More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[DiskoVilante]

Wow, I'm surprised this thread has reached a thousand posts. I'll tell my friends sbernie about it as I'm sure he hasn't checked up on this in weeks.

[Rolfe]

Try right-clicking and you should get paste as an option


Indeed, but that's not much use when the action you want to perform is "copy"!

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Since Roy did not address his Homeopathy paper in the Nature comment, I planned to ignore his post. My thought was along the lines That should light a fire under any scientist. I thought to send it now because 1- it may put pressure on Fisher to respond, and B- it is still a current event.

In the issue of Homeopathy under consideration, Rao et al (reference) published an article concerning, among other things, the UV-Vis spectroscopy of ethanol and ethanol-based homeopathic preparations. Their reference spectrum of "pure ethanol" is obviously highly contaminated, if it even is based on ethanol. The spectra of their homeopathic preparations appear to be spectra of ordinary, potable ethanol taken from different sources (i.e., production lots). We have sent a letter to the editor (Peter Fisher) describing these errors in more detail.


I am open to suggestion; but I still defer to Rolfe. We should have a uniform front.


I had a draft list of questions for Roy, however having read JJM's suggestion, I'm totally convinced his is superior. I know of no reason why JJM should defer to me :D , but hey, go with it.

Now.

That's an order!

Rolfe.

[JJM]

I had a draft list of questions for Roy, however having read JJM's suggestion, I'm totally convinced his is superior. I know of no reason why JJM should defer to me :D , but hey, go with it.

Now.

That's an order!

Rolfe.Aye, Aye! I go, and it is done ... (held for approval, there.)

[Rolfe]

A quaint old idea invented to test homeopathy...

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/trial_records/19th_Century/lohner/lohner-commentary.html


I'd never come across that before. Fascinating. Thanks a lot!

Given all that, and Holmes and his colleagues just a few years later, why are these guys still around in 2007?

There's only one answer - "there must be something in it"! :D

Rolfe.

[Mashuna]

Given all that, and Holmes and his colleagues just a few years later, why are these guys still around in 2007?

There's only one answer - "there must be something in it"! :D

Rolfe.

There's gold in them thar hills 30c preparations of belladonna. Gold, I tells ya!

[Wudang]

Indeed, but that's not much use when the action you want to perform is "copy"!

Sorry. Hold left-click and drag to highlight the text you want to copy then right-click and copy should appear as an option.

[Professor Yaffle]

Sorry. Hold left-click and drag to highlight the text you want to copy then right-click and copy should appear as an option.

Try it in the reply box. It doesn't.

[wilsontown]

Aye, Aye! I go, and it is done ... (held for approval, there.)

Excellent stuff. I hadn't been following this thread, it seemed too long. Good to see. I wonder, what are the chances of getting any response from the authors?

[Rolfe]

Hard to say. Roy, like many homoeopaths, seems very keen to butt in and rail against perceived general criticism, but whether he'll be so keen to address specific, detailed and justified criticism remains to be seen.

Rolfe.

[Wudang]

Try it in the reply box. It doesn't.

It does in Firefox. I should have checked with IE.

[Cuddles]

It does in Firefox. I should have checked with IE.

Works in both for me.

[Pipirr]

And in Opera...

[Mojo]

Dana is looking for reviewers for The Homeopathic Revolution (http://otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=9047). As most of you probably know, my forthcoming book will be published in
mid-October. One magazine has already written me saying that they are
looking for someone to review it for their publication, and we expect many
others will want to receive reviews.

If you are open to doing so, please let me know. We can send you a
complementary copy if you live in the U.S.

Would anyone in the U.S. care to oblige?



I'm not sure what the "complementary copy" is supposed to complement.

[Blue Wode]

The Quackometer has a great critique of the promotional bumph for the new Dana (8 canards) book:


Now, it is a usual quack's trick, when you have little scientific evidence to back up your claims, to fall back on celebrity endorsements. This book is a big list of celebrities, politicians and other prominent figures who have allegedly been duped into using homeopathy. His number one claim is,

Charles Darwin could not have written Origin of Species without the homeopathic treatment that he received from Dr. Gully (based on Darwin's own letters!).

Read on….

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html




More about “the most important work” of Dana Ullman’s life (along with a list of the celebrity endorsements) here...

http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/

including this modest prediction...


The media LOVE to report about our cultural heroes, and this book will give them so much unique information that the media will be reporting about information from this book for years, if not decades. Help us to inform the media about homeopathy!

(My bold)



We’ll do our best, but not in the way you’re hoping for.

[Mojo]

He seems to be very proud of this thread: he's directed (http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=8929) people to it from otherhealth as well as from Respectful Insolence (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-463826).

Maybe we'll see some of the comments here used in his publicity!

[fls]

He seems to be very proud of this thread: he's directed (http://www.otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=8929) people to it from otherhealth as well as from Respectful Insolence (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/05/doctor_strange_and_the_only_way_to_make.php#commen t-463826).

Maybe we'll see some of the comments here used in his publicity!

Hehehe. His email name is "dullman".
</Beavis and Butthead>

I have to say, though, it's disappointing to see that he does not have enough understanding of the topic to realize how thoroughly he was trashed. And I am still quite disappointed at how profoundly dishonest he is. He seems to be prepared to go ahead and publish what he now knows to be lies.

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

First you say this:

...I have to say, though, it's disappointing to see that he does not have enough understanding of the topic to realize how thoroughly he was trashed.

And then you follow with this: And I am still quite disappointed at how profoundly dishonest he is. He seems to be prepared to go ahead and publish what he now knows to be lies.


Perhaps he just does not realize that during the trashing it was revealed he was writing lies. He seems detached from reality.

But I'm willing to accept he is a professional liar.

[fls]

Perhaps he just does not realize that during the trashing it was revealed he was writing lies. He seems detached from reality.

But I'm willing to accept he is a professional liar.

I don't think he understood that his defense of the research for homeopathy was trashed. I do think he must understand that what he wrote about Holmes and Darwin was wrong. That part does not require any technical knowledge, after all.

Linda

[Mojo]

Anyway, Linda, HCN, I think you're both in the U.S. Are either of you going to take Dana up on his offer of a "complementary" review copy?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Anyway, Linda, HCN, I think you're both in the U.S. Are either of you going to take Dana up on his offer of a "complementary" review copy?

I'd prefer something softer and more absorbent.

[Mojo]

Although some medical historians have referred to Gully as a hydrotherapist, this is just the historians way of writing homeopathy out of history. Gully considered himself to be a homeopath, and while his staff provided various treatments to Darwin, Gully's treatment was primarily homeopathic medicines.Note that in the letters above, Darwin refers to Gully's regime as "the Water Cure". Note that he describes Gully as acting as a "Hydropathist", who needed a second "doctor", one "Dr. Chapman", to provide homoeopathic treatment for his daughter. Note the description of Gully's regime in this letter (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1234.html), from which you quoted the last time you told your Darwin story.


And, I've noticed that someone who "JamesGully" might consider to be a reliable source has recently posted something that may throw some light on whether Gully should be considered to have been a homoeopath: This practitioner may also be prescribing homeopathic medicines, but this doesn't mean that s/he is a homeopath.

Source (http://www.hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/alan-bennett-and-homeopathy.html#comment-1543382879189208708)

[Chris Haynes]

Also, Dana Ullman/JamesGully has been asked again what issues he had with Orac's analysis of the COPD study in Chest:
http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/dana-ullman-mph-gives-me-some-homework.html#comment-4272104499042131124

[JamesGully]

In all due respect, your and Orac's emails are hardly worthy of a response. Either you didn't read the study on homeopathy and COPD or you have little understanding of statistics. The very minor and statistically insignificant (!) differences between the treatment and the placebo groups is a totally inadequate "explanation" for the SUBSTANTIAL differences in their results. These results showing efficacy of a homeopathic medicine was way beyond "statistical significance."

And yes, the word "homeopathic" is not in the title of the article because researchers have found that editors discriminate against good research on homeopathy...just as the people on this list have a knee-jerk reaction to homeopathic everything, even though the majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies are still in the molecular range. But heck, this fact doesn't stop the sloppy thinking of the anti-homeopathic skeptics were use a broad paintbrush to attack everything homeopathic.

And yet, you think of yourselves as defenders of science! Whooops.

If you or Orac still feel that your explanation of the COPD study is valid, please send your letter to the editor of CHEST to see if they consider it worthy.

As for your or anyone's wonderings about the real James Manby Gully, he himself considered himself a homeopath, as have most Darwin scholars (sadly, there are not too many Darwin scholars here). Yes, there is some irony here (whoops again).

[Chris Haynes]

In all due respect, your and Orac's emails are hardly worthy of a response. ....

When did I ever email you?


If you think Orac's analysis was flawed, then go back to the blog posting and tell him exactly why:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php

Respond to him by posting a reply to that blog posting. It would seem you lack the knowledge and willingness to actually engage is a real online debate. It is not that Orac's blog posting is "hardly worth a response", but that you actually have NO response (http://www.metrolyrics.com/lyrics/49968/Monty_Python/Brave_Sir_Robin_Ran_Away).

The fellow who did have a reply published in the Chest (http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/131/2/635)also has a blog, you may want to tell him why his reasoning is flawed:
http://dcscience.net/

[wilsontown]

Part of the problem here seems to be a misunderstanding of statistical significance. Indeed, the results of the Chest study were statistically significant. But that significance tells you nothing about methodological flaws in the study. That the treatment and placebo groups were not equivalent is a flaw in the study. The question is, did that flaw affect the results? As Orac wrote, we don't know because the data are not presented in a way such that we can find out. But it's certainly a danger signal that the results may not be all they're cracked up to be, regardless of their statistical significance.

[wilsontown]

Oh, I should also say that someone who says that p=0.008 "means that there was a 99.2% chance that this treatment was effective" should probably refrain from accusing others of not understanding statistics.

[fls]

In all due respect, your and Orac's emails are hardly worthy of a response. Either you didn't read the study on homeopathy and COPD or you have little understanding of statistics. The very minor and statistically insignificant (!) differences between the treatment and the placebo groups is a totally inadequate "explanation" for the SUBSTANTIAL differences in their results. These results showing efficacy of a homeopathic medicine was way beyond "statistical significance."

You make several common errors. The results do not show efficacy of a homeopathic medicine. They show the two groups were different at the end. Now, clinical trials are usually set up so that the only reasonable explanation for any differences is because of the effect of the tested treatment. Since nothing's perfect, there can be other explanations for why the groups are different, but concluding that the treatment led to the difference depends upon the treatment being the most reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, while "this homeopathic treatment had an effect" can be considered one of the explanations, without any other substantiating evidence, it cannot be considered the most reasonable explanation. Especially since the randomization process led to an important difference between the groups at the start of the trial That's mistake number one.

Your second error is in confusing "statistical significance" with a measurement of the size of the effect.

Your third error is in confusing type I and type II error. You make the claim that the important difference between the groups at the start of the trial (sicker people in the placebo group) was statistically insignificant. However, a quick power calculation shows that there was a 70% chance of missing a significant difference. Hardly reassuring. Especially since a small difference would be expected to have a very large effect on outcome in this situation.

So does this assumption of arrogance whilst making multiple errors go over well with your colleagues? It would explain a lot.

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

This comment illustrated why the groups were not equivalent:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php#comment-485918


Of the two groups the "placebo" group had more severely ill patients to begin with... with 9 instead of 5 patients on home oxygen therapy... and when the group size is only 25, that is pretty significant.

Also, it seems that more of the "placebo" patients were in a higher catagory of illness severity.

They "stacked the deck", working deliberately to get more favorable numbers for the homeopathic remedy.

That comment was noted here: http://www.dcscience.net/improbable.html#chest (which has a pdf link to the comments on that Chest article).

[JamesGully]

Does anyone out there know anything about the Nernst equation?

On March 10, 1994, NATURE published an article called "Less is More," in their Daedalus column in which the author suggests that homeopathy may be explained by this electrochemical effect.

As the author says, "The Nernst equation asserts that this potential grows montonically more negative as the concentration of the solution declines."

I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't think that "intelligent conversation" will be possible. After giving up on Googling for "Nernst equation". The best I could understand it, is that it seems to be a sort of reverse EMF.

I then Googled <Daedalus column Nature> based on a Small Voice in my head saying, "Isn't this column supposed to be a joke?" "Why yes, Small Voice it is."

To quote from one site at random:

David Jones is a true genius and a hero of the Athanasius Kircher Society. Between 1964 and 1996 he wrote the “Daedalus” column for New Scientist and later Nature. Each week he would propose a different completely implausible scheme based on entirely plausible scientific principles — like coating the moon in magnesium oxide to make it twenty times brighter.

http://www.kirchersociety.org/blog/2006/02/14/126/ since you ask.

Can you homeopathically shorten your leg when it has been stretched? Maybe a highly diluted solution of magnesium oxide?

[Mojo]

But it was in NATURE! Those capital letters don't come cheap!

[Mojo]

In all due respect, your and Orac's emails are hardly worthy of a response.


By the way, have you found that url yet?
Get a chance to read it. I don't have the URL right now, but I still assert that this response blows Orac out of the water, especially Orac is simply the theoretician, while Frass and his colleagues are the scientists and researchers.


Maybe it fell down the back of your sofa, or your dog ate it.

[Mojo]

As for your or anyone's wonderings about the real James Manby Gully, he himself considered himself a homeopath, as have most Darwin scholars.


Got any evidence for that? Remember that, according to Dana Ullman, the fact that a "practitioner may also be prescribing homeopathic medicines, [...] doesn't mean that s/he is a homeopath".

[Chris Haynes]

...I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?

How about answering the question of why you think Orac's analysis of the Chest article is incorrect...

Wouldn't that be more intelligent than handwaving about electrochemical bits you know nothing about.

[Professor Yaffle]

I remember Daedelus from when he was in the Guardian. Pure genius!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Does anyone out there know anything about the Nernst equation?

On March 10, 1994, NATURE published an article called "Less is More," in their Daedalus column in which the author suggests that homeopathy may be explained by this electrochemical effect.

As the author says, "The Nernst equation asserts that this potential grows montonically more negative as the concentration of the solution declines."

I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?

http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~cchieh/cact/c123/nernsteq.html

And have you seen a battery with infinite voltage?

Based on the equations and the principles outlined in that link show why it doesn't happen.

Hint: taking an idealised model and applying it literally to extreme situations is not appropriate.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Second hint: Try applying that equation to a practically constructable cell taking into account the various factors that complicate the idealised situation.

[Gr8wight]

Does anyone out there know anything about the Nernst equation?

On March 10, 1994, NATURE published an article called "Less is More," in their Daedalus column in which the author suggests that homeopathy may be explained by this electrochemical effect.

As the author says, "The Nernst equation asserts that this potential grows montonically more negative as the concentration of the solution declines."

I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?

Perhaps you could suggest a plausible mechanism that would explain how reindeer could fly while you're at it...

[flume]

Does anyone out there know anything about the Nernst equation?

On March 10, 1994, NATURE published an article called "Less is More," in their Daedalus column in which the author suggests that homeopathy may be explained by this electrochemical effect.

As the author says, "The Nernst equation asserts that this potential grows montonically more negative as the concentration of the solution declines."

I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?
The author is trying to make an amusing spin on the idea of increasing homeopathic dilutions having a physiological effect. He talks about the Nernst equation because it has a concentration term in the denominator, and because it is used to describe membrane potentials. By decreasing concentration in the denominator term - having a greater dilution - you would increase the value of the equation. But you can't achieve a dilution by giving a remedy. (I suppose you could imagine creating a dilution by giving a chelator, but the more dilute the chelator, the less of a dilution in the chemical of interest.) So the author goes on to imagine that homeopathic remedies contain traces of exotic minerals as impurities, which have their effect because the concentration of the exotic minerals is so low naturally in the body. But now the imagined remedies are not acting by dilution but by the actual presence of materials, and the more material, the greater the imagined effect. So his mock explanation for the effect of homeopathic dilution doesn't actually describe an effect by dilution. It's just a bit of silliness.

[flume]

(The equation to use would be the Goldman-Hodgkin-Katz equation.)

