More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Acleron]

Looking back at the first page of this thread, I find that he had a supporter here as well:

:D

When I first joined the thread I quickly and obviously inadequately scanned the first posts. I hadn't realised Gully had tried to pass himself off as anyone other than Ullman.

One of Dana's many endearing traits is to quickly accuse others of any fault found in himself. I had wondered why he made such a big deal on Wikipedia of presenting himself as Ullman and not using a pseudonym. Now we know, thanks Mojo.

[Rolfe]

Oh, they banned him then? Good!

For a so-called eminent figure, Dana has an awful lot of spare time to wander round the internet pushing homoeopathy.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Oh, they banned him then?


No, they're still posting evidence and discussing possible options. I'm not quite sure how the arbitration is going to work, or how long it takes. As far as I can see the possible scope of the arbitration has been widened form Dana to all articles relating to homoeopathy and (I think) all the users who have been editing/discussing them.

[BillyJoe]

For a so-called eminent figure, Dana has an awful lot of spare time to wander round the internet pushing homoeopathy.


He has a lot of time because he does not actually practise homoeopathy and hasn't done so for decades!
All he needs to do is write a book every now and then.

[Acleron]

Dana has been banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman#Topic_ban_.28Homeopathy.29) at Wikipedia from all homeopathy related articles for three months.

The reasons for the ban are very strongly worded by Wikipedia standards.

You have persisted in disrupting homeopathy-related topics, including tendentious arguments, soapboxing, and accusations against other editors. For example, your behavior (both over the long-term and more recently) at Potassium dichromate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is completely unacceptable.

[Mojo]

Dana has been banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman#Topic_ban_.28Homeopathy.29) at Wikipedia from all homeopathy related articles for three months.


Bit of a shame really, as he won't be able to dig himself any deeper into the hole wrt the current arbitration.

[Mojo]

Hilarious book review (http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nen024v1).

[BillyJoe]

It almost reads like satire!

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It almost reads like satire!

I think we can be sure that DU is guaranteed a warm, and indeed moist, welcome should he ever visit Delaware.

[Rocko]

So Moses was a homeopath. Well I never.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So Moses was a homeopath. Well I never.

Surely only a proto-homeopath? He could not have thumped his solutions on a big thick book like the Bible as neither books or bibles had been invented yet. :boggled:

[shpalman]

Well sure, that's why he had to start writing it.

[Deetee]

Surely only a proto-homeopath? He could not have thumped his solutions on a big thick book like the Bible as neither books or bibles had been invented yet. :boggled:
He used the ideal surrogate - a stone tablet inscribed with the 10 commandments

[Mojo]

Lessons in quote-mining #1 (http://infophilia.blogspot.com/2008/05/lessons-in-quote-mining-1.html).

[Mojo]

I hadn't noticed this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrati on%2FHomeopathy%2FEvidence&diff=213617018&oldid=213009970) when he originally posted it, but Dana seems to have an interesting grasp of grammar: I want to remind Arb committee members that “science” and “medicine” are verbs, ever-changing and ever-evolving.

[whatthebutlersaw]

Can I hear it in a sentence please?

"Sure: As soon as I've scienced up the treatment, I will medicine the crap out of you."

Thank you. Now I think I know.

[Professor Yaffle]

Can I hear it in a sentence please?

"Sure: As soon as I've scienced up the treatment, I will medicine the crap out of you."

Thank you. Now I think I know.

Name that film:

"If I medicined you, you'd think a brain tumour was a birthday present."

[Worm]

Too easy ;)

"I demand to have some booze!"

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

In case anyone has missed it, DU has got himself banned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed_decision#DanaUllman_banned) from Wikipedia for a year.

But he is still an editor at Citizendium (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Dana_Ullman) with predictable consequences (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy&diff=100276732&oldid=100276719). I think I can live my life without Citizendium.

[Mojo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/graphics/2008/06/04/calex04.gif

[Acleron]

Dana now wants $40 from a prospective patient for recommending (http://www.homeopathic.com/) a homeopath.

From the same site he is also flogging all the homeopathic preparations from three producers, including Boiron. His criticism of some trials that show homeopathy is no better than placebo on the grounds that the treament wasn't individualised is now more than slightly weak.

There is also three packs of sprays for young children, active people and the elderly. My eyesight, specs and screen make it difficult to read the image that accompanies this rubbish, but I could swear it actually mentions that they are for pets, anyone with better vision?

[Michael C]

There is also three packs of sprays for young children, active people and the elderly. My eyesight, specs and screen make it difficult to read the image that accompanies this rubbish, but I could swear it actually mentions that they are for pets, anyone with better vision?
Yes, indeed they are. But not to worry: Dana says:

Although this kit was initially designed for treating pets, it can be used in treating anyone.

So that's OK, then ;)

[BillyJoe]

Is he saying that he believes in evilution.

[EarlFaulk]

I read this joker's book in the library I decided to be fair for a speech I had to give for my Public Speaking class in school so I gave his side shortly before demolishing it with common sense.

[Mojo]

The decision had finally come through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman

Dana Ullman engages in advocacy of homeopathy shock horror!

[Michael C]

The decision had finally come through: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman

Dana Ullman engages in advocacy of homeopathy shock horror!

Poor Dana. The dreaded "anti-homeopathic fundamentalists" seem to be winning. It must be a conspiracy.

[Acleron]

Poor Dana. The dreaded "anti-homeopathic fundamentalists" seem to be winning. It must be a conspiracy.

Ullman will probably try that debating technique but the arbitrators on that case had nothing to do with the editing of the homeopathy articles.

After being warned, tutored and restricted, he attacked other editors for bias and lack of assumption of good faith. Banning him for one year just gives wiki an all too brief rest from him.

[Acleron]

Yes, indeed they are. But not to worry: Dana says:

Quote:
Although this kit was initially designed for treating pets, it can be used in treating anyone.


So that's OK, then ;)

My reading skills are declining as fast as my vision, I went back to that site after your posting and still didn't see the quote and thought it must be from elsewhere. After revisiting it today (masochist I know), found it withing half an inch of the image. Duh!

As we know that Ullman's definitions of research and proof differ from the mainstream, I presume his meaning of the word 'designed' is more to do with colouring the package than anything else. :)

[Mojo]

Ullman will probably try that debating technique but the arbitrators on that case had nothing to do with the editing of the homeopathy articles.

After being warned, tutored and restricted, he attacked other editors for bias and lack of assumption of good faith. Banning him for one year just gives wiki an all too brief rest from him.


He also appears to be a "Single Purpose Account": pretty much everything he has posted there has been in connection with homoeopathy, whether on homoeopathy-related subjects or by editing other articles (such as biographies of historical figures) to give a more positive slant as far as homoeopathy is concerned.

It's instructive that since the extent of the topic ban was made clear to him (i.e. to include discussion of homoeopathy on other users' talk pages etc) he has made virtually no edits, despite his block being lifted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman#Unblocked) on June 11th. In fact, the only edit he's made since then is this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADanaUllman&diff=222760569&oldid=222716511), which he got in just before the year's ban was imposed. Interestingly, he only made this edit after another pro-homoeopathy editor had been warned (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Tutor&oldid=222713904) about removing it, and the passage had twice been reinstated.

[Acleron]

I missed that one, I salute your wiki-fu :)

[geni]

Ullman will probably try that debating technique but the arbitrators on that case had nothing to do with the editing of the homeopathy articles.

After being warned, tutored and restricted, he attacked other editors for bias and lack of assumption of good faith. Banning him for one year just gives wiki an all too brief rest from him.

1 year bans have a habit of being extended.

[Acleron]

1 year bans have a habit of being extended.

That's a pleasant thought :D

[Acleron]

Not all that interesting but I've just come across an audio interview (http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcasts.html) of Ullman (#48 in the list).

He trots out all the well known falsehoods.

Conventional medicine causes mental disease by suppressing symptoms.
Homeopathy must be good because it has no side-effects.
Must work because many people use it.

And from the 'I'm so humble author': 'I stand on the shoulders of giants'. This last one is apparantly because he has a library of homeopathy books :eye-poppi

Couldn't work out who was more nauseous, Ullman or the sycophantic interviewer, Mike Adams. :throwing up

[Mojo]

There's a recent (at least I think it's recent: Google News says it went up on ‎ the 9th of July) article by Ullman on that site as well: http://www.naturalnews.com/023595.html

Interestingly, Ullman is touting over-the-counter, non-individualised homeopathy: In addition to homeopathic medicines that are composed of specific single ingredient substances, there are also "homeopathic formulas," that is, combinations of 2 to 10 ingredients. These formulas are very simple to use because they are usually made with some of the most commonly prescribed remedies known to be effective in treating people with a specific ailment, and these products are marketed based on a specific disease name (Because the FDA recognizes homeopathic medicines are "over-the-counter drugs," it is perfectly legal for homeopathic manufacturers to give a disease indication on the label, as long as the disease is self-limiting and does not require a medical diagnosis).


He can have no objection to DBPC testing of these for their target conditions. On the other hand, he's previously objected to trials in which non-individualised homoeopathy has failed to show an effect above placebo on the grounds that that isn't proper homoeopathy.

But wait, there's more: Homeopaths generally find that the individually-chosen single ingredient homeopathic remedy is more apt to provide faster and more certain results...


"Individually-chosen" remedies provide more certain results! So they should show even better results in DBPC trials.

[Acleron]

There's a recent (at least I think it's recent: Google News says it went up on ‎ the 9th of July) article by Ullman on that site as well: http://www.naturalnews.com/023595.html

Interestingly, Ullman is touting over-the-counter, non-individualised homeopathy:


He can have no objection to DBPC testing of these for their target conditions. On the other hand, he's previously objected to trials in which non-individualised homoeopathy has failed to show an effect above placebo on the grounds that that isn't proper homoeopathy.

But wait, there's more:


"Individually-chosen" remedies provide more certain results! So they should show even better results in DBPC trials.

In this forum he has made it very clear, homeopathy only works when used in an individualised way, unless of course he wants to promote a trial that he can quote, or a product he can sell.

For a long time I couldn't decide if Ullman was delusional or a charlatan. Now it's quite clear, it's just the money.

[Rocko]

In this forum he has made it very clear, homeopathy only works when used in an individualised way, unless of course he wants to promote a trial that he can quote, or a product he can sell.

For a long time I couldn't decide if Ullman was delusional or a charlatan. Now it's quite clear, it's just the money.

I wondered the same; I think there's a fair percentage of homeopaths out there who are "just" deluded.

With Ullman, however, there's no question in my mind that he knows he's spouting nonsense. The approach he takes - on Wikipedia, for example - is frequently sly; he tried to smuggle stuff in the back door.

More damning, however, is the way he repeats things as fact that he *knows* aren't true. The whole Darwin and homeopathy thing, for example; it's been pointed out to him on numerous occasions that his claims on the subject are patently and demonstrably untrue. But he still makes them. That, for me, means there's no doubt the man isn't deluded, he's just in it for the cash.

[Michael C]

For a long time I couldn't decide if Ullman was delusional or a charlatan. Now it's quite clear, it's just the money.

I don't think he's just there for the money. His behaviour is typical of a deluded person: he's so sure of his delusions that he doesn't see reason even if it's pushed right under his nose, and he's blind to logic if it contradicts his cherished ideas.

If he was just after making money, he wouldn't spend so much time making lengthy posts on blogs, forums or Wikipedia: this is not an efficient method for getting rich. OK, he often plugs his books when he posts, but I think that is due more to vanity than to business sense.

A cynical charlatan who wants to get rich on the homeopathy bandwagon won't bother wasting time on evangelical activties: they'll just set up an online pharmacy where they pass off un-prepared sugar pills as homeopathic remedies, in the full knowledge that there is in fact no difference. Or they will sell something like this voice-programmed homeopathic remedy maker (http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm).

[Acleron]

I don't think he's just there for the money. His behaviour is typical of a deluded person: he's so sure of his delusions that he doesn't see reason even if it's pushed right under his nose, and he's blind to logic if it contradicts his cherished ideas.

The behaviour of a somebody trying to flog a worthless product would be much the same, that's why I was initially undecided.

If he was just after making money, he wouldn't spend so much time making lengthy posts on blogs, forums or Wikipedia: this is not an efficient method for getting rich. OK, he often plugs his books when he posts, but I think that is due more to vanity than to business sense.

I agree. Vanity and a streak of arrogance a mile wide are part of it. As for business sense, he is promoting his own woo.

A cynical charlatan who wants to get rich on the homeopathy bandwagon won't bother wasting time on evangelical activties: they'll just set up an online pharmacy where they pass off un-prepared sugar pills as homeopathic remedies, in the full knowledge that there is in fact no difference. Or they will sell something like this voice-programmed homeopathic remedy maker (http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm).

But he has set up his own pharmacy (http://www.homeopathic.com/).

It was his promotion of non-individualised preparations and his activity on Wikipedia that finally swung the balance for me. He has claimed that individualisation is a necessary part of homeopathy except for certain cases when it suits him. OK, this could be argued that in these cases the symptoms are so clear cut that individual diagnosis is unnecessary. But when he pops up selling nearly every known homeopathic product from a web site?
Access Homeopathic Medicines!

Did you know that we at Homeopathic Educational Services now sell EVERY homeopathic medicine sold by Hahnemann Laboratories, Boiron, and Standard?

That's just deceit.

[Michael C]

But he has set up his own pharmacy (http://www.homeopathic.com/).
Yes, he can earn money with that. But he can't earn money from all his Wikipedia activities, or all the posts he makes on various forums. So why does he spend so much time on these activities? It could be that it is just thirst for fame, but I still consider it highly probable that he really believes the stuff he writes.

The inconsistency between his insistence on the importance of individualised homeopathy and the fact that he sells ready-made remedies is glaringly obvious to us, but he is incapable of seeing it. His mind will find all sorts of convoluted and nonsensical ways to rationalise the problem.

