JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags alternative medicine , dana ullman , homeopathy

Reply
Old 18th July 2007, 04:12 AM   #881
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
These facts are not subject to dispute, they are perfectly clear to anyone with a reading comprehension age of about 12. You must therefore change what you have written.

Think about who is likely to buy his book: he's probably safe to rely on their being too lazy to look up the references (especially when what he's written confirms their own predjudices) and not capable of understanding them even if they bother to look them up.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 06:25 AM   #882
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Oh yes. But what he has written is all about why someone 150 years ago should have changed what they wrote because James thinks they were shown to be wrong. We have shown quite clearly that it is James who is in fact wrong. Therefore, by his own standards, James should change what he has written.

I'm not sniffing a faint aroma of intellectual dishonesty here, am I? Surely James woudn't do exactly what he criticises others for doing, would he?

Wow, when this thread stated, I never dreamed we were going to have quite this much "fun with homoeopath Dana Ullman"!!!!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 06:49 AM   #883
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Assuming that it actually is Ullman that we're dealing with: I know "James" appears to have access to Ullman's as yet unpublished book, and has gone under the name "Dana Ullman" elsewhere (for example at Respectful Insolence), but Ullman is said to be "commonly considered America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy". Is this really the best they've got?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 07:44 AM   #884
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Sadly, probably yes.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 10:49 AM   #885
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,280
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Sadly, probably yes.

Rolfe.
Perhaps it is fortunate that our homeopaths are as pathetic as Dana Ullman, MPH! At least all of our homeopathic hospitals closed down, and even the homeopathic medical college has become a real medical school, though it has been merged with another:
http://www.drexelmed.edu/Alumni/Coll...5/Default.aspx

Edit to add that Hahnemann University Hospital still exists:
http://www.hahnemannhospital.com/CWS...nemannhospital

Hey, check out what it says about treating syphilis:
http://hahnemannhospital.staywellsol...opedia/3,85083
Quote:
Syphilis is treated with antibiotics. During treatment, it is important not to have sex, or you may infect someone else. And be sure to return for follow-up visits. Your partner should also be checked for the disease.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/

Last edited by Chris Haynes; 18th July 2007 at 10:52 AM.
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 10:47 PM   #886
Dana Ullman
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 201
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Surely even you cannot possibly imagine that Holmes was "asserting" that 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic (of alcohol, no less!) was actually employed to make every 17C potency??? He said no such thing. He was in fact crystal clear about what he was saying.

"Let us suppose" that we don't throw anything away, but dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture. Does "let us suppose" convey anything to you? I don't know how Holmes could have made himself any clearer. He was pointing out that the effective dilution reached at the end of the process was as if the original thimbleful of mother tincture had been diluted by that amount.
THIS is part and parcel of Holmes' ludacrous and uneducated statement: no homeopathic pharmacy makes a medicine if they "dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture." Once again, the 17th potency takes 17 test tubes worth of water. Any creative way that alludes anything to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is simply wrong...whether you or Holmes says "let us suppose" or not.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Holmes made reference to observations made by Andral. He was well aware that Andral's work had been criticised. He made reference to the criticisms in his essay. He also debunked those criticisms, and stated his opinion that Andral's work was valid. He gave his reasons for believing that.
So, even after Andral told the world all of the serious problems with his "research," Holmes still chose to not change a word of his essay. I guess your standards for scholarship are different than mine.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Do you believe that everyone should "acknowledge their error" in referencing anything that has ever been subject to criticism, no matter how unfounded they believe that criticism to be? 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. So perhaps you shouldn't even mention them! And "acknowledge your error" when you have. Oh, what do I hear you say? You don't agree with these criticisms? Well, fancy that - Holmes didn't agree with the criticisms of Dr. Andral either, and said so, giving his reasons. I'd hardly call that backfiring.
Your critiques of these scientists are so weak that no serious journal has published your critiques. Please provide references to the published critiques of Elia, Rey, Roy, or Ennis in peer-review journals. Someone here has said that they have written a critique of Elia's work here, and I've asked to see it several times...but no body is home. As for Roy's work, is there anyone here who has published a similar body of research as Roy has (and thus, has shown some "scientific chops") and who has provided some solid critique of Roy's work on homeopathy? Put up or shut up. Please show me published critique of Rey's work. Ennis' work was replicated by 3 other labs, though later, one other lab didn't repeat it successfully. This one trial did not disprove her work, and if you think it did, this shows your inadequate understanding of the way evidence works.

You folks are good at ganging up on me here, but you seem unable or afraid to go out into the world to publish your scientific chops.

Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
James, your position is completely untenable. You are lambasting Holmes for not having changed passages in his writings which you are asserting were false. But now it has been shown to you quite clearly that these passages are in fact perfectly correct, and that Holmes was not in fact saying what you are declaring he said. By your own logic, you must change what you have written.

You must take on board
  • Holmes was deeply critical of Dr. Rush, holding him up as an example of all that he felt was wrong with the contemporary medical establishment
  • Holmes never changed his mind about homoeopathy, and he never "finally confessed" anything in its favour
  • Holmes was perfectly correct in pointing out that if the entire initial quantity of mother tincture was diluted, the final dilution would require a volume of alcohol ten thousand times the volume of the Adriatic sea
  • Holmes made reference to the criticism of Andral's work, and explained his reasons for disagreeing with the critics
These facts are not subject to dispute, they are perfectly clear to anyone with a reading comprehension age of about 12. You must therefore change what you have written.
If Holmes had such disrespect for Rush, why did he insist that medical students read his work, and later (and unrelated to Holmes) why do psychiatrists today still use his FACE on their organization's membership logo?

Holmes statement about the dilutions has already been proven to be hogwash and yet you continue to assert that it makes complete sense (in a completely nonesensical world only).

As for Andral's research...are you saying that YOU stand behind it? If not, give up defending it (heck, the author stopped defending it a LONG time ago). I bet that NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE will stand up for Andral's work.

The fact that Andral's work may have been the only reference to some type of controlled study in Holmes' work, and yet, the "solid foundation of science" that he was standing on was simply jello. This is not surprising when you consider that Holmes had only graduated from medical school just six years prior to writing this error-filled treatise on homeopathy.

As for Holmes reading a homeopathic book, I still claim that he didn't. Just because he read a chapter or two from one of Hahnemann's reference books does not mean anything. Holmes never quotes Hahnemann's ORGANON, which was Hahnemann's treatise on homeopathy. One cannot understand his other books until/unless one reads his ORGANON (or similar book on the homeopathic methodology). Without it, you're flying blind...and I cannot help but laugh that "defenders of science" like to fly blind...and defend science (badly).

You have simply shown that you, like our American President, will stand by your own (wrong and bone-headed) decisions, no matter what.

My recommendations for you to self-prescribe homeopathic medicines are for only acute non-life-threatening conditions only. Get beyond your own mindset and become a real scientist, an experimenter, not just arm-chair philosphers (you're all practicing that soft science of "philosophy," not science)...and yet, you think of yourselves as "defenders of science." Darwin just rolled over in his grave.

Good-bye...I'm going away again.
Dana Ullman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 11:56 PM   #887
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Get beyond your own mindset and become a real scientist, an experimenter,...
Quite extraordinary. After being blown out of the water on every piece of your venture into historical literary criticism you reiterate your appeal to personal anecdote as the way to determine the validity of homeopathy.

If you were in any position to understand the science you have presented as proof of homeopathy you would understand quite why that is such a foolish thing to advocate. But, here you are again. Is it any wonder you don't understand the criticisms of that feeble scientific base when you don't even understand the need for science?

Extraordinary, indeed.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2007, 11:58 PM   #888
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 15,826
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
THIS is part and parcel of Holmes' ludacrous and uneducated statement: no homeopathic pharmacy makes a medicine if they "dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture." Once again, the 17th potency takes 17 test tubes worth of water. Any creative way that alludes anything to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is simply wrong...whether you or Holmes says "let us suppose" or not.
Guess you didn't get as far as multiplication in math class.
Quote:
Good-bye...I'm going away again.
Byeee!
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 12:32 AM   #889
kieran
Critical Thinker
 
kieran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
THIS is part and parcel of Holmes' ludacrous and uneducated statement: no homeopathic pharmacy makes a medicine if they "dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture." Once again, the 17th potency takes 17 test tubes worth of water. Any creative way that alludes anything to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is simply wrong...whether you or Holmes says "let us suppose" or not.
Let us suppose you are right ... hang on, that's the most creative use of "let us suppose" possible.

"Let us suppose" obviously preludes an analogy in Holmes' case. Do you struggle with analogy?

If you are claiming that Holmes thought that literally 10,000 Adriatic Seas are used in homoeopathy, then fine - that would be wrong and indefensible.

However, if (as the rest of the sane world would read it) Holmes were using an equivalent process to show the extreme nature of homoeopathic dilution - then that would be an analogy, and your assertion of his incorrectness would be an embarassment to you. Where is your shame?

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
If Holmes had such disrespect for Rush, why did he insist that medical students read his work,
... so that they could see what to avoid.

