Even More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

And he's still talking rubbish in the wrong thread because he is too scared of the question that the thread was created to ask.

It seems a habit of his to be in the wrong place:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007...15306170371440

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Perhaps because it appears that after being arrested for practising medicine without a license in Oakland on 5th May 1976, he had to give an undertaking not to diagnose or treat disease. See here and here.

From the second url:

Quote:

And thanks to the work of John Melynchuk and Richard Pitt and others, we now have a law in California that allows anyone to practice homeopathy.

Following the links I see that when Mr Gully says anyone he means anyone. No that's real progress!!

[Island Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

From the second url:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Perhaps because it appears that after being arrested for practising medicine without a license in Oakland on 5th May 1976, he had to give an undertaking not to diagnose or treat disease. See here and here.

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Following the links I see that when Mr Gully says anyone he means anyone. No that's real progress!!

That's pretty damned scary if you ask me.

My mother went to some "retreat" thingamajig where people can learn the "art" of some Chinese woo healing practice & then get certified to "treat" people. It cost her $500. --and everyone who coughed up the $$$ received the "certification" regardless of whether or not they mastered the practice (not that it would make a difference).

What concerns me is that the nursing home where my mother works (in Connecticut) actually pays her to provide this Chinese woo stuff to the patients --along with "Healing Touch" (which she also got certified for).

I feel that this is criminal. Not only is it the tax-payers' money that is funding my mother's salary to provide these woo woo treatments, but more importantly, I can see how these elderly people might easily neglect or delay proper care if they are convinced that my mother's work is actually helping them (which, according to my mother, they do).

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Following the links I see that when Mr Gully says anyone he means anyone. No that's real progress!!

The same degree of regulation as they have in the UK, then.

[Dana Ullman]

You folks are getting a tad desparate.

Wilsontown makes reference to Shang's 18 (!) studies, and yet, the final analysis only included 8 homeopathic studies and 6 allopathic ones.

In actual fact, he NEVER provided any analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality allopathic studies. However, the International Journal of Epidemiology is solving this question, and a review will be published shortly. Be prepared for Mea culpas.

As for Mr. Monkey...because I have made it clear that I do not treat patients myself, your question is a tad silly. You don't seem to or care to listen.

Jaana...if you really believe what you believe, then you should turn-in your mother and get her arrested. To you, she is conducted a criminal act on a daily basis.

Mojo...thanx for providing a little sanity in your posting. The UK has not yet fallen into the ocean despite having common law in which anyone can engage in a health care relationship as long as there is no claim that the health practitioner is a physician when that is not true (In California, fraud is a felony, while "medicine medicine without a license" was previously a misdemeanor, until the new law was passed that allow freedom of choice.)

I'm still waiting to hear anyone explanation for the EEG reading in that fibromyalgia study.

I'm still waiting to hear ANY critique of the Canova formula that I previously discussed.

I'm still waiting for some GOOD critique of the RHEUMATOLOGY study.

[Professor Yaffle]

I am still waiting for you to post on the correct thread.

[Mojo]

I'm still waiting for him to post any evidence to back up his claim that Darwin supported homoeopathy.

[BillyJoe]

I'm waiting for him to test homoeopathic toilet paper and present the results.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

You folks are getting a tad desparate.

Wilsontown makes reference to Shang's 18 (!) studies, and yet, the final analysis only included 8 homeopathic studies and 6 allopathic ones.

In actual fact, he NEVER provided any analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality allopathic studies. However, the International Journal of Epidemiology is solving this question, and a review will be published shortly. Be prepared for Mea culpas.

This point I already addressed here. A review of those studies doesn't matter because Shang demonstrated that significant bias was present in those studies. Any significant differences cannot be assumed to be due to special water when we know that bias accounts for those differences.

Quote:

I'm still waiting to hear anyone explanation for the EEG reading in that fibromyalgia study.

You have not made that information available to us.

Quote:

I'm still waiting to hear ANY critique of the Canova formula that I previously discussed.

Please provide that information in the other thread.