Look at his crusade for Dr Gully and his supposed homeopathic treatment of Charles Darwin. He's not making money with this. His stubborn refusal to accept the obvious evidence against his claims is typical of a deluded person. Here, taken from the Wikipedia article on the subject, are the criteria for delusion that were laid down by the psychiatrist Karl Jaspers:


certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)


That fits Dana to a T.

[Acleron]

Yes, he can earn money with that. But he can't earn money from all his Wikipedia activities, or all the posts he makes on various forums. So why does he spend so much time on these activities? It could be that it is just thirst for fame, but I still consider it highly probable that he really believes the stuff he writes.

Publicising your own business is an essential part of making money. Remember, he isn't trying to convince us or the majority of those who read Wikipedia but that small minority who will buy his books and potions.

The inconsistency between his insistence on the importance of individualised homeopathy and the fact that he sells ready-made remedies is glaringly obvious to us, but he is incapable of seeing it. His mind will find all sorts of convoluted and nonsensical ways to rationalise the problem.

This is the crux of the matter. Ullman is obviously an intelligent man. He argues his points with logic but uses false premises and quote mining to win. Here, he totally contradicts himself. I might just be convinced he is only delusional if he or someone can produce some half assed reasoning that can justify the juxtaposition of 'most homeopathic medicines must be individualised' and 'I sell almost any homeopathic medicine on a non-individualised basis'.

Look at his crusade for Dr Gully and his supposed homeopathic treatment of Charles Darwin. He's not making money with this. His stubborn refusal to accept the obvious evidence against his claims is typical of a deluded person. Here, taken from the Wikipedia article on the subject, are the criteria for delusion that were laid down by the psychiatrist Karl Jaspers:


certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)


That fits Dana to a T.

It also fits a salesman.

Just as an anecodote: I knew a research chemist who left research to make money selling a slightly dubious product. He exhibited exactly the same characteristics as you have listed. Later, he left that endeavour and when I questioned him about that episode in his life he freely admitted the product was junk but said 'I couldn't possibly admit it at the time'.

[Mojo]

But he can't earn money from all his Wikipedia activities...

...

Look at his crusade for Dr Gully and his supposed homeopathic treatment of Charles Darwin. He's not making money with this.


The Darwin/Gully stuff was one of the hooks he used to publicise his book promoting homoeopathy. Promoting homoeopathy makes him money. A certain amount of his Wikipedia activities involved editing articles (in particular to do with Darwin and Gully) so that they supported the claims in his book. He's also tried to get studies that he hawks around as showing homoeopathy is effective into articles there. Again, this would give him apparently supporting evidence when he uses these to promote homoeopathy.

[steenkh]

The Darwin/Gully stuff was one of the hooks he used to publicise his book promoting homoeopathy.
Did he not also brag on other forums how he had floored the skeptics with his research on homoeopathy and Darwin?

[Mojo]

Looks like Dana will have to produce a revised edition of his book:

The healer on the 73 bus, Europe's most wanted man (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2)

When the policemen got on the bus at a stop between Belgrade and the town of Batanica, they showed him their badges and the man who called himself Dragan Dabic, practitioner of alternative medicine, went with them without a struggle. With that quiet exchange Radovan Karadzic's 12 years on the run came to an anticlimactic end.

...

As Dabic, he set up a website called Psy Help Energy which advertised the David Wellbeing Programme which offered help from "experienced experts from pioneering areas of science where there are immense possibilities for interaction with natural forces in and around us".

Among other services offered were acupuncture, homeopathy, "quantum medicine" and traditional cures.

[Acleron]

Looks like Dana will have to produce a revised edition of his book:

The healer on the 73 bus, Europe's most wanted man (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/radovankaradzic.warcrimes2)

Damn you, Mojo, I spent an hour yesterday hoping to find that very fact.

No, well done :D

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Damn you, Mojo, I spent an hour yesterday hoping to find that very fact.

No, well done :D

Moi aussi.

Well there you have it, genocidal nutjob and homeopath. All you need to do is shrug off the fetters of rationality and both career paths lie open to you.

[BillyJoe]

I thought of this thread as well when I saw that on the news.

Too caught up with the Tour of France to post though.

[Worm]

I didn't want to start a new thread to add this comment, and this is on my subscribe list, so by default this is where it ends up :)

Just thought I'd mention that I was having a very nice day today, with the weather being nice and friendly for once, reading a new book I just picked up

The Pirates! In An Adventure with Napoleon (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pirates-Adventure-Napoleon-Gideon-Defoe/dp/029785108X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217201517&sr=1-1) by Gideon Defoe

This is only one of a series :

The Pirates! In An Adventure with Scientists
The Pirates! In An Adventure with Whaling
The Pirates! In An Adventure with Communists

as you may have gathered, these books are thoroughly silly, with much conversation consisting of 'arrrrrr' and discussions about ham, luxurious beards, and barnacles.

However, there is a very keen wit working through them, and to actually get to the point and stop this reading like a cheap plug for some (very funny) books, this sentence made me laugh out loud.

For reasons that don't really bear explaining (it would take too long, but suffice to say bees, pictures of monsters, and british colonial etiquette figure quite heavily) a Pirate Captain and Napoleon are discussing the lessons they have learned from life.

Pirate Captain : Self-worth shouldn't come from awards and trinkets and getting the respect of your peers, it should come from within.
Napoleon : Surely by that logic, anybody can declare themselves a success no matter how useless and ineffectual they are? You know, like homeopathy.

It's nice to see that there is some kind of general acceptance of such attitudes :)

[Mojo]

He's shown up on youtube now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8B2JkPf3Pc

He posted that last month, and he's still spouting the stuff about Darwin that he's seen thoroughly torn apart.

[Mojo]

Figured out how to use the YT tag properly (I think):

He's shown up on youtube now:

s8B2JkPf3Pc

He posted that last month, and he's still spouting the stuff about Darwin that he's seen thoroughly torn apart.


ETA: Yes, it works now.

[Acleron]

A lengthy interview of Dana by Louise McLean (http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2008/08/15/interview-with-dana-ullman/).

Includes such gems as
Ultimately if you think of what an ideal drug should do, to me an ideal drug should be something that augments immuno-competence and that’s what homeopathy does.

Followed by
I also want to let you know there have been a number of new plant studies that some Swiss and Italian researchers have conducted, showing powerful effects of homeopathic doses on plants.


Hmm, plants with immune systems?

He also repeats claims he made in these forums that an exposé of Shang's analysis is about to be published.

In fact they had a remark in the Shang article published in the Lancet, where they specifically made reference to trials on respiratory ailments and that the results were robust, but they said they couldn’t trust them because there were only 8 studies. But then again they based their entire analysis on 8 homeopathic studies and 6 conventional ones. So they can’t have it both ways and this new journal article in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology which is ranked as one of the top international journals of reviews of research, has accepted the new studies.

I don't have access to how respectable a journal is the J Clin Epidem, but as the article is still to be published its pretty moot. On the other hand I'm unlikely to be impressed by a recommendation by Ullman.

If you have read the journal Homeopathy of the UK Faculty of Homeopathy, it is the best academic journal with the best information on research.

As usual, Ullman's eloquence is only exceeded by his lack of knowledge and understanding.

[Mojo]

A lengthy interview of Dana by Louise McLean (http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2008/08/15/interview-with-dana-ullman/).


As posted by Sue Young, who is taking a leaf out of Dana's book by posting ever more tenuous links of famous people with homoeopathy.

Her post (http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/archives/2008/07/20/pelham-grenville-wodehouse-and-homeopathy/) about P. G. Wodehouse is a classic. Here's what it says about Wodehouse and homoeopathy: Pelham Grenville Wodehouse wrote Homeopathic Treatment for the Boy Scout Magazine Boy’s Life in 1931, volume 21, number 4, with illustrations by Enos B Comstock.

Frederick Hervey Foster Quin, George Atkin, John Chapman and Robert Ellis Dudgeon, John Rutherford Russell, James W Metcalf and an anonymous ‘friend’ put together a Directory of British and Foreign Homeopaths and their supporters to counter the suppression of all mention of homeopaths and their supporters by the editors of the London and Provincial Medical Directory in 1853. This directory mentions Wodehouse’s father Henry Ernest Wodehouse 1845–1929 who was a British judge in Hong Kong, listing him as Lord Wodehouse, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

As can be seen from the link (http://www.trussel.com/prehist/boyslife/bl3104.htm) she provides, Homeopathic Treatment is a short story.

As far as the mention of Wodehouse's father in The British and Foreign Homœopathic Medical Directory and Record is concerned, The implication is clearly that Wodehouse senior was either a homoeopath or a supporter of homoeopathy (she specifically describes it as "a Directory of British and Foreign Homeopaths and their supporters"). He's in fact listed in an almanac section, simply because he was a member of the government at the time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any connection between Wodehouse and homoeopathy.

There's no other mention of a link with homoeopathy in the article.

So she's claiming Wodehouse for homoeopathy on the basis of the title of a short story published in a boy scout magazine, and the fact that his father was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1853.

[Acleron]

So she's claiming Wodehouse for homoeopathy on the basis of the title of a short story published in a boy scout magazine, and the fact that his father was Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1853.

Mojo, give her a break, there's more evidence there than for homeopathy itself. :D

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mojo, give her a break, there's more evidence there than for homeopathy itself. :D

Ouch!

Don't be so hurtful by telling the truth.

Or maybe this is "homeopathic evidence"? The more tenuous it is; the more true it must be? :cool:

[Michael C]

:D :D :D

Sue Young would do well to read the story.

It's here: Homoeopathic Treatment: A School Story (http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/wodehouse/homeop10.html).

It's a simple story of schoolboys annoying each other. One boy (Buxton) annoys all those around him with the odours of cheap scent on his handkerchief, until another boy gives him a dose of his own medicine: treating like with like. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests Wodehouse was supporting homeopathy.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

:D :D :D

Sue Young would do well to read the story.

It's here: Homoeopathic Treatment: A School Story (http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/wodehouse/homeop10.html).

It's a simple story of schoolboys annoying each other. One boy (Buxton) annoys all those around him with the odours of cheap scent on his handkerchief, until another boy gives him a dose of his own medicine: treating like with like. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests Wodehouse was supporting homeopathy.

Well I say that this is "homeopathic evidence". I also note, that on the same basis, all medical magazines and professional societies in the World support this sham because at one time thay all have mentioned homeopathy!

[Thing]

I don't have access to how respectable a journal is the J Clin Epidem, but as the article is still to be published its pretty moot.
Well it's a real enough journal, it's got an impact factor of 2.565, 22nd in its ISI category (Public, environmental & occupational health). For comparison Lancet's impact factor is 28.638. But I doubt the article Dana refers to will be published, or for that matter has been submitted or even written.

[Rocko]

:D :D :D

Sue Young would do well to read the story.

It's here: Homoeopathic Treatment: A School Story (http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/wodehouse/homeop10.html).

It's a simple story of schoolboys annoying each other. One boy (Buxton) annoys all those around him with the odours of cheap scent on his handkerchief, until another boy gives him a dose of his own medicine: treating like with like. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests Wodehouse was supporting homeopathy.

Ha, that's awesome.

I genuinely can't fathom the mindset that just thinks "Oooh, a story called Homoeopathic Treatment - I bet that clearly shows Wodehouse was a fan of homeopathy", writes an article predicated on that assumption and then publishes it - all without, y'know, actually bothering to check.

[wilsontown]

In fact they had a remark in the Shang article published in the Lancet, where they specifically made reference to trials on respiratory ailments and that the results were robust, but they said they couldn’t trust them because there were only 8 studies. But then again they based their entire analysis on 8 homeopathic studies and 6 conventional ones. So they can’t have it both ways and this new journal article in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology which is ranked as one of the top international journals of reviews of research, has accepted the new studies.

This just shows that Ullman still doesn't understand the Shang study, despite having it explained it to him all over the internet. But I'm sure no-one here is surprised to hear that.

The point Shang et al. made regarding the eight trials of homeopathy for respiratory ailments was that meta-analyses of small numbers of trials would be likely to miss the evidence of bias that they found in their dataset of 110 trials. They are not trying to have it both ways at all.


In fact there is a new study that is coming out shortly which is a re-analysis of the 2005 Lancet review of Shang. The researchers got it accepted in a major international journal of research. What they have finally done is what Shang didn’t do. He didn’t review ALL of the high calibre research but only a small part of it. He ignored comprehensive analysis entirely. I think he knew exactly what it was but he didn’t want to report on it, as it was too positive. Instead he only reported on trials with very large numbers of subjects because when you do that, most of those studies use one remedy for everybody without any degree of individuality.

I find it irritating that Ullman is happy to essentially accuse Shang and his co-workers of research misconduct, based on a total misunderstanding of what they did.

And of course, the whole individualisation thing is a red herring. Not only did Shang et al. include a number of papers that tested individualised remedies, it showed that these had no better results than trials of homeopathy without individualisation. But anyway, Ullman is only against non-individualised remedies when it suits him:

I think the attacks are taking place because of homeopathy’s integration within the mainstream, that it is being taught in various Universities and the medicines are being sold in Boots and various mainstream pharmacies. So that is threatening.

[Acleron]

This just shows that Ullman still doesn't understand the Shang study, despite having it explained it to him all over the internet. But I'm sure no-one here is surprised to hear that.

Oh, I think he does. Its illuminating that he now only comes out with this crap when amongst his woo friends and knows he won't be challenged.

The best he can come up with elsewhere is that there were 8 high quality homeopathy trials and only 6 high quality conventional trials and therefore homeopathy is better. :eye-poppi

[wilsontown]

I've done a quick blog post (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/dana-ullman-says-thing-that-is-not.html) on this, but it's nothing that people here don't already know, I suspect...