[Rasmus55]

Of course, the very sad, sad reality is that we in the U.S. are headed for an explosion of homeopathic medicine. It is inevitable that this country will be sentenced to socialized medicine; this is likely to happen after the next elections. Socialized medicine is the best ally homeopathy can have; take, for instance, the case of the U.K. No less than five (5) fully operational homeopathic "hospitals" all of which are financed by the state socialized medical system. It appears, for some reason uknown to me, that socialist healthcare types and nut-jobs tend to believe in and support one another. Other countries who have difficulty with this include South Africa, German, and Sweden. In the U.S., there is also massive support for both socialized medicine and bogus quackery in a variety of huge unions including the NEA. I don't know why teachers always seem to be into these idiotic beliefs. In any case, we're fighting a losing battle; homeopathy will win out. It will become an accepted part of the healthcare system as a "cheap" alternative; money will flow to them like water. There is no accounting for taste or belief.

[Mojo]

Socialized medicine is the best ally homeopathy can have; take, for instance, the case of the U.K. No less than five (5) fully operational homeopathic "hospitals" all of which are financed by the state socialized medical system.

***cough***

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94636
http://dcscience.net/?p=167

I kind of like the idea of illness or accident not bankrupting me, BTW.

[Rasmus55]

***cough***

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94636
http://dcscience.net/?p=167

I kind of like the idea of illness or accident not bankrupting me, BTW.


This is excellent news of which I was not aware! Thanks for posting. Incidentally, I like the idea of your illness/accident not bankrupting me through horrific taxation. That is, each person is resonpsible for himself/herself. Neverthless, I will avoid the political discussion as this thread is focused on homeopathy rather than socialism v. capitalism. The support, however, for woo beliefs in the U.S. amongst the major labor unions and others who will usher in socialized medicine is quite strong. Healing herbs, crystals, magic water, indian sweat lodges; you name it. I strongly expect that such nonesense will have to run its course here once we are stricken with socialized medicine despite the obvious and painful examples apparent in other countries. My compliments to the UK for cleaning house.

[JamesGully]

Nernst equation? Either silliness or a potential partial explanation from someone who many of you recognize as a genius. The homeopathic nanodoses may indeed be more able to diffuse through cell membranes than crude doses of a medicine, and when you consider that homeopathy is based on RESONANCE (what homeopaths refer to as "the law of similars") and when you consider the hypersensitivity that occurs with resonance, we may have something here.

And as the Beatles once said, "here's another one for you all..."

Below is further evidence of the amazing psychic powers of mice. Mice seem to be able to elicit a poweful placebo effect if (and only if) they can psychically determine that they are part of the treatment group, as compared to the less psychic mice who were given a placebo. It seems that many people on this list believe in the power of intuitive mice rather than the less probable possiblity that homeopathic doses of arsenic trioxide (a very common homeopathic medicine!) can elicit specific biochemical processes...read it and weep...

There are now many studies testing homeopathic arsenic trioxide in animal and human models...and heck, even conventional oncologists have jumped on board, though with not-as-diluted doses of it.


J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2007 Sep;54(7):370-6.Links
A potentized homeopathic drug, arsenicum album 200, can ameliorate genotoxicity induced by repeated injections of arsenic trioxide in mice.Banerjee P, Biswas SJ, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani 741235, India.

Groundwater arsenic contamination has become a menacing global problem. No drug is available until now to combat chronic arsenic poisoning. To examine if a potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum Album-200, can effectively combat chronic arsenic toxicity induced by repeated injections of Arsenic trioxide in mice, the following experimental design was adopted. Mice (Mus musculus) were injected subcutaneously with 0.016% arsenic trioxide at the rate of 1 ml/100 g body weight, at an interval of 7 days until they were killed at day 30, 60, 90 or 120 and were divided into three groups: (i) one receiving a daily dose of Arsenicum Album-200 through oral administration, (ii) one receiving the same dose of diluted succussed alcohol (Alcohol-200) and (iii) another receiving neither drug, nor succussed alcohol. The remedy or the placebo, as the case may be, was fed from the next day onwards after injection until the day before the next injection, and the cycle was repeated until the mice were killed. Two other control groups were also maintained: one receiving only normal diet, and the other receiving normal diet and succussed alcohol. Several toxicity assays, such as cytogenetical (chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, mitotic index, sperm head anomaly) and biochemical (acid and alkaline phosphatases, lipid peroxidation), were periodically made. Compared with controls, the drug fed mice showed reduced toxicity at statistically significant levels in respect of all the parameters studied, thereby indicating protective potentials of the homeopathic drug against chronic arsenic poisoning.

PMID: 17718811 [PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17718811&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

[flume]

Nernst equation? Either silliness or a potential partial explanation from someone who many of you recognize as a genius. The homeopathic nanodoses may indeed be more able to diffuse through cell membranes than crude doses of a medicine, and when you consider that homeopathy is based on RESONANCE (what homeopaths refer to as "the law of similars") and when you consider the hypersensitivity that occurs with resonance, we may have something here.Seriously? Or maybe you are having fun with skeptics here.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Nernst equation? Either silliness or a potential partial explanation from someone who many of you recognize as a genius.

Huh? It was a joke. You it cited literally as if it was useful.

Bizarre.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Nernst equation? Either silliness or a potential partial explanation from someone who many of you recognize as a genius. The homeopathic nanodoses may indeed be more able to diffuse through cell membranes than crude doses of a medicine, and when you consider that homeopathy is based on RESONANCE (what homeopaths refer to as "the law of similars") and when you consider the hypersensitivity that occurs with resonance, we may have something here.

And as the Beatles once said, "here's another one for you all..."

Below is further evidence of the amazing psychic powers of mice. Mice seem to be able to elicit a poweful placebo effect if (and only if) they can psychically determine that they are part of the treatment group, as compared to the less psychic mice who were given a placebo. It seems that many people on this list believe in the power of intuitive mice rather than the less probable possiblity that homeopathic doses of arsenic trioxide (a very common homeopathic medicine!) can elicit specific biochemical processes...read it and weep...

There are now many studies testing homeopathic arsenic trioxide in animal and human models...and heck, even conventional oncologists have jumped on board, though with not-as-diluted doses of it.


J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2007 Sep;54(7):370-6.Links
A potentized homeopathic drug, arsenicum album 200, can ameliorate genotoxicity induced by repeated injections of arsenic trioxide in mice.Banerjee P, Biswas SJ, Belon P, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani, Kalyani 741235, India.

Groundwater arsenic contamination has become a menacing global problem. No drug is available until now to combat chronic arsenic poisoning. To examine if a potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum Album-200, can effectively combat chronic arsenic toxicity induced by repeated injections of Arsenic trioxide in mice, the following experimental design was adopted. Mice (Mus musculus) were injected subcutaneously with 0.016% arsenic trioxide at the rate of 1 ml/100 g body weight, at an interval of 7 days until they were killed at day 30, 60, 90 or 120 and were divided into three groups: (i) one receiving a daily dose of Arsenicum Album-200 through oral administration, (ii) one receiving the same dose of diluted succussed alcohol (Alcohol-200) and (iii) another receiving neither drug, nor succussed alcohol. The remedy or the placebo, as the case may be, was fed from the next day onwards after injection until the day before the next injection, and the cycle was repeated until the mice were killed. Two other control groups were also maintained: one receiving only normal diet, and the other receiving normal diet and succussed alcohol. Several toxicity assays, such as cytogenetical (chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, mitotic index, sperm head anomaly) and biochemical (acid and alkaline phosphatases, lipid peroxidation), were periodically made. Compared with controls, the drug fed mice showed reduced toxicity at statistically significant levels in respect of all the parameters studied, thereby indicating protective potentials of the homeopathic drug against chronic arsenic poisoning.

PMID: 17718811 [PubMed - in process]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17718811&ordinalpos=13&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I might consider this if I was a mouse with arsenic poisoning but if I were a hunam being with "upset stomach, vomiting, diarrhea. Esp. Hay fever. Food poisoning and diarrhea", I think I would question what the relevance is. :confused:

Are you sure you are a professional on top of the research in your field? I would have thougth the paper at the following site was more supportive of your case than the one you referenced. Though I suggest the sample sizes are rather small.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375236

And, as the Rolling Stones once sang, "You can't always get what you want . . ."

[Professor Yaffle]

PS when I called Daedelus a genius, I meant comedy genius...

[MRC_Hans]

OMG, just noticed this....

Does anyone out there know anything about the Nernst equation?

On March 10, 1994, NATURE published an article called "Less is More," in their Daedalus column in which the author suggests that homeopathy may be explained by this electrochemical effect.

As the author says, "The Nernst equation asserts that this potential grows montonically more negative as the concentration of the solution declines."

I'm trying to create intelligent conversation. Anyone want to try that?

Do I see right? Is JamesGully in all seriousness referencing the Daedalus column in favor of homeopathy???

:eek: ...:covereyes ..... :o ..... :blush: ...... :p ......:D .....
:dl: :dl:

....

Oh, boy, you just made my day.
Oh, dear, good thing I hadn't fetched my coffee yet.

Hans (wipes eyes)

ETA: And he asks for intelligent conversation :roll: .....

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Do I see right? Is JamesGully in all seriousness referencing the Daedalus column in favor of homeopathy???

I'm afraid to say he is.

Maybe Alt. Med. contains so much that is laughable that people lose the ability to spot deliberate jokes. I've aid this before, I've never come across such a po-faced bunch.

[Rolfe]

They don't seem to have the capacity to understand jokes, or to realise when one is being made, or to laugh at anything funny directed against themselves or anybody else. "Daedalus" would have a fit if he thought anyone was taking his little pleasantry seriously! The idea that anyone is so scientifically illiterate that he can't understand the joke, and even worse, thinks it's a serious comment, is simply appalling. The idea that such a person puts himself about as a sort of medical guru is just risible.

Nor do they have any critical faculties when looking at published work (I use "work" in its loosest sense). James/Dana, you still haven't offered any comment on the critique we offered of Rustum Roy's UV spectroscopy publication (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2909491#post2909491). You accused us of having no "scientific chops". That post contains a pukka letter to the editor of the journal, signed by 3 PhDs and a nearly-PhD, demolishing Roy's presented data. We asked for your reaction. So far, none has been forthcoming.

You see, every time we look in detail at a publication which is being lauded by the homoeopathic community, in an area where we have particular expertise, we find the same thing. It's rubbish. Now not everyone is an expert in every aspect of science that has been used to prop up the mouldering corpse that is homoeopathy, so not everyone can critique every paper at the drop of a hat. But every time we assemble expertise in the right area, in this case UV spectroscopy, we find something so incompetently executed and presented that the possibility of deliberate misdirection or even fraud presents itself rather forcefully. Not one paper have I ever seen where the relevant experts were left saying, well, that's interesting....

Grow up, why don't you?

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

Rolfe,

They seem to be an incredulous bunch.

The idiocy of this one is a sight to behold!...
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=iM6KDhMAAACYRy7dTaFv86QjevNDY0JfW Mj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww

He refuses to answer simple answers, and just keeps resorting to "this is about a homeopathic diet, why are you posting on other stuff... like whether homeopathy works or syphilis?".

It is really quite amusing.

[wilsontown]

Judging by what Ullman wrote on my blog (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/dana-ullman-mph-gives-me-some-homework.html), the only response he will have to criticism of Roy's paper is that Roy has a PhD and has "gotten 18 articles published in a journal called NATURE", so what do we know? I doubt any useful comments on our critique of Roy's paper will be forthcoming.

Since we're dealing with arguments from authority, it's tempting to just write 'Dana Ullman MPH, wilsontown BSc, PhD' and have done with it...

[Rolfe]

Judging by what Ullman wrote on my blog (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/dana-ullman-mph-gives-me-some-homework.html), the only response he will have to criticism of Roy's paper is that Roy has a PhD and has "gotten 18 articles published in a journal called NATURE", so what do we know? I doubt any useful comments on our critique of Roy's paper will be forthcoming.

Since we're dealing with arguments from authority, it's tempting to just write 'Dana Ullman MPH, wilsontown BSc, PhD' and have done with it...


Assuming Pipirr's thesis is acccepted, which I imagine might be the case by now, that letter of ours was signed by FOUR PhDs. In relevant fields, too - I for one studied UV spectoscopy and use it every day I work. JJM knows more than I do about it. And so on.

So, where does that leave Roy's credentials? Isn't it about time Dana started looking at the arguments rather than the degrees? (And as you say, if we start that one, Dana himself comes up woefully short.)

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Dana Ullman MPH


What is a Monster of Public Health anyway?

[flume]

Hello, JamesGully. If you're still reading here, was your curiosity about the Nernst equation as mentioned in the Daedalus essay satisfied by the answers here? If you are still thinking it might be a potential part-explanantion, you could probably get some more detailed answers.

[malbui]

Do I see right? Is JamesGully in all seriousness referencing the Daedalus column in favor of homeopathy???


I'm waiting for the next installment... he finds an unfunny cartoon from an 1894 edition of Punch magazine and claims it as unchallengeable evidence of the effectiveness of homeopathy.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He's run away again, hasn't he.

Oh, well. I declare we won.

Turnpike Lane Knip Major and double.

[Mojo]

This is just too funny! Ullman has shown up on the Grauniad's blog (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/11/homeopathy_have_your_say.html#comment-789811). Not only has he completely failed to spot the joke in the Little Black Duck's response to Winterson (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/11/jeanette-winterson-in-blistering-attack.html), but having complained about "mis-information", he then can't resist plugging his book in the same paragraph! Then, these skeptics attack homeopathy with mis-information. It is a tad ironic that the "quackometer" website even had the audacity to refer to Jeanette Winterson's "In Defense of Homeopathy" as a "blistering attack on it. These skeptics spin and spin and spin, but they do not accurately report research. You have to ask yourself why do they never mention the below studies...(please note that all of the references below are available at my article, Why Homeopathy Makes Sense and Works, [...] and even more research is in my new book, "The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy"

:dl:

Has he any self-awareness at all?

[Michael C]

This is just too funny! Ullman has shown up on the Grauniad's blog (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/11/homeopathy_have_your_say.html#comment-789811). Not only has he completely failed to spot the joke in the Little Black Duck's response to Winterson (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/11/jeanette-winterson-in-blistering-attack.html), but having complained about "mis-information", he then can't resist plugging his book in the same paragraph!

:bearlaugh: It's nice to see that Dana can still provide us with entertainment. That's an excellent article by the Canard Noir. The article about Charles Darwin and Homeopathy (http://quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html) is also well worth reading.

[Mojo]

The article about Charles Darwin and Homeopathy (http://quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html) is also well worth reading.


It's linked to from the Grauniad thread as well. Coincidentally right after another post of Dana's plugging his book.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I've started another DU thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3187237

(DU? Certainly Depleted something)

[JamesGully]

Wow...I commited a "crime" of promoting my book. Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

What is so ironic is that no one has the capacity to admit they may have been wrong. It is not worth talking to you.

Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research. Whoops.

Superficial reviews of research and history is the order of the day on this site. Sad and true. Good-bye.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Wow...I commited a "crime" of promoting my book. Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

What is so ironic is that no one has the capacity to admit they may have been wrong. It is not worth talking to you.

Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research. Whoops.

Superficial reviews of research and history is the order of the day on this site. Sad and true. Good-bye.

Can this be nominated as the most ironic post of the week? Month? Quarter? Etc. . . ? :boggled:

[Rolfe]

Uh, you'll have to look and see how long ago are his posts where he calls us "intellectually dishonest" while steadfastly refusing to alter passages in his book which had been conclusively shown to be untrue.

These were better.

This is your thread, Dana (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3187237), should you choose to exhibit some backbone.

Rolfe.

[malbui]

Can this be nominated as the most ironic post of the week? Month? Quarter? Etc. . . ? :boggled:


I've tried three irony meters on it and they've all burst. I'm calling in some favours from guys in the industry to bring some heavy-duty gear into play as I really need to know how ironic this is. My current guess would be somewhere over 30 megaullmans, but without the right equipment I really can't tell.

