More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by manioberoi

classical homeopaths would not use those methods on ethical grounds.

So, what are we to conclude about the homeopaths who most definitely do use those machines? Need I remind you that their clinical experience is just as valid as yours.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by manioberoi

Experienced conventional medical experts have (in India) the good sense to say...

Hi manioberoi.

Now that you're back, perhaps you can answer the question I asked you in relation to an anecdote you posted:

How would you go about establishing that the homoeopathic treatment did not cause the storm?

[SYLVESTER1592]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

I would never expect you or anyone to say that a single study or a replicated study would "prove" entire system of homeopathy, just as I wouldn't expect you to say that it would disprove the entire system of homeopathy.

However, I would expect scientifically-minded people to say that Oscillococcinum IS effective in the treatment of influenza and inflenza-like syndromes because three large, independently conducted double-blind studies have shown this to be true.

It is simply interesting that no one on this list has enough of a backbone to make this statement. Sadly, it is almost as though you are afraid of each other and almost as though you are all vying to seem to be more anti-homeopathic than the other.

Ahh yes... The Winston Wu defense: "you are not skeptical you are cynical"
Our judgement is based on the entire body of evidence, which is not in your favor. I can only speak for myself, but I feel I can still doubt myself on many fronts and think the mere fact that this discussion has lasted this long is a testimony to the willingness to be open to any evidence you may present. But to make up for all the bad science in the past and the vast amount of data disproving the effect of homeopathy is a though task.

Nevertheless, we do listen to what you have to say and maintain open to new evidence, even when by most standards it should already have been rejected many decades ago. So we're not the cynics...

How open are you to new ideas?

You have been presented with arguments opposing yours, but remain relentless and steadfast in your belief, based on ... ?
If tomorrow these studies would turn out to be untrue, would you give them up?
I have a feeling you wouldn't, you would present it as evidence eventhough it has already been refuted, you would hang on to it, like all the other studies that came before it and have been refuted. Basically the vast amount of bad studies and refuted claims has decreased the credibility of the homeopaths to an abominable level. This explains the hesitancy.
You don't feel any hesitancy, maybe because you don't need a study to tell you homeopathy works. We do...

If the 3 studies check out, I would suggest you present it to Mr. Randi. Let's see what happens. (You might want to double check)

Good luck,

SYL

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592

Ahh yes... The Winston Wu defense: "you are not skeptical you are cynical"
Our judgement is based on the entire body of evidence, which is not in your favor. I can only speak for myself, but I feel I can still doubt myself on many fronts and think the mere fact that this discussion has lasted this long is a testimony to the willingness to be open to any evidence you may present. But to make up for all the bad science in the past and the vast amount of data disproving the effect of homeopathy is a though task.

Nevertheless, we do listen to what you have to say and maintain open to new evidence, even when by most standards it should already have been rejected many decades ago. So we're not the cynics...

How open are you to new ideas?

You have been presented with arguments opposing yours, but remain relentless and steadfast in your belief, based on ... ?
If tomorrow these studies would turn out to be untrue, would you give them up?
I have a feeling you wouldn't, you would present it as evidence eventhough it has already been refuted, you would hang on to it, like all the other studies that came before it and have been refuted. Basically the vast amount of bad studies and refuted claims has decreased the credibility of the homeopaths to an abominable level. This explains the hesitancy.
You don't feel any hesitancy, maybe because you don't need a study to tell you homeopathy works. We do...

If the 3 studies check out, I would suggest you present it to Mr. Randi. Let's see what happens. (You might want to double check)

Good luck,

SYL

HA! Shows what you know!

[SYLVESTER1592]

Originally Posted by manioberoi

Experienced conventional medical experts have (in India) the good sense to say that they do not know much about homeopathy to be able to comment on it - however they do say that in medical college they were taught that it is placebo and so ethical guidelines require them not to use homeopathy in their practice. They use it for their children if / when it works and have witnessed "miracle" cures but these can not be the proof that medicine requires - the statistical evidence.

Similarly homeopaths have no experience in occult sciences - so can not comment on their effectiveness - classical homeopaths would not use those methods on ethical grounds.

For homeopathic trials which lack prior scientific results at present, a standard p> .05 level of significance trial is not appropriate.

A better method is to use p-rep methodology with RI confidence levels with minimum sample size of 40 patients.

See http://www.asu.edu/clas/psych/resear...p_rep_pack.zip

Hi manoiberoi,

You do realize that the skewed curve of the Prep or PR, makes the likelyness of a distiguishable significant or insignificant result harder, because the incremental differences become smaller in the range where you are looking.
In more understandable terms: the difference between a p<0.05 and >0.05 is harder to see.

I would suggest that it may be an added control to a p-value as the authors suggest, but I would not choose it as your criterium to determine significant from insignificant.
(You know the p-values are not without reason: Do you know where these cut-off point come from?)

SYL

[SYLVESTER1592]

Hi 3bodyproblem,
nice to see you again

You agree with the idea that 3 studies confirming each other deserve another look? I'm not saying it must therefore be true (considering all the previous attempts to show it works ), but it would be interesting to look at.

The 3 confirming studies idea that we present each time, comes from the idea that there are no other studies denying it (in a Z distribution, chances are that the results are most likely not explained by chance). In homeopathy the score is more like 3 vs 100 or more, but I'm willing to look at it. I think that's more then fair, don't you?

SYL

[Furcifer]

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592

Hi 3bodyproblem,
nice to see you again

You agree with the idea that 3 studies confirming each other deserve another look? I'm not saying it must therefore be true (considering all the previous attempts to show it works ), but it would be interesting to look at.

The 3 confirming studies idea that we present each time, comes from the idea that there are no other studies denying it (in a Z distribution, chances are that the results are most likely not explained by chance). In homeopathy the score is more like 3 vs 100 or more, but I'm willing to look at it. I think that's more then fair, don't you?