[Acleron]

I've done a quick blog post (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/dana-ullman-says-thing-that-is-not.html) on this, but it's nothing that people here don't already know, I suspect...

Truth can always bear repeating.

[wilsontown]

Heh, Ullman has showed up in the comments on my blog (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/08/dana-ullman-says-thing-that-is-not.html). He's still talking rubbish though...

[Mojo]

More on Ullman and Shang: Making your own reality - part 2 (http://apgaylard.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/making-your-own-reality-part-2/).

[Acleron]

He is irrepresible (http://weightlosstea.brighterplanet.org/green-tea/4-clinical-research-confirms-benefits-from-homeopathy).

[Mongrel]

He is irrepresible (http://weightlosstea.brighterplanet.org/green-tea/4-clinical-research-confirms-benefits-from-homeopathy).

I love playing "How long has the Doctor been dead?" when they wheel out the quotes from MDs

“Those who say they have tested Homeopathy and it is a failure have only exposed their own ignorance.”
J. T. Kent, MD

Who I'm guessing is this guy (http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/lectures-materia-medica.html), so that's nearly a century.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He is irrepresible (http://weightlosstea.brighterplanet.org/green-tea/4-clinical-research-confirms-benefits-from-homeopathy).

Do you think he missed the part where we demolished all of those studies?

And he still quotes Linde 1997!!

[Mojo]

Who I'm guessing is this guy (http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/lectures-materia-medica.html), so that's nearly a century.


Ah, but he's one of the great prophets of the religion.

[Deetee]

:D :D :D

Sue Young would do well to read the story.

It's here: Homoeopathic Treatment: A School Story (http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/wodehouse/homeop10.html).

It's a simple story of schoolboys annoying each other. One boy (Buxton) annoys all those around him with the odours of cheap scent on his handkerchief, until another boy gives him a dose of his own medicine: treating like with like. There is absolutely nothing there that suggests Wodehouse was supporting homeopathy.
I was also confused, but not in the manner of our dear Sue Young.
"'Boy,' he said, 'what -- what is this abomination on your handkerchief?'
"'Simpkins Idle Moments, sir,' I said.

I guess they didn't have Kleenex back in those days.

[Acleron]

Perhaps Dana is realising that there is nothing in Homeopathy. He seems to be branching out.
How to Create Your Own Pandemic: Infectious Creativity Used by Big Pharma (http://www.naturalnews.com/024252.html)

Sadly and predictably, using Tamiflu for treating the common flu will tend to increase the chances of creating super-viruses that will become immune to anti-viral drugs. It is almost as though this drug has the capacity to create thousands (or millions) of "terrorist cells" that could threaten the body (and the body politic).


Unfortunately he has carried his old mistakes with him, cherry picking studies and comments, not understanding arithmetic etc.

[BillyJoe]

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir#Resistance


The genetic sequence for the neuraminidase enzyme is highly conserved across virus strains. This means that there are relatively few variations, and there is also evidence that variations that do occur tend to be less "fit." Thus, mutations that convey resistance to oseltamivir may also tend to cripple the virus by giving it an otherwise less-functional enzyme. The lack of variation in neuraminidase gives two advantages to oseltamivir and zanamivir, the drugs that target that enzyme. First, these drugs work on a broader spectrum of influenza strains. Second, the development of a robust, resistant virus strain appears to be less likely. It is worth noting that the oseltamivir-resistant strains detected by Kiso et al. all appeared within individual children after treatment with oseltamivir – the children did not catch the resistant strains in human-to-human or bird-to-human transmission.



This seems to contradict what you said Ullman said*.


*Disclaimer:
I have not actually read what Ullman said. :cool:

[Acleron]

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir#Resistance




This seems to contradict what you said Ullman said*.


*Disclaimer:
I have not actually read what Ullman said. :cool:

Or, apparently, what I said, unless dear old Dana said something different from what he said.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He is irrepresible (http://weightlosstea.brighterplanet.org/green-tea/4-clinical-research-confirms-benefits-from-homeopathy).

I've meaning to explicitly point out one of Ullman's most annoying habits and this is a good opportunity to do it.

As usual in that video piece he willfully cherry-picks papers that are variously discredited, useless or superseded, but he does something else.

Even if the results of his favourite papers were entirely correct the effects that they find are utterly trivial.

He makes the schoolboy error of muddling statistical significance with biological/clinical significance, but he compounds this with a neat rhetorical trick: a careful elision, where he concentrates on how important the disease is but swiftly by-passes how small is the effect he can claim for homeopathy even at the most generous possible interpretation of the data. He is most guilty of this when describing that useless Frass paper from Chest. He is very keen to tell us how important a disease is COPD, which is true and no reasonable sceptical rational doctor could disagree, but he allows his assertion of the disease's importance to imply an importance for the effect allegedly found for homeopathy, which is so disproportionate as to be close to deceptive.

The effect of this is to claim that any positive result, however minor, legitimises a naively binary interpretation: works vs doesn't work. So, a trivial positive test on any single parameter of a poor trial is declared to show that homeopathy "WORKS!". Once he has cherry-picked a result sitting on the right side of that binary alternative it can now be promoted publicly without any connection to the underlying truth.

It's quite cunning and perfectly tuned to misleading the credulous and ignorant.

[Rolfe]

And going on from there, we find the main problem with countering that. Explaining just exactly how he is wrong to the fence-sitters or the poorly informed (even the high-flying medical poorly informed) exposes the sceptic to instant accusations of rudeness.

Dana (and those like him) have the positive message. Contradicting this message, especially with arguments that sound a bit like "he's lying", isn't the done thing. It's obsessive, pernickety, negative and impolite.

So there.

Rolfe.

[Acleron]

It didn't last long, he is back into homeopathy, this time pushing homeopathy for children (http://first-homeopathy.blogspot.com/2008/09/homeopathic-medicines-for-children-part_21.html).

One paragraph took my attention
In fact, homeopathic medicine, for many reasons, has achieved such popularity in Europe that it is no longer considered an "alternative medicine." First, England's Royal Family has been under homeopathic care since the 1830s. Second, organized medicine in Europe has not been as antagonistic to homeopathy as American medical organizations have been. And third, convincing research has been published in numerous European medical and scientific journals.

Apart from the fact that no convincing research has been produced, why is he stressing the European link? Is that a marketing feature in the US?

[Rolfe]

Might just be that people in the US don't have the personal experience that would give the lie to the statements, and he's banking on sufficient numbers of them not checking up. Argumentum ad populum is easier to do if the population you're invoking isn't too easy to sample directly.

I like the way he implies that the Royal Family have homoeopathic primary care, and possibly nothing but homoeopathic care, all the time! Any time the Queen is actually seriously sick, you can be sure Peter Fisher won't get within a mile of her.

Rolfe.

[Acleron]

Might just be that people in the US don't have the personal experience that would give the lie to the statements, and he's banking on sufficient numbers of them not checking up. Argumentum ad populum is easier to do if the population you're invoking isn't too easy to sample directly.

I like the way he implies that the Royal Family have homoeopathic primary care, and possibly nothing but homoeopathic care, all the time! Any time the Queen is actually seriously sick, you can be sure Peter Fisher won't get within a mile of her.

Rolfe.:)

And at her age, I'm sure that Fisher doesn't want her to expire while in his care. Or am I too cynical.:rolleyes:

[Deetee]

I see Dana has turned up on Orac's blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/complementary_and_alternative_medicine_t.php#c1139 823).

[Ivor the Engineer]

When did medical schools start teaching bayesian reasoning?

[Mojo]

I see Dana has turned up on Orac's blog (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/complementary_and_alternative_medicine_t.php#c1139 823).


And I see he's persisting with the same misreading of the Lancet editorial about Reilly that was repeatedly pointed out to him over on Wikipedia.

And still posting journal titles in ALL CAPS.

[wilsontown]

Here (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/complementary_and_alternative_medicine_t.php#comme nt-1146146)'s Ullman, claiming that the Shang meta-analysis has been "blown of the water". Much like Orac's critique of the famed COPD study, I suppose. Blogged here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/shang-study-remains-firmly-in-water.html).

[Acleron]

Here (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/complementary_and_alternative_medicine_t.php#comme nt-1146146)'s Ullman, claiming that the Shang meta-analysis has been "blown of the water". Much like Orac's critique of the famed COPD study, I suppose. Blogged here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/shang-study-remains-firmly-in-water.html).

I responded with some anger, don't think it will do any good.

[Mojo]

He's shown up on Science-Based Medicine (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=242) as well. Same old rubbish, asking for people to answer questions to which he has repeatedly been given answers, plus a subtle misrepresentation of Linde et al 1999.

[Mojo]

He's citing (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=242#comment-9619) what looks suspiciously like a customer satisfaction survey now.

[RoboTimbo]

He's citing (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=242#comment-9619) what looks suspiciously like a customer satisfaction survey now.

JD Power rates homeopaths now?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

JD Power rates homeopaths now?

Apparently they look quite fancy, but if you lift the bonnet ("hood", my American friends) you find that the engine is missing so it will only run downhill and they're no good at all over rough terrain.

The DU model has been test-driven quite frequently, but the wheels keep falling off.

[Mojo]

Here (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/10/complementary_and_alternative_medicine_t.php#comme nt-1146146)'s Ullman, claiming that the Shang meta-analysis has been "blown of the water". Much like Orac's critique of the famed COPD study, I suppose. Blogged here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/shang-study-remains-firmly-in-water.html).


The "companion paper" Dana referred to, by Rutten and Stolper (not "Stopler" as Dana spells it), has now been published (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008) (Homeopathy Volume 97, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 169-177). I don't have access to the full text.

[Acleron]

The "companion paper" Dana referred to, by Rutten and Stolper (not "Stopler" as Dana spells it), has now been published (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2008.09.008) (Homeopathy Volume 97, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 169-177). I don't have access to the full text.

Neither do I, but after reading this Important data were not mentioned in Shang et al's paper, but only provided subsequently.

in a supposedly scientific paper I won't be paying for the rest of it.

:o What am I talking about, Homeopathy scientific?

[wilsontown]

The "companion paper" Dana referred to, by Rutten and Stolper (not "Stopler" as Dana spells it), has now been published (Homeopathy Volume 97, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 169-177). I don't have access to the full text.

I have access to the full text, if anyone is interested enough PM me with an e-mail address. I had a quick look, and picked out the most obvious brain-dead error in the paper here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-meta-analysis-delight.html).

[wilsontown]

Heh, just noticed I spelled Stolper's name incorrectly myself. Must be Dana's attention to detail rubbing off on me.

[Acleron]

I have access to the full text, if anyone is interested enough PM me with an e-mail address. I had a quick look, and picked out the most obvious brain-dead error in the paper here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-meta-analysis-delight.html).

After looking at your analysis there is no need to see the full paper, any other criticism would just be nit-picking.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

After looking at your analysis there is no need to see the full paper, any other criticism would just be nit-picking.

Fair point, but I'd still like to add it to my archive of "Homeopaths Say the Stupidest Things" to be quoted from whenever any of that decerebrated gang turn up to dispute the Shang paper.

[Rolfe]

I have access to the full text, if anyone is interested enough PM me with an e-mail address. I had a quick look, and picked out the most obvious brain-dead error in the paper here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/10/more-meta-analysis-delight.html).


Wilsontown, do you still have my email address? If so, pretty please? If not, PM me for it.

Rolfe.

[Acleron]

Fair point, but I'd still like to add it to my archive of "Homeopaths Say the Stupidest Things" to be quoted from whenever any of that decerebrated gang turn up to dispute the Shang paper.

How did they manage that, taking succussed omega 3 perhaps:)

[wilsontown]

After looking at your analysis there is no need to see the full paper, any other criticism would just be nit-picking.

Oh, there is quite a bit of stuff in the paper, (including some repetition of the Ludtke and Rutten paper in J Clin Epidemiol), but nothing that convinced me that Shang is a bad and fraudulent paper, which is what the homeopaths seem to want to show. And it would help to have read Shang properly if you're going to criticise it...

One noticeable thing is that in Homeopathy that authors seem perfectly happy to fling accusations of bias and fraud around, whereas the J Clin Epidemiol paper is much more measured. I suspect this is because J Clin Epidemiol has considerably higher standards of review.

[Acleron]

Oh, there is quite a bit of stuff in the paper, (including some repetition of the Ludtke and Rutten paper in J Clin Epidemiol), but nothing that convinced me that Shang is a bad and fraudulent paper, which is what the homeopaths seem to want to show. And it would help to have read Shang properly if you're going to criticise it...

One noticeable thing is that in Homeopathy that authors seem perfectly happy to fling accusations of bias and fraud around, whereas the J Clin Epidemiol paper is much more measured. I suspect this is because J Clin Epidemiol has considerably higher standards of review.

Agreed, I should have expanded slightly. Once you established they hadn't read the central point of the Shang analysis, ie the selection process, the rest of the paper is irrelevant because that is what they are criticising.

On another point. Do these people ever present at scientific conferences? Unless conferences have changed a lot in recent years, presenters of rubbish would be torn to shreds.

[fls]

Agreed, I should have expanded slightly. Once you established they hadn't read the central point of the Shang analysis, ie the selection process, the rest of the paper is irrelevant because that is what they are criticising.

On another point. Do these people ever present at scientific conferences? Unless conferences have changed a lot in recent years, presenters of rubbish would be torn to shreds.

I suspect that the conferences they choose to present at are similar to the journals they choose to publish in (and vice versa - the conferences/journals that accept their work).

Linda

[wilsontown]

I suspect that the conferences they choose to present at are similar to the journals they choose to publish in (and vice versa - the conferences/journals that accept their work).