Quote:

I'm still waiting for some GOOD critique of the RHEUMATOLOGY study.

It is not really necessary to provide any further critque of the Rhematology study since it did not show a difference between the homeopathy treated group and the placebo group.

Linda

[Henners]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Jaana...if you really believe what you believe, then you should turn-in your mother and get her arrested. To you, she is conducted a criminal act on a daily basis.

Don't be silly. It's not a criminal issue, but an ethical one.

It is pathetic to see people who should know better trying to justify batty ideas as ethical.

You do it, Mr. Gully. I just want you to know what it looks like.

[Dana Ullman]

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

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

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

Jaana herself wrote that she felt that her mother's actions were "criminal." Whether Jaana feels that her mother's actions are truly criminal or simply unethical, I'm curious why she is doing nothing about it (hopefully, she is doing nothing about it because on a deeper level, Jaana feels that there are and must be certain personal freedoms that we all must have in making decisions in own lives in which governments and other people should not intervene).

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for Mr. Monkey...because I have made it clear that I do not treat patients myself, your question is a tad silly. You don't seem to or care to listen.

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Dana, HOW MANY AIDS PATIENTS HAVE YOU CURED?

ANSWER = NONE

Well, we got there in the end. So, we piddle away the time examining trivial findings at the margins of statistical significance. It's not much to show for 200 years of allegedly huge clinical benefits. Dana, do you really not understand that by fighting on this territory you have already lost the argument?

Now, for the question from the OP.

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.

Perhaps light works differently on Planet Homeopath and they only see in Big Bold Purple Underlined Light. BBPUL vision is only seen here on badly designed websites. No wonder we've been failing to communicate.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

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

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

How can you possibly imagine that those quotes from Darwin show that he endorsed homeopathy? I read both your article and the Quackometer one: the Quackometer article is well thought-out, well researched and demonstrates clearly that Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy. Your article doesn't make sense.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

For those of you who want to see a Cliffnotes version of my book's info on Charles Darwin...

I've replied in the appropriate thread

[Blue Wode]

Posted by Orac today...

Quote:

Sadly, thanks to Steve Novella, I've learned that Ullman's back, and he's badder than ever (and not in a good way) with an article entitled How Scientific Is Modern Medicine? Given how well Steve has deconstructed Ullman's blather, I was almost tempted to let this cup pass. Almost. Unfortunately, because I feel a bit responsible for apparently inspiring Ullman to run amok on the JREF discussion boards, I also feel an obligation to dive into the muck that is Ullman's prose again.

Read on...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...n_clueless.php

[fls]

I left a comment.

He's a braver man than I. I only read the first page. I could feel myself becoming dumber and had to stop.

Linda

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Blue Wode

Posted by Orac today...

Really, he has said pretty much all that needs to be said about our Hypothetical Homeopath.

[Island Skeptic]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

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

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

Jaana herself wrote that she felt that her mother's actions were "criminal." Whether Jaana feels that her mother's actions are truly criminal or simply unethical, I'm curious why she is doing nothing about it (hopefully, she is doing nothing about it because on a deeper level, Jaana feels that there are and must be certain personal freedoms that we all must have in making decisions in own lives in which governments and other people should not intervene).

Mr. Gully, are you the only one who has not noticed that you fail to directly or effectively address the question of this thread?

I find it interesting that you have avoided me until I stopped asking you to cure me...

The anecdote about my mother was to fill the void here until you return with your answer. My use of the word "criminal" cannot be taken literally or obviously my mother would be arrested. If i were in a nursing home with dementia, i should hope that the facility would provide me effective treatment and knowledgable practitioners -not witch doctors waving $500 "certifications" that even a chimpanzee can obtain.

I will from hereon step aside and refrain from going off topic & distracting you, so that you can answer the question of this thread.

[BillyJoe]

From this article: http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,128


Dana Ullman claims that these were experiments using "homoeopathic doses", presumably demonstrating homoeopathic effects.
However his own account of those experiments contradicts him.
In fact, there is absolutely nothing in his account that has anything at all to do with homoeopathy!

