Not homeopathy, it's Nanopharmacology ...

[Alareth]

Dana Ullman explains the amazing science behind homeopathic medicines.

How many logical fallacies can you count as the supporting framework of the article?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-homeopathic-medicines_b_389146.html

[Eos of the Eons]

Ugh. Ullman. I feel ill, and I didn't bother to read it.

[Riayn]

Oh my god, the stupid, it burns.

You can't seriously say that you don't know how homeopathy works but it must because sharks can smell blood in the water from substantial distance away. The two things have nothing to do with each other!

Also, I gotta love how the author references himself when making ridiculous statements - Homeopathic medicines can and should be considered to be a type of "nanopharmacology" (Ullman, 2006).

[tsig]

Oh my god, the stupid, it burns.

You can't seriously say that you don't know how homeopathy works but it must because sharks can smell blood in the water from substantial distance away. The two things have nothing to do with each other!

Also, I gotta love how the author references himself when making ridiculous statements - Homeopathic medicines can and should be considered to be a type of "nanopharmacology" (Ullman, 2006).

BTW Ullman posts on this forum.

[not daSkeptic]

Oh my god, the stupid, it burns.

Tell me about it. The analogies were painful. Either stick to what you know or do some damn research before publishing.

[TheDaver]

He’s so shameless it’s actually funny.

[Rocko]

It's not bullsh*t, it's bovine excrement.

[Brian-M]

How many logical fallacies can you count as the supporting framework of the article?


I stopped reading after I counted 10... I couldn't take it any more.

BTW, In what language does Nano mean "extremely small AND yet extremely powerful"? It certainly isn't English.

[TheDaver]

Maybe “nano” is replacing “quantum” as the woo buzz word of choice.…

[Mojo]

The thing is that 9X (i.e. a 10-9 dilution) is a comparatively rarely used potency, so "nanopharmacology" would hardly ever apply. The most commonly seen potencies are 6X ("micropharmacology", perhaps?) and 30C, which could be called "yoctopharmacology".

I know the "yocto-" prefix actually means 10-24, and 30C is a 10-60 dilution, but once you get to 10-24 and beyond they're all going to be the same anyway.

I suspect that "nanopharmacology" is nothing more than an attempt to re-brand homoeopathy. If it needs that it must be in trouble.

[Rocko]

BTW, In what language does Nano mean "extremely small AND yet extremely powerful"? It certainly isn't English.

It's dUllmanese. He trots that useage out regularly, using (I kid you not) the example of the iPod Nano to show how nano isn't just a scientific word with a specific meaning. Despite the fact he's very clearly trying to steal some wholly undeserved scientific credibility by throwing it around as though it does mean something other than a bit of advertising puff.

[Alareth]

You would think a homeopath could make a point using fewer words ...

[edd]

Yes, his argument is that 'nano' derives from 'dwarf' and doesn't apply specifically to 10^-9.

I honestly cannot come up with a use of nano that applies to anything dramatically smaller than 10^-9, and I'm sure 'dwarf' dwarfs 10^-9.

There's a premise that one should try to attack the strongest form of an argument. I firmly believe attacking on the grounds that 10^-9 is the smallest reasonable interpretation of 'nano' in 'nanopharmacology' (give or take an order of magnitude... or two... or three...) is quite justified. 10^-9 is way tinier than any reasonable application of the word 'dwarf' anyway.

And, I think the use of 'dullman' or variants stinks. We can make a strong case without resorting to name calling.

[Madalch]

Having heard of nanotechnology, I won't quibble with his use of the prefix.

That doesn't make his article any less laughable, though.

[tesscaline]

Having heard of nanotechnology, I won't quibble with his use of the prefix.

That doesn't make his article any less laughable, though.Um. Why does having heard of nanotechnology make his use of the prefix "nano" less of an issue?

[Derwoods]

It is so odd how they try to wrap themselves in so much scientific word salad while denouncing science and scientists as incapable of measuring or evaluating whatever effects they claim for their practice. Why not just say "screw it" and declare that it is magic and save everyone the headache?

[not daSkeptic]

It is so odd how they try to wrap themselves in so much scientific word salad while denouncing science and scientists as incapable of measuring or evaluating whatever effects they claim for their practice. Why not just say "screw it" and declare that it is magic and save everyone the headache?

Consider who their primary target audience is. It's not the science-literate.

[Derwoods]

Consider who their primary target audience is. It's not the science-literate.

true but then why bother with science then? Actually I know the answer (marketing), but I am trying to come at this from the point of view that the defenders of the faith actually believe homeopathy works and aren't just tarting it up to scam people.

