More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Rolfe]

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

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

[shpalman]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

What if the dose is spread in time? Look here (and here) where the newspaper clipping says "A 200c potency is best in these situations but if not immediately available, a 30c may be given and repeated after 15 minutes."

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

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

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

Be afraid, be very afraid.

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

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

2) Is it because the homeopathic community adores him?

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


Meh....

Hans

[mattbee]

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

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

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

Quote:

Dana:
"It is that dangerous."

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

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

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

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

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

Letter 1236 Doesn’t mention homoeopathy: it refers to Gully’s treatments as “the Water Cure”. Here’s the first passage you quote from it, with the rest of the paragraph to give the context of the treatments he was receiving:

Quote:

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

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

Letter 1234 at least mentions homoeopathy. It is a little ironic that you criticize the Quackometer article for quoting out of context; here’s the passage you quoted yourself (in bold) in the context of all the other treatment Darwin was receiving:

Quote:

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

You also quote from Letter 1240, but once again rather selectively:

Quote:

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

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

Most extraordinary is your treatment of Letter 1352. You quote a passage from it:

Quote:

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

You assert that skeptics never quote the whole passage. Try looking here, or try looking at the Quackometer article. You will find the entire paragraph quoted in both places.

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

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

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

[Michael C]

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

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Michael C

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

Or to put it in Dana's own favourite style: Slam - Dunk - Kapow!

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

Snippet:

Quote:

What science and history may owe to homeopathic medicine

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

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

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tss121207.php

Thanks.

[Mojo]

There's a review of Ullman's Homeopathic Revolution on the Quackometer blog.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

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

[Blue Wode]

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

Quote:

‘What Science And History May Owe To Homeopathic Medicine’

A new scholarly written book…

-snip-

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

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

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

[Deetee]

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

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

[Rolfe]

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

Rofle.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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

Rofle.

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

[fls]

Originally Posted by Blue Wode

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

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

Here is my submission:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda

[BillyJoe]

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

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

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

[JJM]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

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

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

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

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by JJM

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

Thanks.

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

[fls]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Thanks.

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

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

Linda

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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

....

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

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

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

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

I think it was the recent Rustum Roy paper discussed here.

Or maybe the rest of the special "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy as well: see discussions on badscience.

[BillyJoe]

Originally Posted by fls

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

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

[Chris Haynes]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I think it was the recent Rustum Roy paper discussed here.

Or maybe the rest of the special "memory of water" issue of Homeopathy as well: see discussions on badscience.

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

nothing at all.

[Rolfe]

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

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

Rolfe.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by Blue Wode

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

Quote:

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

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

Blatant publicity masquerading as information.

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

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

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

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

[Blue Wode]

Originally Posted by fls

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

Linda

They have now.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/your...ednewsid=91606

[BillyJoe]

Congrats Linda!

How about this response though:

Quote:

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

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

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

[BillyJoe]

Is this you DeeTee?

Quote:

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

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

[Ivor the Engineer]

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

Every workplace needs a muppet.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by BillyJoe

Is this you DeeTee?

Zat's me!

Is this you BJ, sowing seeds of destruction in the woo camp?

Quote:

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

It will always be the case that traditional medicine will look at tarot cards, homeopathy, astrology, etc. with hate - for they threaten their income.

I find Tarot Cards are very effective for constipation - showing a woo the death card can make them cr*p their pants.

[BillyJoe]

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

Quote:

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

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

Classic.

[Professor Yaffle]

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

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopi...ght=daily+mail

[Dana Ullman]

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

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

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

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

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

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

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Deetee]

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

[shpalman]

Originally Posted by Deetee

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

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

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

And some newer ones:

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

V. Elia, E. Napoli, and R. Germano. The "Memory of Water": an almost deciphered enigma. Dissipative structures in extremely dilute aqueous solutions. Homeopathy 96 (3) 163-169 (2007) (see this)

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

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

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Quote:

Even Gully does not seem to have been entirely convinced about the merits of homoeopathy. From here: He "might be induced to try" homoeopathy to "subdue a passing but troublesome symptom"? Hardly a resounding endorsement of a "holistic" therapy.

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

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

And the 1846 edition catalogued here has 692 pages.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Mojo

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

And the 1846 edition catalogued here has 692 pages.

Perhaps the remaining 287 pages just appear to be "blank" in Dana's copy. However, I am sure they contain the memory of words, and if he looks carefully he will find they are a far more effective commentary on homeopathy than the pages with less diluted, visible text that preceded them.