The only connection to homoeopathy is that

Quote:

"Drosera...happens to be a commonly used homeopathic medicine."

Extracts of Drosera was not the active substance being investigated. The active substance being investigated was ammonia salts. Darwin was testing the effect of ammonia salts on Drosera. So the fact that Drosera is a homoeopathic "medicine" is completely irrelevant.

Darwin said:

Quote:

1/4,000,000 of a grain had a demonstrable effect upon the Drosera and “the 1/20,000,000th of a grain of the crystallised salt does the same.

What he clearly did not say is that the 1/20,000,000th of a grain had a greater effect than 1/4,000,000 of a grain. What he clearly did not say (or demonstrate) is that increasingly dilute preparations of ammonia salt had increasing potent affect on Drosera.
So, what has this to do with homoeopathy?
Absolutely nothing of course!

Dana adds:

Quote:

Astonished by his observation, Darwin likened this exceedingly small dose to a dog that perceives the odor of an animal a quarter of a mile distant. He said: “Yet these particles must be infinitely smaller than the one twenty millionth of a grain of phosphate of ammonia”.

He then says:

Quote:

"Darwin confirmed an important homeopathic observation that living systems are hypersensitive to only certain substances"

This is laughable!
This is a scientific observation.
Now, if he had observed that increasingly dilute preparations of ammonia salt had increasing potent affect on Drosera, that would be a homoeopathic observation.

Quote:

The important point about living organisms is that each living thing has certain hypersensitivities to what it needs for its very survival. It seems that homeopaths have discovered a method to finding the substance to which a person or animal is hypersensitive, and they have developed a pharmacological method to apply this medicine to augment immune response.

After all this, is that the only point Dana Ullman wants to make about Darwin's experiments?
That certain substances have potent effects on certain recpetors?
Talk about grasping at straws!

Quote:

Despite the efforts of the antagonists to homeopathy to continually provide mis-information about the plausibility of the extremely small doses that homeopaths use....even if there is not yet consensus from everyone on how these nanodoses precisely work

No one denies that extremely small concentrations can have an effect.
The scientific observations about the sense of smell, and the effect of solutions of ammonia salts on Drosera are examples direct from Dana Ullman's article.
What this part of his article fails completely to demonstrate is that Darwin demonstrated that:

- increasingly dilute preparations have increasingly potent effects.
- that zero concentrations have any effect at all.

[Mojo]

It doesn't have anything to do with "like cures like" either.

[Dana Ullman]

In case some of you didn't see my posting at Mr. Duck's website...enjoy this one.

Every biography of Charles Darwin that references his health acknowledges that the one physician who provided the best treatment to him was DR. JAMES MANBY GULLY. This is not controversial. This is fact.

Dr. James Manby Gully wrote a book called The Water Cure in Chronic Disease in 1846, and this popular book went through five editions. In the first edition to this book he was very articulate in his critique of conventional medicine of his day, though this critique is equally valid for medicine today. Gully was a strong critique of “polypharmacy,” the use of multiple medicines prescribed for a patient. Gully was concerned that each medicine causes serious symptoms which required yet another medicine to reduce its side effects. He wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The people on this list love to quote Andy's article at this website, and he has done a good job of missing many references that are in my book and others that are at my newly revised and expanded article on this subject.

Mr. Duck suggested that we end this conversation...so, I thanked him and add some parting thoughts...

Wow...thanx for letting me have the last word...I'm impressed.

Now, nobody can say that Darwin's favorite doctor wasn't a homeopath and that despite Darwin's skepticism for homeopathy, the results and Darwin's confirmation of these results stand...and stand tall.

I will soon be adding more information to my article, including some amazing information about John Chapman, the famous editor of the WESTMINSTER REVIEW, whose publication probably did more for the promulgation of Darwin's work than any other source.

Although biographical information about Chapman always mentions that he was a doctor, they NEVER mention that he was a homeopathic doctor. In fact, he was even Gully's homeopath (according to Desmond & Moore's bio on Darwin, p. 392). John Chapman was a very interesting man...and a leading homeopathic physician.