[Drudgewire]

Be careful because this book IS dangerous.
Only to the idiots who take it to heart. :p

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I've tried three irony meters on it and they've all burst. I'm calling in some favours from guys in the industry to bring some heavy-duty gear into play as I really need to know how ironic this is. My current guess would be somewhere over 30 megaullmans, but without the right equipment I really can't tell.

I'd be really worried in opening up a hole in the space time continum myself. Just make certain you stand waaay back. ;)

[JamesGully]

How do you KNOW what I have changed or have not changed in my book?

As a matter of fact, I did change my reference to OW Holmes' opinion of Benjamin Rush. Holmes still misunderstood homeopathy and shows an embarrassingly ill-informed and uninformed attitude towards the subject. He prided himself on his non-communication with homeopaths.

Is someone here going to defend Holmes' review of Andral's "research?" Come on, defend it! Andral's "research" is the only experimental data discussed in this essay, and it is total garbage. But heck, you defend garbage when you agree with the outcome (as you all have done with the Shang article in the Lancet, 2005).

And you have the audacity to call yourself good skeptics and/or defenders of science? Whooops.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Dana

I really don't what goes on in that shiny shiny head of yours, but please insert into it this one datum. None of us cares what those historical and famous people think about homeopathy. They have no special right to an opinion on the subject. It is quite bizarre, though typical of homeopaths' mode of thought that you would consider this a worthwhile project. Maybe as an insight into why some people believed stupid things, but you really seem to think that their opinions carry evidential weight.

The only reason anyone bothered to comment on these issues is because some of us knew enough about them to spot the lies and misrepresentations and so it was worth teasing you with them.

But please understand that no one here cares about your book.

We'd be much more interested in you responding to the straightforward question posed to you in your other eponymous thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3187237).

I e-mailed somone earlier today and mentioned that the Grauniad thread had reached its time limit and predicted you'd show up here again. It's nice to be right in the small things as well as the big things.

I spend less of my day Googling my own name, but it obviously gives you pleasure.

[Drudgewire]

And you have the audacity to call yourself good skeptics and/or defenders of science? Whooops.
Yes. Yes we do. Funny how not getting science confused with pseudoscience allows us that luxury. :p

[Rolfe]

Dana, you still have shown no evidence of any point that Holmes misunderstood about homoeopathy. Not one. I laughed myself all the way down the length of the Adriatic (on a cruise last month) thinking that you really seemed to imagine that Holmes was stating that a homoeopath would use a volume of alcohol 10,000 that of this sea to make a 17C potency. (Well, it was raining, and there's only so many times you can go for a swim in one day.)

You have not shown any evidence that Holmes prided himself on non-communication with homoeopaths (hint, general professional guidelines are no clue as to his personal behaviour, less still his attitude).

You have asserted certain facts about Andral in his later life, but have produced no evidence or citations for these assertions. Till you do that, there's nothing in Holmes's account of Andral's work that needs defending.

And by the way, have you any opinion on the total demolition job done on this forum on that pathetically poor paper by Rao et al. that you were so chuffed about earlier? The letter we wrote pointing out the errors has been accepted for publication by Homeopathy - well, signed by 4 PhDs, you know. When did you last have anything published in that journal, by the way?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research.


When you introduced Darwin and his alleged support for homoeopathy to this thread, you said: Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...


Now, Darwin's correspondence is available on the web, and we were able to find the very letters that you quoted. We found that they did not say what you claim they say (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2700512#post2700512).

We found that Darwin described Gully as a "Hydropathist" who needed a second doctor to act as a homoeopath, and that Darwin referred to Gully's treatments as "the Water Cure".

We found that a letter from which you quoted the words "I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated" in such a way as to give the impression that he attributed this to homoeopathy actually said "I am now not at home (though I have so dated this letter) but have come to Malvern for two months to try the cold water cure, and I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated."

We found that another letter from which you quoted a brief mention of homoeopathy also detailed the rest of the treatments Gully prescribed for Darwin. Note that Darwin describes this as his hydropathical diary. As you say you want my hydropathical diary, I will give it youf1 —though tomorrow it is to change to a certain extent.— 1⁄4 before 7. get up, & am scrubbed with rough towel in cold water for 2 or 3 minutes, which after the few first days, made & makes me very like a lobster— I have a washerman, a very nice person, & he scrubs behind, whilst I scrub in front.— drink a tumbler of water & get my clothes on as quick as possible & walk for 20 minutes—f2 I cd. walk further, but I find it tires me afterwards— I like all this very much.— At same time I put on a compress, which is a broad wet folded linen covered by mackintosh & which is “refreshed”—ie dipt in cold water every 2 hours & I wear it all day, except for about 2 hours after midday dinner; I don't perceive much effect from this of any kind.— After my walk, shave & wash & get my breakfast, which was to have been exclusively toast with meat or egg, but he has allowed me a little milk to sop the stale toast in. At no time must I take any sugar, butter, spices tea bacon or anything good.—f3 At 12 oclock I put my feet for 10 minutes in cold water with a little mustard & they are violently rubbed by my man; the coldness makes my feet ache much, but upon the whole my feet are certainly less cold than formerly.— Walk for 20 minutes & dine at one.— He has relaxed a little about my dinner & says I may try plain pudding, if I am sure it lessens sickness.—

After dinner lie down & try to go to sleep for one hour.— At 5 olock feet in cold water—drink cold water & walk as before— Supper same as breakfast at 6 oclock.— I have had much sickness this week, but certainly I have felt much stronger & the sickness has depressed me much less.— Tomorrow I am to be packed at 6 oclock A.M for 1 & 1⁄2 hour in Blanket, with hot bottle to my feet & then rubbed with cold dripping sheet;f4 but I do not know anything about this.— I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.You only quoted the last sentence.

We found that a year and a half after you claimed that Darwin had attributed his recovery to homoeopathy, he wrote this: You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things.


There was nothing in the letters you quoted, or in any other letters we found, that supported your contention that Darwin attributed his recovery to homoeopathy, and, of course, no evidence whatsoever that he wouldn't have been able to write The Origin... were it not for homoeopathy. Remember: these letters were the very place where you claimed that we would "read about this story". This is not a question of "superficial research"; it is a question of the sources you chose to rely on not saying what you claimed they did.

If you have some other letters or other writings of Darwin's that support your case, please post references or links for them. If not, I trust that you also removed the references to Darwin's belief in homoeopathy from your book.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Thanks for that Mojo and Rolfe, I'd forgotten how gross Ullman's distortions of the truth were. It's really quite brazen

[Garrette]

Besides finding this thread highly informative regarding the scam that is homeopathy, I also find it intriguing how similar are the deceitful practices of JamesGully and DOC in all his Christianity threads. Will we now find a Pseudoscience Gene to complement the God Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene)?

[Mister Earl]

Hey, James. If I ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping aids, what would happen to me? Are you willing to make a large wager on it?

[steenkh]

Hey, James. If I ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping aids, what would happen to me? Are you willing to make a large wager on it?
Probably not. Most homoeopaths think that the remedy magically what it is supposed to do, and it will never harm you - except if you are participating in a proving, in which case you will get lots of strange symptoms.

[Mojo]

They also say that any number of pills taken at the same time still counts as a single dose - it's the potency (i.e. the number of dilutions and succussions) that determines the size of the "effect".

[steenkh]

But on the other hand, it often happens if you debate with homoeopaths that they ask you to take some pills of their favourite remedy, and surely you will see some ghastly effect, but you asked for it!

If you actually take the pills they will not believe you took it, and then they will claim that you got it from some disreputable pharmacy that is well-known for selling inefficient remedies!

[Rolfe]

Or they will announce that the cup of coffee you had that morning antidoted the effect.

Rolfe. Been there, seen that, done that, got the t-shirt.

[shpalman]

They also say that any number of pills taken at the same time still counts as a single dose - it's the potency (i.e. the number of dilutions and succussions) that determines the size of the "effect".

What if the dose is spread in time? Look here (http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3714&start=30) (and here (http://mugsandmoney.blogspot.com/2007/11/warning-health-advice-which-follows-is_8117.html)) where the newspaper clipping says "A 200c potency is best in these situations but if not immediately available, a 30c may be given and repeated after 15 minutes."

[Michael C]

They also say that any number of pills taken at the same time still counts as a single dose - it's the potency (i.e. the number of dilutions and succussions) that determines the size of the "effect".

A long time ago, when I was young and foolish, I went to a renowned French homeopath for treatment. He told me to take two of the little pills (to be dissolved under the tongue) every three hours. I wonder how he worked that out?

[MRC_Hans]

Wow...I commited a "crime" of promoting my book. Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

:dl:

Seriously: Can somebody remind me why we spend time on this clown?

1) Is it simply because he is the only reasonably literate homeopath in sight?

2) Is it because the homeopathic community adores him?

3) Is it because he has ever made one single iota of sense?


Meh....

Hans

[mattbee]

Being a critic and often accused of being "closed minded" (as well as ignorant) I too often receive damning and quite amazing responses when I do try homeopathic remedies. I am regularly warned "it might not work" or "we may have to try different remedies before I find the correct one" as well as "well you're a critic so you'll lie" or "why waste my money on you if you will not take it seriously".

If I ever found it worked and if it did work when I tried it I would take it seriously!

I will quite happily read literature promoting homeopathy and have, but alas the anecdotal evidence regularly portrayed as evidence in these books is not enough to convince me.


Dana:
"It is that dangerous."

Really? Why does this important book still appear (in my opinion) to be marketed as the book version of OK! magazine I don't know. I don't think celebrities - especially those from the turn of the century - have more of a right to promote or be used as evidence on homeopathy than any one else, regardless of their other (unrelated?) work! Celebrities may influence the weak willed (Cruise/Scientology anyone?), and this is what I see the title of the book.

[Mojo]

For those of you who want to see a Cliffnotes version of my book's info on Charles Darwin, go to this short article on Darwin and his homeopathic physician (http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,128).

The above article includes links directly to Darwin's letters.

You will see that the Quackometer's previous article on this subject shows that he conducted superficial research on this subject and was simply shooting from the hip. I also show that Mr. Duck's quotes about homeopathy from Darwin were not in context (how convenient).


The article is just citing the same letters that have already been demonstrated not to support your claims about Darwin and homoeopathy.

Letter 1236 (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1236.html) Doesn’t mention homoeopathy: it refers to Gully’s treatments as “the Water Cure”. Here’s the first passage you quote from it, with the rest of the paragraph to give the context of the treatments he was receiving: I was not able to do anything one day out of three, & was altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled.— I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh. Having heard, accidentally, of two persons who had received much benefit from the Water Cure, I got Dr. Gully's bookf1 & made further enquiries, & at last started here, with wife, children & all our servants. We have taken a house for two month & have been here a fortnight. I am already a little stronger & now have had no vomiting for 10 days. Dr. G. feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most certainly the regular Doctors could not. At present, I am heated by Spirit lamp till I stream with perspiration,f2 & am then suddenly rubbed violently with towels dripping with cold water: have two cold feet-baths, & wear a wet compress all day on my stomach. I eat simply, dine at 1 oclock & take several short walks daily. Even in first 8 days the treatment brought out an eruption all over my legs. I mention all this to you, as being a medical man, you might possibly like to hear about it.— I feel certain that the Water Cure is no quackery.— How I shall enjoy getting back to Down with renovated health, if such is to be my good fortune, & resuming the beloved Barnacles.— Now I hope that you will forgive me for my negligence in not having sooner answered your letter.—


You later present the “eruption” Darwin suffered over his legs as a homoeopathic aggravation or “healing crisis”; however there is nothing in this letter to suggest that this “eruption” was caused by homoeopathy.

Letter 1234 (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1234.html) at least mentions homoeopathy. It is a little ironic that you criticize the Quackometer article for quoting out of context; here’s the passage you quoted yourself (in bold) in the context of all the other treatment Darwin was receiving: As you say you want my hydropathical diary, I will give it youf1 —though tomorrow it is to change to a certain extent.— 1⁄4 before 7. get up, & am scrubbed with rough towel in cold water for 2 or 3 minutes, which after the few first days, made & makes me very like a lobster— I have a washerman, a very nice person, & he scrubs behind, whilst I scrub in front.— drink a tumbler of water & get my clothes on as quick as possible & walk for 20 minutes—f2 I cd. walk further, but I find it tires me afterwards— I like all this very much.— At same time I put on a compress, which is a broad wet folded linen covered by mackintosh & which is “refreshed”—ie dipt in cold water every 2 hours & I wear it all day, except for about 2 hours after midday dinner; I don't perceive much effect from this of any kind.— After my walk, shave & wash & get my breakfast, which was to have been exclusively toast with meat or egg, but he has allowed me a little milk to sop the stale toast in. At no time must I take any sugar, butter, spices tea bacon or anything good.—f3 At 12 oclock I put my feet for 10 minutes in cold water with a little mustard & they are violently rubbed by my man; the coldness makes my feet ache much, but upon the whole my feet are certainly less cold than formerly.— Walk for 20 minutes & dine at one.— He has relaxed a little about my dinner & says I may try plain pudding, if I am sure it lessens sickness.—
After dinner lie down & try to go to sleep for one hour.— At 5 olock feet in cold water—drink cold water & walk as before— Supper same as breakfast at 6 oclock.— I have had much sickness this week, but certainly I have felt much stronger & the sickness has depressed me much less.— Tomorrow I am to be packed at 6 oclock A.M for 1 & 1⁄2 hour in Blanket, with hot bottle to my feet & then rubbed with cold dripping sheet;f4 but I do not know anything about this.— I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.—f5 I like Dr Gully much—he is certainly an able man: I have been struck with how many remarks he has made similar to those of my Father.—


You also quote from Letter 1240 (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1240.html), but once again rather selectively: I am very sorry to hear that you have not been very well this winter. With respect to myself I believe I am going on very well; but I am rather weary of my present inactive life & the Water Cure has the most extraordinary effect in producing indolence & stagnation of mind; till experiencing it, I cd not have believed it possible.— I now increase in weight, have escaped sickness for 30 days, which is thrice as long an interval, as I have had for last year; & yesterday in 4 walks I managed seven miles! I am turned into a mere walking & eating machine.— Dr. G. however finds he is obliged to treat me cautiously, & during last week all my treatment has been much relaxed. There are many patients here even already: last summer I hear he had 120!— He must be making an immense fortune.—f2 Lady Wilmot lives here with her son Col. Wilmot;f3 I have not called, for I was frightened at this great Dandy of a son: if it had been summer I wd. have called to have seen the flower garden.— You need not send Athenæumf4 or Glacier Paperf5 till our return to Down.—


Again, there is no mention of homoeopathy: the only treatment mentioned is the “Water Cure”.

Most extraordinary is your treatment of Letter 1352 (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1352.html). You quote a passage from it: You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clairvoyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything when his daughter was very ill, he had a clairvoyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep, an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.


You assert that skeptics never quote the whole passage. Try looking here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2696641#post2696641), or try looking at the Quackometer article (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html). You will find the entire paragraph quoted in both places.

You also claim that Darwin “express[ed] surprise that she was cured, either by water-cure and/or homeopathy”. Nowhere does the letter express surprise that she recovered: it merely says that she did. And there is no indication in the letter that Darwin thought that the recovery was caused by any of the treatments given: it merely says that one event followed the other. Once again, you are attempting to rely on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Note Darwin's comment on Quetelet's remark that "no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done".

And then you refer to Darwin’s experiments with Drosera. As has been pointed out, these experiments have nothing to do with homoeopathy. While the solutions used were very dilute, they were not ultramolecular: there will still have been actual amounts of the ammonium salts present. There is no suggestion that the solutions were succussed (something that homoeopaths claim is an essential part of the homoeopathic process), the principle of “like cures like” is not involved…

Nothing to do with homoeopathy, and I’m sure that if a negative trial had been reported using the sort of preparations Darwin used in the manner that he used them, you would be the first to say it wasn’t using homoeopathy.