SYL

I thought you had disappeared More than fair that's for certain. In fact merely entertaining the notion that any homeopathic/homeopaths have any merit whatso ever is too fair. Personally I don't like to entertain fantacists. Unfortunately however, the potential for harm by allowing this "medicine" to continue to go unchallenged is too great. Any chance to dispell the myth must be pursued agressively.

[manioberoi]

Originally Posted by fls

I haven't read through all this stuff yet, but this is basically what I have pointed out before in this and other threads (using different terminology). It doesn't get homeopaths off the hook. It makes it more difficult to legitimately infer anything about homeopathy from the results of individual studies.

Which one of the papers describes "RI confidence levels"?

Linda

*This should be p<0.05.

That should have been replication levels

[Mojo]

Hi manioberoi.

Referring back to your anecdote about the sheep, how would you go about establishing that the homoeopathic treatment did not cause the storm?

[manioberoi]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Hi manioberoi.

Referring back to your anecdote about the sheep, how would you go about establishing that the homoeopathic treatment did not cause the storm?

The null hypothesis would be absurd so there would be no need to establish any such thing!!!

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by manioberoi

The null hypothesis would be absurd so there would be no need to establish any such thing!!!

So if an alleged causal relationship appears absurd, there's no need to test whether there is an actual causal relationship? We can just assume that there is no causal relationship?

Would this also apply to absurdities such the suggestion that remedies from which the allegedly active component has long since been diluted away can have an actual effect?

[Mojo]

Manioberoi: if your anecdote isn't evidence that homoeopathy causes storms, then neither is it evidence that homeopathy cures.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

No, I have not gone away yet, but I am just about to do so, not because I am "broken," but because this conversation is broken. While some of you may be a tad diplomatic, you still are so entrenched in your position, you don't even consider that you may be wrong.

Please re-read what you write and consider whether the accusation would sit more comfortably on your own shoulders.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

I can and will assert that homeopathy is without merit if or when there is adequate evidence to prove it so, but the body of evidence (basic science, clinical research, AND historical empirical evidence) weighs much more heavily for homeopathy than against it.

This historical evidence ... is that basically anecdotal? What "basic scientific evidence"? Which generally accepted "clinical research"? Do you ever tire of making unsupported claims? You have nothing ... or at least you have shown nothing ...

You keep posting but it's like a broken record. It is sooooo easy to prove that homoeopathy works - it only needs one good quality, reproducable study. That's your job. Disproving it means disproving the many, many claims of people who hide behind smoke-screens of statistical anomalies, stories, wishful thinking and poor studies. That's our job.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

And because GOOD scientists have humility and because I have not yet found a good scientist on this list (arrogance limits vision), this conversation is boring.

I must be confused here ... I would have thought that you might have been more likely to use words like "mistaken", "embarrassed", "caught-out", "dis-credited" when describing your position on Holmes. The concept of boredom here doesn't convey much "humility" and "arrogance". Do you always claim to be bored when you are wrong? Do you normally arrogantly accuse others of arrogance?

Originally Posted by JamesGully

My previous longer posts were from a forthcoming book. I'm sorry if I do not have the time to include all of the references, but please know that what I've written is true. It is classic that all of you assume that I am "wrong," without even asking me to be more specific. This is part and parcel of your unscientific thinking processes (you are right; others are wrong). My references to Holmes' writing is from his collection of essays, not just one. The fact that you all will quibble with what he said or didn't say WITHOUT knowing the facts (and again, without humility) is typical of your mindset.

Sorry - we just "typically" like to check things for ourselves lest we naively believe the witterings of charlatans. Oh to be humble and gullable

If you have additional information (facts) to support what he did or didn't say, then provide it - otherwise please stop wishing to be right - it just makes you look very foolish.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

The worst that you seem to say is that I am "quote mining." Because I have no interest in quoting ALL of Holmes' work, how else can a writer quote work without being specific to one statement or another. Every quote from Holmes that I found could be found in other writing of his in slightly different language

... well wasn't it a bit unfortunate that you provided references to examples that said the exact opposite of what you claimed they said. Why don't you provide the "slightly different language" versions of these quotes with a source that we can check for ourselves? ... and why don't you save us all time by reading a sentence or two on either side of the quote you lift to make sure we don't catch you out again ...

Originally Posted by JamesGully

(THAT is not quote mining...YOUR critique is a weak effort to create a defense...a VERY weak effort).

So comprehensively showing that you ... took statements totally out of context, reversed their meaning for your own purposes, and then claimed it was an illustration of "intellectual dishonesty" ... that is a VERY weak effort!!! How deluded are you?

Quote mine this: "James Gully is both a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest." Prove me wrong.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by manioberoi

The null hypothesis would be absurd so there would be no need to establish any such thing!!!

Just to re-iterate what Mojo is saying ... why don't you ever think to apply this selective "null hypothesis" of yours to homoeopathy?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

No, I have not gone away yet, but I am just about to do so, not because I am "broken," but because this conversation is broken. While some of you may be a tad diplomatic, you still are so entrenched in your position, you don't even consider that you may be wrong.

This is the "beauty" of the internet. It is possible to receive the equivalent of being run over by a steam-roller, and pretend nothing has happened. This gives it all an erie cartoon-like quality, where a character is flattened, floats around in a paper-like fashion for a few seconds, then pops back in shape.

However, you are fooling nobody but yourself, James/Dana: Everybody else here (with Manioberoi as a possible exception) can see how you have been devastated. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "lalalala" at the top of your voice, but you are devastated and ridiculed.

Quote:

I can and will assert that homeopathy is without merit if or when there is adequate evidence to prove it so, but the body of evidence (basic science, clinical research, AND historical empirical evidence) weighs much more heavily for homeopathy than against it.

So you think that a, carefully selected, few tentative results from poorly designed studies outweigh the mass of modern knowledge of physics, pathology, and pharmacology? Well, well, .......

Quote:

And because GOOD scientists have humility and because I have not yet found a good scientist on this list (arrogance limits vision), this conversation is boring.