[Madalch]

Um. Why does having heard of nanotechnology make his use of the prefix "nano" less of an issue?

Because he's actually correct in using it to mean something very small?

People use micro- all the time when referring to small things, even when they're not 10^-6. Microscope, microscale, microbrewery, VW microbus. Nano is more of the same, only smaller. Nanotechnology involves things that are smaller than we usually consider microscoping, even if the bits aren't exactly 10^-9 metres.

[not daSkeptic]

true but then why bother with science then? Actually I know the answer (marketing), but I am trying to come at this from the point of view that the defenders of the faith actually believe homeopathy works and aren't just tarting it up to scam people.

The use of scientific-sounding terminology in marketing works because people are wowed by it. Photovoltaic device sounds more impressive than solar panel. Perhaps all of the faithful, even those who produce the products, are susceptible to this phenomenon.

[hgc]

Because he's actually correct in using it to mean something very small?

People use micro- all the time when referring to small things, even when they're not 10^-6. Microscope, microscale, microbrewery, VW microbus. Nano is more of the same, only smaller. Nanotechnology involves things that are smaller than we usually consider microscoping, even if the bits aren't exactly 10^-9 metres.


It's all relative. Except that in some contexts, the micro/macro thing is precisely defined as can/can't see with naked eye.

The real problem with nano-pharmacology is the use of the word pharmacology.

[edd]

Thing is it isn't remotely close to nanoscale. I'd cut slack for 10^-12 or whatever but it's not at those sorts of dilutions. It's nanoscale nanoscaled and scaled down a lot more just for good measure.

[TheDaver]

I suspect that "nanopharmacology" is nothing more than an attempt to re-brand homoeopathy. If it needs that it must be in trouble.
But remember, it’s Dana Ullman we’re talking about here. Someone who probably almost definitely doesn’t possess the mental faculties to know when something’s actually needed like that.

[joobz]

Considering I do publish work that could actually be considered "Nanopharmacology", I am quite upset at the idea that someone could confuse it with homeopathy.

Primary point: the goal of nanoparticle drug delivery is to acheive therapeutic drug concentrations within cells for a given duration. IT is not about acheiving magical dilutions to cause opposite effects.

[Eos of the Eons]

Homeopathy is apharmacology.

"a" stands for no, not, lacking

[tesscaline]

Because he's actually correct in using it to mean something very small?

People use micro- all the time when referring to small things, even when they're not 10^-6. Microscope, microscale, microbrewery, VW microbus. Nano is more of the same, only smaller. Nanotechnology involves things that are smaller than we usually consider microscoping, even if the bits aren't exactly 10^-9 metres.Yes, I'm perfectly aware of the colloquial usage of the prefix. Discussing the colloquial usage doesn't really explain why being aware of a field of research and development that centers around the technical usage of the prefix makes the colloquial use (or misuse) more tolerable by woos.

[ElMondoHummus]

Homeopathy is apharmacology.

"a" stands for no, not, lacking

Maybe you ought to include an "nti". You know, "antipharmacology". ;):D

Although, we are sort of only dealing with the idealized, textbook homeopathy. I've found that there are many homeopathic "pills" (first example (http://www.amazon.com/Homeopathic-Stop-Smoking-Formula-Tablets/dp/B0019KBQOY))(second example (http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/184-2018157-6875501?ASIN=B001B9KO3W&AFID=Froogle&LNM=B001B9KO3W|Hylands_Homeopathic_Colic_Tablets_T ablets_125&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=B001B9KO3W&ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001)) and other non-solution type remedies and the like out there, the point being good luck figuring out the dilution of the mother tincture :boggled: (BTW, we've all also noticed that much that passes for "homeopathy" is really ill disguised and very ill researched herbal pharmocology, yes?). For all we know, some of these "remedies" may indeed be a substance that can be measured in the nanometer scale. Doesn't make it any more effective though. Anyway, the OP is right; "nano" has turned into the new woo buzzword. Only thing I think that's truly "nano" about most of it is the intellect behind it, but that's just my gripe...

[gtc]

This sort of woo reminds me of the 'quantum nano' face clothes I saw being sold on a street corner in our Chinatown a few years ago.

You know quantum nano face clothes have to be much better than ordinary nano face clothes.

[Alareth]

The article has been noticed by ORAC (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/homeopathy_as_nanopharmacology_the_only.php)

[boooeee]

lesterbud in the comments sums it up in a nutshell:

Really, I think the whole basis of homeopathy is:
1) People get sick
2) Most get better
3) This provides an opportunity for profit, without actually doing anything