Indeed. In fact, there was a conference entitled "Scientific Research in Homeopathy", held by the Complementary Medical Association (CMA) at the University of Westminster (God help us) earlier in the year. If you go here (http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2008/07/homeopathic-memory-hole-not-much.html), you can find links to several blog posts debunking various aspects of it (sorry to pimp my blog yet again, but I can't be bothered to copy all the links here). You don't get the impression that there was much in the way of critical appraisal going on.

[wilsontown]

Rolfe, you have a PM....

[Acleron]

The latest BS from Ullman (http://drvee.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/why-homeopathy-works/),

[Worm]

the usual trail of half-truths, complete fabrication, and bizarre metaphors.

...in homeopathy, we're too scientific to assume....
...homeopathic textbooks provide the most detailed information on toxicology presently available...

it's good for a laugh isn't it ;)

Slightly puzzled by the bit where he was claiming the wonderful scientific basis that homeopathy has, and he seemed to correct himself.

several hundred clinical science studie....errr....clinical practice

what was that about?

I particularly liked the way he moved from submarine radio communication, then compared that to communicating with the blood ?? somehow made it equivalent to nano-doses of homepathic medecine, and then also suggested that natural harmonics are 'ultra-sensitive' ... it's like a magical mystery tour of scientific stupidity.....

[BillyJoe]

If I was in the studio, I would have been hard pressed not to lift that flower pot and crack it over his thick skull.

Yes, I know, it would have made no difference.
He would just have kept on talking as if nothing had happened.

:rolleyes:

[Acleron]

If I was in the studio, I would have been hard pressed not to lift that flower pot and crack it over his thick skull.

Yes, I know, it would have made no difference.
He would just have kept on talking as if nothing had happened.

:rolleyes:

Naw, he would have seemlessly woven the incident into an analogy of how proper medicine works.

[Chris Haynes]

He has shown up again, possibly thinking that a new blogger on Scienceblogs could be bamboozled. Unfortunately for him, I started to follow PalMD on his first WhiteCoatUnderground blog:
http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/01/the_dark_side_is_powerful.php#comment-1316481

[PalMD]

Ugh, yes...Ullman found me right away...perhaps he doesn't remember who i am. Or alternatively, he's an idiot, like Egnor...Egnor who is a brain surgeon, but whose best argument is that I'm anonymous and that's mean...and I'm not even anonymous.

[Chris Haynes]

For you entertainment. Ullman has wandered over to Science Based Medicine, where Harriet Hall made this comment (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=355#comment-12527):


.... He is like a child butting into an adult discussion to say “There really is a Tooth Fairy and I can prove it because here’s the money she left me.” He is not even capable of understanding why his arguments fail to convince us, even though it has been explained to him many times in great detail. We should have compassion and be kind to the handicapped, but we shouldn’t have to pay any attention to their ravings.

[meow]

Before I reference some of the clinical trials, I thought I would first focus our discussion on a more difficult subject: how homeopathic medicines may work.

I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

Several years ago, I debated Saul Green, PhD, a chemist and skeptic of homeopathy. He thoroughy embarrassed himself and fellow skeptics by answering this question by saying that it was "folk wisdom." Needless to say, that is not the right answer.

What do YOU think is the right answer?


excellent!

[Mojo]

1) Are you suggesting that the properties of homoeopathic remedies will vary according to the altitude at which they were manufactured rather than the alleged active ingredient?

2) Are homoeopathic remedies frozen at any stage of their manufacture?

3) Can you produce any evidence that Bridgman wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE?

4) While we're on the subject of Nobel Laureates, have you managed to track down the citation for "nobel winning prize chemist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428471#post4428471)" Dr. Rey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428555#post4428555) yet?

[meow]

In that case, you'd better acknowledge as error pretty much everything you ever wrote, because pretty much all of that has been subjected to massive amounts of criticism. Elia, Rey, Roy, Benveniste, Ennis, Milgrom, Walach, all their publications (on homoeopathy) have been torn to shreds.

Rolfe.

you are clearly delusional if you really believe this.

meow meow

[meow]

1) Are you suggesting that the properties of homoeopathic remedies will vary according to the altitude at which they were manufactured rather than the alleged active ingredient?

2) Are homoeopathic remedies frozen at any stage of their manufacture?

it's just one more piece of evidence that water has a memory of some sort or another.

another thing to remind us that what we think we know about water may be very far from the truth.


you people are close to being defeated. there's just too much evidence coming in from way too many leading universities from around the world.



meow meow

[Professor Yaffle]

Sometimes it not worth the effort.

[Mojo]

it's just one more piece of evidence that water has a memory of some sort or another.


You mean like this? "On removing the water from the freezer, it will be observed that the block of ice, though now exposed to room temperature, will remain a block of ice for some time. Thus, there exists in water a property which enables it to "remember" for a certain amount of time that it has been kept in the freezer"

Paolo Bellavite, M.D. and Andrea Signorini, M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology, 2002, pp.68-69

:dl:


BTW, I added another couple of questions:

3) Can you produce any evidence that Bridgman wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE?

4) While we're on the subject of Nobel Laureates, have you managed to track down the citation for "nobel winning prize chemist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428471#post4428471)" Dr. Rey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428555#post4428555) yet?

5) Any chance of answering the first two as well?

[Mashuna]

Sometimes it not worth the effort.

Technically, is meow kittening his own posts?

[meow]

You mean like this?

BTW, I added another couple of questions:

3) Can you produce any evidence that Bridgman wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE?

4) While we're on the subject of Nobel Laureates, have you managed to track down the citation for "nobel winning prize chemist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428471#post4428471)" Dr. Rey (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4428555#post4428555) yet?

5) Any chance of answering the first two as well?

yes, rey did in fact win the nobel prize but it was in a parallel universe not this one.


meow meow




you are being slowly defeated by the evidence that continues to come in at a steady rate. eventually you will have to surrender and accept that polar solvents have a memory.

[Mojo]

yes, rey did in fact win the nobel prize but it was in a parallel universe not this one.


Do you have a link to the citation?

Any chance of answers to the other questions?

[Mashuna]

you are being slowly defeated by the evidence that continues to come in at a steady rate. eventually you will have to surrender and accept that polar solvents have a memory.

You understand that you repeatedly posting the same old links is not the same as evidence coming in at a steady rate, don't you?

[BillyJoe]

it's just one more piece of evidence that water has a memory of some sort or another.
But it doesn't apply to homoeopathy.
Because homoeopathic preparations are not prepared at altitude or frozen.
It's as simple as that.

another thing to remind us that what we think we know about water may be very far from the truth.


And also a reminder that still, after all this time, there is nothing in all of this to support homoeopathy.

you people are close to being defeated. there's just too much evidence coming in from way too many leading universities from around the world.
Your world must be pretty isolated because, thanks to the efforts of many people around the world, the reverse seems to be happening.

BJ

[meow]

But it doesn't apply to homoeopathy.


Your world must be pretty isolated because, thanks to the efforts of many people around the world, the reverse seems to be happening.

BJ


not at all, rustum roy's experiment is going to blow the doors down once it catches on with other scientists.


you'll just have to admit you were wrong.

[paximperium]

Just curious,
How long does water memory last once it is imprinted?
What is the saturation point of this memory?
What happens when you mix water with different memories together?
How does this memory affect cellular mechanisms?

[Mojo]

not at all, rustum roy's experiment is going to blow the doors down once it catches on with other scientists.



:dl:


woof woof woof

[steenkh]

you'll just have to admit you were wrong.
http://www.dontfeedthetroll.de/images/dftt.gif

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://www.dontfeedthetroll.de/images/dftt.gif

Fair point.

I suspect the responders have been hoping to tease out something more substantial to reply to (or from which to derive something of comedy value). In the meantime, it keeps our typing fingers supple.

[Rolfe]

http://www.dontfeedthetroll.de/images/dftt.gif



I will if I want to!


It's all a bit thin on the medical woo front at the moment. I quite like it when one of them bumps all those old threads and gives us a chance to chew over the remains once again.

Rolfe.

[steenkh]

I will if I want to!


It's all a bit thin on the medical woo front at the moment
Fair enough.

Proceed! :D

[meow]

Badly Shaven Monkey said that there was discussion elsewhere on this list that provided a critique of Rey's thermoluminesence work. I read a lot of study on this list about his work, but I saw no reasonable or good critique of it. Because it was published in such a high grade physics journal, the ball is in the skeptics' court to provide a specific critique. Please enlighten me.


there is no critique of rey's work unless you want to include, "it wasn't blinded....blah blah blah"

[meow]

Wow indeed, there is all this sound scientific evidence for homeopathy yet a little over 99.9% of scientists refuse to believe in it and denounce it as bunk. I wonder what they are missing? Unless, no, surely not, perhaps, I wonder, no that's daft, it can't be. James, Why do you think proper scientists aren't convinced by the wealth of solid evidence?

Am I right in thinking that Professor Ennis’s replicated basic science trial, is the same trail that spectacularly failed to replicate when conducted properly on the Horizon programme ?

when the dozens upon dozens upon dozens of studies and experiments are presented to these scientists most would conclude that something is likely to be occurring. (especially rey, roy and the basophil studies)


the experiment on the Horizon show was 1/50th the scale of the ennis 2004 study. the budget was a pittance of the ennis study.

not to mention there was some dumb arse homeopath present and the sample size was horrible not to mention all the other flaws outlined by ullman and others.

the show was an absolute joke.





face it, your days are numbered. rustum roy and iris bell are your dream crushers.

[meow]

Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.




they have never had an answer for elia. think they are terrified of it. another nail in the coffin.




Titre du document / Document title
New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ELIA V. (1) ; NICCOLI M. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Chemistry, University ' Federico II'of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples, ITALIE
Résumé / Abstract
The 'extremely diluted solutions' are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1.10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solution, namely the composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent used (e.g. twice distilled water). We conducted thermodynamic and transport measurements of the solutions and of the interaction of those solutions with acids or bases. The purpose of this study is to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure of the solutions under study. We measured the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions with such 'extremely diluted solutions', their electrical conductivity and pH, comparing with the analogous heats of mixing, electrical conductivity and pH of the solvent. We found some relevant exothermic excess heats of mixing, higher electrical conductivity and pH than those of the untreated solvent. The measurements show a good correlation between independent physico-chemical parameters. Care was taken to take into account the effect of chemical impurities deriving from the glass containers. Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry ISSN 1388-6150
Source / Source
2004, vol. 75, no3, pp. 815-836 [22 page(s) (article)] (32 ref.)

[meow]

Mojo says that I haven't answered the question "Does homeopathy work?" My references to the randomized double-blind and placebo controlled trials on influenza don't count? How about my references to the work by Dr David Reilly and team on allergy and asthma? And how about the high quality studies on basophils by Ennis and a 4 university laboratories.

As the for BBC's Horizon trial...that one was totally laughable, laughable. This is one reason that I have no respect for James Randi. He has been informed of the "junk science" that the BBC and ABC's 20/20 created, and rather than stand on the side of good science, he stood on the side of "junk science." The producers of these experiments thought they were getting a replication trial of Ennis' work, but that is NOT what they got. According to Wayne Turnbull, the "lab technician" who did the study, he created his own study...but sadly, because he was ill-informed and inexperience (and unpublished) in basophil research, he created many embarrassing mistakes in the trial. For a full critique of Turnbull work, see:
homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php (cut and paste it).

Note: Wayne Turnbull was the "scientist" (actually, he is a lab technician with no published research on basophils) who Horizon and 20/20 hired.

Briefly, The Horizon and 20/20 experiments used a chemical, ammonium chloride, that is known to destroy basophils, the type of white blood cell that was under study. The experiment was designed to fail even before any homeopathic medicine was administered. Because this chemical was not used in any of the previous studies that have been published in peer-review scientific journals, this study was "junk science" and that any results from this study are of no value.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experiments also used a chemical called "foetal calf serum" (the blood from a calf foetus). According to experts in basophils and experts who had previously conducted this experiment successfully, this chemical complex is not a "recognized medium" for laboratory experiments of this sort, and its effects on basophils are presently unknown. It should also be noted that the experiment produced by Horizon and 20/20 was created by an employee at a London hospital who didn't know the answers to some simple questions about basophils when asked by Professor Ennis. Also, to be done correctly, this experiment requires "clean" basophils, and the use of foetal calf serum alters the binding reactions of the basophils. Whooops.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experimenter left the blood containing basophils to be collected to sit and sediment for 4 hours. It is known that basophils are extremely fragile, thus, leaving them to sit for 4 hours disturbed their viability and rendered them useless for scientific experimental purposes. Whooops.

I will be curious if people on this list will stand with Turnbull. Come on, stand up and be counted. Stand with an unpublished lab tech or four university laboratories who used respected and well-published PhD scientists.

I've already answer Mr. Monkey's questions about which I care...re-read my previous emails.

As for Roy's research, I previously mentioned that he has had over a dozen articles published in NATURE. This fact suggests that he is a highly respected scientist.

One of the ways that I have observed the fundamentalist thinking of the participants on this list is that you NEVER admit error and NEVER admit to ANY studies or replications of studies. I'm still waiting for some critique of the flu trials, the allergy/asthma trials, the thermodynamics research by Elia, good critique of Rey, and good critique of Roy (not just the character assassination baloney that too many of you love to do)...

You've got some work to do. Now, who of you is brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all?


the skeptics on this board will be the very last people on the face of the earth to finally admit they were wrong. it's like talking to a wall.

[meow]

You do understand that demonstrating that something odd may possibly happen at high dilutions (or, for that matter, proposing a mechanism for how this may occur) does not show that homoeopathy works, don't you?


it's a darn healthy start.