Your arrogance certainly limits your vision, yes. For instance, the thing you see around your head is not your halo, it is your horizon.

Quote:

My previous longer posts were from a forthcoming book. I'm sorry if I do not have the time to include all of the references, but please know that what I've written is true.

How can we know that what you have written is true, when it has just been proven to be lies? I understand your preference for writing books, however. Relieves you of all those pesky contradictions.

Quote:

It is classic that all of you assume that I am "wrong," without even asking me to be more specific. This is part and parcel of your unscientific thinking processes (you are right; others are wrong).

Who do you think you are fooling? People here proved you wrong. Especially Mojo and Rolfe tore your lies apart.

Quote:

My references to Holmes' writing is from his collection of essays, not just one. The fact that you all will quibble with what he said or didn't say WITHOUT knowing the facts (and again, without humility) is typical of your mindset.

This is simply so ridiculous that I wonder how you can look in the mirror. It was by finding the facts that they showed you wrong. Richard/Dana, you were

Quote:

The worst that you seem to say is that I am "quote mining." Because I have no interest in quoting ALL of Holmes' work, how else can a writer quote work without being specific to one statement or another. Every quote from Holmes that I found could be found in other writing of his in slightly different language (THAT is not quote mining...YOUR critique is a weak effort to create a defense...a VERY weak effort).

Keep eroding your credibility. If you don't know what quite mining is, look it up. You can look up "straw man" while you are at it.

Quote:

I have provided evidence of the work of Rustom Roy, PhD (I mentioned that he had 13 papers published in NATURE, and I got attacked for not knowing that he had actually had 15 papers published in NATURE).

No, you got ridiculed for not knowing it. Afterward you got attacked for not mentioning that not one single of those papers were relevant to the subject at hand. Look up "appeal to false authority".

Quote:

His 2005 paper on water structure comes from some of world's leading scientists who understand WATER STRUCTURE, and I told you to watch out for a 2007 paper in which he conducts experiments that verify his previous writings on the subject. I could have provided you with a URL to a presentation on this new research,

Yes, that would have been the proper thing to do.

Quote:

but I couldn't help but notice that no one inquired about what this new research was (the people on this list do not really want to learn; you want to attack, and you want to feel superior).

Pot, meet mr Kettle.

Quote:

I referenced Rey's work in one of the most respected physics journals in the world, and the worst that could be said was quoted from Benveniste (who you normally attack!)...this "worst" statement is that the study wasn't blinded.

Showing that we are not biased. Where Benveniste is right, he is right. For a medical study, lack of blinding is very serious.

Quote:

So, if I fly and show the world that I can fly, you would say that it isn't true because I (or you!) wasn't blinded.

Better look up "straw man" again, so you are sure you know what it means.

Quote:

Some physical phenomena, like Rey's work, cannot be influenced by belief, and it is not necessary to have every basic science study be blinded (especially in physics--don't take this out of context).

Of course not.

Quote:

*snip*

Mr. Monkey has STILL not evolved and is still asking the same innane questions about some machine that I have never heard of...and yet, he insists that I answer this questions.

Yes, that question is essential, for two reasons:

1) Those machines base their function on the same type of anecdotical evidence as conventional homeopathy.

2) As a prominent homeopath, it is very surprising that you should not have an opinion on such sensational devices.

Quote:

Someone else continually asks me about homeopathy for syphilis. I'm sorry that you or someone in your family may have been stricken with it, but why the broken record?

Have you no shame? Apparantly not. You know why the question is asked. You know the central role of syphilis in classical homeopathy. So don't try to dirty the person who asks about it.

James/Dana, there is an advice we use to give people here, when they have gotten themselves in a position like yours: When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Mojo

So if an alleged causal relationship appears absurd, there's no need to test whether there is an actual causal relationship? We can just assume that there is no causal relationship?

Would this also apply to absurdities such the suggestion that remedies from which the allegedly active component has long since been diluted away can have an actual effect?

I fear this level of logic is quite a bit over our friend's head.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

I can and will assert that homeopathy is without merit if or when there is adequate evidence to prove it so, but the body of evidence (basic science, clinical research, AND historical empirical evidence) weighs much more heavily for homeopathy than against it.

Talking of getting bored, I get very bored nitpicking the detail of these tediously complicated and badly designed studies the homoeopaths rely on for their "scientific" proof. I think BSM has put it elegantly well.

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

After 200 years the entire trial record that you find to rely on is a tiny handful of papers. Even those papers do not support the load that you need them to bear.

If there was really a powerful healing force at work there, it would be possible, indeed easy, to convince the most sceptical by means of well-designed, repeatable studies. Isn't happening. I think BSM's comment sums it up admirably.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

My previous longer posts were from a forthcoming book. I'm sorry if I do not have the time to include all of the references, but please know that what I've written is true.

Did you actually read my post with the bulleted points in it? Have you no response other than to reassert that what you've written is true, even after that has been explicitly shown not to be the case?

Regarding your references to Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think we can all see from reference to Holmes' own writings that what you have written is demonstrably false. You are taking the view that if what someone has written has been shown to be false, he should amend what he has written if he has the opportunity. I think everyone here would agree with that. So.

• You wrote that Holmes "worshipped" a Dr. Rush. However, we can see from Holmes' own words that he was highly critical of Dr. Rush, and was in fact holding him up as an example of what was wrong with the medical establishment of the day. Will you change what you have written?
• You wrote that Holmes "got his calculations confused, and he incorrectly assumed that the homeopathic manufacturer had to have 10 times or 100 times more water than in the previous dilution". You have explicitly admitted that this is not the case, and Holmes assumed nothing of the kind. (And by the way, Holmes was talking about alcohol, not water.) Will you change what you have written?
• You wrote that Holmes never talked with any homoeopath, and never read a single book on homoeopathy. You have admitted that the former is merely an assumption for which you have no evidence, and anyone can see that the latter is not true simply by observing the extent to which Holmes quotes from the sritings of Hahnemann himself. Will you change what you have written?

