More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[fls]

His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important.

If it had ever been demonstrated that homeopathy has anything to do with hormesis, that would possibly be relevant.

To quote Joan Cusack from Working Girl - "Sometimes I sing and dance around the house in my underwear. Doesn't make me Madonna."

Linda

 

[flimflam_machine]

fls,

I thought the bit about hormesis was the only reasonable bit of the paper, although in no way does it constitute evidence. If the effect of drugs is reversed at very low (but non-zero) concentrations then it would fit in with what homeopathy claims to do. If hormesis is simply a U-shaped distribution of response to drugs according to concentration then it's no help at all.

And 1,000+ studies? As far as I can see the paper referenced about 5.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I appreciate good skeptical thinking, and yet, am I the only one who thinks that no one responded to the numerous basic science and clinical studies that Dana Ullman referenced?

Yes.

Am I the only one who think that Ullman also gave a good, solid critique of that questionably done "meta-analysis" that sought to compare 110 homeopathic and allopathic studies?

Yes.

Am I the only one who is surprised that even the skeptics who did this study found that the homeopathic studies had a larger number of higher percentage of higher quality studies than the allopathic studies (by THEIR own definition of high quality studies).

Yes. To find that the homoepthic community produces a high percentage of good quality studies simply requires avoiding most of homeopathy's published evidence.

Humility is a healthy scientific attitude.

And something that the homeopathic community entirely lacks, resting its case so completely on personal anecdotal experience.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

A more important question, in view of the claims that it only works if properly individualised, is: why do homoeopaths not object to OTC "homoeopathic" remedies sold to treat a particular condition?

Or any of the other fatal internal inconsistencies that we have pointed out to homeopaths at various times and from which they have run as fast as their little chicken legs can carry them.

But since we seem to have a live homeopath on the line at the moment, perhaps he can answer Mojo's question.

He can then tell us whether remedies are neutralised by airport X-ray scanners.

He can then tell us about 'grafting remedies' and whether he thinks that works.

Does he agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

For a laugh he can tell us whether either of these machines works;

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

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

I have a number of follow-up questions about both machines, but let's start with the easy one first.

Hey, ho.

 

[fls]

fls,

I thought the bit about hormesis was the only reasonable bit of the paper, although in no way does it constitute evidence. If the effect of drugs is reversed at very low (but non-zero) concentrations then it would fit in with what homeopathy claims to do. If hormesis is simply a U-shaped distribution of response to drugs according to concentration then it's no help at all.

And 1,000+ studies? As far as I can see the paper referenced about 5.

They have simply hijacked the study of hormesis because there is a (very) superficial similarity (if you turn off the lights, squint your eyes, and tilt your head just so). And hormesis doesn't really find that the effects are reversed at low concentrations, but that the effect may be different in a way that may be characterized as positive or negative. However, that is still quite different from what homeopathy claims to do. In a way, the recognition of non-montonic (does not change in the same direction throughout) dose-response curves contradicts the principles of homeopathy. It tells you that you cannot predict the response at low doses based on the response at high doses - it has to be determined empirically.

Linda

 

[Chris Haynes]

Oh my.

I just read this. ...snip for brevity...The write-up, particularly in the second study on ANA titres, is almost laughably awful.

Is it really necessary to even bother with this?

Linda

Only for entertainment, which is why when a bathroom remodel and getting up at the crack of dawn to get kid to marching band engagements, a couple of child dental appointments and life in general got in the way, I only checked Orac's main page.

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).....

I take that as an admission that you do not understand what a percentage is. The "%" is shorthand for "out of 100", cent coming from the Latin word for hundred. Just as you do not understand that "nano" is a word used for a discrete value of 10^-9. Actually, the percentage of fissionable material is very pertinent to nuclear weapons --- just add another subject that you are clueless about.

Just to let you know that 200C translates to a percentage of (I may get the math wrong, corrections are welcome) to 10^-399% (it is written out in full at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm). I believe that means that there may be one molecule of duck stuff in the amount of water that would exist on several dozen Earths.

Edit to add: I now need to go sand about 70 square feet of wood paneling to prep it for painting.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

For people who are skeptical of homeopathy, it is usually because you are unfamiliar with its body of evidence, including its basic science, its clinical trials, its epidemiology, and its history. In addition to this body of evidence, it may be helpful to understand the physics of water.