In any case, I hope that I helped educate some people here who are less fundamentalist than you.

Mr. Duck responded in his typically sophisticated and academically rich way: "Quack."

Hopefully, people on this list will be a tad more articulate (what else could I expect from a duck?).

[Island Skeptic]

Dana,

I can tentatively accept your claim without bothering to look into it myself because i, personally, don't give a damn about whether Darwin was a believer in homeopathy or not. I do not understand how this makes any valid point whatsoever aside from possibly being a trivial case of a historical blunder.

I am more interested in today's empirical evidence or non-evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy. Not in anecdotes or name-throwing.

[Dana Ullman]

Jaana,
Darwin was a real person, and his case was a real case. The results are there. If you think that it was just "coincidence" that he got better, you are much more metaphysical than I am.
And as much as I appreciate double-blind placebo controlled trials, you should not undergo most surgeries because they haven't been tested that way. Yeah, there are lots of things that you believe and even respect that you learned without a double-blind trial. But heck, this isn't about anything except your beliefs, not real science.

[Chris Haynes]

Sigh... in accordance to this observance:
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopi...ghlight=#64714

Something like this actually happens:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007...46117832007099

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Dana, you seem to have forgotten the purpose of this thread. It is to give you the opportunity to answer one simple challenge.

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.

I am sure I am not alone in saying that I am very bored of your silly book. It is quite clear you have distorted the evidence in order to sustain your unwarranted claims about the beliefs of some people who feature in it. But please get this into your skull, and I'll put it in purple because that seems to be the only colour homeopaths can see;
NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CARES ABOUT YOUR BOOK AND ITS STORIES

It is literally pointless. Even if Darwin was a dyed-in-the-wool True Bleever in homeopathy it would make no difference, not one iota, it would matter not a jot, it would be irrelevant, it would have no bearing on the subject under discussion, it would not be germane to any consideration of homeopathy's efficacy. All it shows is your pathological need to feel validated by authority figures, which is typical of the whole homeopathic community. But, homeopaths' desperate personal need for validation has nothing to do with whether your little sugar pills can cure people. Though it does explain the motivations of those who sell them.

Now, I'd like you to give one clear-cut and properly documented case of AIDS being cured by homeopathy, or Type 1 Diabetes, or cirrhosis of the liver, or rabies, or Alzheimers, or end-stage renal failure, or metastatic melanoma, or Parkinson's disease, or CJD...

Off you go now, be a good boy and do your homework.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

T = 25d 15h 09m 51s

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Jaana,
Darwin was a real person, and his case was a real case. The results are there. If you think that it was just "coincidence" that he got better, you are much more metaphysical than I am.

Of course it's not coincidence that he got better. It's just not due to the specific effects of special water. Rather the special water served as a way to mark improvement in an entirely non-specific manner (it could have been accomplished by painting purple stars across his forehead).

Copied from here.

"It's a matter of attention and anchoring.

Consider what happens when trying to recall these things. It's very difficult to get an accurate account of the course of symptoms/disease when taking a history. The heart attack that happened "two years ago" really happened ten years ago. The symptoms that have been "present for three months" were already complained about a year ago. This isn't done deliberately. We have difficulty estimating these things unless we can anchor them to something where the timing is known. If the heart attack happened at your daughter's wedding, there is no difficulty in recalling the date. But most of the time we don't really have the opportunity or inclination to track these things.

Add to that our tendency to notice only those things that are unusual in the first place. Regression almost guarantees that next time you ask, things will be better. It's just that most of the time we don't ask.

We have thousands of opportunities for success, but we squander most of them by not paying attention and by not providing a way to anchor the timing to a known event. Taking a homeopathic preparation solves both these problems. Now attention will be paid to that we would have ignored previously (the waxing and waning of eczema), and we have a specific event (the taking of a therapy) by which to time the course of events.