Those are just the most clear-cut points, without even getting into James' lack of acknowledgement that Holmes was well aware of the criticism of Andral's work and addressed it to his satisfaction, or James' dishonest use of the word "confessed" when referring to Holmes' remarks that homoeopathy had taught us a valuable lesson (about how well people recover naturally when given no treatment), leading to the false implication that Holmes was admitting that homoeopathic methods were effective.

These are points which have been unambiguously shown to be erroneous. James thinks that people should change what they have written if it is shown to be in error. Anybody holding their breath for James to show even the tiniest glimmer of intellectual honesty here?

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Regarding your references to Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think we can all see from reference to Holmes' own writings that what you have written is demonstrably false. You are taking the view that if what someone has written has been shown to be false, he should amend what he has written if he has the opportunity. I think everyone here would agree with that. So.

• You wrote that Holmes "worshipped" a Dr. Rush. However, we can see from Holmes' own words that he was highly critical of Dr. Rush, and was in fact holding him up as an example of what was wrong with the medical establishment of the day. Will you change what you have written?

And not from just anywhere in Holmes' own writings: the passages I quoted included all the mentions of Rush in Holmes' essay Currents and Counter-Currents in Medical Science: the very words that "James" claimed supported his assertion:

Originally Posted by JamesGully

To clarify, Holmes' worship for Benjamin Rush was evidenced in Holmes' essay "Currents and Counter-Currents" written in 1860.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

This is simply so ridiculous that I wonder how you can look in the mirror. It was by finding the facts that they showed you wrong. Richard/Dana, you were...

Richard? Has James/Dana been using a third identity?

Not that the expression "Richard the Third" is entirely inappropriate when discussing James' writings.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Mojo

Richard? Has James/Dana been using a third identity?

Not that the expression "Richard the Third" is entirely inappropriate when discussing James' writings.

I made a mistake. Sue me.....

Heheh, there was this guy, they called him Lous 14th. ... Because he was only ever invited to avoid being 13 seated.

Rolfe, you will notice that James/Dana ignores anybody he can't answer. I assume it's his general way of staying alive: Simply ignore everything that doesn't fit.

Hans

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Rolfe, you will notice that James/Dana ignores anybody he can't answer.

I think he has addressed quite a lot of people that he could not answer: it is the questions that he consistently ignores.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by steenkh

I think he has addressed quite a lot of people that he could not answer: it is the questions that he consistently ignores.

Yeah, apparently I'm not properly evolved. Yet, his superior intellect has not enabled him to answer poor old monkey's little questions.

"Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?"

"Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."

Which is JamesGully, Vroomfondel or Majikthise? We should be told.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by kieran

Quote mine this: "James Gully is both a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest."

"James Gully is honest."

Like that you mean?

[Mojo]

I demand that he is Vroomfondel!

Although he could just as well be Majikthise. after all, what they were demanding was a total absence of solid facts...

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

and I think he demands rigidly defiined areas of doubt and uncertainty except where any doubt or uncertainty might impinge on the validity of homeopathy.

[fls]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Quote:

Originally Posted by kieran
Quote mine this: "James Gully is both a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest."

"James Gully is honest."

Like that you mean?

To be fair, maybe like this:

"James Gully is...'honest."

Or:

"James Gully is both...intellectual' [and] 'honest."

Or:

"James Gully is both...'rite and intellectually 'honest."

Linda
(This is kinda fun. I can see why Ullman does it.)

[JJM]

Quote:

What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say that homeopathy has been proven as a valid therapeutic system?"

There, he said it everyone: "homeopathy has been proven as a valid therapeutic system" Plus, he loves faith healing ...

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Yep, I think JamesGully is finally too ashamed to show his face again.

Will we ever find a homeopathy worth debating with? Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question assuming an answer in the negative.

[Dana Ullman]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Regarding your references to Oliver Wendell Holmes, I think we can all see from reference to Holmes' own writings that what you have written is demonstrably false. You are taking the view that if what someone has written has been shown to be false, he should amend what he has written if he has the opportunity. I think everyone here would agree with that. So.

• You wrote that Holmes "worshipped" a Dr. Rush. However, we can see from Holmes' own words that he was highly critical of Dr. Rush, and was in fact holding him up as an example of what was wrong with the medical establishment of the day. Will you change what you have written?
• You wrote that Holmes "got his calculations confused, and he incorrectly assumed that the homeopathic manufacturer had to have 10 times or 100 times more water than in the previous dilution". You have explicitly admitted that this is not the case, and Holmes assumed nothing of the kind. (And by the way, Holmes was talking about alcohol, not water.) Will you change what you have written?
• You wrote that Holmes never talked with any homoeopath, and never read a single book on homoeopathy. You have admitted that the former is merely an assumption for which you have no evidence, and anyone can see that the latter is not true simply by observing the extent to which Holmes quotes from the sritings of Hahnemann himself. Will you change what you have written?

Those are just the most clear-cut points, without even getting into James' lack of acknowledgement that Holmes was well aware of the criticism of Andral's work and addressed it to his satisfaction, or James' dishonest use of the word "confessed" when referring to Holmes' remarks that homoeopathy had taught us a valuable lesson (about how well people recover naturally when given no treatment), leading to the false implication that Holmes was admitting that homoeopathic methods were effective.

These are points which have been unambiguously shown to be erroneous.

Rolfe...Your arrogance is palpable, and your errors of fact are transparent. I previously gave you the page # (192...though you can also look at page 193) from Holmes' MEDICAL ESSAYS, but it seems that you've chosen to not look at this source, and instead, you have chosen to assume that I'm wrong. Whooops...but heck, you simply claim that I'm wrong without doing your homework...whooops again.