New physico-chemical properties of extremely diluted aqueous solutions
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
ELIA V. (1) ; NICCOLI M. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Chemistry, University ' Federico II'of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples, ITALIE
Résumé / Abstract
The 'extremely diluted solutions' are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1.10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solution, namely the composition of the solution is identical to that of the solvent used (e.g. twice distilled water). We conducted thermodynamic and transport measurements of the solutions and of the interaction of those solutions with acids or bases. The purpose of this study is to obtain information about the influence of successive dilutions and succussions on the water structure of the solutions under study. We measured the heats of mixing of acid or basic solutions with such 'extremely diluted solutions', their electrical conductivity and pH, comparing with the analogous heats of mixing, electrical conductivity and pH of the solvent. We found some relevant exothermic excess heats of mixing, higher electrical conductivity and pH than those of the untreated solvent. The measurements show a good correlation between independent physico-chemical parameters. Care was taken to take into account the effect of chemical impurities deriving from the glass containers. Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry ISSN 1388-6150

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

there is no critique of rey's work unless you want to include, "it wasn't blinded....blah blah blah"

Please explain why "it wasn't blinded" is not a sufficient criticism.

[meow]

Please explain why "it wasn't blinded" is not a sufficient criticism.

because millions of experiments are performed without being blinded.

i'd bet my life on it that it works just fine blinded.

between roy, rey, ennis -- your days are numbered.

[Mojo]

because millions of experiments are performed without being blinded.

i'd bet my life on it that it works just fine blinded.


So no real reason then.

[meow]

3) Can you produce any evidence that Bridgman wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE?



i just searched the library of congress. the name of the book is....

LC Control No.: 76139974
LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/76139974
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Bridgman, P. W. (Percy Williams), 1882-1961.
Main Title: The physics of high pressure, by P. W. Bridgman.
Published/Created: New York, Dover Publications [1970]
Description: vii, 398 p. illus. 22 cm.
ISBN: 0486627128


CALL NUMBER: QC281 .B75 1970
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area Studies Reading Rms





another damning piece of evidence that water has memory.

you people remind me of a boxer who has been beaten unmercifully for 14 rounds yet answers the bell for more of the same.

your days are numbered.... rustum roy can distinguish a homeopathic remedy from a control with a simple test.

surrender now

[meow]

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH Pressure. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

simply fascinating!

certainly sounds to me like water has a memory of sorts.





ELIA V. (1) ; NICCOLI M. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Chemistry, University ' Federico II'of Naples, Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, via Cintia, 80126 Naples, ITALIE
Résumé / Abstract
The 'extremely diluted solutions' are anomalous solutions obtained through the iteration of two processes: a dilution 1:100 in mass and a succussion. The iteration is repeated until extreme dilutions are reached (less than 1.10-5 mol kg-1) to the point that we may call the resulting solution an extremely diluted solu

Here we thus show that successive dilutions and succussions can permanently alter the physico-chemical properties of the water solvent. The nature of the phenomena here described still remains unexplained, nevertheless some significant experimental results were obtained.
Revue / Journal Title
Journal of thermal analysis and calorimetry ISSN 1388-6150

[Mojo]

i just searched the library of congress. the name of the book is....

LC Control No.: 76139974
LCCN Permalink: http://lccn.loc.gov/76139974
Type of Material: Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Personal Name: Bridgman, P. W. (Percy Williams), 1882-1961.
Main Title: The physics of high pressure, by P. W. Bridgman.


So why were you citing a book called The Physics of High Altitude?

Has this work been replicated in the 78 years since the book was published?

[meow]

You do understand that demonstrating that something odd may possibly happen at high dilutions (or, for that matter, proposing a mechanism for how this may occur) does not show that homoeopathy works, don't you?


what about all those frog-thyroxin experiments showing bioactivity?


what about the well run 4 university basophil experiment in 2004 with a ....


p<.0001



did the basophil experiment show bioactivity?

[Mojo]

what about all those frog-thyroxin experiments showing bioactivity?


What about them?


what about the well run 4 university basophil experiment in 2004 with a ....


p<.0001


What about it?

Do you know what a p value actually means?

[meow]

So why were you citing a book called The Physics of High Altitude?

Has this work been replicated in the 78 years since the book was published?


i quoted it from jamesgully who made a mistake.

doesn't need to be replicated because it's standard knowledge for those who work in that field.

it's an undeniable fact, just deal with it.




water has a memory of sorts.


the game is about over, you guys lost.

rustum roy can distinguish a remedy from placebo using UV spect

[Mojo]

doesn't need to be replicated because it's standard knowledge for those who work in that field.


You'll have no trouble finding a more recent reference then.




rustum roy can distinguish a remedy from placebo using UV spect


Let us know when he's actually done this.

[BillyJoe]

Hey, pussy-cat,
Go away and read the 1388 posts first.

On second thoughts, no, don't bother.
It's not gonna make any difference.

regards,
BJ

oh....AND WHAT IS A P VALUE?

[catbasket]

Someone probably did this earlier in the thread, but I just wanted to exercise my google-fu.

...

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

...excellent!

From nobelprize.org (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1946/bridgman-bio.html) (bolding mine) -

His researches concerning the effects of high pressures on materials and their thermodynamic behaviour commenced in 1905 and have continued throughout his career. He has carried out extensive investigations on the properties of matter at pressures up to 100,000 atmosphere including a study of the compressibility, electric and thermal conductivity, tensile strength and viscosity of more than 100 different compounds. He developed a method of packing which eliminated leak, and later introduced various methods of external support to pressure vessels as higher pressures were demanded. Bridgman has also contributed to crystallography, where he devised a method of growing single crystals; to the problems of electrical conduction in metals, where he discovered internal Peltier heat - a new electrical effect; and to the philosophy of modern physics. In the latter field, he is a strong supporter of the operational viewpoint, considering it meaningless to interpret physical concepts except as they are capable of observation.


Seems fairly conclusive that Mr Bridgman was into high pressures, yeah? Let's go back to what James Gully claimed -

He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE.
Wrong. He wrote a book called The Physics of High Pressure.

He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude.
Oh did he? Strange then that in the real world pressure decreases with altitude.

However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude.
It is important to remember that he only found this to occur in that alternate universe where atmospheric pressure increases with altitude.

Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.
So in a book he didn't write, P W Bridgman discovered that under conditions which do not exist in the real world water "seems to have a memory".

This is evidence for homeopathy? Maybe in the universe where P W Bridgman wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE, but not in the universe where he wrote The Physics of High Pressure.

[Mashuna]

the game is about over, you guys lost.

rustum roy can distinguish a remedy from placebo using UV spect

Hee! It's funny 'cos it's ignorant.

:D

[Rolfe]

rustum roy can distinguish a remedy from placebo using UV spect


No, he really can't. (In fact, it seems as if he can't even distinguish water from 95% ethanol.)

It might be fun to debate this, but there's no chance of that. In all the years days, sorry, she's been posting on JREF, meow has never once attempted to analyse, describe, defend or otherwise indicate that she has the slightest understanding of the papers she cites.

After a while, enthusiasm for explaining the gaping flaws in the methodologies begins to wane in the face of someone who does nothing but post the same abstract straight back at you.

Rolfe.

[meow]

hey snow, ya think in a 300+ page book it might include something other than high pressure, ya think?

huh?

huh?

how bout it?



meow meow

[Mashuna]

hey snow, ya think in a 300+ page book it might include something other than high pressure, ya think?

huh?

huh?

how bout it?



meow meow

Well, based on your previous recommendations, I suspect it also has a colouring-in section, a wordsearch and some pop-up pictures.

[Mojo]

hey snow, ya think in a 300+ page book it might include something other than high pressure, ya think?


Maybe. Perhaps it even includes the claim about water frozen at altitude "remembering" its structure - I notice that Dana didn't actually say that the claim was in this book, merely that Bridgman wrote it.

[catbasket]

hey snow, ya think in a 300+ page book it might include something other than high pressure, ya think?

huh?

huh?

how bout it?


hey meow, ya think that when someone claims quotes from a book and gets the title wrong and basic physics wrong he may justa made the whole thing up to give credence to his sCAM by attaching the name of a long-dead Nobel prize winner, ya think?

huh?

huh?

how bout it?

[meow]

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.

laughable, absolutely laughable.



a hundred different universities could replicate this experiment yet you would still find some way to find fault.

"they failed to identify the species of potatoes used to manufacture the alcohol. if they used different kinds of potatoes that could skew the results."



Edited for rule 12 violation. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
but rustum roy has distinguished between a homeopathic remedy and a control.

you need to just deal with it and move on. it's good science.

your letter is trivial nitpicking and deep down you know it.

[BillyJoe]

Oh well, I hope you're cute at least...

Well, based on your previous recommendations, I suspect it also has a colouring-in section, a wordsearch and some pop-up pictures.
And, hey, I might even forgive you for not knowing...

WHAT DOES A P VALUE MEAN?

regards,
BillyJoe

[Mashuna]

laughable, absolutely laughable.



a hundred different universities could replicate this experiment yet you would still find some way to find fault.

"they failed to identify the species of potatoes used to manufacture the alcohol. if they used different kinds of potatoes that could skew the results."



rolfe *star of the sea*

you have strong hate in you. you even hate harmless little hens. at the same time you love your cats. i would guess that you have some screws loose. powerful emotions, emotions that control you.

your self esteem is entirely wrapped up in your education and you will do whatever is necessary to show the rest of the world that you are at the top. you have to do this because it's all you really have.


but rustum roy has distinguished between a homeopathic remedy and a control.

you need to just deal with it and move on. it's good science.

your letter is trivial nitpicking and deep down you know it.

Come on meow, even you must realise how ridiculous you look with claims like these. Your claims are ignorant and foolish, and you must know that on a shallow level, never mind deep down.

[BillyJoe]

What IS a p value, Meow?

Meow?


meow?



meow?

[Rolfe]

Come on meow, even you must realise how ridiculous you look with claims like these. Your claims are ignorant and foolish, and you must know that on a shallow level, never mind deep down.


It's only trolling. "She only does it to annoy, because she knows it teases."

Rolfe.

[Mashuna]

It's only trolling. "She only does it to annoy, because she knows it teases."

Rolfe.

Well, it's making me sneeze.

[Rolfe]

your letter is trivial nitpicking and deep down you know it.


Uh, there were so many trivial nits we could have picked in that paper, it took a conscious effort of will not to do that, and just stick to the glaring, fatal flaws.

Have you realised yet that Rao accepted our criticisms as being justified?

Rolfe.

[fls]

what about all those frog-thyroxin experiments showing bioactivity?

The frog-thyroxin experiments are part of a larger psychology experiment (along the lines of this http://www.uni-mannheim.de/fakul/psycho/irtel/lehre/seminar-wahr/Simons_Chabris_Gorillas_in_our_midst_1999.pdf) to see if you're paying attention. What you are meant to notice is that the results show no effect, but I will agree that dressing them up in a gorilla suit does seem to distract many.

Linda

[Mojo]

What you are meant to notice is that the results show no effect...


Didn't one of them conclusively establish that frogs that start out bigger tend to end up bigger?

[fls]

Didn't one of them conclusively establish that frogs that start out bigger tend to end up bigger?

Yeah, who'da thunk it. :)

Linda

[meow]

Uh, there were so many trivial nits we could have picked in that paper, it took a conscious effort of will not to do that, and just stick to the glaring, fatal flaws.

Have you realised yet that Rao accepted our criticisms as being justified?

Rolfe.


i'd like to see the response.

[Mojo]

i'd like to see the response.


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2007.11.011

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Well, it's making me sneeze.

Meow, meow. Sounds like you are allergic to cats.

Since sneezing is also caused by pepper, take one grain of finally ground pepper and put it in a full-sized Olympic swimming pool full of twice distilled water and mix thoroughly. Drink a tea-spoonful of the results and you will be cured! :boggled:

[meow]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.homp.2007.11.011

who has a copy?

[BillyJoe]

i had a year of Stat and Quant Analysis. i know what it is.

and if i didn't i could google it and fake it. so why do u bother even asking.

rustum roy, ennis and rey are digging your grave.


Then you should be ashamed of yourself. :o
I know you could google it, and I expect you have, but still you have not answered the question.
That's why I bother asking ;)

Come on, I'm only a tiny little mouse, this should be easy, even for a little pussy-cat like you.
(I have a big pencil though, so watch out! :eye-poppi)

BillyJoe

[Mojo]

who has a copy?


Elsevier.

[Mojo]

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.


I've been trying to track down references to these findings of Bridgman's, but haven't found much. The comments I've so far found (including the one I've quoted above) do all have something in common, though.

Here's (http://www.arcanum-utbildning.se/evidence%20based%20medicine%201%5B1%5D.doc) another one (see the section entitled "An Overview of Recent Research"). In this case Dana mentions Roy, Tiller, Bell and Hoover referring to Bridgman's work in their 2005 Materials Research Innovations paper (I recognise a passage from the abstract also quoted here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53385)): The authors also refer to the work of PW Bridgman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist (1946) and professor at Harvard. He wrote several books, including the THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDES. He researched the effects of freezing water at various altitudes and found that freezing water at higher altitudes created different ice crystallization patterns than at lower altitudes. And yet, when he melted the ice that was frozen at a high altitude and then refroze it at a low altitude, the ice maintained the crystallization pattern of the higher altitude.
These experiments provide additional evidence for how pressure can influence the STRUCTURE of water without influencing the material content of the water.


I had hoped to find a proper reference for the Bridgman work on water frozen at altitude, but on checking the Roy et al paper I found that the work of Bridgman's they referred to was actually on SiO2 glass rather than water. There doesn't appear to be any mention of any observations by Bridgman on water frozen at high altitude.

[malbui]

Come on, Mojo, you know you're not actually supposed to follow up on references and read the source material. That's just nitpicking.

[BillyJoe]

How many more days do you need to decipher that Wikipedia article ;) on p value.

:D

BJ

[meow]

Well, several of us agree on something important: modern physicians are NOT scientists. This is an important point, and I'm glad that we have common ground here.