It doesn't require cherry-picking to find examples of success. Success is almost inevitable. It requires cherry-picking to find examples of failure. The error that Procida and the homeopaths make is not cherry-picking. It is that they falsely attribute homeopathy as the cause of the success when in reality it merely serves as the marker. Arguing that they are cherry-picking is unpersuasive to them because they can see that they are not cherry-picking.

The real cherry-picking occurs before the homeopath (or Procida) even becomes involved. Nobody goes to visit a homeopath because they are doing well. Procida doesn't choose to treat herself or a friend when the symptoms have waned. It's just that that part of the process is almost invisible.

The process of attention and anchoring should lead to success almost all of the time, so you should not express any surprise at Procida's success rate. The problem with comparing that to the homeopath's casebook is that you considered all events, not just those events that would have been marked by the process. The process of marking an event is cherry-picking, but once the event is marked, it doesn't require cherry-picking to find success."

Quote:

And as much as I appreciate double-blind placebo controlled trials, you should not undergo most surgeries because they haven't been tested that way. Yeah, there are lots of things that you believe and even respect that you learned without a double-blind trial. But heck, this isn't about anything except your beliefs, not real science.

Jaana did not say "double-blind placebo controlled trials". She appropriately said "evidence". Evidence-based medicine is about looking at all the available information and evaluating it in a balanced manner, including a recognition of the reliability of different kinds of information. Homeopathy involves ignoring the bulk of the available information in favour of information that is recognized as being highly unreliable. Highly unreliable information is of little interest to us, so continuing to promote your own personal collection, no matter how meticulously gathered, is absolutely pointless.

However, every post you make flogging your useless book serves as proof that you know of no actual cases where homeopathy cured someone. I find it very revealing that you are willing to admit this.

Linda

[Dana Ullman]

Mr. Monkey: The "name" of this forum does not have YOUR name on it nor what you think the mission of this forum is. Sorry.

HCN: Just because you say or write it doesn't mean it is so. Your critique of many of the studies to which I have referred were weak or simply wrong or inadequate. Saying that you "wrote" them previously doesn't make the critique stronger.

And your referral to Mr. Duck's review of my book is totally LOL...and it is certainly not an authoritative or accurate review of my book, but at least, he told a lot of people that this book is worthy enough for him to attack it.

I'm so sorry that you are offended that I am flogging my new book. Perhaps you prefer that people remain ignorant about homeopathy. Perhaps you prefer if people believe you just because you say it. Perhaps you're planning a book burning.

Linda: You're so right. Darwin was really really stupid...and the letters that he wrote about the events of his day were simply fabricated or the result of selective memory. He probably didn't really write those letters but were written by a ghostwriter (whooops, you don't believe in ghosts). Worse still, his symptoms weren't probably real, so if they went away, there is no "evidence" that they were there to begin with. Anyway, the fact that he had most of these symptoms for 12+ years means that they were "self-limiiting" anyway. The fact that Darwin was so sick that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral simply suggests that this was really psychosomatic and that he probably had conflicting feelings about his own father. After all, the only people that you can really trust (and neve say anything bad about) are the people on THIS list, except that James Gully guy.

As for cherry-picking, some of you have simply asked for one case of homeopathy providing clear evidence for a real benefit. The fact that you choose to ignore ALL of the clinical studies and the various laboratory studies and ignoring ALL of the evidence that I provide in my newest book simply shows that closing your eyes (and your minds) works as an effective way to not learn.

Things I'm still waiting for:
-- responses to what I just posted about James Manby Gully (without doubt or controversy: Darwin's favorite physician)
--critique of Elia's work on thermodynamics
--critique of the various Canova studies
-- explanation for why the study on fibromyalgia published in RHEUMATOLOGY found different EEG readings in the homeopathic group than in the placebo group...and an explanation for why this respected journal would publish this study if, as one of you said, there really wasn't any clinical differences in the results of treatment.
--explanation for why Shang's inclusion of only the large studies was a good "unbiased" way to evaluate efficacy of homeopathic medicines
-- explanation for why ALL double-blind and placebo controlled studies of 50-80 subjects that are published in conventional medical journals are of no value, are somehow inherently "biased," and should not even be compared with "matched" allopathic studies (isn't ANYONE on this list a bit curious why Shang and his gang specifically chose not to do the statistical analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality allopathic ones? WHY, WHY, WHY. Oh...because they would show that homeopathic medicines work. Hmmmm.
--Some type of critique of hormesis and the 1,000+ studies by a wide variety of scientists. Now that the people on this list acknowledge that the field of hormesis strongly confirms the power of very small (but still material) doses of certain substances have significant effects, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores today which have a similar level of material doses have become an integral part of your own health care. Thanx...