Holmes encouraged medical students to read the life and writings of Rush if they wanted "show a student the difficulties of getting at truth from medical experience." Holmes said of Rush that he "gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other." (page 193)

For the record...I never said or implied that Holmes changed his attitude towards homeopathy (he didn't!). My point was that he didn't change a word of his essay on homeopathy despite the many errors of fact in it, including the WRONG analogy to dilutions (the 17th potency requires 17 testtubes of water...how or why he could assert any analogy to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is false). Holmes' reference to the "research" by Andral back-fired on him. He should not have even mentioned this "study," and he should have acknowledged his errors in referencing it, even though he re-published his Essay 40 years later.

Someone incorrectly said that I asserted that Darwin was influenced by Hahnemann...not true. I never said that. What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that he could have completed his book, Origin of Species, if he had not received treatment from his homeopathic doctor, James Gully! This is a part of history, and nothing can change this history.

As for criticisms of Elia's work, I haven't seen them.

As for a review of the 3 clinical trials on influenza, here's the Cochrane report. They call the research "promising." Because Cochrane maintains the highest standard for evaluating clinical research, I am still waiting for SOMEONE (!) on this list to acknowledge this fact. Whooops...you might actually have to admit that homeopathic medicines may work. I'm waiting. Who will be first?

Vickers AJ, Smith C, Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review) The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005.


This dialogue with you hyper-skeptics has been an experiment for me. You've proven to maintain an unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. Sadly, you missed a great opportunity to have a real dialogue with a homeopath, and instead, you have chosen to posture yourself as each person being more dogmatic than the other.

I do know that this is being "recorded," and in the near future, many of you will be embarrassed by your flat-earth attitudes.

Finally...Hahnemann's gravestone says "Aude sapere"--dare to taste, to experience, to understand. He challenged everyone to simply try homeopathy. If you are really serious scientists, you will experiment with using homeopathics on yourself when you are ill. The medicines are basically safe. You may actually be surprised.

[Psiload]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

If you are really serious scientists, you will experiment with using homeopathics on yourself when you are ill. The medicines are basically safe. You may actually be surprised.

I have. I wasn't.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

To clarify, Holmes' worship for Benjamin Rush was evidenced in Holmes' essay "Currents and Counter-Currents" written in 1860.

Let's see what Holmes actually said about Rush in that essay:

Quote:

Dr. Rush thought and said that there were twenty times more intellect and a hundred times more knowledge in the country in 1799 than before the Revolution. His own mind was in a perpetual state of exaltation produced by the stirring scenes in which he had taken a part, and the quickened life of the time in which he lived. It was not the state to favor sound, calm observation. He was impatient, and Nature is profoundly imperturbable. We may adjust the beating of our hearts to her pendulum if we will and can, but we may be very sure that she will not change the pendulum's rate of going because our hearts are palpitating. He thought he had mastered yellow-fever. "Thank God," he said, "out of one hundred patients whom I have visited or prescribed for this day, I have lost none." Where was all his legacy of knowledge when Norfolk was decimated? Where was it when the blue flies were buzzing over the coffins of the unburied dead piled up in the cemetery of New Orleans, at the edge of the huge trenches yawning to receive them?

No, evidently Holmes did not worship Rush. Why does JamesGully pretend he did?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Rolfe...Your arrogance is palpable, and your errors of fact are transparent. I previously gave you the page # (192...though you can also look at page 193) from Holmes' MEDICAL ESSAYS, but it seems that you've chosen to not look at this source, and instead, you have chosen to assume that I'm wrong. Whooops...but heck, you simply claim that I'm wrong without doing your homework...whooops again.

Holmes encouraged medical students to read the life and writings of Rush if they wanted "show a student the difficulties of getting at truth from medical experience." Holmes said of Rush that he "gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other." (page 193)

You do realise that those passages have actually been quoted, in context, in this thread, don't you?

Here they are:

Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes

But there are other special American influences which we are bound to
take cognizance of. If I wished to show a student the difficulties
of getting at truth from medical experience, I would give him the
history of epilepsy to read. If I wished him to understand the
tendencies of the American medical mind, its sanguine enterprise, its
self-confidence, its audacious handling of Nature, its impatience
with her old-fashioned ways of taking time to get a sick man well, I
would make him read the life and writings of Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush
thought and said that there were twenty times more intellect and a
hundred times more knowledge in the country in 1799 than before the
Revolution. His own mind was in a perpetual state of exaltation
produced by the stirring scenes in which he had taken a part, and the
quickened life of the time in which he lived. It was not the state
to favor sound, calm observation. He was impatient, and Nature is
profoundly imperturbable. We may adjust the beating of our hearts to
her pendulum if we will and can, but we may be very sure that she
will not change the pendulum's rate of going because our hearts are
palpitating. He thought he had mastered yellow-fever. "Thank God,"
he said, "out of one hundred patients whom I have visited or
prescribed for this day, I have lost none." Where was all his legacy
of knowledge when Norfolk was decimated? Where was it when the blue
flies were buzzing over the coffins of the unburied dead piled up in
the cemetery of New Orleans, at the edge of the huge trenches yawning
to receive them?

One such instance will do as well as twenty. Dr. Rush must have been
a charming teacher, as he was an admirable man. He was observing,
rather than a sound observer; eminently observing, curious, even,
about all manner of things. But he could not help feeling as if
Nature had been a good deal shaken by the Declaration of
Independence, and that American art was getting to be rather too much
for her,--especially as illustrated in his own practice. He taught
thousands of American students, he gave a direction to the medical
mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies
it better than any other. It has clearly tended to extravagance in
remedies and trust in remedies, as in everything else. How could a
people which has a revolution once in four years, which has contrived
the Bowie-knife and the revolver, which has chewed the juice out of
all the superlatives in the language in Fourth of July orations, and
so used up its epithets in the rhetoric of abuse that it takes two
great quarto dictionaries to supply the demand; which insists in
sending out yachts and horses and boys to out-sail, out-run, out-
fight, and checkmate all the rest of creation; how could such a
people be content with any but "heroic" practice? What wonder that
the stars and stripes wave over doses of ninety grains of sulphate of
quinine, [More strictly, ninety-six grains in two hours. Dunglison's
Practice, 1842, vol. ii. p. 520. Eighty grains in one dose.
Ibid. p. 536. Ninety-six grains of sulphate of quinine are equal
to eight ounces of good bark.--Wood & Bache.] and that the American
eagle screams with delight to see three drachms of calomel given at a
single mouthful?