[Michael C]

Thanks, Mojo, for that excellent post. Now that you've eloquently put into words what I wanted to say, I don't need to do it myself :)

[steenkh]

Thanks, Mojo, for that excellent post. Now that you've eloquently put into words what I wanted to say, I don't need to do it myself :)
Or to put it in Dana's own favourite style: Slam - Dunk - Kapow! :)

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by JamesGully
For those of you who want to see a Cliffnotes version of my book's info on Charles Darwin, go to this short article on Darwin and his homeopathic physician.

The above article includes links directly to Darwin's letters.

You will see that the Quackometer's previous article on this subject shows that he conducted superficial research on this subject and was simply shooting from the hip. I also show that Mr. Duck's quotes about homeopathy from Darwin were not in context (how convenient).

The article is just citing the same letters that have already been demonstrated not to support your claims about Darwin and homoeopathy.




So, Dana/James Gully, would you please let us know when the corrected version of this misleading press release (which was issued yesterday) has been published:

Snippet:


What science and history may owe to homeopathic medicine

A new scholarly written book describes hundreds of well-known and respected physicians, scientists, politicians, corporate leaders, and literary greats who used or advocated for homeopathic medicine. Eleven U.S. Presidents, seven popes, Sir William Osler, J.D. Rockefeller, Charles Kettering, and C. Everett Koop are among those famous people who were known to have benefited from homeopathy. Perhaps most surprisingly is the evidence of Charles Darwin’s use of homeopathic medicines and the significant results he received from them.

In the new book, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (North Atlantic Books, 2007), Dana Ullman presents strong evidence derived primarily from Charles Darwin’s own letters about the treatment he received from a homeopathic physician. Ullman suggests that Charles Darwin would not have lived long enough to have completed his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in 1859 if he didn’t get homeopathic treatment ten years previously.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/ffhe-tss121207.php




Thanks.

[Mojo]

There's a review of Ullman's Homeopathic Revolution (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman.html) on the Quackometer blog.

[Mojo]

As a matter of fact, I did change my reference to OW Holmes' opinion of Benjamin Rush.


In what way did you change your reference to Holmes' opinion of Rush?

[Blue Wode]

Medical News Today has just published an adapted version of the press release mentioned in post # 1089:


‘What Science And History May Owe To Homeopathic Medicine’

A new scholarly written book…

-snip-

Besides the personal stories from history and the present day, this book also reviews modern high quality clinical research and evaluates both positive and negative outcomes. Ultimately, the preponderance of scientific and historical evidence shows how the placebo effect is an inadequate explanation for the clinical results from homeopathic treatment. Ullman also reviews recent basic science evidence that provide new insights into how homeopathic nanodoses may have biological activity.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/articles/91606.php




For those interested, if you click on the link and scroll down the page you'll find a box where you can submit a rating regarding “How interesting was this article?”. And further down the page there’s a link for “Write an opinion of this article”.

[Deetee]

So Darwin said James Gully "must be making an immense fortune."
No wonder he was "nice" to his patients. With a benevolent air and a beaming smile, he was milking them for all he could. Some things never change.

PS - perhaps Dana is correct, and it is all indirectly down to homeopathy that we are now able to enjoy the fruits of Darwin's intellect-
The failure of homeopathy to save his daughter prompted Darwin to publish the OOS.

[Rolfe]

That's a bit like saying vaccines cause cancer and kidney failure - because they enable the animal to live long enough finally to expire from a disease of old age.

Rofle.

[Deetee]

That's a bit like saying vaccines cause cancer and kidney failure - because they enable the animal to live long enough finally to expire from a disease of old age.

Rofle.
I've seen the JABS site and bet you have too. You know very well vaccines are the cause of these things - and many others to boot.
;)

[fls]

Medical News Today has just published an adapted version of the press release mentioned in post # 1089:

For those interested, if you click on the link and scroll down the page you'll find a box where you can submit a rating regarding “How interesting was this article?”. And further down the page there’s a link for “Write an opinion of this article”.

Here is my submission:

"This article is simply an uncritical regurgitation of Mr. Ullman's own advertisement for his book. Even a cursory investigation into Mr. Ullman's claims (easily done when information is freely available on the internet) shows that luminaries, such as Darwin and Osler, did not support the practice of homeopathy. Osler's supposed support of homeopathy, in this quote:

"no one individual had done more good to the medical profession than Hahnemann, whose therapeutic methods had demonstrated that the natural tendency of diseases was toward recovery, provided that the patient was decently cared for, properly nursed, and not over-dosed"

from Dr. Harvey Cushing's biography of Sir William Osler is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the observation that sometimes no treatment was preferable to what he considered one of the medical errors of that time - over-treatment with drugs.

Darwin was highly critical of homeopathy and did not believe that he had received any benefit from it. A simple search at the Darwin Correspondence Project (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/index.php) for homeopathy or homoeopathy, will reveal his dismissal of homeopathy.

The very first page of a google search on "Dana Ullman" also brings up several articles critical of Mr. Ullman's scholarship for this book, such as NeuroLogica by Steve Novella (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=105) and Quackometer by Le Canard Noir (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman.html). And it also reveals a discussion on the research performed in the name of homeopathy taking place at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82393), a forum devoted to the critical examination of extraordinary claims. There it will be discovered that the conclusions drawn by Mr. Ullman are not supported by the experimental results in his references.

The naive acceptance of the claims made in this book, without investigation, essentially amounts to free advertising for Mr. Ullman. I realize that the author states the article is adapted from the original press release, but a link to the press release would have been an easier and more honest treatment of this information than an advertisement under the guise of a book review."

Linda

[BillyJoe]

I voted zero and bought the average vote down from 4.something to 3.something. :)

I also submitted a short critical review based only on Darwin's experiments with ammonia salts, demonstrating that they have absolutely nothing to do with homoeopathy.

However, they don't automatically print every submission so we will wait and see what happens.

[JJM]

{snip}
I also submitted a short critical review based only on Darwin's experiments with ammonia salts, demonstrating that they have absolutely nothing to do with homoeopathy.

However, they don't automatically print every submission so we will wait and see what happens.Your post is there. I thought it was well-presented.

[BillyJoe]

Your post is there. I thought it was well-presented.


Thanks.

I think they like the "keep it short and simple" principle. :D

[fls]

Thanks.

I think they like the "keep it short and simple" principle. :D

I suppose I deserved that, considering that they have not posted mine yet.

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

...
...I am getting ready to drop the big big bomb on you folks, and I predict that many of you will be singing another tune. Some of you have suggested that 99.9% of scientists don't believe in homeopathy, as though this is proof of something because it wasn't too long ago that 99.9% of physicians believed in bloodletting and mercury and on and on and on (and "scientists" have been not only the biggest promoters of allopathic medicine but also their best "PR" persons).

....

I was scrolling through this thread because he was pulling the "water is like a CD-rom" bit on Orac's blog, when I noticed this statement.

Did he drop a bomb? Did I miss it? If he did, what was it? Because I don't really see anyone "singing another tune."

[Mojo]

Did he drop a bomb? Did I miss it? If he did, what was it? Because I don't really see anyone "singing another tune."


I think it was the recent Rustum Roy paper discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831).

Or maybe the rest of the special "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy as well: see discussions on badscience (http://www.badscience.net/?cat=85).

[BillyJoe]

I suppose I deserved that, considering that they have not posted mine yet.


Ah, yes, you have to try to dumb yourself down a bit.
Some of us don't have a lot of trouble with that. :D

[Chris Haynes]

I think it was the recent Rustum Roy paper discussed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831).

Or maybe the rest of the special "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy as well: see discussions on badscience (http://www.badscience.net/?cat=85).

Ah, I see... it is the same as before, a bunch of hot air, but in the end...

nothing at all.

[Rolfe]

I wonder if Dana is pleased with the result of his puffing of the Roy paper? That is, a letter to Homoeopathy, signed by four PhDs, pointing out what crap it is!

I'm not saying it was only Dana that sparked that off, because other homoeopaths were doing much the same thing, but he certainly contributed to our decision to take such a keen interest in the thing.

Rolfe.

[Michael C]

Medical News Today has just published an adapted version of the press release mentioned in post # 1089:

...http://www.medicalnewstoday.com:80/articles/91606.php

For those interested, if you click on the link and scroll down the page you'll find a box where you can submit a rating regarding “How interesting was this article?”. And further down the page there’s a link for “Write an opinion of this article”.

Blatant publicity masquerading as information.

The rating system on that page is really silly: not only can you pretend to be a healthcare professional, you can vote as many times as you like. You just need to refresh the page. At the moment there are 48 votes from healthcare professionals and 47 votes from members of the public. I wonder how many people have really voted...

[Mojo]

I wonder if Dana is pleased with the result of his puffing of the Roy paper? That is, a letter to Homoeopathy, signed by four PhDs, pointing out what crap it is!


A soon-to-be-published letter to homoeopathy!

[Blue Wode]

I suppose I deserved that, considering that they have not posted mine yet.

Linda


They have now.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?associatednewsid=91606

:)

[BillyJoe]

Congrats Linda!

How about this response though:


I am a medical practitioner since 1961 and a Homeopath since 1990 I decided I needed an extra tool and discovered this effective system of Medicine with a wealth of writings and experiece extending back now two centuries.

It is challenging as one knows if explores and understands the nature and origin of the disturbance and match it to a remedy in the right potency {that is succussed and diluted enough to match the energy of the disturbance ] that one can establish deep healing. This occurs often enough to keep one persisting.

Sometimes a better mind is needed and I wish I had a specialist with the necessary intellect to refer to. One needs to be a detective to tie threads together. As well as challenging it is enormous fun. A homeopath should be part of every Medical Team.



:boggled:

[BillyJoe]

Is this you DeeTee?

Homeopathy has been so comprehensively debunked recently that its proponents seem ready to do anything to regain a vestige of credibility. So we are subjected to the unedifying spectacle of Mr Ullman promoting his book, which appears to be little more than a straw-grasping exercise. How is the knowledge that a "famous person used homeopathy a long time ago" meant to provide evidence for its efficacy? Famous people have also studied their horoscopes, had their fortunes told with crystal balls and believed that fairies lived at the bottom of the garden. Does the fact that they were famous mean all these things were true?

150 years ago, homeopathy was a "new" and, in comparison to the conventional medical therapies of the time, a gentle approach to the treatment of illness. The fact that people tried it out is hardly surprising. Today it has been firmly put in its place as an anachronistic irrelevance, in which no credible scientist has any belief, because there is no evidence it achieve anything better than a placebo can. The fact that homeopathy has found more modern proponents in such scientific juggernauts and luminaries as David Beckham and Tony Blair should serve as a red flag that it is complete and utter nonsense. Tony Blair has a track record of cognitive credulity, which ranges from a delusion that crystals in Mexican pyramids can energise his karma to fevered imaginings that Iraq posessed WMD.

[Ivor the Engineer]

"A homeopath should be part of every Medical Team."

Every workplace needs a muppet.

[Deetee]

Is this you DeeTee?
:)
Zat's me!

Is this you BJ, sowing seeds of destruction in the woo camp?posted by Liz Brenton on 19 Dec 2007 at 10:11 am
I am interested in all alternative therapies and find most of them work much better than traditional medicine. I am currently using Tarot Cards to cure my flu. Last time it worked, within a few days I started to feel better.

It will always be the case that traditional medicine will look at tarot cards, homeopathy, astrology, etc. with hate - for they threaten their income.
:biggrin:
I find Tarot Cards are very effective for constipation - showing a woo the death card can make them cr*p their pants.

[BillyJoe]

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to take that post either.
A completely woo woo or a cynic. :D



"I am interested in all alternative therapies and find most of them work much better than traditional medicine.

I am currently using Tarot Cards to cure my flu."



Classic. :D

[Professor Yaffle]

It sounds very like someone from Bad Science extending their little game they play on the Dail Mail comments, where they try to out-woo the woo-woos (although a bit tame for one of them).

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3578&highlight=daily+mail

[JamesGully]

Mr. Monkey,
You pointed me to this email of yours. So what?


By the way, I would really hate to be wasting my time with this. I have paid real money, £28.43 to be precise, to download this paper and I would not be happy to be attempting to discuss its contents with a bullsh!tter who has not read the paper, but just tries to bluff his way using abstracts and second-hand quotations. So, simple question, what is the penultimate word on page 823?

Hmmm. You've chosen to select one study of Elia of the many that he has done and that he has had published in various respected scientific journals. You seemed to pick reference #4 below. Its results find, "Thus, in 83% of the preparations the procedure of successive dilutions and succussions modified the physico-chemcial properties of water. In 50% of the samples the heat is in excess; in 35% of the samples pH was higher and in 38% of the samples the electrical conductivity was higher too." (p. 821).

Now, are you going to tell us that ALL of the below journals are really "homeopathic journals" and not serious scientific publications?

[1] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, Ann. New York Acad. Sci, 879 (1999) 241.
[2] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, J. Therm. Analysis and Calorimetry, 61 (2000) 527.
[3] V. Elia and M. Niccoli, J. of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 75 (2004) 815.
[4] V.Elia, S.Baiano, I.Duro, E.Napoli, M. Niccoli, L.Nonatelli, Homeopathy, 93 (2004) 144-150.
[5] V.Elia, E.Napoli, M. Niccoli, L.Nonatelli, A. Ramaglia & E.Ventimiglia, J. of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 78 (2004) 331.
[6] V. Elia, M. Marchese, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, A. Ramaglia, J. Sol. Chem.,34 (2005) 947.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Mr. Monkey,
You pointed me to this email of yours. So what?



Hmmm. You've chosen to select one study of Elia of the many that he has done and that he has had published in various respected scientific journals. You seemed to pick reference #4 below. Its results find, "Thus, in 83% of the preparations the procedure of successive dilutions and succussions modified the physico-chemcial properties of water. In 50% of the samples the heat is in excess; in 35% of the samples pH was higher and in 38% of the samples the electrical conductivity was higher too." (p. 821).

Now, are you going to tell us that ALL of the below journals are really "homeopathic journals" and not serious scientific publications?

[1] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, Ann. New York Acad. Sci, 879 (1999) 241.
[2] V. Elia, M. Niccoli, J. Therm. Analysis and Calorimetry, 61 (2000) 527.
[3] V. Elia and M. Niccoli, J. of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 75 (2004) 815.
[4] V.Elia, S.Baiano, I.Duro, E.Napoli, M. Niccoli, L.Nonatelli, Homeopathy, 93 (2004) 144-150.
[5] V.Elia, E.Napoli, M. Niccoli, L.Nonatelli, A. Ramaglia & E.Ventimiglia, J. of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 78 (2004) 331.
[6] V. Elia, M. Marchese, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, A. Ramaglia, J. Sol. Chem.,34 (2005) 947.

I note that you have not answered the specific question I asked as a check to ensure you had read the full text of the paper you cited.

Please answer that question. I am not going to go any further unless you can show you are not a bullsh!tter who is just regurgitating the abstracts of papers he has not read.

If your next post does not answer the question correctly I shall draw the obvious inference.

I also note you have failed to answer the more substantive question, which does rather get more to the heart of the matter;

"What is your opinion of the statistical methods used? "

[Deetee]

Are we really talking about reference #4?
That has page numbers 144-150.
Does Dana mean #3?

[shpalman]

Are we really talking about reference #4?
That has page numbers 144-150.
Does Dana mean #3?

I'm going to put some links in, since I went looking for the full texts. I have access to all except the first.