Mr. Duck doesn't want to talk about the Darwin thing anymore because he has been shown to be wrong (again), while the people on this list no longer want to respond in any substantative fashion but instead insist that they wrote about it previously (in an unconvincing fashion), so now, it must be true. Pigs do fly.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Mr. Duck doesn't want to talk about the Darwin thing anymore because he has been shown to be wrong (again), while the people on this list no longer want to respond in any substantative fashion but instead insist that they wrote about it previously (in an unconvincing fashion), so now, it must be true.

I don't know what planet you're living on, but on the one we like to call Earth, you're the only that's been proved wrong so far. Over and over again. On the same claims every time. Can't you at least pretend to come up with something new?

Quote:

Just because you say or write it doesn't mean it is so.

You so owe me a new irony meter.

[Professor Yaffle]

Mr Duck doesn't need to talk about the Darwin thing anymore. I just googled "homeopathic revolution" and guess what the top result was...

[Deetee]

Mr Ullman, I fear you are starting to look and sound just like the Black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Mr. Monkey: The "name" of this forum does not have YOUR name on it nor what you think the mission of this forum is. Sorry.

No it's simply a matter of good forum etiquette not to deliberately 'derail' discussion threads especially when that derailing is deliberately done with the intent of trying to misdirect its participants from the topic.

If you'd like to you can create your own thread called "Dana Ullman's Enthusiastic Self-Promotion and Advertising his Tedious and Error-laden Little Tract". Then you can discuss your book to your heart's content and no one will complain.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

I'm so sorry that you are offended that I am flogging my new book. Perhaps you prefer that people remain ignorant about homeopathy. Perhaps you prefer if people believe you just because you say it. Perhaps you're planning a book burning.

No, a traditional book-burning would be inappropriate. Better that the book's contents are widely seen and held up to the ridicule they deserve. Clearly though it would be better if you made no money from it, although your parasitism of the homeopathic industry is no more than they deserve.

Perhaps you might consider donating the printed copies so they can be put to good use.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Mr. Monkey: The "name" of this forum does not have YOUR name on it nor what you think the mission of this forum is. Sorry.

Not sorry enough.

"The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today."

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Things I'm still waiting for:
-- responses to what I just posted about James Manby Gully (without doubt or controversy: Darwin's favorite physician)
--critique of Elia's work on thermodynamics
--critique of the various Canova studies
-- explanation for why the study on fibromyalgia published in RHEUMATOLOGY found different EEG readings in the homeopathic group than in the placebo group...and an explanation for why this respected journal would publish this study if, as one of you said, there really wasn't any clinical differences in the results of treatment.
--explanation for why Shang's inclusion of only the large studies was a good "unbiased" way to evaluate efficacy of homeopathic medicines
-- explanation for why ALL double-blind and placebo controlled studies of 50-80 subjects that are published in conventional medical journals are of no value, are somehow inherently "biased," and should not even be compared with "matched" allopathic studies (isn't ANYONE on this list a bit curious why Shang and his gang specifically chose not to do the statistical analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality allopathic ones? WHY, WHY, WHY. Oh...because they would show that homeopathic medicines work. Hmmmm.
--Some type of critique of hormesis and the 1,000+ studies by a wide variety of scientists. Now that the people on this list acknowledge that the field of hormesis strongly confirms the power of very small (but still material) doses of certain substances have significant effects, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores today which have a similar level of material doses have become an integral part of your own health care. Thanx...