Add to this the great number of Medical Journals, all useful, we
hope, most of them necessary, we trust, many of them excellently well
conducted, but which must find something to fill their columns, and
so print all the new plans of treatment and new remedies they can get
hold of, as the newspapers, from a similar necessity, print the
shocking catastrophes and terrible murders.

They do not say what you claim they say. I have no idea whether this is because you think the target audience of your book is too lazy to look up references or too stupid to understand them, or simply because you are unable to understand them yourself. But now that it has been explained to you that your assertion is unsupported, it would, of course, be gross intellectual dishonesty (and, in view of your repeated comments about intellectual dishonesty, sheer hypocrisy) on your part if you were to allow the publication of your book without correction.

Quote:

For the record...I never said or implied that Holmes changed his attitude towards homeopathy (he didn't!). My point was that he didn't change a word of his essay on homeopathy despite the many errors of fact in it, including the WRONG analogy to dilutions (the 17th potency requires 17 testtubes of water...how or why he could assert any analogy to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is false). Holmes' reference to the "research" by Andral back-fired on him. He should not have even mentioned this "study," and he should have acknowledged his errors in referencing it, even though he re-published his Essay 40 years later.

Again, the deceptive way you quoted Holmes is only too obvious to anyone who looks up the quotation in context:

Originally Posted by JamesGully

In 1861, Dr. Holmes finally confessed that homeopathy “has taught us a lesson of the healing faculty of Nature which was needed, and for which many of us have made proper acknowledgements” (Holmes, 1891, x, xiii-xiv).

Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes

Homoeopathy is now merely a name, an unproved theory, and a box of
pellets pretending to be specifics, which, as all of us know, fail
ignominiously in those cases where we would thankfully sacrifice all
our prejudices and give the world to have them true to their
promises.

Homoeopathy has not died out so rapidly as Tractoration. Perhaps it
was well that it should not, for it has taught us a lesson of the
healing faculty of Nature which was needed, and for which many of us
have made proper acknowledgments. But it probably does more harm
than good to medical science at the present time, by keeping up the
delusion of treating everything by specifics,--the old barbarous
notion that sick people should feed on poisons [Lachesis, arrow-
poison, obtained from a serpent (Pulte). Crotalus horridus,
rattlesnake's venom (Neidhard). The less dangerous Pediculus capitis
is the favorite remedy of Dr. Mure, the English "Apostle of
Homoeopathy." These are examples of the retrograde current setting
towards barbarism against which a part of the Discourse at the
beginning of this volume is directed.

The words "finally confessed" in your statement imply that Holmes changed his declared position on homoeopathy.

It has also been explained to you, more than once, that the illustration of dilutions that Holmes used was not inappropriate. Apparently you were incapable of understanding that as well.

Holmes addressed criticisms of Andral's work in his essay. If there were other criticisms of this work of which Holmes should have been aware but didn't address, please give more details of them, and proper references.

Quote:

Someone incorrectly said that I asserted that Darwin was influenced by Hahnemann...not true. I never said that. What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that he could have completed his book, Origin of Species, if he had not received treatment from his homeopathic doctor, James Gully! This is a part of history, and nothing can change this history.

All the available sources (apart from your homoeopathic chums) indicate that Gully was a hydropath. Even Darwin describes Gully acting as a hydropath and bringing in a second doctor as a homoeopath to treat his daughter. And, contrary to your claims, there is nothing to indicate that Darwin thought homoeopathy worked, and direct quotations from him, both during and after he took Gully's "cure", indicating that he thought it was utter nonsense. And, of course, the Hydropathic treatments Darwin received almost certainly didn't have any real positive effect either, although the diet and exercise regimes might have.

Quote:

Finally...Hahnemann's gravestone says "Aude sapere"--dare to taste, to experience, to understand. He challenged everyone to simply try homeopathy. If you are really serious scientists, you will experiment with using homeopathics on yourself when you are ill. The medicines are basically safe. You may actually be surprised.

I know where Hahnemann pulled homoeopathy from, and I therefore have no desire whatsoever to taste it.

I have, however, taken a homoeopathic remedy prescribed me for a headache. It had, as far as I could tell, no effect whatsoever.

P.S. have you managed to track down the "Cochrane Commission" [sic] to which you referred yet? Whooops!

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Holmes said of Rush that he "gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other." (page 193)

Let's see how Holmes continued:

"... he gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other. It has clearly tended to extravagance in remedies and trust in remedies, as in everything else."

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Michael C

No, evidently Holmes did not worship Rush. Why does JamesGully pretend he did?

If you look very carefully, you might find the answer towards the end of this post.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for a review of the 3 clinical trials on influenza, here's the Cochrane report. They call the research "promising." Because Cochrane maintains the highest standard for evaluating clinical research, I am still waiting for SOMEONE (!) on this list to acknowledge this fact. Whooops...you might actually have to admit that homeopathic medicines may work. I'm waiting. Who will be first?

Vickers AJ, Smith C, Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes (Cochrane Review) The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2005.

I found this: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.co...957/frame.html

I quote the "plain language summary":

"Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum does not prevent influenza but might shorten the length of the illness"

... "might shorten the length of the illness"? That doesn't sound conclusive to me. And let's see by how much the length of the illness was shortened:

"Oscillococcinum treatment reduced the length of influenza illness by 0.28 days"

How significant is this result? Maybe somebody with more medical experience than myself can explain.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for a review of the 3 clinical trials on influenza, here's the Cochrane report. They call the research "promising." Because Cochrane maintains the highest standard for evaluating clinical research, I am still waiting for SOMEONE (!) on this list to acknowledge this fact. Whooops...you might actually have to admit that homeopathic medicines may work. I'm waiting. Who will be first?