If you think about it, how many conventional drugs have stood the test of time?



about the only thing i am in disagreement with.

drugs are critically important. only a fool homeopath thinks they should be done away with.

[meow]

Hey Delusions de Grandeur...
That's very interesting. I'm sure that water is not the only memory storage device in nature.
As for Bridgman's book...I mis-named it. It is THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE.
The good news about our dialogue here is that several of you have publically stated that you will consider homeopathy as valid if there is some technology that can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another, even at post-Avogadro number doses. Cool...because THIS is the subject of Rustum Roy's forthcoming article. I previously gave a link to a webcast discussion of this new research. Did anyone out there get a chance to hear/see it?



yes, possibly any polar molecule will do. i recall something about a Korean study where this was the case.

46. 2001 Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene particles increased. Cyclodextrin molecules behaved the same way. So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and sodium chloride. Dilution made molecules cluster five to 10 times bigger than those in the original solutions. Growth was not linear, and depended on the original concentration. Geckeler and Samal found that the more dilute the solution inthebeginning, the larger the aggregates become, and only worked in polar solvents like water, in which one end of the molecule has a pronounced positive charge while the other end is negative. Chemical Communications, 2001, page 2224; there is no volume number NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1532

47. 2003 Bell I., Lewis D., Brooks A., Lewis S., Schwartz G. Gas Discharge Visualization Evaluation of Ultramolecular Doses of Homeopathic Medicines Under Blinded, Controlled Conditions. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Volume 9, Number 1, 2003, pp. 25-38.

48. 2004 Belon, P., J. Cumps, M. Ennis, P.F. Mannaioni, M. Roberfroid, J. Sainte-Laudy, & F.A. Wiegant (2004) “Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activation”, Inflammation Research, 53(5):181-8.

[Mojo]

Do you have a reference for P. W. Bridgman's observations on water frozen at altitude yet?

[paximperium]

drugs are critically important. only a fool homeopath thinks they should be done away with.
Fool homeopath is just redundant.

[BillyJoe]

2001 Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene particles increased.How dare they blacken Buckminster Fuller's name! :mad:

But seriously...

How does this help homoeopathy. It doesn't matter how big these molecules get, they're still going to be diluted out. Also the effect is lost at the usual dilutions used in homoeopathic preparations.

But please don't answer this criticism, just post yet another quote instead.
(Well, after you get through with that wiki article)

BJ

[Mojo]

Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted, the size of the fullerene particles increased. Cyclodextrin molecules behaved the same way. So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and sodium chloride. Dilution made molecules cluster five to 10 times bigger than those in the original solutions.


If the molecules cluster together, then they will in still be diluted out of a sequentially diluted preparation in the same way. The only difference will be that in the tiny proportion of samples that actually have any molecules from the MT present, there will be a cluster of more than one molecule present, but there will, of course, be even fewer samples with any molecules present than if the molecules were not clustered.

For example, if typically ten molecules clustered together in a 30C preparation, then rather than giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient, you could carry this on for another 36 billion years without more than one patient being likely to get a dose containing molecules of solute from the MT, but the lucky patient would receive ten molecules. If the clusters contain more molecules than this you could keep going even longer.

No help to homoeopathy whatsoever.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

If the molecules cluster together, then they will in still be diluted out of a sequentially diluted preparation in the same way. The only difference will be that in the tiny proportion of samples that actually have any molecules from the MT present, there will be a cluster of more than one molecule present, but there will, of course, be even fewer samples with any molecules present than if the molecules were not clustered.

For example, if typically ten molecules clustered together in a 30C preparation, then rather than giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient, you could carry this on for another 36 billion years without more than one patient being likely to get a dose containing molecules of solute from the MT, but the lucky patient would receive ten molecules. If the clusters contain more molecules than this you could keep going even longer.

No help to homoeopathy whatsoever.


As is so often the case with homeopathy, it only becomes really really funny when you take the claims of its proponents at face value.

As I have said before, the whole thing is a giant exercise in reductio ad absurdum. Their claims often seem superficially attractive, especially to a non-scientist- "Ooh, 'like cures like' is quite like vaccination". But it falls apart as soon as you take any one of their claims to its logical conclusion, which is also why the whole effort of putting it through clinical trials is literally a waste of time, money and resources and is not going to yield more meaningful results than those we already have. It doesn't work (beyond placebo). End of story.

[BillyJoe]

Seeing you stole my response and altered it, I will repay you by stealing your response and altering it. :D

If typically ten molecules clustered together in a 30C preparation, then rather than giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver [one] molecule of the original material to [one] patient, you could carry this on for another 36 billion years [to deliver ten molecules to one patient].


Ah, great response, if I do say so myself. :cool:

BJ

[meow]

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain pressures and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure. However, he found that once water is frozen at one pressure, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different pressure. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.


Several years ago, I debated Saul Green, PhD, a chemist and skeptic of homeopathy. He thoroughy embarrassed himself and fellow skeptics by answering this question by saying that it was "folk wisdom." Needless to say, that is not the right answer.

What do YOU think is the right answer?



what do i think is the right answer? i am quite certain that saul green thoroughly embarrassed himself.

when you get the book it will be fun to see how you manage to twist what bridgman wrote.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

what do i think is the right answer? i am quite certain that saul green thoroughly embarrassed himself.

when you get the book it will be fun to see how you manage to twist what bridgman wrote.

The book is from 1931. You would think that this Earth shattering revolution of Physics would have had some follow up by now. Particularly, as when it was purportedly discovered by Bridgman, he had 30 years ahead of him. Do you suppose that a Nobel laureate could not get the required lab time? :boggled:

[paximperium]

what do i think is the right answer? i am quite certain that saul green thoroughly embarrassed himself.
Sure you are since you were there...weren't you?
You have read the book in question...haven't you?


when you get the book it will be fun to see how you manage to twist what bridgman wrote.
Wait a minute? You have not read the book, your messiah got the name of the book wrong and now you are claiming that people who are actually out to get the book will "twist it"?

That is truly pathetic. Not only are you making a fool of yourself, you are one of the laziest people around. Why don't you actually do some work and actually go down to the damn library and get the book and prove everyone here wrong?

I'm not surprised by this level of intelligence coming from a homeopath.

[Mojo]

when you get the book it will be fun to see how you manage to twist what bridgman wrote.


Can you give us a page reference?

If you don't have the book to hand, perhaps you could try the university research library you used to drop in on, unless it's already closed for the summer.

[Rolfe]

what do i think is the right answer? i am quite certain that saul green thoroughly embarrassed himself.

when you get the book it will be fun to see how you manage to twist what bridgman wrote.


I like her. Can I keeps her? She make me laff!

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

That is truly pathetic. Not only are you making a fool of yourself, you are one of the laziest people around. Why don't you actually do some work and actually go down to the damn library and get the book and prove everyone here wrong?


Might have to wait a week or two, there's that wiki article on p value to dicipher first. ;)

BJ

[Criticalist]

The Bridgman reference has been found and is being discussed in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831&page=13 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831&page=13)

[George152]

Meow, meow. Sounds like you are allergic to cats.

Since sneezing is also caused by pepper, take one grain of finally ground pepper and put it in a full-sized Olympic swimming pool full of twice distilled water and mix thoroughly. Drink a tea-spoonful of the results and you will be cured! :boggled:

Well I can't sneeze at that homeopathetic remedy ..

[Mojo]

Homeopathic Medicines for Traumatic Head Injury by "DanaUllman, citizen journalist".

http://www.naturalnews. com/026057.html

Natasha Richardson recently passed away as a result of a seemingly mild traumatic head injury, and the world mourns. Now, every mother and father and concerned friend will worry when anyone near and dear to them suffers from any head injury. The good news is that research has confirmed that homeopathic medicines can be used to treat people who suffer from head trauma.


His evidence for this? A ten year old trial (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10671699) of individualised homoeopathy in "patients with persistent MTBI (mean 2.93 years since injury, SD 3.1)" - not a trial of homoeopathy used in the immediate aftermath of head injury (although I suppose a trial of that would run into insurmountable ethical problems). It just isn't relevant to his claim that "homeopathic medicines can be used preventively to avoid complications from acute head injury".

It appears that 10 of the 60 patients involved dropped out: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 60 patients, with a four-month follow-up (N = 50)

Oh, and the abstract concludes: Our findings require large-scale, independent replication.


Any signs of this in the decade since it was published?

[Mojo]

Incidentally, I note that Dana says that Cicuta should be considered "if the head injury is severe enough to suggest mental retardation", and people "who have difficulty understanding others" may benefit from Hellaborus. Physician, heal thyself!

[BillyJoe]

people "who have difficulty understanding others" may benefit from Hellaborus.
He needs to take some of his own medicine. :D

[Mojo]

By the way, here's (http://blog.scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/2009/04/homeopathy-and-the-limits-of-science/#comment-68) another comment from Dana: Because Oscillococcinum is made from the liver & heart of a duck and because ducks are reservoirs of flu viruses, this drug make sense, biologically. It has been used in homeopathy since the 1920s and thus verifies that homeopaths have been knowledgeable of avian sources of flu virus for a long time.


:boggled:

[BillyJoe]

...oops, hold on, that won't help :D

[Mojo]

It looks as if Dana may be winding up (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=448#comment-18280) to drop another "bomb":

I have also previously posed a question that no one has yet to respond: What would you think if one or two or more homeopathic medicines in post-Avogadro’s number dose were found to have an influence on genetic expression? Would THAT be of interest? Come on…go on record…

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It looks as if Dana may be winding up (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=448#comment-18280) to drop another "bomb":


Ooh, he's so smart the way he tries to fool us.

[Mojo]

Here's this month's offering:

Doctatorship: Military thinking in medicine

http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/63/military-medicine/

To treat a patient, the doctor must provide a diagnosis that determines the existence of a “Western medical disease,” or WMD, even if this diagnosis is sometimes based on faulty medical intelligence or just selective intelligence.


I'm really impressed with his invocation of the claims of the existence of WMDs that were unsupported by actual evidence. "Selective intelligence" is a pretty much perfect description of the cherry-picking of a handful of apparently positive trials that are then continually cited. That must be a highly compartmentalised mind he has there.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

How do you compartmentalise something who's dimensions are already Planck-length?

It seems Dana is revealing yet more unexplored quantum weirdness in homeopathy.

[Mojo]

How do you compartmentalise something who's dimensions are already Planck-length?

It seems Dana is revealing yet more unexplored quantum weirdness in homeopathy.


I think he just doesn't get irony.

[geni]

yes, possibly any polar molecule will do. i recall something about a Korean study where this was the case.

46. 2001 Geckeler, Kurt and Samal, Shashadhar at the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea discovered fullerenes, football-shaped buckyball molecules, formed aggregates in solution, and when diluted,

Someone did some further investigation into that one and found no evidence of the effect. See

Lack of evidence of dilution history-dependence upon solute aggregation in water. A nuclear magnetic resonance determination of self-diffusion coefficients

Fernando Hallwass, M. Engelsberg and A. M. Simas

Chem. Commun., 2002, 2530 - 2531

[dafydd]

not at all, rustum roy's experiment is going to blow the doors down once it catches on with other scientists.


you'll just have to admit you were wrong.

When are we going to be able to peruse the results of this experiment? I'm tickled about the idea of an experiment "catching on" with scientists.

[Mojo]

When are we going to be able to peruse the results of this experiment?


2007:

Manju Lata Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R. Bell and Richard Hoover: "The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy ", Homeopathy Volume 96, Issue 3, July 2007, Pages 175-182

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88831

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2909440#post2909440) you can see the text of a letter about it written by four forum members, which was published at Homeopathy Volume 97, Issue 1, pages 44-45.

There's plenty of further comment on the paper, the letter and Rao's "response" in the thread.

[Mojo]

It looks as if Dana may be winding up (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=448#comment-18280) to drop another "bomb":

I have also previously posed a question that no one has yet to respond: What would you think if one or two or more homeopathic medicines in post-Avogadro’s number dose were found to have an influence on genetic expression? Would THAT be of interest? Come on…go on record…


He's dropped it:

Dana Ullman reports that a new study done at the Amala Cancer Research Centre in India and published in the Oxford University Press journal called e-CAM shows that homeopathy has a dramatic impact on gene expression...

Here it is: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/257

Sunila ES, Kuttan R, Preethi KC, Kuttan G: Dynamized preparations in cell culture. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Jun;6(2):257-63. Epub 2007 Oct 3.

I don't know why Dana was so coy about naming it over on Science Based Medicine - it was published over 18 months ago.

[Rolfe]

Fine. Show that you can distiguish a homoeopathic preparation from the stock carrier material in this way, and I'm listening. If it's "dramatic", that should be easy.

Rolfe.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He's dropped it:



Here it is: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/257

Sunila ES, Kuttan R, Preethi KC, Kuttan G: Dynamized preparations in cell culture. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Jun;6(2):257-63. Epub 2007 Oct 3.

I don't know why Dana was so coy about naming it over on Science Based Medicine - it was published over 18 months ago.


While not wishing to spoil anyone's fun, can someone just tell me what gross error has been committed in this trial, since it has all the typical hallmarks- fragile and over-complicated experimental model with plenty of room for error. Presumably there was no blinding for one thing.

[Beerina]

If we would grant the woo-woo physics of water...

To me, it does not say one single thing on how this then would translate in the body being triggered into healing.

And, I never got an answer to a question I once asked in a homeopathy store:

If it works, then why can I not put some diluted drops of most of the remedies into the ocean and have all people on the planet heal by just taking a dip in the ocean?


Follow what I call Randi's Rule: Before trying to explain a phenomenon, first demonstrate it exists.

IIRC, there have been no repeatable tests that show anything other than a placebo effect. So one need not jump into explanations, much less one that throws known physics on its head.

[BillyJoe]

I think that might have been Joe Nickell.