If you claim that you still can't see that from the full context of the quote then either you are illiterate or lying. Have you actually read the full context of the quote? (that means the surrounding text as well)

Please - this one point alone is so embarassing that it makes everything you say all the weaker. If you can't admit being wrong, absolutely wrong, on something so glaringly obvious, then what credibility is there in the rest of your argument. Your intellectual dishonesty is disappointing. Your hypocracy is annoying.

Your position is that homoeopathy itself has a positive effect in the treatment of medical conditions. Fine - prove it. Stop making excuses for why you can't.
__________________
Ted: "Have you been studying this chart like I told you?"
kieran is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 01:43 AM   #890
steenkh
Illuminator
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,245
JamesGully prefers not to acknowledge his own dishonesty, but he does it indirectly by ceasing the use of quotes that are completely indefensible and concentrating on those quotes that merely needs fanciful interpretation to be defensible. Very interesting.

Now, about the replications of Ennis' work, were those performed double-blind or not?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 04:45 AM   #891
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
THIS is part and parcel of Holmes' ludacrous and uneducated statement: no homeopathic pharmacy makes a medicine if they "dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture." Once again, the 17th potency takes 17 test tubes worth of water. Any creative way that alludes anything to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is simply wrong...whether you or Holmes says "let us suppose" or not.

Do you or do you not understand that it is true that a 17C potency is equivalent to having the whole of the orignal mother tincture dissolved in a volume of ethanol 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic? Do you or do you not see how it is both relevant and appropriate to illustrate this in the way Holmes did, in order to allow the reader to appreciate the insane levels of dilution actually reached using only these few ounces of actual ethanol?

If you don't, then frankly I don't know what to say. How do you actually cope with tying your shoelaces in the morning?

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
So, even after Andral told the world all of the serious problems with his "research," Holmes still chose to not change a word of his essay. I guess your standards for scholarship are different than mine.

So Andral "told the world", did he? Then you'll have no problem showing us where to find this information. And quoting exactly what he said. Nice long quotes, please, we know how you like to cherry-pick.

Now, I don't know whether Andral really did say what James claims he said - I doubt it, because so far we've seen that everything James claims Holmes said, he didn't actually say, or not as James chooses to interpret it anyway. However, even if he did - why does that oblige Holmes to agree with him? Holmes studied Andral's work and believed it was valid. He explained why. He was entitled to take that view.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Your critiques of these scientists are so weak that no serious journal has published your critiques. Please provide references to the published critiques of Elia, Rey, Roy, or Ennis in peer-review journals. Someone here has said that they have written a critique of Elia's work here, and I've asked to see it several times...but no body is home. As for Roy's work, is there anyone here who has published a similar body of research as Roy has (and thus, has shown some "scientific chops") and who has provided some solid critique of Roy's work on homeopathy? Put up or shut up. Please show me published critique of Rey's work. Ennis' work was replicated by 3 other labs, though later, one other lab didn't repeat it successfully. This one trial did not disprove her work, and if you think it did, this shows your inadequate understanding of the way evidence works.

Oh no, James. You announced that Holmes should have revised what he wrote because Andral's work was criticised. You didn't give any references for the criticism, or show it to be justified. In fact, as we have seen, Holmes was aware of the criticism, and didn't believe it was valid. He said so, giving his reasons. However, you continue to declare that Holmes was in error in not revising his essay.

Now, we point out that the work of people like Rey, Roy, Benveniste, Ennis and so on has been criticised. This is true. So, by that token, you should not refer to their work, and you should revise anything you have written to remove any references to their work. This is just goose and gander sauce.

Oh, but you now want the criticisms of these people to be cited!! And justified!!! You feel that unless you are persuaded, personally, that these criticisms are valid, then you should not be obliged to expurgate all mention of the work from your writings.

Double standards.

Can you not understand that, in just the same way as you feel justifued in continuing to refer to these authors' work, because you do not agree that they have been discredited, Holmes felt justified in continuing to refer to Andral's work, because he did not agree that the work was invalid.

At least Holmes had the integrity to include in his essay the information that Andral's work had been criticised, and a summary of the criticism (followed by his own excellent reasons for dismissing these criticisms). You have not even had the courtesy to reference a single word you claim Andral said.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You folks are good at ganging up on me here, but you seem unable or afraid to go out into the world to publish your scientific chops.

What makes you think that? I have a PhD, almost every single data point of which was analysed by me with my own fair hands, using samples collected by these same hands. I have a list of publications running to about four pages, both work done in the course of the PhD and later. I currently have the editor of one scientific journal and the chairman of one grant-awarding body chasing me to scrutinise papers and grant applications. Because of my reputation in my field, you see.

