FREE TAPATALK APP

Garrette · 21st March 2008, 05:07 AM

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

...that god loves you too?

No. Just his tonsils.

Blue Wode · 26th March 2008, 03:00 AM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Ullman has just been banned from homeopathy articles at wikipedia for seven days.

For those interested, Dana has not been idle during his exclusion from Wikipedia. He’s popped up in the comments section of this article which Steven Novella wrote about him,
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256

and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html

Mojo · 26th March 2008, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Blue Wode

and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html

Funny how Dana never mentions the attempt by Lewith and others to repeat Reilly's results.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520

Baron Samedi · 26th March 2008, 03:53 AM

Originally Posted by Blue Wode

For those interested, Dana has not been idle during his exclusion from Wikipedia. He’s popped up in the comments section of this article which Steven Novella wrote about him,
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256

and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html

Ha ha, DanaJames is funny. I liked this bit...

Quote:

These studies were no longer "matching" in any way, and 7 of 8 homeopathic trials tested only one medicine without any of the typical individualization of treatment that is commonly used in homeopathy.

Fitting that he posted this under an article about buying homeopathic allergy spray. So... does this mean he agrees that the spray does not work, since there's no individualization?

BillyJoe · 26th March 2008, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by Baron Samedi

... does this mean he agrees that the spray does not work, since there's no individualization?

If a trial showed that it didn't work, yes.
If a trial showed that it did work, no.

wilsontown · 26th March 2008, 07:31 AM

I know I shouldn't be surprised that Ullman is still spamming his utter misunderstanding of that Lancet study all over the internet, but really. It's almost as though several people hadn't explained to him why his interpretation was completely wrong.

Gord_in_Toronto · 26th March 2008, 07:44 AM

I see a new claim in his CR comment:

Quote:

It may also be helpful to know that modern allergy treatment uses the homeopathic principle of using small doses of what a substance causes in order to desensitize a person from larger doses of it.

I stll think the difference between "small" and "nothing at all" is measurable.

BillyJoe · 27th March 2008, 03:23 AM

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

I stll think the difference between "small" and "nothing at all" is measurable.

Some homoeopathic preparations do have measurable amounts (less than 12C).

However, in desensitisation, the concentrations progressively increase, but I would imagine that with homoeopathy where less is more, the dilutions would progressively increase.
That doesn't sound like the same principle to me. More like opposites.

Acleron · 1st May 2008, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Funny how Dana never mentions the attempt by Lewith and others to repeat Reilly's results.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520

But he does

(Look under 'The various meta-analyses of homeopathy')

But with the usual snide remarks about studies he doesn't like

Quote:

The good news here is that Enric now knows about this important body of research and this notable Lancet editorial. Will he or you bring it to the homeopathy article? By the way, I have no problem if you also referenced the Lewith study of 202 patients, though you will also need to acknowledge that this was not a real replication. Amongst its many differences, it only allowed 3 (!) doses of a medicine during a 4-month period. THAT was not the protocol used by Reilly, and his letter to the editor is notable in this drama. If you need the specific references, just ask. It will be curious to watch this. I sincerely hope that you take the high road. No wonder you guys want me blocked.

Unfortunately, he is banned from homeopathy topics, leading to this:-

Quote:

"However, suggesting specific edits would not be acceptable under the current restrictions, since this would be editing by proxy"[3]. 6 hours and 10 minutes to break the ban restrictions after they were made clear on an arbitration case page. Impressive.
The fact that Dana adds a bad faith assumption at the end makes it even worse (we don't want you blocked, Dana, we want you to start respecting wikipedia policies and stop disrupting the pages by pushing studies)

JJM · 5th October 2009, 08:07 AM

R

Originally Posted by HelenSan

... Finally, I am not a homeopath. I am not even an expert on homeopathy. I am simply a homeopathy consumer. I use homeopathy because I have observed empirically that there is a temporal correlation between using a remedy and being relieved of symptoms. The correlation is not perfect, but it "works" often enough that I am happy to give it a try first. If I can use this to summon up the placebo effect at will, why not? It is very cheap, and it has virtually no side effects. If my symptoms disappear and don't come back, what's wrong with that?

But I am a skeptic and scientifically minded as well, ...

Scientifically minded, and using homeopathy. Do you know the word oxymoron?

I think this may be the same person who is now typing at "Science-Based Medicine" on what constitutes "science" because the scientists there are all wrong. And Helen knows because she is married to a PhD chemist.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1822

Hat tip to a Private Message that put me onto it.

dafydd · 5th October 2009, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

"Numerous sports greats have bragged about their use of homeopathic medicines including David Beckham"

From The Mail On Sunday

''David Beckham has never exactly been celebrated for his intellect, but even his greatest critics will be surprised by his latest confession: he can't understand his six-year-old son's maths homework.

The England captain made his remarks when doing an interview with The Mail on Sunday's Live magazine.

He admitted that when Brooklyn asked for help with a school assignment recently, he was baffled - and had to turn to his wife Victoria for assistance.

"Their homework is so hard these days," said Beckham. "I sat down with Brooklyn the other day - and I was like, 'Victoria, maybe you should do the homework tonight.''

Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshow...#ixzz0T5zLcZTm

21st March 2008, 05:07 AM	#641
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,647	Originally Posted by BillyJoe ...that god loves you too? No. Just his tonsils.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

26th March 2008, 03:36 AM	#643
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,489	Originally Posted by Blue Wode and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html Funny how Dana never mentions the attempt by Lewith and others to repeat Reilly's results. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520
	__________________ "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

26th March 2008, 04:11 AM	#645
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Baron Samedi ... does this mean he agrees that the spray does not work, since there's no individualization? If a trial showed that it didn't work, yes. If a trial showed that it did work, no.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

26th March 2008, 07:31 AM	#646
wilsontown Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 127	I know I shouldn't be surprised that Ullman is still spamming his utter misunderstanding of that Lancet study all over the internet, but really. It's almost as though several people hadn't explained to him why his interpretation was completely wrong.
wilsontown Thinker Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 127

26th March 2008, 07:44 AM	#647
Gord_in_Toronto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 13,424	I see a new claim in his CR comment: Quote: It may also be helpful to know that modern allergy treatment uses the homeopathic principle of using small doses of what a substance causes in order to desensitize a person from larger doses of it. I stll think the difference between "small" and "nothing at all" is measurable.
	__________________ "Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick

26th March 2008, 03:00 AM	#642
Blue Wode Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 1,277	Originally Posted by Acleron Ullman has just been banned from homeopathy articles at wikipedia for seven days. For those interested, Dana has not been idle during his exclusion from Wikipedia. He’s popped up in the comments section of this article which Steven Novella wrote about him, http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256 and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html

26th March 2008, 03:53 AM	#644
Baron Samedi Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kayfabe, Upper Canada Posts: 488	Originally Posted by Blue Wode For those interested, Dana has not been idle during his exclusion from Wikipedia. He’s popped up in the comments section of this article which Steven Novella wrote about him, http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=256 and he’s also appeared in the comments section of this Consumer Reports article: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/hea...athic-rem.html Ha ha, DanaJames is funny. I liked this bit... Quote: These studies were no longer "matching" in any way, and 7 of 8 homeopathic trials tested only one medicine without any of the typical individualization of treatment that is commonly used in homeopathy. Fitting that he posted this under an article about buying homeopathic allergy spray. So... does this mean he agrees that the spray does not work, since there's no individualization?

27th March 2008, 03:23 AM	#648
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto I stll think the difference between "small" and "nothing at all" is measurable. Some homoeopathic preparations do have measurable amounts (less than 12C). However, in desensitisation, the concentrations progressively increase, but I would imagine that with homoeopathy where less is more, the dilutions would progressively increase. That doesn't sound like the same principle to me. More like opposites.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

1st May 2008, 06:39 AM	#649
Acleron Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 2,017	Originally Posted by Mojo Funny how Dana never mentions the attempt by Lewith and others to repeat Reilly's results. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520 But he does (Look under 'The various meta-analyses of homeopathy') But with the usual snide remarks about studies he doesn't like Quote: The good news here is that Enric now knows about this important body of research and this notable Lancet editorial. Will he or you bring it to the homeopathy article? By the way, I have no problem if you also referenced the Lewith study of 202 patients, though you will also need to acknowledge that this was not a real replication. Amongst its many differences, it only allowed 3 (!) doses of a medicine during a 4-month period. THAT was not the protocol used by Reilly, and his letter to the editor is notable in this drama. If you need the specific references, just ask. It will be curious to watch this. I sincerely hope that you take the high road. No wonder you guys want me blocked. Unfortunately, he is banned from homeopathy topics, leading to this:- Quote: "However, suggesting specific edits would not be acceptable under the current restrictions, since this would be editing by proxy"[3]. 6 hours and 10 minutes to break the ban restrictions after they were made clear on an arbitration case page. Impressive. The fact that Dana adds a bad faith assumption at the end makes it even worse (we don't want you blocked, Dana, we want you to start respecting wikipedia policies and stop disrupting the pages by pushing studies)

5th October 2009, 08:07 AM	#650
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855	R Originally Posted by HelenSan ... Finally, I am not a homeopath. I am not even an expert on homeopathy. I am simply a homeopathy consumer. I use homeopathy because I have observed empirically that there is a temporal correlation between using a remedy and being relieved of symptoms. The correlation is not perfect, but it "works" often enough that I am happy to give it a try first. If I can use this to summon up the placebo effect at will, why not? It is very cheap, and it has virtually no side effects. If my symptoms disappear and don't come back, what's wrong with that? But I am a skeptic and scientifically minded as well, ... Scientifically minded, and using homeopathy. Do you know the word oxymoron? I think this may be the same person who is now typing at "Science-Based Medicine" on what constitutes "science" because the scientists there are all wrong. And Helen knows because she is married to a PhD chemist. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1822 Hat tip to a Private Message that put me onto it.
JJM Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,855

5th October 2009, 01:35 PM	#651
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,680	Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey "Numerous sports greats have bragged about their use of homeopathic medicines including David Beckham" From The Mail On Sunday ''David Beckham has never exactly been celebrated for his intellect, but even his greatest critics will be surprised by his latest confession: he can't understand his six-year-old son's maths homework. The England captain made his remarks when doing an interview with The Mail on Sunday's Live magazine. He admitted that when Brooklyn asked for help with a school assignment recently, he was baffled - and had to turn to his wife Victoria for assistance. "Their homework is so hard these days," said Beckham. "I sat down with Brooklyn the other day - and I was like, 'Victoria, maybe you should do the homework tonight.'' Read more: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/tvshow...#ixzz0T5zLcZTm