[Mojo]

Ullman will probably try that debating technique but the arbitrators on that case had nothing to do with the editing of the homeopathy articles.

After being warned, tutored and restricted, he attacked other editors for bias and lack of assumption of good faith. Banning him for one year just gives wiki an all too brief rest from him.1 year bans have a habit of being extended.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DanaUllman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictio ns

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#DanaUllman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictio ns

I'm glad I didn't get into that fight and I'm glad that he's been sent packing.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

He even managed to offend his friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DanaUllman#assuming_good_faith) along the way. Hilarious.

Methinks, Enric, you doth protest too loudly. In complete and due respect, I wrote that I wish to assume good faith but was confused by your proposal. Instead of providing any clarity, you chose to attack the question. Methinks that you should answer the question, and I urge you to assume good faith on my part and to avoid providing warnings which you yourself have just ignored by not showing good faith. When you reply to my initial concern, please also cite your reason to either include or exclude the "news and notes" article on Oscillococcinum published in the Lancet. They assert that the result from this treatment is clinically relevant. DanaUllmanTalk 20:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dana, when you say that Enric is "not showing good faith" you are accusing him of bad faith. Please be careful. Best just not to mention good faith. WP:AAGF —Whig (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Whig, you have misquoted me. I never said that! I simply said "I wish to assume good faith". Please do not put quotes on things that I did not say. As I noted above, I was simply confused by what Enric had written. DanaUllmanTalk 03:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I most certainly did not misquote you. You stated just above, "I urge you to assume good faith on my part and to avoid providing warnings which you yourself have just ignored by not showing good faith." The last four words are what I excerpted last time. My advice remains: AAGF. —Whig (talk) 03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As usual the funniest thing is when his own contradictions are placed in such close proximity.

[Mojo]

He's dropped it:

Here it is: http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/257

Sunila ES, Kuttan R, Preethi KC, Kuttan G: Dynamized preparations in cell culture. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Jun;6(2):257-63. Epub 2007 Oct 3.

I don't know why Dana was so coy about naming it over on Science Based Medicine - it was published over 18 months ago.While not wishing to spoil anyone's fun, can someone just tell me what gross error has been committed in this trial, since it has all the typical hallmarks- fragile and over-complicated experimental model with plenty of room for error. Presumably there was no blinding for one thing.


I've just spotted a discussion of it over at White Coat Underground:

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/06/oprahs_website_of_woo.php

Dana cites it in post #13.

[Mojo]

BTW, here's another one Dana recently cited at the Neorologica Blog (http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=556):

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nep036

They have a go at one of his arsenic studies as well.

[Mojo]

Dana's managed to get his Darwin stuff published again: The Curious Case of Charles Darwin and Homeopathy (http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep168v1). He's puffing it in the Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-amazing-story-of-char_b_347397.html), where he of course plugs his big celebrity book of homoeopathy as well.

Mostly the same stuff that's already been repeatedly demolished here and elsewhere, but there's a new bit: apparently Darwin admired a German homoeopath. The reference Dana cites to support this "admiration" is from Francis Darwin's Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (http://arthursclassicnovels.com/arthurs/science/2llcd10.html). The introduction to the 1862 letters says: 1862.

[Owing to the illness from scarlet fever of one of his boys, he took a house at Bournemouth in the autumn. He wrote to Dr. Gray from Southampton (August 21, 1862):--

"We are a wretched family, and ought to be exterminated. We slept here to rest our poor boy on his journey to Bournemouth, and my poor dear wife sickened with scarlet fever, and has had it pretty sharply, but is recovering well. There is no end of trouble in this weary world. I shall not feel safe till we are all at home together, and when that will be I know not. But it is foolish complaining."

Dr. Gray used to send postage stamps to the scarlet fever patient; with regard to this good-natured deed my father wrote--

"I must just recur to stamps; my little man has calculated that he will now have 6 stamps which no other boy in the school has. Here is a triumph. Your last letter was plaistered with many coloured stamps, and he long surveyed the envelope in bed with much quiet satisfaction."

The greater number of the letters of 1862 deal with the Orchid work, but the wave of conversion to Evolution was still spreading, and reviews and letters bearing on the subject still came in numbers. As an example of the odd letters he received may be mentioned one which arrived in January of this year "from a German homoeopathic doctor, an ardent admirer of the 'Origin.' Had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much deeper. Explains the origin of plants and animals on the principles of homoeopathy or by the law of spirality. Book fell dead in Germany. Therefore would I translate it and publish it in England."]


Dana quotes the last paragraph, noting that the first section "was probably written by Francis Darwin", and describes it as "an August 20, 1862, letter to Asa Gray". I can't find any sign of this letter in the Darwin Correspondence project. It looks to me like a note of a letter Darwin received, rather than one he wrote.

Dana writes: What is intriguing about Darwin's statement is that he asserted that this writing by a homeopathic doctor is similar to his own but ‘goes much deeper’.


I don't see any evidence that Darwin had actually read this German homoeopath's book, or even that the homoeopath had sent him a copy. It looks more as if Darwin is merely reporting the homeopath's opinion of his own work as expressed in his letter to Darwin.

It is hard to see how this support's Dana's assertion of "Darwin's Admiration of Another Homeopath".

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

It is hard to see how this support's Dana's assertion of "Darwin's Admiration of Another Homeopath".

It's obviously homeopathetic admiration -- so dilute that it is virtually unrecognizable. :(

[JamesGully]

Come on guys...do your homework. The information about the German homeopath was NOT new, though your remarks do verify my previous contention: you did NOT read the chapter on Darwin in my book ir read my book at all.

Ironically, your arm chair philosophizing is cute...but heck, you pull things out of the air by suggesting that Charles Darwin really did not write his own letters. Good one.

Spin on! You remind me of Fox News.

My new article does have some new stuff in it, but perhaps THIS is what you mean by double-blind...you close both of your eyes when reading.

[technoextreme]

My new article does have some new stuff in it, but perhaps THIS is what you mean by double-blind...you close both of your eyes when reading.
Who the hell cares what Darwin thought about homeopathy. Its still ********.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Come on guys...do your homework. The information about the German homeopath was NOT new, though your remarks do verify my previous contention: you did NOT read the chapter on Darwin in my book ir read my book at all.

Why the hell would we want to read your book, Dana? Not making enough money scamming the homeopaths that you need sceptics to buy your book as well?

[fls]

Come on guys...do your homework. The information about the German homeopath was NOT new, though your remarks do verify my previous contention: you did NOT read the chapter on Darwin in my book ir read my book at all.

Ironically, your arm chair philosophizing is cute...but heck, you pull things out of the air by suggesting that Charles Darwin really did not write his own letters. Good one.

Spin on! You remind me of Fox News.

My new article does have some new stuff in it, but perhaps THIS is what you mean by double-blind...you close both of your eyes when reading.

Ah yes. Homeopathy - an idea so stagnant that 147 year old offhand remarks are considered au courant.

Linda

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I can't be bothered to comment at Huffington Post in response to Dana's misconceived article, but he does seem to have a little band of acolytes posting in support of himwith the usual naive and credulous puffery.

Here for example;

" My personal experience is that homeopathy has been a literal life saver for me in my treatment of serious, chronic illnesses such as neuropathy."

Of course, the only thing we can know for sure is that if it was cured by sugar pills it was neither serious nor life-threatening. The problem with hom patients is that every sniff and cough or pins and needles has either to be plague or a brain tumour. They are just lucky that DUllman is always available to feed their delusion.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Double post

[JamesGully]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.

And people here should probably not want to learn about Darwin because he wanted to learn...and you don't.

And you don't have to buy a book to read it because there is a new invention called libraries...you really should try one...

If any of you do get around to reading my eCAM article, you may actually learn something (don't worry...it won't hurt).

[technoextreme]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.


Oooo I've learned enough things Mr. Gully like how the physics and chemistry renders homeopathy moot.

[fls]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.

And people here should probably not want to learn about Darwin because he wanted to learn...and you don't.

And you don't have to buy a book to read it because there is a new invention called libraries...you really should try one...

If any of you do get around to reading my eCAM article, you may actually learn something (don't worry...it won't hurt).

Oh Dana. We are not your audience. Obviously what you really mean is, "people who will read my ******** and accept it without question" when you say "learn something." Because we have been down this road before.

Your problem isn't that we haven't read this information. Your problem is that we have.

Linda

[technoextreme]

Your problem isn't that we haven't read this information. Your problem is that we have.

Linda
Let me get this straight. Gully is Dana Ullman. Great. Hehehehe..... I have some good questions for him. Like why is it that no chemist or physicist has never observed or have developed a chemical model that would legitimize homeopathy outside of people who study homeopathy.
i


rustum roy can distinguish a remedy from placebo using UV spect
Say what? Why use UV spectra when water itself is IR active. If anything you should be able to detect the changes in the structure of water in the IR region.
EDIT:
Also, as someone who is running the spectra of materials hydrated with water its a pain in the ass to do it correctly. If you let the material set outside it will hydrate with the humid air. If you run the material incorrectly in the spectrometer you might force the water out.

[Mojo]

Come on guys...do your homework. The information about the German homeopath was NOT new, though your remarks do verify my previous contention: you did NOT read the chapter on Darwin in my book ir read my book at all.


Do you have any evidence for Darwin's "admiration" of the German homoeopath beyond what you referenced in your eCAM article? If you do, why didn't you reference it there, given that the note you referenced clearly fails to support your contention?

[Mojo]

And you don't have to buy a book to read it because there is a new invention called libraries...you really should try one...


I've tried several. For some reason none of them seems to have bothered to buy your book.

[SezMe]

I stay out of homoeopathy debates because there are folks here with vastly better knowledge than my own. But I had to comment on this:

He's puffing it in the Huffpo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/the-amazing-story-of-char_b_347397.html), where he of course plugs his big celebrity book of homoeopathy as well.

From that link:

It is impossible to know if Charles Darwin would have survived long enough to have written his seminal book in 1859, published 10 years after Dr. Gully’s treatment. We may all have to thank the water cure and homeopathic treatment provided by Dr. Gully for Darwin’s survival.

What a bunch of weasel words meant for a credulous audience. "It is impossible to know ..." and "We may ..." are all designed to avoid responsibility for a clear cut statement that there is no evidence that homeopathy had anything whatsoever to do with Darwin's survival.

That article is a sickening piece of garbage.

[Prometheus]

I stay out of homoeopathy debates because there are folks here with vastly better knowledge than my own. But I had to comment on this:



From that link:



What a bunch of weasel words meant for a credulous audience. "It is impossible to know ..." and "We may ..." are all designed to avoid responsibility for a clear cut statement that there is no evidence that homeopathy had anything whatsoever to do with Darwin's survival.

That article is a sickening piece of garbage.

Some of the comments to the article are hilarious! :D

Homeopathy is a strange and marvelous "material" chemistry science versus organic and inorganic chemistry. It is really involved with quantum physics.

I have been making and effectively using my own homeopathic medicines for many years. Many of my veterinarian friends use homeopathy very effectively on horses, dogs, cats, and other animals. One can easily prove the power of homeopathy by making mineral versions and using them on plants as super fertilizer. The plants and animals do not speak English so there is no placebo effect....

[Mojo]

Some of the comments to the article are hilarious! :D

The plants and animals do not speak English so there is no placebo effect....


Amazing that these plants and animals are able to report that their condition has improved, isn't it?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.

And people here should probably not want to learn about Darwin because he wanted to learn...and you don't.

No, no, Dana, I have learnt a lot since I started to study homeopathy 6 or 7 years ago. I've learnt a lot about critically appraising evidence- more than I was ever taught during my training, which itself has been an important insight. I have learnt a lot about the mindset of True Bleevers in alt.med. I have learnt an enormous amount about the lies, half-truths and weasel-words that are necessary to sustain faith in alt.med. You have been responsible for some important parts of that learning and I both thank and pity you. It is indeed a pity that you seem unable to learn these things for yourself. It is a sad waste of a life to insist that false things are true and lead others down that same path.

[steenkh]

If any of you do get around to reading my eCAM article, you may actually learn something (don't worry...it won't hurt).
You have already been shown to use misquotes and quoting out of context in order to further your favourite superstition. Why should we believe that you have suddenly stopped this practice?

And why is interesting if Darwin believed in supernatural healing (which he did not according to the sources we have seen until now)? Homoeopathy will not suddenly be able to work, simply because Darwin - or anybody else - believes it.

You should rather spend your energy on furthering good quality clinical tests that showed the worth of homoeopathy. But, as you well know, they have already been performed, and homoeopathy came out as a dud.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Amazing that these plants and animals are able to report that their condition has improved, isn't it?


And in all the time since Darwin no one has ever successfully generated successful results in animals or plants when adequate blinding and controls stop the experimenters cheating or kidding themselves. The mere fact that DUllman cites badly reported experiments from over century ago should teach himself something rather important. I certainly don't see any evidence of him wanting to learn from that.

It's the same with various of the studies that he continues to puff around the interweb, the COPD paper for instance, where their deficiencies have been pointed out to him so often and so clearly that it must take a very special kind of stubbornness to resist learning from the lessons have been given. That shiny, shiny dome seems to be a near-perfect reflector of accurate information.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Mojo, could you please link or re-post that interesting calculation you recently did that shows the erosion of "positive" results for homeopathy according to the SoH's, or was it Fac Hom's, list of papers supportive of homeopathy.

I think that has been one of the most useful contributions to the meta-analysis of the homeopathic literature. It quite clearly shows that, even when the work is reported by believers, greater concordance with the need for good controls is leading asymptotically to demonstrating zero-effect from homeopathy.

[Mojo]

And in all the time since Darwin no one has ever successfully generated successful results in animals or plants when adequate blinding and controls stop the experimenters cheating or kidding themselves. The mere fact that DUllman cites badly reported experiments from over century ago should teach himself something rather important. I certainly don't see any evidence of him wanting to learn from that.