And if you want my opinion of Roy, look over here.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
If Holmes had such disrespect for Rush, why did he insist that medical students read his work, and later (and unrelated to Holmes) why do psychiatrists today still use his FACE on their organization's membership logo?

Holmes was suggesting that students look at Rush, as a prime example of the sort of arrogance and gung-ho prescribing that he wanted them to avoid. This is perfectly clear from what he wrote. Everybody else here can see that with no problem. Why do you persist in interpreting his use of Rush as an "awful warning" as "worship"?

More problems with reading comprehension?

I don't know anything about psychiatrists, and I don't see what that has to do with the discussion.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
Holmes statement about the dilutions has already been proven to be hogwash and yet you continue to assert that it makes complete sense (in a completely nonesensical world only).

Of course it makes sense. Now if you have accepted that Holmes was not suggesting that homoeopathic manufacturers actually use 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic of alcohol to make a 17C remedy, what do you think he was saying? He was saying that the final "concentration" of the mother tincture in the 17C preparation is the same as if the entire starting amount of the mother tincture had been dissolved in that amount of water. This is correct. How else would you like him to have explained this?

(As an aside, I remember seeing a TV programme about homoeopathy that illustrated the same point showing pictures of swimming pools and then on up. Nobody thought they were saying that actual swimming pools were used to make the remedies, and while some homoeopaths did have some criticisms of the programme - as had some sceptics - nobody took issue with this part.)

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
As for Andral's research...are you saying that YOU stand behind it? If not, give up defending it (heck, the author stopped defending it a LONG time ago). I bet that NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE will stand up for Andral's work.

I have read what Holmes wrote about Andral's work. I am still waiting for you to provide the slightest smidgin of support for your assertion that Holmes was wrong about this, and ought to have known he was wrong, or even for your assertion that Andral later recanted. How about it?

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
The fact that Andral's work may have been the only reference to some type of controlled study in Holmes' work, and yet, the "solid foundation of science" that he was standing on was simply jello. This is not surprising when you consider that Holmes had only graduated from medical school just six years prior to writing this error-filled treatise on homeopathy.

Jello? You're thinking of the so-called scientific support base for homoeopathy, right? You know, I've met some pretty smart cookies doing some extraordinarily impressive work only six years after graduation. Fancy that.

Now, about that error-filled treatise. You were going to show us one single actual error, remember? How about it? And assertions that Holmes said things he did not in fact say don't count.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
As for Holmes reading a homeopathic book, I still claim that he didn't. Just because he read a chapter or two from one of Hahnemann's reference books does not mean anything. Holmes never quotes Hahnemann's ORGANON, which was Hahnemann's treatise on homeopathy. One cannot understand his other books until/unless one reads his ORGANON (or similar book on the homeopathic methodology). Without it, you're flying blind...and I cannot help but laugh that "defenders of science" like to fly blind...and defend science (badly).

You claim he didn't. You clearly have no evidence for this at all.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
You have simply shown that you, like our American President, will stand by your own (wrong and bone-headed) decisions, no matter what.

Your American President is your responsibility, I'll take nothing to do with him. You seem to emulate him, however. The one standing by wrong opinions here is you, and that should by now be clear to you - if it weren't for that reading comprehension problem that seems to keep rearing its ugly head.

Originally Posted by JamesGully View Post
My recommendations for you to self-prescribe homeopathic medicines are for only acute non-life-threatening conditions only. Get beyond your own mindset and become a real scientist, an experimenter, not just arm-chair philosphers (you're all practicing that soft science of "philosophy," not science)...and yet, you think of yourselves as "defenders of science." Darwin just rolled over in his grave.

Good-bye...I'm going away again.

Fancy, you're not the first homoeopath to have suggested I try taking homoeopathic remedies. I actually did it. (On top of having been a homoeopathic patient in my youth.) Nothing at all happened. So what?

Where did I call myself a "defender of science"? What makes you think I've never done any experimentation? (I'll refer you back to my PhD thesis here.) And where does Darwin come into it?

Get real, James. You haven't a leg to stand on. You yourself derailed this thread from whatever it was about to showcase your precious critique of Holmes. Which has just ended up as a little pile of confetti on the floor.

