if it is properly designed and executed, it eliminates the ability of the participants to cheat. Cheat is the word. Lets say it a few more times. cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat. That is what this about, are homeopaths cheating or not when they claim successes. Many homeopaths have been convinced in the past of the validity and importance of double blind testing. They then do the test, the test fails to show any results, and almost uniformly they blame the test.?!?!? That just doesn't cut it. Many/most homeopaths today aren't interested in double blind studies. They won't submit their work to them. When a double blind study is designed to catch cheaters, and people who make huge claims aren't interested in completing a little study.... well, it is way more than a bit fishy. So, "cheating or not", that is the question. You believe not. I see that Hans is walking you a double blind test. Please do, carry on with that. Now, what are you gonna do when/if (I say when) you get the results back and you can't tell who got what by looking at the returned forms? Think about this one hard. You will be performing a real, valid, scientific test of a homeopathic claim. What are ya gonna do? 1) Blame the test as somehow flawed and/or inadequate? 2) Conclude that homeopathy does not work the way you have been led to believe? Path number 1 has been incredibly popular with homeopaths, historically. In fact, it has led directly to that fishy trait of many homeopaths rejecting double blind studies for one made up reason of inadequacy or another. If you say you will take path 2 if the results are null, I will happily sit here and watch the action until it is complete.