[1] Vittorio Elia and Marcella Niccoli. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci. 879 (1) 241-248 (1999) (http://www.annalsnyas.org/content/vol879/issue1/)
[2] V. Elia and M. Niccoli. New Physico-chemical Properties of Water Induced by Mechanical Treatments. A calorimetric study at 25°C. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 61 (2) 527-537 (2000) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1010129803824)
[3] V. Elia and M. Niccoli. New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 75 (3) 815-836 (2004) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JTAN.0000027178.11665.8f)
[4] V. Elia, S. Baiano, I. Duro, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, and L. Nonatelli. Permanent physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions of homeopathic medicines. Homeopathy 93 (3) 144-150 (2004) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2004.04.004)
[5] V. Elia, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, A. Ramaglia, and E. Ventimiglia. New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions - A calorimetric and conductivity study at 25°C. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 78 (1) 331-342 (2004) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JTAN.0000042179.07858.c8)
[6] V. Elia, M. Marchese, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, and A. Ramaglia. Hydrohysteretic Phenomena of "Extremely Diluted Solutions" Induced by Mechanical Treatments: A Calorimetric and Conductometric Study at 25°C. J. Solution Chem. 34 (8) 947-960 (2005) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10953-005-6258-3)

And some newer ones:

V. Elia, L. Elia, P. Cacace, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, and F. Savarese. "Extremely diluted solutions" as multi-variable systems - A study of calorimetric and conductometric behaviour as a function of the parameter time. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 84 (2) 317-323 (2006) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10973-005-7266-7)

V. Elia, E. Napoli, and R. Germano. The "Memory of Water": an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions. Homeopathy 96 (3) 163-169 (2007) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.007) (see this (http://www.badscience.net//?p=494#comment-15923))

V. Elia, L. Elia, M. Marchese, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, L. Nonatelli, and F. Savarese. Interaction of "extremely dilute solutions" with aqueous solutions of hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide: A calorimetric study at 298K. J. Mol. Liq. 130 (1-3) 15-20 (2007) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2006.03.053)

V. Elia, L. Elia, M. Montanino, E. Napoli, M. Niccoli, and L. Nonatelli. Conductometric studies of the serially diluted and agitated solutions on an anomalous effect that depends on the dilution process. J. Mol. Liq. 135 (1-3) 158-165 (2007) (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2006.11.005)

[Mojo]

Even Gully does not seem to have been entirely convinced about the merits of homoeopathy. From here (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1234.html#mark-1234.f5): He "might be induced to try" homoeopathy to "subdue a passing but troublesome symptom"? Hardly a resounding endorsement of a "holistic" therapy.

BY THE WAY...I HAVE A COPY OF GULLY'S 1846 BOOK, AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THAT STATEMENT ON PAGE 83...AND THE BOOK ENDS ON PAGE 405, SO ANOTHER PERSON'S STATEMENT ABOUT PAGE 500+ IS DUBIOUS TOO.


In the 1856 edition you link to from your website, the statement in question appears on page 48.

And the 1846 edition catalogued here (http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/record=b1078397a) has 692 pages.

[Deetee]

In the 1856 edition you link to from your website, the statement in question appears on page 48.

And the 1846 edition catalogued here (http://catalogue.wellcome.ac.uk/record=b1078397a) has 692 pages.
Perhaps the remaining 287 pages just appear to be "blank" in Dana's copy. However, I am sure they contain the memory of words, and if he looks carefully he will find they are a far more effective commentary on homeopathy than the pages with less diluted, visible text that preceded them.

[Chris Haynes]

A summary of Dana's latest book:

Some famous people may have used homepathy. They are still dead.

Film at 11.

(And no, I am not taking this seriously. Why do you ask? I am only devoting a homeopathic dilution of attention to this matter for my own entertainment.)

[Mojo]

Mr. Duck first threatened to close off discussion just after I posted a link to the famous book that Dr. James Manby Gully wrote (in 5 editions). My link was to the 5th edition, where he stated quite emphatically that homeopathic medicines were effective in various chronic ailments, either alone or with water-cure.


Would that be the 5th edition in which he wrote, at page 48, "although I might be induced to try to subdue a passing but troublesome symptom, I could not trust to remove the essential nature of a chronic malady by homœopathic means" (Gully, The Water Cure in Chronic Disease 5th ed., London, John Churchill, 1856)?

What an emphatic statement of the effectiveness of homoeopathy!

[Mojo]

The interesting NEW news is that I recently uncovered evidence that Gully became a member of the British Homoeopathic Society in 1848, the year before he began to treat Darwin.


Reference for this evidence please.

[JamesGully]

Here are some quotes from Dr. Gully's book (5th edition).

“I could show by not a few illustrations how this complex medication, this polypharmacy, necessitates the employment of each of the medicines comprehended in it, to obviate the effects of another; how the effect of the mercurials have to be combated by the opiates; how these, again produce a necessity for the purgatives (drugs that induce vomiting); these, for the remedies for flatulence; and these again, producing heart-burn, call for alkalis and opiates…the whole plan is radically wrong.” (page 46)

Gully poses the question of how can a physician find the “precise stimulus” to a real cure for the patient. He then asserts that homeopaths provide “a more rational plan.” Drawing from his own experiences, he affirms that despite the use of infinitesimal doses used in homeopathy, “It is well and wise to observe and investigate these things before laughing at them” (page 47).

In 1856 when this book was published in its fifth edition, he added the following strong statements about the value of homeopathic medicines. He writes that distinct from the use of conventional medicines in the treatment of chronic constipation where drugs do not cure and lead to relapse, it is significantly different with homeopathic care: “In fact, cases abound in which homeopathic treatment alone has effectually and permanently cure habitual costiveness” (page 48).

In reference to the treatment of headaches, the use of homeopathic medicines is “not only justifiable but desirable.”

Finally, Gully continues by asserting, “Homeopathic practitioners have observed that patients under the water cure are more susceptible to the action of their remedies than other persons, and that therefore the results may be more accurately calculated. I have found this assertion to be substantially correct; and it confirms the vivifying influence of the water cure over the bodily functions” (page 48).

[Mojo]

Yes, he does seem to contradict himself.

[JamesGully]

Reference for this evidence please.

Evidence that James Manby Gully (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;idno=2438394.0001.001;frm=f rameset;view=image;seq=77;page=root;size=s)became a member of the British Homoeopathic Society in 1848.

Evidence that Gully was still a member in 1870 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;q1=Ayerst;rgn=full%20text;i dno=2088564.0001.001;didno=2088564.0001.001;view=i mage;seq=88;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset).

Anyone who doesn't refer to Dr. James Manby Gully as a water-cure doctor as well as a "homeopathic physician" is choosing to provide misinformation and is rewriting history. Now...let's move on.

And let's get out of the rut of saying or writing that my book is only of "dead people." Between 20-30% of the people discussed in this book are alive. Only your critique of it is dead and is simply evidence that you haven't seen it or read it. Whooops.

[Mojo]

Evidence that James Manby Gully (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;idno=2438394.0001.001;frm=f rameset;view=image;seq=77;page=root;size=s)became a member of the British Homoeopathic Society in 1848.

Evidence that Gully was still a member in 1870 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;q1=Ayerst;rgn=full%20text;i dno=2088564.0001.001;didno=2088564.0001.001;view=i mage;seq=88;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset).

Anyone who doesn't refer to Dr. James Manby Gully as a water-cure doctor as well as a "homeopathic physician" is choosing to provide misinformation and is rewriting history. Now...let's move on.

And let's get out of the rut of saying or writing that my book is only of "dead people." Between 20-30% of the people discussed in this book are alive. Only your critique of it is dead and is simply evidence that you haven't seen it or read it. Whooops.


Well, I'm impressed that they let people who were "deceased" continue as members. I didn't realise that the idea of equal opportunities had made so much progress in the 19th century.

[Mojo]

Anyone who doesn't refer to Dr. James Manby Gully as a water-cure doctor as well as a "homeopathic physician" is choosing to provide misinformation and is rewriting history.


You have consistently referred to Gully as Darwin's "homeopathic physician" without referring to him as a water-cure doctor.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, I'm impressed that they let people who were "deceased" continue as members. I didn't realise that the idea of equal opportunities had made so much progress in the 19th century.

Huh? Gully died in 1883 according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Manby_Gully).

[Mojo]

Huh? Gully died in 1883 according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Manby_Gully).


On the first page Dana linked to, John C Charles, ----- Goodshaw and Harris Dunsford are marked with an asterisk. At the bottom of the page it says "those marked thus * are deceased." One way of boosting the membership numbers, I suppose...

[Deetee]

Huh? Gully died in 1883 according to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Manby_Gully).I see the wikipedia entry talks of Gully's affair with Florence Bravo and how he was a suspect in the poisoning of Charles Bravo.

I am sure we can posthumously exonerate Gully from any involvement. An overdose of of 30C Arsenicum would have had no effect on Mr Bravo whatsoever.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

On the first page Dana linked to, John C Charles, ----- Goodshaw and Harris Dunsford are marked with an asterisk. At the bottom of the page it says "those marked thus * are deceased."

Oh, I see. Far be it from me to see it as a typical hom ruse to collect membership dues from dead people.

[BillyJoe]

...and I thought less was more!

[Rolfe]

Your critiques of these scientists are so weak that no serious journal has published your critiques. Please provide references to the published critiques of .... Roy .... in peer-review journals. ..... As for Roy's work, is there anyone here who has published a similar body of research as Roy has (and thus, has shown some "scientific chops") and who has provided some solid critique of Roy's work on homeopathy? Put up or shut up.


Oh Dana, you must be so proud of us!

KERR, M., MAGRATH, J., WILSON, P. & HEBBERN, C. (2008) Comment on "The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy". Homeopathy 97, 44-45.

OK, I'd accept that Homeopathy isn't what I'd call a "serious journal", but you seem to have some regard for its publications. The authors of that reference are us. For some reason the journal omitted our degrees, but three PhDs and one about-to-be. I think you might find a reasonable body of research covered there, if you were to look. Enough "scientific chops" for you?

So, you wanted a "serious journal" to publish our critique. Check (to certain definitions of "serious").
You wanted a reference to a critique of Roy's work in a peer-reviewed journal. Check, two birds with one stone.
You wanted confirmation that we have similar research backgrounds to Roy. Well, you can start with the 4 PhDs, and work it out.
And you wanted us to provide some solid critique of Roy's work on homoeopathy. Check.

Your little breast must just be bursting with pride!

You see, Dana, you pretty much caused that publication all by yourself. I admit Gavinimurthy was also banging on about Roy's work, which is when we first demolished his results, but we'd kind of lost interest, and we might not even have noticed its appearance in Homeopathy if you hadn't come along and told us.

So, Roy and his co-authors have been shredded in public, and it's all down to you. Great work.

(And don't bother reading Rao's reply. She hasn't got one. She must be pretty embarrassed to have come out with that lameness, is all I can say.)

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

:)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I was trying to find where Dana first told us that this paper was going to "knock our socks off" (or similar). Anyone got it?

I have to say my socks stayed on.

[Michael C]

I was trying to find where Dana first told us that this paper was going to "knock our socks off" (or similar). Anyone got it?

I have to say my socks stayed on.

He was going to drop a bomb:

I am getting ready to drop the big big bomb on you folks, and I predict that many of you will be singing another tune. Some of you have suggested that 99.9% of scientists don't believe in homeopathy, as though this is proof of something because it wasn't too long ago that 99.9% of physicians believed in bloodletting and mercury and on and on and on (and "scientists" have been not only the biggest promoters of allopathic medicine but also their best "PR" persons).

See the whole of that post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682461&postcount=161).

[Rolfe]

I was trying to find where Dana first told us that this paper was going to "knock our socks off" (or similar). Anyone got it?

I have to say my socks stayed on.


That was the post I started out looking for, but I came across the one I quoted first, and I have to say it was irresistable.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He was going to drop a bomb:



See the whole of that post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2682461&postcount=161).

Thanks

The pity of it is that this is probably the end of JamesGully's posting career here. The howls of derisive laughter would be so voluble should he ever slink back.

[steenkh]

The pity of it is that this is probably the end of JamesGully's posting career here. The howls of derisive laughter would be so voluble should he ever slink back.
Nah, he is so self-engrossed that he will not even notice his blunders. We have howled our derisive laughters ever since he was exposed as the only intellectually dishonest person around here, and yet he has come back for more, and he still holds the original intellectually dishonest opinions.

[Rolfe]

He's back, guys. I hope to lure him back to this thread, but I'm not over-optimistic.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Well, he just popped in to give us some more homework to do on some more studies he has found while he goes away on holidays for 5 days. He will then come back and paste the abstracts of these studies as proof that our answers are wrong.

[Mister Earl]

My $0.02:

- Homeopathy has never cured anything that isn't a self-limiting condition. If they have, it hasn't been documented.
- Double-blind studies always show nothing more than pure statistical chance.
- Most self-proclaimed professional homeopaths don't even agree on basic processes.
- When stressed, most homeopaths invoke "quantum mechanics", yet provide no information on how entanglement was achieved.
- No homeopath can tell the difference between a homeopathic solution, and a dummy solution used from the same stock fluid.
- "Memory of Water" and "Water clumping" is based off of transitory effects seen that do not last even a mere second. These are based off of misinterpretations of other studies.

[Mojo]

Over on the Quackometer blog, Dana Ullman wrote, It is shocking that you still think that Gully wasn't a homeopath, even though most respected biographies on Darwin that discuss his health acknowledge that Gully was a homeopath and that Darwin respected Gully more than any other physician (he didn't have much respect for most physicians, though Gully was an exception). Read Quammen's book or Desmond & Moore's, amongst many others.


I was intending to post this on thread that quotation comes from, but while I was tracking down the biographies Dana recommended the thread was closed because Dana kept regurgitating the same trials that have already been stomped on here, so I'll post it here instead.

OK, I’ve checked out Quammen and Desmond & Moore, at least as far as mentions of Gully and homoeopathy are concerned. Let’s examine Dana’s claim that Gully was "Darwin’s homeopath (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2695201#post2695201)", and his claim that "most respected biographies on Darwin that discuss his health acknowledge that Gully was a homeopath", using his suggested sources.

Both works discuss Darwin’s health.

Desmond & Moore’s Darwin (London : Michael Joseph, 1991) mainly discusses Gully in a chapter titled "My Water Doctor", in which Gully’s regime is referred to as "the water cure", or "the cold water cure". The only mentions of homoeopathy in connection with Gully, as far as I can see, are on pages 364, which mentions that Gully believed in "all manner of unorthodox practices - homoeopathy, hydropathy, mesmerism – none of which Charles shared. Charles never overcame his distrust of homoeopathy", and page 365, which repeats the quotation we have already seen from Darwin’s letters about Gully giving Darwin homoeopathic medicines and Darwin taking them "without an atom of faith".

On Page 366 is a sentence that looks familiar: "Feeling good, Charles had to admit that the water cure was no quackery after all". A very similar passage appears here ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2695201#post2695201): "And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all." Note how the words "the water cure" have been replaced by "Gully’s treatments". The chapter goes on to describe how Darwin continued Gully’s treatments after returning home: sweating under blankets, showers, cold baths, scrubbing, but no mention of homoeopathy.

Nowhere do Desmond and Moore describe Gully as a homoeopath. Dana has alleged ( http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2700225#post2700225) that the reason Gully is invariably described as hydropath rather than a homoeopath is because "this is just the historians way of writing homeopathy out of history". Desmond and Moore appear to have no problem with referring to people as homoeopaths: on page 238 a Quaker doctor called John Epps is referred to as "a London phrenologist, homoeopathist and disestasblishment campaigner", and John Chapman is described on page 392 as "Gully’s homoeopathist", so it’s highly unlikely that they don’t refer to Gully as a homoeopath because of some sort of desire to write homoeopathy out of history.

David Quammen’s The Kiwi’s Egg: Charles Darwin and Natural Selection (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 2007) mentions Gully on pages 111-112 and 117. Quammen introduces Gully on page 111 thus:[Darwin] packed up Emma, the children, the butler, the governess, and several maids, and went off to a water-cure establishment run by James Gully in the town of Malvern…


The only mention of homoeopathy is at the foot of the same page, where he says that Darwin…was skeptical of Gully’s belief in Homeopathy (not to mention mesmerism and clairvoyance, two of the doctor’s other enthusiasms). But he persuaded himself that the water-torture was working.


Interestingly, Quammen (who Dana evidently regards as a reliable source, otherwise he would not have referred me to him) also gives a brief description of the "theory" relied upon by Gully in prescribing treatments Darwin’s condition:The theory behind Gully’s so-called cure was that excess blood, congested in vessels servicing the stomach, caused "nervous dyspepsia" such as Darwin’s. The solution to that, Gully thought, lay in drawing blood away from the stomach to the skin and extremities by means of cold water and friction, generating just enough chilly irritation to cause a rash.


Gully thought that the condition was caused by excess blood, and the solution was to draw the blood away. Nothing to do with "like cures like" there, is there? In fact, that sounds suspiciously like allopathy.