Have the intellectual honesty to change it.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 19th July 2007 at 04:52 AM. Reason: Proofreading
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 06:00 AM   #892
Cuddles
Decoy
Moderator
 
Cuddles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 18,387
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
You know, I've met some pretty smart cookies doing some extraordinarily impressive work only six years after graduation. Fancy that.
In fact, a lot of the most groundbreaking work is done in people's youth. In mathematics, for example, it is well established that almost all the really important work is done by people under 30, which is a maximum of 9 years after graduation. In fact, assuming a medical degree back then was still six years, as it is now, that would mean that far from being dismissed due to inexperience, this was just about Holmes' last chance to really publish anything noteworthy.

Mozart was only six when he wrote his first music, does that mean we should dismiss it because he didn't have enough experience?
__________________
If I let myself get hung up on only doing things that had any actual chance of success, I'd never do anything!
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 12:18 PM   #893
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49 52' 3" E 8 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
If you want a bit more fun with Dana Ullman, here's the presentation of his new book: http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/

The book is called "The Homeopathic Revolution: Famous People and Cultural Heroes Who Chose Homeopathy". It seems to be a collection of famous people who may have used homeopathy, or supported it, or written something nice about it. It's clear from the presentation that Dana Ullman = JamesGully: we read that: "Charles Darwin could not have written Origin of Species without the homeopathic treatment that he received from Dr. Gully (based on Darwin's own letters!)." and in the sample chapter ("Literary Greats: Write on Homeopathy!") there is a bit of the misinformation on Oliver Wendell Holmes that we have already dissected in this thread.

Ullman has high hopes of his book:

"I am presently finishing the most important work of my life. It is a project that may actually change the face (and the heart) of medicine and may make homeopathy a household word."

In the table of contents you can read all the illustrious names included in the book. Apparently all these people, famous for their music, art, literature or whatever, supported homeopathy.

Of course, knowing what Ullman/Gully has already written on this thread, we may well suspect him of careful quote-mining to make things look better for his cause, but let's suppose that all these people really did, or do support homeopathy. Does that change the face of medicine? Does being famous make people good judges of medical treatment?

And do we really want to use the same medical treatments that were used by Chopin (died of tuberculosis at 39), Schumann (died insane, probably of syphilis, at 46) or Van Gogh (depressive drinker of absinthe, committed suicide at 37)?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 12:25 PM   #894
Furcifer
miscreant
 
Furcifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hohm
Posts: 13,379
Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
Originally by Dana Ullman:
"I am presently finishing the most important work of my life. It is a project that may actually change the face (and the heart) of medicine and may make homeopathy a household word."

If anyone uses the word "Homeopathy" in my house it results in a quarter being deposited in a jar on top of the fridge.

Last edited by Furcifer; 19th July 2007 at 12:28 PM. Reason: changed the quote so it didn't look like Mike C made it :)
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 12:53 PM   #895
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49 52' 3" E 8 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
I just started reading Ullman's sample chapter. He presents Ralph Waldo Emerson as an advocate of homeopathy. A little research led me to this quote from Emerson:

"Homoeopathy is insignificant as an art of healing, but of great value as criticism on the hygeia or medical practice of the time. So with Mesmerism, Swedenborgism, Fourierism, and the Millennial Church; they are poor pretensions enough, but good criticism on the science, philosophy, and preaching of the day."

(see the quote in context at http://emerson.thefreelibrary.com/Es...ond-Series/8-1)

Could Mr. Ullman/Gully explain why an advocate of homeopathy would write that? And could he give a quote showing that Emerson supported homeopathy?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 02:05 PM   #896
Michael C
Graduate Poster
 
Michael C's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: N 49 52' 3" E 8 40' 21"
Posts: 1,881
Time for one more! Ullman also presents Henry James as an advocate of homeopathy. As evidence, he gives a quote from The Bostonians, where one of the characters, Miss Birdseye, says of homeopathy "Well, it's generally admitted now to be the true system".

So the fact that Henry James put something into a character's mouth meant that he believed it himself? In particular, did he share the beliefs of Miss Birdseye, whom he described as "a confused, entangled, inconsequent, discursive old woman"?
Michael C is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2007, 02:15 PM   #897
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
In particular, did he share the beliefs of Miss Birdseye, whom he described as "a confused, entangled, inconsequent, discursive old woman"?
Entangled?? It turns out that Lionel Milgrom has been channelling the spirit of a fictional 19th century woman. Now it becomes clear why his papers are such nonsense.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 02:41 AM   #898
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
I just started reading Ullman's sample chapter. He presents Ralph Waldo Emerson as an advocate of homeopathy. A little research led me to this quote from Emerson:

"Homoeopathy is insignificant as an art of healing, but of great value as criticism on the hygeia or medical practice of the time. So with Mesmerism, Swedenborgism, Fourierism, and the Millennial Church; they are poor pretensions enough, but good criticism on the science, philosophy, and preaching of the day."