Where to begin?

Oh, yes, here...

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.

T = 25d 21h 32m 38s

By the way, I love it when you mention hormesis.

"However, hormesis can explain only a few aspects of homeopathy"

Of course, wishful-thinking, lies, deception, stupidity and cupidity can explain rather more.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. I'll leave the rest to others if they can be bothered, but bringing up Elia again just makes it look like you have amnesia. I invested good money in obtaining that piece of trash research, you could have the plain decency to respond to the simple question you were asked. Dog ate your homeowork?

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

I'm so sorry that you are offended that I am flogging my new book. Perhaps you prefer that people remain ignorant about homeopathy. Perhaps you prefer if people believe you just because you say it. Perhaps you're planning a book burning.

Self-promotion is simply considered bad manners in this type of forum to the point where this behaviour, carried to an extreme, is prohibited. It was bad luck, I suppose, that led you to a forum where people are generally expected to behave in a civilized manner.

Otherwise, the people that flock here tend to be analytical and interested in accuracy, reliability and validity. You will notice that if we are not fed regularly, we begin to chew off our own limbs. You are doing us a service by providing a vertitable feast of inaccurate and invalid information. If you and the other homeopaths would consider drying up the supply, I'm sure you could find some entertainment watching us fight over the bones.

Quote:

Linda: You're so right. Darwin was really really stupid...and the letters that he wrote about the events of his day were simply fabricated or the result of selective memory. He probably didn't really write those letters but were written by a ghostwriter (whooops, you don't believe in ghosts). Worse still, his symptoms weren't probably real, so if they went away, there is no "evidence" that they were there to begin with. Anyway, the fact that he had most of these symptoms for 12+ years means that they were "self-limiiting" anyway. The fact that Darwin was so sick that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral simply suggests that this was really psychosomatic and that he probably had conflicting feelings about his own father. After all, the only people that you can really trust (and neve say anything bad about) are the people on THIS list, except that James Gully guy.

You misunderstand. Really smart people, who are making a considered attempt to be truthful, are still unreliable when it comes to conveying certain types of information. It is not the mental capacity and/or motivations of the individuals which are at issue. It is that information garnered through superficial observation, recorded only in the memory, and transmitted through narrative is easily transformed and necessarily incomplete.

Quote:

As for cherry-picking, some of you have simply asked for one case of homeopathy providing clear evidence for a real benefit. The fact that you choose to ignore ALL of the clinical studies and the various laboratory studies and ignoring ALL of the evidence that I provide in my newest book simply shows that closing your eyes (and your minds) works as an effective way to not learn.

But we didn't ignore them. We very carefully went through each example that you presented to us. None of them fulfilled the criteria, as none of them ruled-out other, more mundane reasons for benefit.

Quote:

Things I'm still waiting for:
-- responses to what I just posted about James Manby Gully (without doubt or controversy: Darwin's favorite physician)

The details are inadequate to determine the presence and/or source of benefit.

Quote:

--critique of Elia's work on thermodynamics

Irrelevant to the question specifically or homeopathy in general.

Quote:

--critique of the various Canova studies

You haven't told us specifically what you're talking about.

Quote:

-- explanation for why the study on fibromyalgia published in RHEUMATOLOGY found different EEG readings in the homeopathic group than in the placebo group...and an explanation for why this respected journal would publish this study if, as one of you said, there really wasn't any clinical differences in the results of treatment.

It doesn't matter that Rhematology was willing to publish the study with the erroneous conclusions of the authors left intact. It may be because the editors realize that what is important is that the results are available for analysis and that evidence-based medicine essentially ignores whatever spin the authors wish to put on the results, considering that they are likely to be biased.

Regardless of what you or the authors wish to pretend, the results that they published did not show a difference until after they started playing around with them. And while I haven't gone through the EEG study with a fine tooth comb, I notice that we are not given the actual EEG results. We are only given the results that have been "adjusted". Considering that the very same authors created a clinical difference through the use of adjustment, it would be prudent to suspect that the EEG differences were similarly manufactured.