It also looks as if the rash referred to by Dana here ( http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html#2811844335167194752) as "a common "healing crisis" observed in people undergoing homeopathic treatment" may have simply been brought on by all that scrubbing.

It appears from the above that Quammen is, to say the least, somewhat skeptical as to whether Gully’s treatments provided Darwin with any real benefit: "so-called cure," "he persuaded himself that the water-torture was working" – these are certainly not endorsements of Gully’s treatments.

There is certainly nothing in either book to support Dana’s claim that Gully was Darwin’s homoeopath, or his claim that "most respected biographies on Darwin that discuss his health acknowledge that Gully was a homeopath".


I’m currently reading volume 1 of Janet Browne’s biography of Darwin (Janet Browne: Charles Darwin: Voyaging, London: Jonathan Cape, 1995). In this, too, Gully’s treatments are referred to as the "water cure", and his regime is described in terms of "cold showers and baths, but also through a wide variety of esoteric techniques such as wet-sheet packing and wrapping, steam baths, friction, and rubbing", and also "a strict routine of early rising, a multitude of walks on the Malvern Hills, a little plain food, and spring water to drink. Everything was designed to fulfil Gully’s spartan promise of "pure air, pure water, and dietic rule"". Needless to say, like the other "respected biographies" Dana refers to, this book fails to refer to Gully as a homoeopath.

All may not be lost for Dana though: it appears that Darwin’s father, who was a doctor, may have advocated the use of homoeopathic techniques. On page 44 he is described giving advice to Darwin and his elder brother Erasmus, who at that point were both planning to become doctors themselves, about "the psychology of local practice": the doctor’s advice was practical, if brusque: white lies and sympathy were usually all that was needed.

…

The best remedy, he told the boys, was to let people talk.;)

[Mojo]

Evidence that James Manby Gully (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;idno=2438394.0001.001;frm=f rameset;view=image;seq=77;page=root;size=s)became a member of the British Homoeopathic Society in 1848.

Evidence that Gully was still a member in 1870 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=homeop;cc=homeop;q1=Ayerst;rgn=full%20text;i dno=2088564.0001.001;didno=2088564.0001.001;view=i mage;seq=88;page=root;size=s;frm=frameset).

Anyone who doesn't refer to Dr. James Manby Gully as a water-cure doctor as well as a "homeopathic physician" is choosing to provide misinformation and is rewriting history. Now...let's move on.


Does anyone know what the criteria were for membership of the British Homoeopathic Society at this date? This (http://www.lmhint.net/his_uk.html) (from the website of a long-established international homoeopathic society) describes it as a "lay/medical society" formed to raise funds to found a hospital, so they may well have been happy to let anyone pay a subscription. It certainly looks as if membership wasn't restricted to physicians. We already know that Gully was interested in homoeopathy, but this isn't the same thing as actually being a homoeopath. Indeed, Dana himself is on record (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/alan-bennett-and-homeopathy.html#c1543382879189208708) as saying that the fact that someone prescribes homoeopathic medicines doesn't mean they are a homoeopath.

Looking at Gully's own writings, and in particular at the very footnote that Dana is so fond of quoting parts of, we find that in 1856 (i.e. 8 years after he joined the society and 7 years after he was alleged to have been Darwin's "homeopathic physician"), Gully wrote of homoeopathy: But I speak of the whole subject with diffidence, my experience being as yet limited.

Gully, The water cure in chronic disease, 5th ed. London: John Churchill, 1856, p 48n.

Is it normal for "homeopathic physicians" of at least 8 years standing to profess ignorance of homoeopathy? If Gully held himself out to be a "homeopathic physician" at a time when his experience of homoeopathy was so limited that he felt unable to write about it, then he was evidently a fraud and a charlatan.

[Rolfe]

Excellent piece of research, Mojo.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Excellent piece of research, Mojo.


Not really - just the result of actually reading the sources Dana cites to support his arguments. It's amazing how often he points people in the direction of something that contradicts him.

[Mojo]

Dana's now getting terribly worked up about people using analogies to draw attention to the scale of homoeopathic dilution over on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danaullman#Dilutions), complaining that "it provides confusion and misinmformation to readers", and that he's being harassed. And he's accusing an anonymous poster, who he refers to as "88", of being me. Just in case Dana drops in here, they aren't.

Oh, and he's citing Rao et al., although not giving a precise reference, of course.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I really don't understand the ecology of Wikipedia. How does " Lara❤Love 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)" get to set herself up as an adopter, apparent mentor of DU and arbiter of good form on Wikipedia. The post by her (referenced at the time given above) is just stupid cultural relativism.

"Then try to understand that you are all intelligent adults with different points of view and different beliefs and figure out a way to somehow coexist here in some sort of civil manner"

DU does not merely have a 'different point of view'. He is just plain wrong and steadfastly refuses to pass down the path of rational argument that would end with with him being forced to admit that he is unequivocally wrong.

I like Wikipedia as a quick source of factual information. I really don't like what is going on behind the curtain all the time.

And yes, Mojo, it does take a large amount of brazenness to cite Roy's paper and that Memory of Water journal special.

It's also funny that his worldview requires one of his tormentors there to be an old adversary. The alternative would be to admit that in every rational forum to which he presents himself there are people capable of coming to the quite independent conclusion that he is talking through his hat.

[Deetee]

Amazing......

He persistently refuses to accept the analogy of dilutions as being the equivalent of the original substance being diluted in a large body of water/the universe/whatever, and then harps on about CDRoms being the elctronic eqivalent of homeopathy?
Strewth!

Later he keeps changing subject to get in several plugs for his book/website, too.

[Rolfe]

Not really - just the result of actually reading the sources Dana cites to support his arguments. It's amazing how often he points people in the direction of something that contradicts him.


Yeah, well, if DullMan ever actually posted a link to anything he didn't actually write himself, I didn't notice it. Kudos for finding the actual text.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Kudos for finding the actual text.


I went and got a reader card for the Wellcome Library. :)

[Mojo]

Oh, and Dana, you owe me a new irony meter for this: Repeating these innane statistic many times make it more true.[sic]

[Chris Haynes]

For fun I did a Google search on "Dana Ullman", this thread was on the first pages of links.

[Mojo]

Dana's got his disinformation out again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/just-how-smart-is-your-bo_b_85940.html

One was Charles Darwin, whose persistent health problems (untreatable by the medicine of his day) debilitated him, making work impossible, Ullman learned. Skeptically, Darwin went to a homeopath, received treatment, and recovered, going on to do his most important research and writing (while living for three more decades.) He never publicly mentioning his homeopathic treatment for fear of his scientific colleagues' derision.

The story even has Rustum Roy's exciting new work and (just for HCN) Saine's rabies cures!

[Chris Haynes]

Dana's got his disinformation out again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/just-how-smart-is-your-bo_b_85940.html



The story even has Rustum Roy's exciting new work and (just for HCN) Saine's rabies cures!

Oh spare me! What she wrote was "Late last year, in a debate on homeopathy at the University of Connecticut, naturopath Andre Saine revealed his investigated outcomes for homeopathic treatments of typhus, meningitis, tetanus, anthrax, septicemia, malaria, and other infectious diseases -- including a dozen cases of fully developed rabies with recoveries solely via homeopathic treatment."

Which is a blatant lie. The cases were over a hundred years old, and Andre Saine did not "reveal", he ranted! What a loon!

[BillyJoe]

Well, it looks like a blatant lie but, you know, they really believe it and they continue to believe it and to pass it on as fact in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And their acolytes and their faithful followers look past the evidence to the lies they tell and believe it to be the truth.

[Rolfe]

They really are a bunch of barefaced liars, aren't they!

Dana's had his errors explained to him in terms a two-year-old could understand, but still he persists. We've asked him a dozen times to comment on our letter to Homeopathy, which Rao had no answer to, and he's just ignored us.

That's one of the things that really gets my goat. Dishonesty seems to be SOP. But "disparaging remarks against...?" Oh dearie me no!

Rolfe.

[Chris Haynes]

I have left comments on Huff Po, but I stopped because its software is annoying. Which fits, because it is an annoying place. Quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 'Tis a silly place

Dana got upset when I mentioned his lies here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=35#comment-1184

He did not respond back when I amended it to him being silly and stupid.

Mojo has noticed that I did watch the Univ. of Connecticut debate mentioned here:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=40 (link to video is in there). The last fifteen minutes is the Andre Saine rant about homeopathy being more effective than modern medicine for rabies. So I've challenged a few to give me proof, and only Dana has answered with "Andre Saine’s forthcoming book, The Weight of Evidence, will probably provide us all with this evidence about rabies (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=35#comment-968)."

Of course, this is a claim that is perfectly testable. I have mentioned that if they really want to prove homeopathy works for rabies, they need to get some cute fluffy bunnies and infect them with rabies. (http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/29-31-hahnemann%E2%80%99s-organon-of-medicine/#comment-581)Treat one group with homeopathy and the next group with placebo (or real medicine) and see what happens. Oddly enough, no one has offered to do that.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Rolfe's right. Whack-a-mole can be a frustrating game but in this version the moles just lie about whether the hammer has hit them on the head even though we can all see the CSF leaking out of their ear canals.

The stupidity is one thing but it's the dishonesty that is really nauseating.

[geni]

Does anyone know what the criteria were for membership of the British Homoeopathic Society at this date? This (http://www.lmhint.net/his_uk.html) (from the website of a long-established international homoeopathic society) describes it as a "lay/medical society" formed to raise funds to found a hospital, so they may well have been happy to let anyone pay a subscription. It certainly looks as if membership wasn't restricted to physicians. We already know that Gully was interested in homoeopathy, but this isn't the same thing as actually being a homoeopath. Indeed, Dana himself is on record (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2007/09/alan-bennett-and-homeopathy.html#c1543382879189208708) as saying that the fact that someone prescribes homoeopathic medicines doesn't mean they are a homoeopath.

Looking at Gully's own writings, and in particular at the very footnote that Dana is so fond of quoting parts of, we find that in 1856 (i.e. 8 years after he joined the society and 7 years after he was alleged to have been Darwin's "homeopathic physician"), Gully wrote of homoeopathy:

Gully, The water cure in chronic disease, 5th ed. London: John Churchill, 1856, p 48n.

Is it normal for "homeopathic physicians" of at least 8 years standing to profess ignorance of homoeopathy?

If they can get away with it. Homeopaths generaly avoid takeing a position since a position can be attacked and destroyed.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have left comments on Huff Po, but I stopped because its software is annoying. Which fits, because it is an annoying place. Quoting Monty Python and the Holy Grail: 'Tis a silly place

Dana got upset when I mentioned his lies here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=35#comment-1184

He did not respond back when I amended it to him being silly and stupid.


I've also deployed the sure-fire Ullman-repellent that is calling him to account on Roy's dud 'bomb'.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

That set of blogs HCN has led us to

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=42

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=48


about Bayesian inferences is an excellent introduction to the area and it has crystallised a lot of what I have been thinking recently, which is that it really is time to call a halt to more useless clinical trials of homeopathy. The only purpose they serve is to allow the homs to eke out the occasional low-grade 'positive' result that certain turds of our acquaintance then pimp across the internet as if they were the absolute final truth.

Homeopathy behaves exactly in the way that you would expect for something that is no different from a placebo.

We need to emphasise a small number of facts;

1. Homeopathy is inconsistent with all of the rest of science. There is no basis to think it could work. Its Bayesian prior probability is vanishingly tiny.
2. Homeopathic clinical experience is explained exactly by the operations of placebo effect, bias and disease natural history. An effect from homeopathy is simply a superfluous hypothesis.
3. Most especially, homeopathy has never produce any of its allegedly dramatic effects when its claims have been assessed objectively. We are left with people like Ullman touting Oscillococcinum because it maybe possibly produced a tentative 86 minute shortening in the course of flu. Is that the best they can do? It seems to be.If it really worked they should be able to better than this.
4. They cannot produce a set of well-documented cases of serious non-self-limiting diseases responding to homeopathy even outside the situation of a controlled trial.Even if you lower the bar sufficiently to admit uncontrolled case records they still can't demonstrate the effect they are so keen to assert. Again, the homs lack even basis for suggesting their hypothesis in the first place.
5. Homeopathy is littered with internal contradictions. Because homeopaths believe in something that is false they can make up the rules as they go along and never tidy up after themselves. So, they have no means of weeding out 'false' homeopathic doctrine from 'true' homeopathic doctrine.Perhaps we have not yet met that True Homeopath. More likely he or she does not exist because there is no True Homeopathy.

[Mojo]

I've turned up something relevant to another of Dana's claims.Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.

In fact, it is not entirely clear that Darwin was, as Dana claims, "so ill that he wasn't even able to attend his father's funeral".

According to Janet Browne's biography of Darwin, when Darwin heard the news of his father's death, He felt sad and ill, to ill to move. Erasmus would go straight to Shrewsbury for the funeral. he would have to follow on afterwards alone.
Whatever happened next is not certain. Darwin definitely stayed at Down for a few days before setting out for Shrewsbury, waiting for Emma to return from a visit to her sister's, and he definitely passed through Erasmus's house in London the day before the funeral. He may have missed his Midlands train or been delayed. Either way, he arrived in Shrewsbury after the cortege had left the family home for the church of St. Chad's.
According to Erasmus, Darwin therefore remained at The Mount with their sister Marianne Parker, who was too upset to attend the burial service. "Charles did not arrive till too late", Erasmus wrote to Fanny.

Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: Voyaging, p. 490.

It does go on to say that Darwin later stated "I was at the time so unwell that I was unable to travel which added to my misery", but in view of the documented fact that he arrived at his father's house in time to be there with his sister during the funeral, this appears to be something of an exaggeration.

As Browne observes, "no one really wants to go to a funeral".

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I've turned up something relevant to another of Dana's claims.

In fact, it is not entirely clear that Darwin was, as Dana claims, "so ill that he wasn't even able to attend his father's funeral".

According to Janet Browne's biography of Darwin, when Darwin heard the news of his father's death,

Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: Voyaging, p. 490.

It does go on to say that Darwin later stated "I was at the time so unwell that I was unable to travel which added to my misery", but in view of the documented fact that he arrived at his father's house in time to be there with his sister during the funeral, this appears to be something of an exaggeration.

As Browne observes, "no one really wants to go to a funeral".

You're like a little rabid terrier gnawing at Dana's leg. Well done.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Just seen this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arsenicum_album#Cazin_and_Linde). DU is in more trouble than he realises.

[Worm]

That is a fantastic read.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Does anyone know what sanctions are available at Wikipedia depending on what they think DU has been doing?

[Rocko]

Homeopathy is actually too scientific for one to assume that there is a single medicine appropriate for everyone. In homeopathy it is essential that the medicine be individually prescribed for the sick person.

(From here: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,26)

This can't be the same website selling non-individualised domestic homeopathic medicine kits then, surely?

Portable and Miniature Homeopathic Medicine Kits!

We are very excited to announce the availability of the 3 mini-kits:
[snip]
This new super-miniature kit with FIVE spray bottles is PERFECT for travel, for putting in your purse, your pocket, or your car's glove compartment! Although this kit was initially designed for treating pets, it can be used in treating anyone. A great product at a fantastic price...and a great gift!

The First Year’s Kit: This kit's five medicines in this mini-kit are: Chamomilla (teething), Ledum, (puncture wounds and post-vaccination syndrome), Aconitum (fear, anxiety, restlessness, & the 1st stages of infection), Cocculus (travel sickness), and Calendula (wounds and post-surgical healing)...all in the 30C potency.
etc. etc.


Erm, yes. Yes it is. Who'd have thought it?

[BillyJoe]

That's a one for all.
But all for one seems to work equally well if you read the different replies given by different homoeopaths to a single indiviual asking for advice on a homoeopathic forum.

No sense.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Content deleted: Generic notice - this Member has breached their Membership Agreement in several ways in all of their first posts bar one, the breaches cover Rule 11, Rule 6 and Rule 4 and possible other rules! All the content of the offending posts is being deleted and this message left in all posts edited.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Content deleted: Generic notice - this Member has breached their Membership Agreement in several ways in all of their first posts bar one, the breaches cover Rule 11, Rule 6 and Rule 4 and possible other rules! All the content of the offending posts is being deleted and this message left in all posts edited.