(see the quote in context at http://emerson.thefreelibrary.com/Es...ond-Series/8-1)

Could Mr. Ullman/Gully explain why an advocate of homeopathy would write that?

Simple: Emerson was, like everyone else in the world apart from "JamesGully", intellectually dishonest.

See also: "Critic's Choice".
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 02:54 AM   #899
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
See also: "Critic's Choice".



Anybody care to speculate on whether Dana (I think we can be pretty confident of the identity) really believes he's right about this? I can only assume he does, but just how dense, or how divorced from reality, do you actually have to be to take the stance he's taken here? Imagining you see improvements in patients who are just getting better on their own isn't hard. But such wilful, tortuous misinterpretation of a perfectly clear and amusing writer takes real skill.

I forgot the smilie from my previous post, so I'll add it here.



Do you think we finally broke him?

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 03:07 AM   #900
steenkh
Illuminator
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,245
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Do you think we finally broke him?
I do not think he can be broken. But he may decide not to spend anymore time on such a bunch of intellectually dishonest amateur scientists who aqre so entrenched in their old-fashioned views that they would never see the most obvious truths staring right in their eyes!

Besides, he is probably busy dredging quotes from the discussion to show how he won over a board of skeptics who like all his famous persons finally admitted that homoeopathy is the cure of the millenium.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 03:12 AM   #901
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Originally Posted by Cuddles View Post
In fact, a lot of the most groundbreaking work is done in people's youth. In mathematics, for example, it is well established that almost all the really important work is done by people under 30, which is a maximum of 9 years after graduation. In fact, assuming a medical degree back then was still six years, as it is now, that would mean that far from being dismissed due to inexperience, this was just about Holmes' last chance to really publish anything noteworthy.

Mozart was only six when he wrote his first music, does that mean we should dismiss it because he didn't have enough experience?

I checked Holmes' biography. (I may have erroneously said O. W. Holmes Jr. in an earlier post. This was of course wrong, the writer of the essay in question was O. W. Holmes, Sr. His son, born in 1841, the year before the publication of the essay under discussion, was a very well-known US judge.) He was 32 or 33 when he gave the lecture that was published as Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions. And it seems to me that six years post-graduation is quite an experienced doctor, and I'd certainly have no qualms about letting someone six years out of medical school treat me! I've heard some very penetrating lectures by lecturers in their early 30s, too.

Be fair, though. You may have to be a child prodigy to do groundbreaking maths, but Holmes still had a long and productive medical career ahead of him at 33. Lots of people in the biological sciences have published excellent and novel work right up to their retirement.

By the way, I just noticed that Holmes also wrote several well-loved hymns. I'm surprised Dana didn't cast that one up as some twisted proof that he "wasn't a sceptic" or something!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th July 2007 at 04:52 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 04:53 AM   #902
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
This from Dana, from the message he wrote to the Opening Poster's blog which started this thread.

Quote:
I am proud of my humility


Says it all, really.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 05:51 AM   #903
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
"I am presently finishing the most important work of my life."

Bit of a waste of a life.

But I can see why he'd be so resistant to accepting correction. There's a big pile of his silly books that would need to be pulped and a lot of grovelling letters to be written to reviewers who have been misled by its content.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 05:55 AM   #904
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
By the way, I just noticed that Holmes also wrote several well-loved hymns. I'm surprised Dana didn't cast that one up as some twisted proof that he "wasn't a sceptic" or something!

Ah, but Dana wants Holmes to be a skeptic so that, by misquoting him and throwing up strawmen, he can show that skepics are wrong.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 06:01 AM   #905
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
This from Dana, from the message he wrote to the Opening Poster's blog which started this thread.

Quote:
I am proud of my humility


Says it all, really.

Actually, I think wahrheit nailed him in post #3.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 06:17 AM   #906
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868


But I want him to come back! He's lots more fun than Neil!

He was wittering on about how Roy (the 84-year-old retired materials scientist who appears to think you can tell homoeopathic alcohol from ordinary alcohol because the former does not demonstrate the significant absorbance at 320nm seen in the latter) is about to publish something really interesting. I really, really want to see this, because I'm hoping for an explanation of how Roy seems to be the only spectroscopist on the planet who has managed to measure a significant absorbance at 320nm in pure ethanol.

Roy's UV spectra in the slideshow referenced by Dana quite early in this thread are the lamest thing I've seen in a long time. I'd have said the chances of him getting any version of that past any scrutineer who wasn't actually dead were nil. So I'm really keen to see when Dana is going to reference this upcoming paper.