Even Darwin's experiments only showed that Drosera is sensitive to very low concentrations of ammonium. As reported in chapter 7 (pages 136-173) of Insectivorous Plants (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1217&viewtype=text&pageseq=1) (1875) there is no mention of serial dilution. There is certainly no mention of succussion, which Dana has repeatedly assured us is essential in the preparation of homoeopathic remedies (remember the sort of fuss he makes whenever anyone discusses the ludicrous dilutions without mentioning the magic shaking?).

Darwin established an orthodox dose-response, with more dilute solutions having lesser effect. See also the conditions he says are necessary for solutions of various strengths: "It is to be especially observed that the experiments with the weaker solutions ought to be tried after several days of very warm weather. Those with the weakest solutions should be made on plants which have been kept for a considerable time in a warm greenhouse, or cool hothouse; but this is by no means necessary for trials with solutions of moderate strength."

While Darwin was at first surprised that Drosera reacted to concentrations that were at the time undetectable, he notes in a footnote on page 170 that the development of spectroscopy since his first observations meant that chemists could detect substances at lower concentrations than those that Drosera reacts to: "the spectroscope has altogether beaten Drosera".

Incidentally, note Dana's use of ellipsis in the passage he quotes (http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/nep168v1#SEC5) from Insectivorous Plants. One of the sections he omits, from immediately before "...in fact, every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves" (Dana capitalises the first letter of that passage so it looks like the start of a sentence) says "Astonishing as is this result, there is no sound reason why we should reject it as incredible. Prof. Donders, of Utrecht, informs me that from experiments formerly made by him and Dr. De Ruyter, he inferred that less than the one-millionth of a grain of sulphate of atropine, in an extremely diluted state, if applied directly to the iris of a dog, paralyses the muscles of this organ. But, ..."

Oh, and of course there's no connection whatsoever with "like cures like".

Darwin's experiments on Drosera are nothing to do with homoeopathy, no matter how the homoeopaths try to spin them.

[Mojo]

Mojo, could you please link or re-post that interesting calculation you recently did that shows the erosion of "positive" results for homeopathy according to the SoH's, or was it Fac Hom's, list of papers supportive of homeopathy.

I think that has been one of the most useful contributions to the meta-analysis of the homeopathic literature. It quite clearly shows that, even when the work is reported by believers, greater concordance with the need for good controls is leading asymptotically to demonstrating zero-effect from homeopathy.


It was the BHA/FoH (which seem to be aspects of the same organisation).

First, a study published in Homeopathy (Mathie RT: The research evidence base for homeopathy: a fresh assessment of the literature. Homeopathy (2003) 92, 84–91) counted the trials between 1975 and the end of 2002 and found 50 positive, 41 inconclusive and 2 negative.

Mathie is "Research Development Adviser, British Homeopathic Association & Faculty of Homeopathy (http://www.trusthomeopathy.org/media_centre/press_releases/march_prs.html)".

Second, a document (http://www.emaxhealth.com/60/13121.html) giving its source as the British Homeopathic Association says that they found 119 trials up to the end of 2005. The percentages they give there are 49% positive, 48% inconclusive, and 3% negative; these work out to 58 positive, 57 inconclusive and 4 negative (Peter Fisher, the editor of Homeopathy, the Faculty's journal, has cited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/23/openletterclosedminds) these same figures, although without saying where they came from).

Third, a document (http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/export/sites/bha_site/research/evidencesummarymay08.pdf) produced by the Faculty of Homeopathy and published on the BHA's website, which says "Up to the end of 2008, 138 RCTs had been published: 60 positive; 10 negative; 68 not statistically conclusive."

None of these appears to have taken any notice of study quality or size, indeed the 2003 Mathie paper explicitly states that it ignored study quality.

Assuming that all these figures have been arrived at on the same basis:

Up to 2002: 93 trials, 53.8% positive;
2003-2005: 26 trials, 30.8% positive;
2006-2008: 19 trials, 10.5% positive.

At least they appear to be getting better at conducting trials.

[technoextreme]

Some of the comments to the article are hilarious! :D
Hilarious. It makes me want to scream. The way Dana Ullman or any other homeopath is backwards from every single field of science on the face of the earth. They are trying to prove efficacy without having any clue as to how the mechanism actually works.

[Mojo]

They are trying to prove efficacy without having any clue as to how the mechanism actually works.


Actually, that's no real problem. There isn't much point in worrying about a mechanism for nonexistent effects.

Their problem is that they have resorted to trying to prove efficacy by reference to vaguely reported anomalies, and by arguments to antiquity, popularity, authority, and other irrelevancies.

And, of course, by misusing meta-analyses (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext): Our 1997 meta-analysis has unfortunately been misused by homoeopaths as evidence that their therapy is proven.

[Mojo]

Has he gone again?

[Gwen]

Why is he posting as JamesGully? On other websites (Hawk/Handsaw, Wikipedia, SBM, ...) he uses his real name.

[Astro Teacher]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.

And people here should probably not want to learn about Darwin because he wanted to learn...and you don't.

And you don't have to buy a book to read it because there is a new invention called libraries...you really should try one...

If any of you do get around to reading my eCAM article, you may actually learn something (don't worry...it won't hurt).

Amen. Finding the same kind of problems on other topics here as well James. I've read your article and it's excellent. Oh, by the way, you were right, it didn't hurt.

[Astro Teacher]

Actually, that's no real problem. There isn't much point in worrying about a mechanism for nonexistent effects.

Their problem is that they have resorted to trying to prove efficacy by reference to vaguely reported anomalies, and by arguments to antiquity, popularity, authority, and other irrelevancies.

And, of course, by misusing meta-analyses (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67878-6/fulltext):

It's just amazing how dull this is Mojo. You seem to know even less about Darwin. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is considered by some scientists to be a bit more superior to Newton's theory of gravity, but when Newton came up with his laws of inverse square he didn't have an explanation for why attraction between masses followed his mathematical formula rather than his formulas based on cosines, square roots or even astrologically observed events in nature.

Newton said he knew there was a mathematical "force" that existed, that was real between planetary bodies, but he could not explain the mechanism. So that is not "proof" that something exists. We know gravity exists, yes? But no mechanism has been validated to show "how" gravity works except for various kinds of theories.

And, it wasn't until Albert Einstein came along that a "mechanism" for gravity was even seriously pondered, and to this very day, theories of the "mechanism" of gravity still lacks ANY experimental support. No one mechanism of the force behind gravity has been validated - but we KNOW (do we not?) that gravity does exist?

Darwin also did not have a "mechanism" explained where he could prove without a doubt that evolution can occur. He only wrote that the mechanism was mutation of species but Darwin did not have any means to prove the inner workings of cells, DNA, genes, or even what the mechanisms were behind mutations. Darwin only said that evolution happens via natural selection, but had no proof of mechanism to show why changes occur in organisms. So let's give the "show me the mechanism" shtick you got going a break on homeopathy, okay? It's so tiring and quite boring Mojo.

[fls]

Why is he posting as JamesGully? On other websites (Hawk/Handsaw, Wikipedia, SBM, ...) he uses his real name.

When he first showed up here, he pretended that he wasn't DUllman, but rather a bystander. Just one more small demonstration of his integrity.

Linda

[fls]

It's just amazing how dull this is Mojo. You seem to know even less about Darwin. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is considered by some scientists to be a bit more superior to Newton's theory of gravity, but when Newton came up with his laws of inverse square he didn't have an explanation for why attraction between masses followed his mathematical formula rather than his formulas based on cosines, square roots or even astrologically observed events in nature.

Newton said he knew there was a mathematical "force" that existed, that was real between planetary bodies, but he could not explain the mechanism. So that is not "proof" that something exists. We know gravity exists, yes? But no mechanism has been validated to show "how" gravity works except for various kinds of theories.

And, it wasn't until Albert Einstein came along that a "mechanism" for gravity was even seriously pondered, and to this very day, theories of the "mechanism" of gravity still lacks ANY experimental support. No one mechanism of the force behind gravity has been validated - but we KNOW (do we not?) that gravity does exist?

Darwin also did not have a "mechanism" explained where he could prove without a doubt that evolution can occur. He only wrote that the mechanism was mutation of species but Darwin did not have any means to prove the inner workings of cells, DNA, genes, or even what the mechanisms were behind mutations. Darwin only said that evolution happens via natural selection, but had no proof of mechanism to show why changes occur in organisms. So let's give the "show me the mechanism" shtick you got going a break on homeopathy, okay? It's so tiring and quite boring Mojo.

You need to read a bit more carefully. Mojo agreed with you that it wasn't necessary to ask for a mechanism.

Linda

[Astro Teacher]

You need to read a bit more carefully. Mojo agreed with you that it wasn't necessary to ask for a mechanism.

Linda

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity. Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity. Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

Astro Teacher. You are amusing when you pontificate in Astrology threads. Here you will have to do better than wave your arms and proclaim your brilliance. May I respectfully that you use your library card?
:dl:

[not daSkeptic]

There IS nothing new in homeopathy IF you don't read or don't learn or don't want to learn because you spend all your time spewing against it instead of having a life and learning new things.

And people here should probably not want to learn about Darwin because he wanted to learn...and you don't.

And you don't have to buy a book to read it because there is a new invention called libraries...you really should try one...

If any of you do get around to reading my eCAM article, you may actually learn something (don't worry...it won't hurt).

Something I don't get is why this seeming defense of homeopathy is necessary. If one's work truly has merit, shouldn't it be able to stand on its own? Shouldn't others be able to repeat the experiments and confirm the results? Would not a support campaign be completely redundant?

[Prometheus]

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity. Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

Odd, I'd not heard that 'plenty' had been redefined to mean 'zero'.

[SezMe]

Has he gone again?
No, he's participating at the 300C level.

[fls]

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity. Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

There haven't been plenty of studies which show (let alone prove) that homeopathy is effective. The combined effect of the studies show that any effect attributed to homeopathy is indistinguishable from placebo and bias. There isn't enough 'proof' to recommend any single treatment for homeopathy.

Linda

[fls]

I have a confession to make (and information that saves others the same effort). I've always wondered how DUllman could have an MPH and display so little understanding of basic statistics and reliability/validity. I was reminded of my suspicions today when I needed confirmation of my oldest son's attendance as a full time student for insurance purposes. So I went ahead and placed a request for confirmation of Dana's MPH as well. And it was confirmed. Disappointing but expected. Which serves as a cautionary tale about depending upon authority.

Linda

[BillyJoe]

He never stays around long enough to get pinned down these days.

...but it seems he has an acolyte in his place.

(well, you can tell where he got his "education" from)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity. Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

Did you go to the same classes as Dana when you learned reading comprehension? Mojo's point was very clear and you have expended a significant amount of effort grasping the wrong end of the stick.

As to your second point, please provide your single best example of a high-quality trial that demonstrates efficacy of homeopathy.

Please, also provide one, you only need one, incontrovertible example, accurately and honestly reported, of a non-self-limiting disease being cured by homeopathy.

Thank you.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. If you mention the Banerji clinic or cite a meta-analysis published by Linde in 1997 or any trials published by someone called Frass, you will learn what is meant by the phrase "howls of derisive laughter".

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, I did, however, not enough for it to be made quite clear that it is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of homeopathy to prove its validity.

Agreed. However, if you think so, why is it that you are claiming, elsewhere, that a very thorugh knowledge of astrology is required to test that?

Basically, as long as any system makes a testable claim, it lends itself to testing. (And if a system doesn't make any testable claims, it admits to being a belief system.)


Also, there have been plenty of tests proving the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.No.[tm]

Hans

[Mojo]

It's just amazing how dull this is Mojo. You seem to know even less about Darwin. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution is considered by some scientists to be a bit more superior to Newton's theory of gravity, but when Newton came up with his laws of inverse square he didn't have an explanation for why attraction between masses followed his mathematical formula rather than his formulas based on cosines, square roots or even astrologically observed events in nature.

Newton said he knew there was a mathematical "force" that existed, that was real between planetary bodies, but he could not explain the mechanism. So that is not "proof" that something exists. We know gravity exists, yes? But no mechanism has been validated to show "how" gravity works except for various kinds of theories.

And, it wasn't until Albert Einstein came along that a "mechanism" for gravity was even seriously pondered, and to this very day, theories of the "mechanism" of gravity still lacks ANY experimental support. No one mechanism of the force behind gravity has been validated - but we KNOW (do we not?) that gravity does exist?

Darwin also did not have a "mechanism" explained where he could prove without a doubt that evolution can occur. He only wrote that the mechanism was mutation of species but Darwin did not have any means to prove the inner workings of cells, DNA, genes, or even what the mechanisms were behind mutations. Darwin only said that evolution happens via natural selection, but had no proof of mechanism to show why changes occur in organisms. So let's give the "show me the mechanism" shtick you got going a break on homeopathy, okay? It's so tiring and quite boring Mojo.


Fail.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip* So let's give the "show me the mechanism" shtick you got going a break on homeopathy, okay? It's so tiring and quite boring Mojo.

You need not know the mechanism (and Mojo didn't say that), but the putative mechanism needs to have some plausibility. Otherwise, you have an extraordinary claim, which as you may know, requires extraordinary evidence.

For example, gravity has some pretty extraordinary evidence working for it. Electricity has. Evolution has.

Homeopathy has not. Astrology has not.

Hans

[Mojo]

Why is he posting as JamesGully? On other websites (Hawk/Handsaw, Wikipedia, SBM, ...) he uses his real name.When he first showed up here, he pretended that he wasn't DUllman, but rather a bystander. Just one more small demonstration of his integrity.

Linda


Indeed, here's his first post on the forum: 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.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Indeed, here's his first post on the forum:

Oh, it's always good to be reminded of that. Thanks, Mojo.