Promising. Translation: while it is still much more likely to be a false-positive, than it is to be a true-positive, it is still better than the rest of the body of homeopathic research which is much, much, much more likely to generate false-positives than true-positives.

The very, very best that homeopathy has to offer as far as any sort of evidence that it doesn't consist of a vast ediface of chance, wishful thinking and fraud is called "promising".

And what may this "promising" treatment do? You still get just as sick for several days, but on the last day, you feel better at breakfast-time instead of lunch.

And all that you can "promisingly" conclude is that water prepared in a particular manner has a tiny effect on a particular self-limited illness. No connection whatsoever can be made between that and some elaborate system of preparing other waters. I could just as easily use it to support my contention that choosing treatments that start with the letter "o" will do the trick.

That you expend so much effort over the acceptance of this pathetic little piece of "evidence" serves only to highlight the barrenness of the entire field of homeopathy.

Linda

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

If you are really serious scientists, you will experiment with using homeopathics on yourself when you are ill. The medicines are basically safe. You may actually be surprised.

Please explain why you consider it serious science to make uncontrolled self-experiments with medicines of unknown effects.

Also explain how a non-homeopath experimenting on self-cure has anything to do with proper homeopathic practice. IF homeopathic remedies worked the way homeopaths claim, the chance for an amateur to do more good than bad would be small.

Hans

[Rolfe]

Hans, perhaps he's suggesting that we should take a remedy to experience "proving" symptoms. Though why he should say that is safe, given the body of homoeopathic opinion that indicates serious harm occasionally results from provings, I don't know.

But as you and I both know, having tried it, no proving symptoms, even though we were assured that we would be "amazed" at what we'd experience.

Rolfe.

[kieran]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

What I did say is that it is highly unlikely that he could have completed his book, Origin of Species, if he had not received treatment from his homeopathic doctor, James Gully!

A claim for which you have no evidence. (The pesky little thing that obviously doesn't matter to you.)

Care to put a ball-park probability on your "highly unlikely" twaddle above? Why is it not even more probable that the treatment he received from his "homoeopathic" doctor had absolutely no beneficial effect? How do you know that it wasn't something else (healthier living has already been mentioned, the natural course of the illness is another) that happened at the same time that caused his improvement? In which case, it would be actually be highly likely "that he could have completed his book, Origin of Species, if he had not received treatment from his homeopathic doctor, James Gully!"

Originally Posted by JamesGully

This is a part of history, and nothing can change this history.

... but you obviously feel free to re-write history by quote mining. You know what you do ... and you know why you need to do it ...

JamesGully is both a hypocrite and intellectually dishonest.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Rolfe...Your arrogance is palpable, and your errors of fact are transparent. I previously gave you the page # (192...though you can also look at page 193) from Holmes' MEDICAL ESSAYS, but it seems that you've chosen to not look at this source, and instead, you have chosen to assume that I'm wrong. Whooops...but heck, you simply claim that I'm wrong without doing your homework...whooops again.

Holmes encouraged medical students to read the life and writings of Rush if they wanted "show a student the difficulties of getting at truth from medical experience." Holmes said of Rush that he "gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other." (page 193)

Wow, you've got some nerve! Having been thoroughly exposed in your cherry-picking quote-mining, you simply continue to repeat it! I realise this has already been said by others, but as it is me you are addressing, I'll repeat it.

When you look at your very own chosen quotes in context, it is perfectly clear that Holmes was criticising Rush as a prime example of all that he believed was wrong with the medical establishment of his day. Even the bare phrases you yourself quote do not support the interpretation (of "worship") you put on them. Even these phrases in isolation can obviously just as easily be taken to imply that Holmes was holding Rush up as a bad example rather than a good one, and hey, when we see the context (kindly provided by Mojo, but heck, let's just repeat it again), we can clearly see that that is exactly the case.

Quote:

But there are other special American influences which we are bound to take cognizance of. If I wished to show a student the difficulties of getting at truth from medical experience, I would give him the history of epilepsy to read. If I wished him to understand the tendencies of the American medical mind, its sanguine enterprise, its self-confidence, its audacious handling of Nature, its impatience with her old-fashioned ways of taking time to get a sick man well, I would make him read the life and writings of Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush thought and said that there were twenty times more intellect and a hundred times more knowledge in the country in 1799 than before the Revolution. His own mind was in a perpetual state of exaltation produced by the stirring scenes in which he had taken a part, and the quickened life of the time in which he lived. It was not the state to favor sound, calm observation. He was impatient, and Nature is profoundly imperturbable. We may adjust the beating of our hearts to her pendulum if we will and can, but we may be very sure that she will not change the pendulum's rate of going because our hearts are palpitating. He thought he had mastered yellow-fever. "Thank God," he said, "out of one hundred patients whom I have visited or prescribed for this day, I have lost none." Where was all his legacy of knowledge when Norfolk was decimated? Where was it when the blue flies were buzzing over the coffins of the unburied dead piled up in the cemetery of New Orleans, at the edge of the huge trenches yawning to receive them?

One such instance will do as well as twenty. Dr. Rush must have been a charming teacher, as he was an admirable man. He was observing, rather than a sound observer; eminently observing, curious, even, about all manner of things. But he could not help feeling as if Nature had been a good deal shaken by the Declaration of Independence, and that American art was getting to be rather too much for her,--especially as illustrated in his own practice. He taught thousands of American students, he gave a direction to the medical mind of the country more than any other one man; perhaps he typifies it better than any other. It has clearly tended to extravagance in remedies and trust in remedies, as in everything else. How could a people which has a revolution once in four years, which has contrived the Bowie-knife and the revolver, which has chewed the juice out of all the superlatives in the language in Fourth of July orations, and so used up its epithets in the rhetoric of abuse that it takes two great quarto dictionaries to supply the demand; which insists in sending out yachts and horses and boys to out-sail, out-run, out-fight, and checkmate all the rest of creation; how could such a people be content with any but "heroic" practice? What wonder that the stars and stripes wave over doses of ninety grains of sulphate of quinine, [More strictly, ninety-six grains in two hours. Dunglison's Practice, 1842, vol. ii. p. 520. Eighty grains in one dose. Ibid. p. 536. Ninety-six grains of sulphate of quinine are equal to eight ounces of good bark.--Wood & Bache.] and that the American eagle screams with delight to see three drachms of calomel given at a single mouthful?