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th July 2007 at 07:13 AM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 06:55 AM   #907
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
 
Pipirr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North
Posts: 1,457
In the webinar powerpoint (slide 21), Roy indicates that some of this research will be published this year. Possibly in the July edition of Homeopathy, but this edition hasn't been released as yet.

Quote:
The defining role of structure (including Epitaxy) in the Plausibility of Homeopathy.

Manju L Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R Bell, M Richard Hoover

Homeopathy (in press 2007)
From the title alone, it looks like another speculative paper in the style of Milgrom.


Dana Ullman has been hyping up Roy’s upcoming publication, although he has been shy as to what publications exactly are of interest.

In Orac’s blog Respectful Insolence, on May 21st, he wrote the following:

Quote:
Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water. I can tell you that later this week a new study on homeopathy and water will be published by two internationally respected professors of material sciences: Rustum Roy, PhD (of Penn State University) and Bill Tiller, PhD (former head of material sciences at Stanford). If any of your fellow skeptics can claim greater understanding of water than these two gentlemen, please publish your work.
Maybe he was referring to the webinar, in which case the terms ‘study’ and ‘published’ have a different meaning for Mr Ullman (MPH!). If there was another actual, published, peer reviewed paper, then I don’t know to what he was referring.

Watch this space for the latest update from Homeopathy and Roy’s upcoming, groundbreaking, bomb-dropping, paradigm shifting, vague musings about epitaxy….

Last edited by Pipirr; 20th July 2007 at 07:02 AM.
Pipirr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 07:47 AM   #908
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Actually, I think wahrheit nailed him in post #3.

.... Looks to see what Warheit said ....

Originally Posted by wahrheit View Post
.... This must be a very dumb person who considers himself being very smart. And as long as there are people more stupid than him, he is doing fine.

Absolutely. Also a very arrogant person who boasts about his humility, of course.

Pipirr - sounds as if it's another Milgrom-style content-free speculation. Along quite different lines from Milgrom, but why should that matter? I mean I suppose it can be flakes of silica altering the structure of water, and quantum!

You know, these people are actually seeing "patients", and doling out sugar pills, and charging good money for all that. Already. But even if it were shown that there is a hitherto unsupected property of water, that for some bizarre reason the rest of science and biology (especially immunology, with its heavy reliance on 1:1 serial agitated dilutions!) has failed to notice, that wouldn't necessarily validate their clinical practice at all. I mean, we've still got the like curing like part, and the provings, and the persistence of this water property in the dry sugar pills to overcome, never mind finding an actual physiological explanation for clinical improvement....

But never mind that, Roy makes some unfounded assumptions (and some elementary mistakes in his UV spectroscopy), and hey, the money-raking scam is validated, of course!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 07:47 AM   #909
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Don't see any mention of Tiller in the forthcoming article or the lecture (other than a reference to the 2005 paper).
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

Last edited by Mojo; 20th July 2007 at 07:49 AM.
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 07:59 AM   #910
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Pipirr View Post
Dana Ullman has been hyping up Roy’s upcoming publication, although he has been shy as to what publications exactly are of interest.

In Orac’s blog Respectful Insolence, on May 21st, he wrote the following:
Quote:
Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water.

He's very keen on the "nano-" prefix, isn't he. Perhaps his attempt to introduce the term "nanopharmacology" is some sort of tacit admission that homoeopathy has been discredited to the extent that it needs a rebrand, despite his attempts to prop it up with anecdotes about famous dead people.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 08:05 AM   #911
Pipirr
Graduate Poster
 
Pipirr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: North
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Don't see any mention of Tiller in the forthcoming article or the lecture (other than a reference to the 2005 paper).

The 2005 paper might be the soon to be released article that Dana was talking about.

That paper is two years in the past now, but who knows? With quantum nanohomeopathy, the evidence can always be in the future. Or, simultaneously, the 200 year old past.

Just not right now, where we can get to look at it.
Pipirr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 11:59 AM   #912
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
despite his attempts to prop it up with anecdotes about famous dead people.
But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.

Unfortunately his vast expertise does not seem to render him capable of having a coherent opinion about these questions;

So, I return to your clinical evidence base;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

I'll give you a new question just so you can show how well you understand the interpretation of clinical trial data;

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?


I think I have said this before, but when I first started paying serious attention to homeopathy I was very circumspect in my opinions and cautious with my criticisms. I sort of wondered whether I would meet an intelligent homeopath who had thought through the problems I perceived and had well-reasoned responses. That has never happened and I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions. They literally personify all that they claim to be the worst in the world of conventional medicine as caricatured by them.