[Mojo]

Why do the effects tend to disappear when properly blinded protocols are used?

[steenkh]

Professor Louis Rey, Doctor of Sciences, Lausanne, a specialist in low temperature thermoluminescence, has published on this topic in the international journals Nature (1988; 391: 418) and C.R.Physique (2000; 1: 107-110). He presented the latest results of the experiments he carried out together with Dr. Philippe Belon on the thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10-30 g cm-3) were irradiated by X- and gamma-rays at 77K, then progressively re-warmed to room temperature.

During that phase, their thermoluminescence was studied and it was found that, despite their dilution beyond the Avogadro number, the emitted light was specific of the original salts dissolved initially. Much to the authors’ surprise, the experimental results showed, without ambiguity, the specificity of the contained information. The findings proved to be reproducible in the course of many different identical experiments.

This exceptional finding that flies against known physics has not been reproduced by independent parties since this was published many years ago.

The working hypothesis would be that Rey et al. have somehow contaminated their samples. Only independent confirmation of such a finding can turn physics upside down.

[steenkh]

This new paradigm is needed to explain the experimental facts and to understand the failure of research models that do not fit it.

What experimental facts?

There is no reason to speculate on the theory of homoeopathy as long as it is not possible to show that homoeopathy works at all. Properly controlled tests have time and again shown that the normal scientific explanation for homoeopathic findings are satisfactory: Misdiagnosis, spontaneous healing that would have occurred anyway, temporary improvement, no actual healing, and placebo effect.

In homoeopathic practice homoeopathy works all the time, but when homoeopaths conducts tests properly controlled against placebo there is no effect at all, or an effect that is insignificant compared to what they get without controls. This should cause homoeopaths to pause, but instead it causes them to wish the controls away.

[Baron Samedi]

Example: Rubella in a normal subject: no apparent sickness. Rubella in immuno-deficient subject: symptoms, apparent sickness. For the allopathic research approach, the symptoms are pathognomonic, specific to the illness; they are used to diagnose the pathology. When the diagnosis of the pathology is performed, the treatment is chosen accordingly; classical therapy may be also targeted against symptoms. For the homeopathic research approach, considered symptoms are idiosyncratic; specific to the patient. They are the personal ex-pression of the sickness by the patient. They are used to choose the specific remedy according to the similarity of the symptoms observed by "proving" in a healthy subject.

In homeopathy, the originator of the information is the starting material of the remedy; succussed dilutions of the starting material in a solvent are mediators. High dilutions contain only information from that material and no molecules remain. This mediation results from the succussed solvent being in a specific state, implying perhaps electro-magnetic processes. The receiver (the whole living body) receives and processes the information in the remedy according to its state, whether healthy ("proving") or sick (therapy).

This new paradigm is needed to explain the experimental facts and to understand the failure of research models that do not fit it.

Homeopathy can be similar or better in effectiveness than conventional treatment and, where it has been studied, it is cheaper in the long run. Many interesting questions not even asked should be prioritized, such as the potential of homeopathy to avoid invasive procedures in children and, in primary care settings, the long-term effect of homeopathy in preventing chronic complications.

Is this a cut and paste argument?

from here: https://secureweb.activeisp.com/w00384425/liga%20letter%20engl%202_05.pdf


MADELEINE BASTIDE [France] quoted Claude Benard: “When the
observed facts do not support a well established theory, the facts have to
be accepted and the theory rejected.” One principle of homeopathy is the
use of very high dilutions, which cannot be explained by the mechanistic
paradigm, the “well established theory” of modern science. In homeopathy,
the originator of the information is the starting material of the remedy;
succussed dilutions are mediators. High dilutions contain only information
from that material, no molecules. The receiver processes the information
according to its state, whether healthy [proving] or sick [therapy].As for your part 1, which says:


The use of preparations that are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number (i.e. potencies greater than C10) happens in only 25% of the prescribed homeopathic medications. Nevertheless, for some people this question is the most important obstacle to the acceptance of homeopathy.

What is the real relevance of Avogadro’s number in evaluating the precise pattern of molecules? Can a dilution work without any molecule? One of the most innovative perspectives in this last decade was the demonstration that high dilutions have as much activity and effectiveness in an organized structured solvent without any solute molecule as they do when molecules are present (even only some molecules).

Professor Louis Rey, Doctor of Sciences, Lausanne, a specialist in low temperature thermoluminescence, has published on this topic in the international journals Nature (1988; 391: 418) and C.R.Physique (2000; 1: 107-110). He presented the latest results of the experiments he carried out together with Dr. Philippe Belon on the thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10-30 g cm-3) were irradiated by X- and gamma-rays at 77K, then progressively re-warmed to room temperature. etc.

This all seems very familiar to this page...

http://www.cure4incurables.com/homeo.htm

including

First question addressed: The activity of very highly diluted preparations. Homeopathic practitioners will argue that the use of preparations that are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number (i.e. potencies greater than C10) happens in only 25% of the prescribed homeopathic medications. Nevertheless, for some people this question is the most important obstacle to the acceptance of homeopathy. The experimental model that is cheapest, most reproducible and also the most easily researched is probably the "acetylcholine-induced contraction of the rat ileum". It is a well recognized scientific model (Chang FY, Lee SD, et al. Rat gastrointestinal motor responses mediated via activation of neurokinin receptors. J.Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999; 14: 39-45).and
Second question addressed: The content of very highly diluted homeopathic preparations. Professor Jean Cambar introduced the theme by asking what are the contributions of the different spectroscopies (Raman, Ultraviolet, X-ray or Magnetic Nuclear Resonance) in revealing the structure of water and solvents in high dilutions? What is the real relevance of Avogadro’s number in evaluating the precise pattern of molecules? Can a dilution work without any molecule? One of the most innovative perspectives in this last decade was the demonstration that high dilutions have as much activity and effectiveness in an organized structured solvent without any solute molecule as they do when molecules are present (even only some molecules). Professor Louis Rey, Doctor of Sciences, Lausanne, a specialist in low temperature thermoluminescence, has published on this topic in the international journals Nature (1988; 391: 418) and C.R.Physique (2000; 1: 107-110). He presented the latest results of the experiments he carried out together with Dr. Philippe Belon on the thermoluminescence of ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride. Ultra-high dilutions of lithium chloride and sodium chloride (10-30 g cm-3) were irradiated by X- and gamma-rays at 77K, then progressively re-warmed to room temperature.

[Baron Samedi]

Actually, this page rocks. http://www.cure4incurables.com/homeo.htm

I mean it, this is totally awesome

On request you can also: Learn Meditation, control Stress, improve Memory & Concentration, find a most satisfying job without much effort, learn speed reading, learn remote viewing/see places far away (sitting wherever you are - with eyes closed), learn Telepathy (mind reading/sending messages), stop smoking, lose/gain weight, improve confidence, regress to a past life (especially to solve problems that you have in this life related to a past life), find lost objects, get answers for the unsolvable, get whatever through guided visualization (a car, a house, money etc.), E.S.P. (Clairvoyance, Sixth sense, Intuition etc.) and so on. We have a team of specialists with rich experience in various specialised fields for curing various ailments.And not only that, they cure AIDS! Diabetes! Cure all heart problems! Quit alcohol, smoking, bad habits! AND they can help you avoid divorce! Dig around, and you can find anthrax prevention! (My advice... burn the CDs, ha ha)

If you want to be cured permanently, check out the contacts:
Dr. R. JHINGADÉ
M.D.(Hom.)
'Incurable' Healer, Hypnotherapist, Qualified Doctor and Homoeopath.

I want that on my business card... 'Incurable' Healer.... I'm jealous.

ETA: I forgot to add... all consultations with R. Jhingadé are by email. What a cushy job.

[steenkh]

Perhaps Dr. Nany Malik will care to defend the quotes she chose to paste?

[Rolfe]

Aw. I thought we had a new homoeopath to play with, even though the technique of argument by blatant assertion is a bit like being lectured to by a brick wall.

But all it is, is cut-and-paste. What a shame.

Rolfe.

[Baron Samedi]

Aw. I thought we had a new homoeopath to play with, even though the technique of argument by blatant assertion is a bit like being lectured to by a brick wall.

But all it is, is cut-and-paste. What a shame.

Rolfe.

And now a spamming cut and paste job. I'm sad.

[BillyJoe]

Is this a cut and paste argument?
from here: https://secureweb.activeisp.com/w003...ngl%202_05.pdf (https://secureweb.activeisp.com/w00384425/liga%20letter%20engl%202_05.pdf)



Thanks for saving me the effort.
The different text type was a dead giveaway.

[BillyJoe]

And now a spamming cut and paste job. I'm sad.


Yeah, 7 posts so far.
One says "Hi. I'm Dr. Nancy Malik"
The other 6 posts are actually only 3 posts, each duplicated in another thread.
And they are all copy and pastes.

:rolleyes:

[BillyJoe]

Oops, 8 posts.
One of those three "copy and paste" posts has just been pasted in a third thread!

[Mojo]

This all seems very familiar to this page...

http://www.cure4incurables.com/homeo.htm


Someone has been spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&oldid=195477512#Homeopathy_works.21_This_article_i s_biased_and_needs_to_be_changed.) Wikipedia with stuff from that page. They've done it at least three times, from at least two different accounts.

They've already made it into the "Homoeopaths say the darndest things" thread.

[Professor Yaffle]

Suspended after 11 posts!

[Baron Samedi]

Someone has been spamming (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homeopathy&oldid=195477512#Homeopathy_works.21_This_article_i s_biased_and_needs_to_be_changed.) Wikipedia with stuff from that page. They've done it at least three times, from at least two different accounts.

They've already made it into the "Homoeopaths say the darndest things" thread.

Ha ha, I like the end

P.S.: I have removed all references to other web-sites, but if someone really wants to, I'm sure they can find the same matter posted above, from our web-sites on the InternetI'm sure they can! Gah. So this guy is just trying to advertise his cure for diabetes, AIDS, bad gas after burritos, paranoia that your boss is secretly a space alien, and everything else under the sun?

[BillyJoe]

Geez, you can't get away with anything around here. :D

[Professor Yaffle]

Here's a link with a certain Dr Nancy Malik prescribing homoeopathic medicines with only a few symptoms or a diagnosis given. I didn't think homoeopaths worked like this...

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:MpQ82-BHq8IJ:www.sitagita.com/youth_counsellor.asp%3FExpID%3D235+dr+nancy+malik&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=uk

I had to link to the google cache because the original page redirects to some advert or other.

[Baron Samedi]

She seems to like Rhus Tox 30. Sadly, she never says if its 30X, 30C, or 30M. I find it funny that in her post, she claims that only 25% of remedies are beyond Avogadro. In that cache page, almost all of her recommendations are beyond 23^10 (30, 30, 200, 10M, 30... I see a 6, but no idea if that's X, C, or M)

[BillyJoe]

From her site:


sir, my father (age 67yr) have got inguinal hernia,in left side.Only 15 days earlier this problem started. Is there any treatment for this in homeopathy? If yes please advise us. thankyou shyam V.
Rx. Nux Nomica 30, single dose every alternate day for 15 days.


Hi, My 10 year old son has been diagnosed with right inguinal hernia. He is asymptomatic. The mass in his scrotum almost goes away when he is asleep, but slowly returns during the day. Which homeopathic remedy might will help him? Kindly advise.
Rx. Lycopodium 30 single dose every alternate day for 15 days.



Does this mean the treatment for inguinal hernia is different depending on whether it is on the left or right side?

Well, apparently it is....


I have ingunial hernia. Pl tell me how it be treated without involving surgery?
Yes it can be treated without surgery but kindly give me the details like: is it on right side or left side?, and other detauils about the patient.



I wonder how she would treat a strangulated hernia? :eek:
And would it make a difference if it was on the left or right side? :cool:

[Mojo]

Reading this blog post (http://layscience.net/?q=node/72) about the RTE's coverage of homoeopathy, And things started looking a little familiar: "Homeopathy was first introduced to Ireland by Dr. Charles W. Luther in 1839. Dr. William Walter was instructing Dr. Joseph Kidd in Dublin in 1842. Kidd later had great success with homeopathy in the Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s, and later became the physician to Benjamin Disraeli."

I wanted to do some digging on Joseph Kidd, but there appears to be nothing about him online except for some homeopathists book, which I'm not going to buy.


Guess who pops up in the comments.

Then came the infamous Irish potato famine of 1845–1849, when Kidd was challenged to show that homeopathy can be effective in the most adverse conditions. He moved to the rural areas where the worst starvation was happening, and he kept an active record of all of his patients and their diseases and deaths. He recorded 1.8 percent mortality, while the local hospital’s rate was 36 percent.


Wow! People who were sick enough to be admitted to a hospital were more likely to die than a homoeopath's patients.

Then he cites Frass et al again.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homoeopathy is symptom based. The symptoms accompanies with it have varied characteristics. So u could have (not neccessarily for every disease) a different medicine for left and right side.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

30 means 30C by default, until it is stated as 30X or something else

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Science progress from the known to the unknown and the model that is built up, for all intents and purposes, are linear in nature. And when it is used to study a system that is non-linear it is often found wanting. When science failed to find evidence it is the failure of science. Science is blind and if you know why this is so then you would be a bit more circumspect in the conclusion that science offer.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Homoeopathy had often been accused of not being scientific or do not conform to the gold standard set out by modern medicine. And as a result many homoeopathic researches had often taken the position that the evidence-based medicine is the only viable model for research. In trying to force fit the various aspects of homeopathy into this model we came up with some successes and also some failures. The failure is not in homoeopathy as a therapeutic modality but in the failure of the model in which we use.

[steenkh]

Science progress from the known to the unknown and the model that is built up, for all intents and purposes, are linear in nature. And when it is used to study a system that is non-linear it is often found wanting. When science failed to find evidence it is the failure of science. Science is blind and if you know why this is so then you would be a bit more circumspect in the conclusion that science offer.
In other words, if a homoeopathy cannot be shown to work, we just say that it is non-linear, and then, presto, we can claim it works?

What utter BS!

[steenkh]

Homoeopathy had often been accused of not being scientific or do not conform to the gold standard set out by modern medicine. And as a result many homoeopathic researches had often taken the position that the evidence-based medicine is the only viable model for research. In trying to force fit the various aspects of homeopathy into this model we came up with some successes and also some failures. The failure is not in homoeopathy as a therapeutic modality but in the failure of the model in which we use.
Do you deny that some illnesses cure themselves when untreated? How will you make sure that your research is not mistaking this effect for an effect of the treatment? Do you have a better method than "science"?

When you quote other people, you could at least acknowledge the quote. In this case, the quote seems to be taken from the NCH forum (http://nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=1263&st=0). Are you chiongguo? Do you have any opinion that is your own rather than what you can dig up on the net?

[Baron Samedi]

30 means 30C by default, until it is stated as 30X or something else

Even at 30C, do you not see the contradiction? Before, you just blindly copied and pasted this:

The use of preparations that are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number (i.e. potencies greater than C10) happens in only 25% of the prescribed homeopathic medications. Nevertheless, for some people this question is the most important obstacle to the acceptance of homeopathy.

Most of your recommendations to sick people are at 30C, which is indeed greater than C10.


Do you deny that some illnesses cure themselves when untreated? How will you make sure that your research is not mistaking this effect for an effect of the treatment? Do you have a better method than "science"?

When you quote other people, you could at least acknowledge the quote. In this case, the quote seems to be taken from the NCH forum (http://nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=1263&st=0). Are you chiongguo? Do you have any opinion that is your own rather than what you can dig up on the net?

I found those arguments, too, and thought that Nancy Malik was chiongguo. Only after checking your link, did I notice the date of these posts. Oi.

[Mojo]

Homoeopathy is symptom based.


Nice to see you admit this and not give us the BS that it is 'holistic'.