Add to this the great number of Medical Journals, all useful, we hope, most of them necessary, we trust, many of them excellently well conducted, but which must find something to fill their columns, and so print all the new plans of treatment and new remedies they can get hold of, as the newspapers, from a similar necessity, print the shocking catastrophes and terrible murders.

James, do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? Do you now see that even your own cherry-picked quotes are holding Rush up as a bad example? Will you change what you have written?

Originally Posted by JamesGully

For the record...I never said or implied that Holmes changed his attitude towards homeopathy (he didn't!).

Incorrect. You have very definitely implied that Holmes changed his attitude to homoeopathy when you wrote

Quote:

In 1861, Dr. Holmes finally confessed that homeopathy “has taught us a lesson of the healing faculty of Nature which was needed, and for which many of us have made proper acknowledgements” (Holmes, 1891, x, xiii-xiv).

The words "finally confessed", followed by an out-of-context quote that appears to pronounce favourably on homoeopathy, most definitely imply that he changed his attitude. Since you acknowledge that he didn't, which makes this statement highly misleading, you should change what you have written. Will you do that?

Originally Posted by JamesGully

My point was that he didn't change a word of his essay on homeopathy despite the many errors of fact in it, including the WRONG analogy to dilutions (the 17th potency requires 17 testtubes of water...how or why he could assert any analogy to 10,000 Adriatic Seas is false).

Reading comprehension problems again? I thought you had understood how wrong you were about this, but it seems not.

First, read what Holmes has said. He is talking not about water as a solvent, but alcohol. Why do you continually refer to water?

Surely even you cannot possibly imagine that Holmes was "asserting" that 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic (of alcohol, no less!) was actually employed to make every 17C potency??? He said no such thing. He was in fact crystal clear about what he was saying.

Quote:

It must be remembered that these comparisons are not matters susceptible of dispute, being founded on simple arithmetical computations, level to the capacity of any intelligent schoolboy. A person who once wrote a very small pamphlet made some show of objecting to calculations of this kind, on the ground that the highest dilutions could easily be made with a few ounces of alcohol. But he should have remembered that at every successive dilution he lays aside or throws away ninety-nine hundredths of the fluid on which he is operating, and that, although he begins with a drop, he only prepares a millionth, billionth, trillionth, and similar fractions of it, all of which, added together, would constitute but a vastly minute portion of the drop with which he began. But now let us suppose we take one single drop of the Tincture of Camomile, and that the whole of this were to be carried through the common series of dilutions.

"Let us suppose" that we don't throw anything away, but dilute the entire starting amount of the mother tincture. Does "let us suppose" convey anything to you? I don't know how Holmes could have made himself any clearer. He was pointing out that the effective dilution reached at the end of the process was as if the original thimbleful of mother tincture had been diluted by that amount.

In this he was perfectly correct (allowing for the trifling errors of Lake Superior or the Caspian he alluded to). He points out that the comprehension of this is "within the capacity of any intelligent schoolboy". He even pokes mild fun at someone who had objected to the calculations on the grounds that in fact one only needs "a few ounces of alcohol" actually to go through the usual process. I think pretty much everyone, reading what he actually wrote, would agree that he'd made himself pretty clear.

But no, you James are still in the position of the "person who once wrote a very small pamphlet", apparently not understanding Holmes' very lucid point, and continuing to repeat the hoary old misunderstanding well over 150 years later. Have you got it into your skull yet? HOLMES WAS RIGHT. Will you change what you have written?

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Holmes' reference to the "research" by Andral back-fired on him. He should not have even mentioned this "study," and he should have acknowledged his errors in referencing it, even though he re-published his Essay 40 years later.

Holmes made reference to observations made by Andral. He was well aware that Andral's work had been criticised. He made reference to the criticisms in his essay. He also debunked those criticisms, and stated his opinion that Andral's work was valid. He gave his reasons for believing that.

Do you believe that everyone should "acknowledge their error" in referencing anything that has ever been subject to criticism, no matter how unfounded they believe that criticism to be? In that case, you'd better acknowledge as error pretty much everything you ever wrote, because pretty much all of that has been subjected to massive amounts of criticism. Elia, Rey, Roy, Benveniste, Ennis, Milgrom, Walach, all their publications (on homoeopathy) have been torn to shreds. So perhaps you shouldn't even mention them! And "acknowledge your error" when you have. Oh, what do I hear you say? You don't agree with these criticisms? Well, fancy that - Holmes didn't agree with the criticisms of Dr. Andral either, and said so, giving his reasons. I'd hardly call that backfiring.

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

You must take on board

• Holmes was deeply critical of Dr. Rush, holding him up as an example of all that he felt was wrong with the contemporary medical establishment
• Holmes never changed his mind about homoeopathy, and he never "finally confessed" anything in its favour
• Holmes was perfectly correct in pointing out that if the entire initial quantity of mother tincture was diluted, the final dilution would require a volume of alcohol ten thousand times the volume of the Adriatic sea
• Holmes made reference to the criticism of Andral's work, and explained his reasons for disagreeing with the critics

These facts are not subject to dispute, they are perfectly clear to anyone with a reading comprehension age of about 12. You must therefore change what you have written.

I see you're still banging on about "many errors of fact" in Holmes' essay. You have failed to demonstrate even one. Care to try again?

Rolfe.