Quote:

--explanation for why Shang's inclusion of only the large studies was a good "unbiased" way to evaluate efficacy of homeopathic medicines

Because they demonstrated that the strongest indicator (by far) for the presence or absence of bias was study size.

Quote:

-- explanation for why ALL double-blind and placebo controlled studies of 50-80 subjects that are published in conventional medical journals are of no value, are somehow inherently "biased," and should not even be compared with "matched" allopathic studies (isn't ANYONE on this list a bit curious why Shang and his gang specifically chose not to do the statistical analysis of the 21 high quality homeopathic studies and the 9 high quality allopathic ones? WHY, WHY, WHY. Oh...because they would show that homeopathic medicines work. Hmmmm.

Because between group differences will be due to bias, making any other conclusions foolish.

Quote:

--Some type of critique of hormesis and the 1,000+ studies by a wide variety of scientists. Now that the people on this list acknowledge that the field of hormesis strongly confirms the power of very small (but still material) doses of certain substances have significant effects, the vast majority of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores today which have a similar level of material doses have become an integral part of your own health care. Thanx...

Irrelevant to our concerns. That some of these medicines could work says nothing about whether they do work.

Linda

[Island Skeptic]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Jaana,
Darwin was a real person, and his case was a real case. The results are there. If you think that it was just "coincidence" that he got better, you are much more metaphysical than I am.
And as much as I appreciate double-blind placebo controlled trials, you should not undergo most surgeries because they haven't been tested that way. Yeah, there are lots of things that you believe and even respect that you learned without a double-blind trial. But heck, this isn't about anything except your beliefs, not real science.

Did you not read my words? I said that I do not give a damn one way or another about whether Darwin had a pet Homeopath or not. Your "surgery" argument is echoed & trumpeted across the homeopathic world. Is this your only argument against EBM? If so, it is incredibly weak. Please do not insult my intelligence.

Just answer the simple question the people of this thread have repeatedly asked of you.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

T = 26d 05h 07m 34s

[Professor Yaffle]

Perhaps while we are waiting, we could amuse ourselves with our own stories of people who have recovered from non self limiting diseases with the help of non-homeopathic medicine. Just so Dana can see what we are asking for - he seems to need a litle help...

I'm afraid this will have to be undocumented as I am not a medical professional.

About 12 years ago, my mam started to feel ill. First of all there was loss of concentration and some tiredness. She got gradually weaker and weaker, couldn't climb stairs on her own, sometimes fainted when she stood up, felt cold all the time and had no appetite. She had to give up her college course and couldn't even help with planning my older sister's wedding. If you looked at my sisters wedding photos you would see her looking like a little old lady (although one with a strangely dark tan). Every week that went by she looked and felt worse. Eventually, after a lot of tests and a few blind alleys she was diagnosed with Addison's disease, was prescribed pills to replace the steroids she can't produce and is now fitter than ever. She has since done a nursing degree, works full time and regularly goes hiking up mountains! Without those pills, she would now be dead.

Got anything like that Dana?

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Got anything like that Dana?

I think Addison's disease was one of Rolfe's favourite examples.
(not sure of cats change colour though)

But, no, homoeopathy would have zero effect, in the long run, on a case of Addison's disease.
The person would die. Period.

No, give them a long chronic illness with no firm diagnosis, variable symptoms, indeterminate outcome, and lots of psychological overload and homoeopathy will extract the usual placebo effect.

[BillyJoe]

Another example:

At the age of eight, one of my brothers developed osteomyelitis in his right leg. He was unable to walk because of severe pain and he was immediately admitted to hospital and treated with intravenous antibiotics and surgical excision of dead bone and drainage of pus.

With homoeopathic treatment he would be dead.
Period.

[Deetee]

Every day I personally see (and have hundreds of outpatients on my books) who, for the lack of orthodox medicine, would be dead. Some die nevertheless- that is life. We constantly strive to improve survival, but not by throwing magic water at them.