[Worm]

Science progress from the known to the unknown and the model that is built up, for all intents and purposes, are linear in nature. And when it is used to study a system that is non-linear it is often found wanting. When science failed to find evidence it is the failure of science. Science is blind and if you know why this is so then you would be a bit more circumspect in the conclusion that science offer.

Cut-n-paste from : http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/9000-homeopathy-some-issues-4.html#post77132
and : http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/9000-homeopathy-some-issues-5.html#post77383

Homoeopathy had often been accused of not being scientific or do not conform to the gold standard set out by modern medicine. And as a result many homoeopathic researches had often taken the position that the evidence-based medicine is the only viable model for research. In trying to force fit the various aspects of homeopathy into this model we came up with some successes and also some failures. The failure is not in homoeopathy as a therapeutic modality but in the failure of the model in which we use.

Cut-n-paste from : http://nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=1263&view=findpost&p=12922

I assume 'chiongguo' is you (if not, then there are other issues ;)) . If you're going to simply copy previous arguments because they are useful, you may want to get them checked for spelling and grammar, as there are a few mistakes in yours - nothing major, but they stand out when repeated.

[Baron Samedi]

Cut-n-paste from : http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/9000-homeopathy-some-issues-4.html#post77132
and : http://www.otherhealth.com/research-scientific-validity-homeopathy/9000-homeopathy-some-issues-5.html#post77383



Cut-n-paste from : http://nch.ipbfree.com/index.php?showtopic=1263&view=findpost&p=12922

I assume 'chiongguo' is you (if not, then there are other issues ;)) . If you're going to simply copy previous arguments because they are useful, you may want to get them checked for spelling and grammar, as there are a few mistakes in yours - nothing major, but they stand out when repeated.

Which Zep and MRC_Hans have already dealt with back in August. Even if this is chiongguo, isn't this just a case of argumentum ad infinitum?

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't think she is chiongguo. He/she is in Malaysia, whereas Nancy seems to be in India. Do you have any original thoughts of your own Nancy?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I don't think she is chiongguo. He/she is in Malaysia, whereas Nancy seems to be in India. Do you have any original thoughts of your own Nancy?

Nancy is a homeopath. Does that answer your question?

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Nice to see you admit this and not give us the BS that it is 'holistic'.
It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathy

[Professor Yaffle]

It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathy

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holistic

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Wholistic

Most dictionaries only seem to list holistic, but most woos tend to use wholistic.

[Olowkow]

It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathy

Good grief! Here's the proof: http://www.wholisticfitness.com/
:D
and "homo-eopathy"? "misssed", needs another "s". I better sell all my dictionrarries!

[Mojo]

It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathy


No I haven't. The word is "holistic". Consult a dictionary.

And I suppose you don't realise that modern medicine is not the same as the 18th and early 19th century medicine that Hahnemann derided as "allopathy". Ironic, really, that homoeopaths apply this derogatory term to modern medicine, but have no problem with medical systems that actually have a great deal more in common with the "allopathy" of Hahnemann's day, such as Ayurveda or TCM, both of which, like the medicine Hahnemann opposed, rely on the idea of "humours".

Homoeopathy is not holistic. It doesn't consider the organism as a whole, the way metabolism works. It considers the patient to be nothing more than a collection of symptoms.

The claim that real doctors don't consider the whole patient is a slander put about by sCAMsters. Any decent doctor will look at the whole patient, rather than just the particular symptoms they happen to be complaining about.

[Mojo]

Most dictionaries only seem to list holistic, but most woos tend to use wholistic.


In some cases it's because English isn't their first language, which is excusable.

[Aepervius]

Good grief! Here's the proof: http://www.wholisticfitness.com/
:D
and "homo-eopathy"? "misssed", needs another "s". I better sell all my dictionrarries!


They use homepathic 30C dictionary , that is they take 1 page from a normal dictionary at random, then mix it with 100 blank pages. Then they repeat this 30 times. The final result is a woolistic homeopathetic dictionary.

[BillyJoe]

The word "homoeopathy" is the original spelling and is still acceptable.
I use that spelling all the time to emphasise the archaic nature of homoeopathy.

[Professor Yaffle]

There are a lot of words where spelling differs (mainly between UK and US, but the Uk seems to be adopting the US spelling a lot in many cases) because originally a different vowel letter (a ligature - a grapheme which combines two letters as a single letter) was used, eg homœopathy; fœtus; diarhœah; cœliac. In the UK it was (but is becoming less so) usual practice is to render œ as oe especiallywhere it is difficult to use the original (eg when typing). In the US e is used. There is a similar occurance with the letter æ as used in the words encyclopaedia; æsthetic; anæmia; Cæsar; mediæval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%92

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_words_that_may_be_spelled_with_a_ligature# .C3.86

[BillyJoe]

I don't know what's happening in the UK but, in Australia, all those spellings - foetus, diarrhoea, coeliac, encyclopaedia, anaesthetic, aesthetic, anaemia, Caesar, mediaeval (hmmm, not too sure about that one) - are the correct spellings of those words. The alternative spellings just look and feel wrong.

Then, of course, there is colour, rumour, clamour etc.

[Deetee]

In the UK the medical powers that be have decided on some americanisation. Fetus is now the accepted term I believe.

[Cuddles]

Science progress from the known to the unknown and the model that is built up, for all intents and purposes, are linear in nature.

Try calculating the effects of octupole fields on beam dynamics, then try saying science only deals with linear models.

In some cases it's because English isn't their first language, which is excusable.

It's excusable right up until they try correcting the native English speakers, especially in such an arrogant manner.

[MRC_Hans]

It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathyNo. Holistic is the term. Derives from Greek or something. There is no 'w'.

Do you also call it a 'whologram'? :p

Hans

[Worm]

According to Etymology Online (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=holistic&searchmode=none) It derives from the greek 'holos' which means 'whole'

First used in 1926 apparently.

Interestingly, the same source (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=allopathy&searchmode=none) clearly records 'allopathy' as "The term applied by homeopathists to traditional medicine"

;)

[Rocko]

In the UK the medical powers that be have decided on some americanisation. Fetus is now the accepted term I believe.

Yeah, I noticed this on our recently done scans; they used "fetus", much to my horror ;)

[BillyJoe]

Australia is staying rock solid against the evil american influence.

[Deetee]

Australia is staying rock solid against the evil american influence.
Perhaps you should wind the clock back a bit more to arrive at the etymologically true term, namely "phoetus".

[tsig]

In some cases it's because English isn't their first language, which is excusable.

English ain't my native language seems to be a favorite woo dodge.

[tsig]

It is 'Wholistic'. You have misssed W. We have no compartments in homoeopathy, unlike allopathy

Do you spell hole as whole?

No difference between bone and skin?

[BillyJoe]

Perhaps you should wind the clock back a bit more to arrive at the etymologically true term, namely "phoetus".


Well, I was just joking around, but all I was saying was that down here the spelling is, and always has been in my lifetime, "foetus". So I'm happy to stay with that. Hell, even if there is an official change here, I'm still staying with it.

[Mojo]

Perhaps you should wind the clock back a bit more to arrive at the etymologically true term, namely "phoetus".


Shouldn't that be "phœtus"?

[BillyJoe]

Phoetus, foetus, fetus....
I suppose the yanks won't be happy until just the last two letters remain.

[Deetee]

Shouldn't that be "phœtus"?
Yes, but how do I do the linked letters?

[Deetee]

Phoetus, foetus, fetus....
I suppose the yanks won't be happy until just the last two letters remain.
:D

[Acleron]

In his never ending quest to ply his trade, Ullman has stumbled into NESS and received a gentle but irrefutable lesson from Stephen Novella (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256).

[BillyJoe]

Dana Ullman's criticism of some aspects of conventional medicine are like the proverbial man trying to remove a splinter from someone else's eye with a beam in his own. :D

[Mojo]

In his never ending quest to ply his trade, Ullman has stumbled into NESS and received a gentle but irrefutable lesson from Stephen Novella (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256).


Oh dear, Ullman's citing Frass again. He can't be unaware of the criticisms of this study (try as he might to ignore them).

And he's citing the rest of his usual suspects: Kleijnen 1991, Linde 1997, Taylor 2004, Jacobs 2003...

His grasp of statistics seems to be as good as ever: According to the Kaiser Foundation, every man, woman, and child in the US in 2006 was prescribed 12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone...

[Mister Earl]

Where I am from, we don't use "Fetus" or "Foetus". We use the technical term parasite.

[fls]

His grasp of statistics seems to be as good as ever: According to the Kaiser Foundation, every man, woman, and child in the US in 2006 was prescribed 12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone...

How incredibly blind do you have to be to be unable to see that that statistic cannot possibly be true? How can you possibly think that anyone should take you seriously when you choose to say something so stupid?

These questions are of course rhetorical, since we are inundated with examples of the blindness and stupidity passing unnoticed. It still boggles, though.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

I haven't read the original but, just off the top of my head, considering that most prescriptions are for chronic conditions, and since each prescription for a chronic condition generally lasts one month, and considering that there are 12 months in a year, "12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone" might actually translate to "12.4 prescriptions for a drug in that year alone", meaning about "1 prescription drug in that year alone". Also, considering that the word "alone" at the end of the sentence is largely superfluous, this reduces to "1 prescription drug per year".

So, "12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone" actually means more like "1 prescription drug per year".

Is that about right?

[Baron Samedi]

I haven't read the original but, just off the top of my head, considering that most prescriptions are for chronic conditions, and since each prescription for a chronic condition generally lasts one month, and considering that there are 12 months in a year, "12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone" might actually translate to "12.4 prescriptions for a drug in that year alone", meaning about "1 prescription drug in that year alone". Also, considering that the word "alone" at the end of the sentence is largely superfluous, this reduces to "1 prescription drug per year".

So, "12.4 prescription drugs in that year alone" actually means more like "1 prescription drug per year".

Is that about right?

Further thought... are birth control pills in the US prescription only?

[Acleron]

Oh dear, Ullman's citing Frass again. He can't be unaware of the criticisms of this study (try as he might to ignore them).

And he's citing the rest of his usual suspects: Kleijnen 1991, Linde 1997, Taylor 2004, Jacobs 2003...

His grasp of statistics seems to be as good as ever:

Of course he's aware of the weaknesses in his arguments, he is just stupid enough to believe he can con Steven Novella. :jaw-dropp

[BillyJoe]

At this stage of his life, I think he just wants to sell his books

[Rocko]

Of course he's aware of the weaknesses in his arguments, he is just stupid enough to believe he can con Steven Novella. :jaw-dropp

He's still at it. Given Dr Novella's thoroughness and history of in depth responses to critics on his blog, I suspect there may be a fairly comprehensive riposte being written at the moment.

[Mojo]

Acerlon has been shown that he doesn’t learn, despite my and others efforts.

:id:

[Acleron]

Originally Posted by Dana Ullman
Acerlon has been shown that he doesn’t learn, despite my and others efforts.

I'm hurt, truly hurt. All those years of study and then an enormously respected academician, whose own work has shown that all that is known in chemistry, physics and biology (mathematics too) is just plain wrong has told me I haven't learned anything. I suppose I'd better find something to do that makes money but doesn't require any knowledge or logic.

Hmmm, homeopathy looks attractive :D

[BillyJoe]

Make sure you write a book and spam the forums for months before its release.

[Acleron]

Books are good but I think I've a more profitable idea.

Now all the air in the atmosphere must have been in contact with everything at one time or another and thus must carry a memory. So, I'll take a 100ml flask and 1 ml of water. Thats my first 1C dilution of the cure to everything. (Note to self, must shake vigorously, the flask not me :)). Now add water to make up to 100 ml, thats the 2C dilution. Easy from now on just 1/100 dilutions to about 30C. Make the last two 10 ml to a litre and 1 litre to 100 litres and I've got enough to make 10,000 10ml doses. Now at £5 a dose that's a tidy profit for an afternoon's work.

Sorry, what's that you are saying? It's in contact with air all the way through the process so it isn't getting diluted? Tut, tut, you are employing those outmoded and discredited systems called logic and skepticism. You are saying it won't work? Just do 100 trials (at your cost), at a confidence level of 5%, then 2.5% will work, the other 97.5% can be forgotten (hmm, must find a reason for that (hmm don't need reason)). And before anybody else criticises this wonderful preparation, just remember that billions of people have found water to be literally life-saving and Galileo wasn't believed either.

[Baron Samedi]

Books are good but I think I've a more profitable idea.

Now all the air in the atmosphere must have been in contact with everything at one time or another and thus must carry a memory. So, I'll take a 100ml flask and 1 ml of water. Thats my first 1C dilution of the cure to everything. (Note to self, must shake vigorously, the flask not me :)). Now add water to make up to 100 ml, thats the 2C dilution. Easy from now on just 1/100 dilutions to about 30C. Make the last two 10 ml to a litre and 1 litre to 100 litres and I've got enough to make 10,000 10ml doses. Now at £5 a dose that's a tidy profit for an afternoon's work.

Sorry, what's that you are saying? It's in contact with air all the way through the process so it isn't getting diluted? Tut, tut, you are employing those outmoded and discredited systems called logic and skepticism. You are saying it won't work? Just do 100 trials (at your cost), at a confidence level of 5%, then 2.5% will work, the other 97.5% can be forgotten (hmm, must find a reason for that (hmm don't need reason)). And before anybody else criticises this wonderful preparation, just remember that billions of people have found water to be literally life-saving and Galileo wasn't believed either.

Better yet, do a one-sided test. You only care that your troposphere 30C solution is better than placebo. You'll double the number of trials that work! Huzzah! Can I get in on the action?

[Acleron]

Better yet, do a one-sided test. You only care that your troposphere 30C solution is better than placebo. You'll double the number of trials that work! Huzzah! Can I get in on the action?

You do the trials and my accountant will work out 10% for you.

So, 10% of nothing is ... Hey wait, put the nothing I've given you and shake it about a little bit and it becomes whatever you want to believe it is.

[wilsontown]

Good old Dana is still hanging about at Wikipedia, talking total rubbish about Roy's now-infamous spectrophotometry, and giving criticisms of the Shang et al. paper that have been rebutted here, among other places. But it seems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman) as if he's running into some trouble.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Mojo

I tried to PM you on what wilsontown has just said, but your PM box is full

[Acleron]

Good old Dana is still hanging about at Wikipedia, talking total rubbish about Roy's now-infamous spectrophotometry, and giving criticisms of the Shang et al. paper that have been rebutted here, among other places. But it seems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#DanaUllman) as if he's running into some trouble.

And just as he is having a problems at Wikipedia, he pops up on the Quackometer (http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2008/04/footnote-to-darwin-and-homeopathy.html) blog still trying to claim that Darwin was saved by homeopathy.

[BillyJoe]

What? Again?

[Rocko]

Unbelievable. Absolutely shameless.

[Acleron]

Dana's input to Wikipedia is being seriously criticised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision).

But someone admires him.

Dana Ullman has found many errors of fact and some missing information on various wikipedia articles on homeopathy and has sought to correct them with verifiable, notable information from reliable sources and has often provided secondary sources. Despite having to deal with many editors who have expressed open skepticism and strong antagonism towards homeopathy and even offensively referred to homeopathic physicians as "quacks" and "promoters of pseudoscience," Dana has maintain civility and has often found ways to obtain consensus. Even though numerous editors have wiki-stalked him and others who have been antagonistic to Dana's work have later been found to be socks or multiple socks, Dana has maintained civility.

I wonder who this supporter could be?

Why it's none other that Dana himself :covereyes

[Baron Samedi]

Dana's input to Wikipedia is being seriously criticised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision).

But someone admires him.



I wonder who this supporter could be?

Why it's none other that Dana himself :covereyes

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13601480f21e37497a.gif

Amazing. Baron Samedi finds this quite amusing. Just like DanaJames, Baron Samedi shall start referring to himself in the third person.

[Mojo]

Dana's input to Wikipedia is being seriously criticised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Workshop#Proposed_final_decision).

But someone admires him.

I wonder who this supporter could be?

Why it's none other that Dana himself :covereyes


Looking back at the first page of this thread, I find that he had a supporter here as well: I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies? Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

At first blush, homeopathy seems weird to me too, but heck, nature is full of mysteries. Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

:D