When I feel generous I pity them for wasting their lives on this bunch of hooey. Imagine getting to the Pearly Gates and finding St Peter doubled up with mirth at them having piddled away their earthly existence with this nonsense. Though the more likely destination would be somewhere hotter and more sulphurous.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 12:19 PM   #913
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.

Well, frankly, he's fooling nobody but himself. I mean, shaving the remaining patches is no more convincing than a comb-over, is it?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 12:55 PM   #914
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Badly Shaved Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Outside a banana and far from a razor
Posts: 5,272
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Well, frankly, he's fooling nobody but himself. I mean, shaving the remaining patches is no more convincing than a comb-over, is it?
I wonder whether any of the less woo-ish appearing rentaquote providers that are listed at http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/ would alter their views of the value of his book if presented with hard evidence of the serious misrepresentations in it.
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath.
"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)
Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent.
Badly Shaved Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 01:01 PM   #915
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 37,868
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions.

What really sickens me is exactly what we've seen from Dana. The misrepresentation, the quote-mining, and general blatant dishonesty. I know we're not supposed to say they're dishonest, but it's the feature that pervades everything from the cherrypicking of cases to the selective out-of-context quoting to the constant pretence that there's no money in it.

They're so good at blandly asserting what simply isn't so. Then they just keep on asserting it time and time again even after it's been clearly shown to them that it isn't so. To the point where the repetition starts to get the claim accepted as fact. And of course it's impolite to call someone a liar, isn't it. I mean, how dare you, that's a slur!!

Rolfe.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2007, 04:37 PM   #916
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And of course it's impolite to call someone a liar, isn't it. I mean, how dare you, that's a slur!!

A classic example being Sue young and her "Guidelines", which have to be followed by everyone apart from, er, Sue Young.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2007, 06:22 PM   #917
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
 
Chris Haynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wacky Washington Way Out West
Posts: 4,280
I found a website that Dana Ullman should acquaint himself with:
http://cohesion.rice.edu/naturalsciences/nanokids/

It might help him figure out what "nano" actually means. Though it may actually be above his level of scientific understanding.
__________________
I used to be intelligent... but then I had kids

"HCN, I hate you!"
( so sayeth Deetee at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1077344 )...
What I get for linking to http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Chris Haynes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2007, 08:43 PM   #918
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
 
SYLVESTER1592's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: feeding the fish
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by 3bodyproblem View Post
If anyone uses the word "Homeopathy" in my house it results in a quarter being deposited in a jar on top of the fridge.


Unfortunately, they will probably figure out a new name...

SYL
__________________
-"Only by following the trail
that civilization and the human spirit have gone along to reach a higher stage of development is it possible to know and understand one's fellow man".
-
E.C. Van Leersum, 1862-1938, prof. Medical History, University of Leiden, The Netherlands.
SYLVESTER1592 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2007, 09:08 AM   #919
manioberoi
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: India
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey View Post
But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.

Unfortunately his vast expertise does not seem to render him capable of having a coherent opinion about these questions;

So, I return to your clinical evidence base;

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

http://www.bio-resonance.com/elybra.htm

http://www.remedydevices.com/voice.htm

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

I'll give you a new question just so you can show how well you understand the interpretation of clinical trial data;

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?


I think I have said this before, but when I first started paying serious attention to homeopathy I was very circumspect in my opinions and cautious with my criticisms. I sort of wondered whether I would meet an intelligent homeopath who had thought through the problems I perceived and had well-reasoned responses. That has never happened and I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions. They literally personify all that they claim to be the worst in the world of conventional medicine as caricatured by them.

When I feel generous I pity them for wasting their lives on this bunch of hooey. Imagine getting to the Pearly Gates and finding St Peter doubled up with mirth at them having piddled away their earthly existence with this nonsense. Though the more likely destination would be somewhere hotter and more sulphurous.
Proving that homeopathy works to the skeptics is an uphill task requiring much study to understand the nature and depth of the objections.

This forum has helped me to understand the finer points of the objections - since I have taken 30 years to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that homeopathy works, I have commenced design of a set of studies with the help of some experts in the field of drug trials.

It may take a few months or years but the proof when it comes would be conclusive.

Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
H 485 FF Ansals Palam Vihar
Gurgaon 122017 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244076374
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/index.htm
email: manioberoi@gmail.com
manioberoi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2007, 09:15 AM   #920
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 25,504
Originally Posted by manioberoi View Post
It may take a few months or years but the proof when it comes would be conclusive.

Hey, we've been waiting a couple of centuries. What's another "few months or years"?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.