The below article was published in the MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR by an Italian MD and senior research scientist at the University of Siena:
medscimonit.com/pub/vol_13/no_1/9827.pdf

Because I'm a relative newbie, I may not be able to post a link. If you cannot see it, you can go to this medical journal's website at medscionit.com and look under its January 2007 issue. This is a very impressive article. I am curious if any of you are really brave enough to comment on it.


Your bubble is about the pop. Enjoy it.

Impressive in what sense? I'm always impressed by the ease with which homeopaths are convinced by the flimsiest and vaguest of arguments so long as it is spiced with a few long scientificke words.

I wonder that is why homeopaths are so easily deluded into buying those expensive "remedy" making devices. If your critical faculties prevent you from distinguishing a wacky sales pitch from fact then you are going to find anything with a few clever-sounding words impressive.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

They have simply hijacked the study of hormesis because there is a (very) superficial similarity (if you turn off the lights, squint your eyes, and tilt your head just so). And hormesis doesn't really find that the effects are reversed at low concentrations, but that the effect may be different in a way that may be characterized as positive or negative. However, that is still quite different from what homeopathy claims to do. In a way, the recognition of non-montonic (does not change in the same direction throughout) dose-response curves contradicts the principles of homeopathy. It tells you that you cannot predict the response at low doses based on the response at high doses - it has to be determined empirically.

Linda

And the crucial thing is that hormesis still presupposes that the active agent is still actually pesent at those low doses.

 

[Lothian]

But I specifically asked for PERCENTAGES... You do know how to convert 200C to a percentage, right?

Is it
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

I have made the number big to show how strong the solution is.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Just to let you know that 200C translates to a percentage of (I may get the math wrong, corrections are welcome) to 10^-399% (it is written out in full at http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/homeopathy2.htm). I believe that means that there may be one molecule of duck stuff in the amount of water that would exist on several dozen Earths.

And the rest.

The point though, is that the whole terminology of "dilution" is (deliberately) misleading. Homeopaths pregressively replace (putatively) active ingredient with solvent. The rest of us call the process "rinsing". It's not very spooky and I find that when I rinse a coffee cup it is just cleaner than it was before rather than coming to contain super-potent essence of coffee.

 

[Mojo]

The rest of us call the process "rinsing". It's not very spooky and I find that when I rinse a coffee cup it is just cleaner than it was before rather than coming to contain super-potent essence of coffee.

I always make sure I tap all the crockery against a leather-bound book whenever I do the washing up.

 

[fls]

And the crucial thing is that hormesis still presupposes that the active agent is still actually pesent at those low doses.

While I think focussing on the dilution factor provides us with an easy way to demonstrate the silliness to those who are naive wrt homeopathy, I think it should also be pointed out that the principles of homeopathy still have no scientific basis even if active ingredients are present.

Linda

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

While I think focussing on the dilution factor provides us with an easy way to demonstrate the silliness to those who are naive wrt homeopathy, I think it should also be pointed out that the principles of homeopathy still have no scientific basis even if active ingredients are present.

Linda

That's the thing with homeopathy: it's wrong in so many different ways that it's hard to to decide where to start first.

 

[fls]

That's the thing with homeopathy: it's wrong in so many different ways that it's hard to to decide where to start first.

I know. When the woos don't toss us a bone every once in a while, we start chewing on ourselves.

Linda

 

[fls]

Is it
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%

I have made the number big to show how strong the solution is.

The optical illusion that creates is kinda cool.

Linda

 

[fuelair]

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).

And I'm still waiting for your critique of the CHEST study on COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die).

I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine. His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important...but I doubt you are really interested in studies or science, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Really. Let's get serious. Avoid the name-calling...and the paternalistic "Sir Dana" stuff. You're embarrassing other people who would like to agree with you.

Honest, he's not embarassing me at all! Though I think someone here should be embarassed passing this off as true science (the key phrase is double-blind - if it "can't be tested that way" then it is not science. You are free to call it something else, I like pseudo-science for it myself).

 

[fuelair]

I do not answer really stupid questions like that. I'm more interest in controlled clinical trials. Are you? Are you or are you not interested in scientific experiments? It is like asking what percentage of matter vs. space is there inside an atomic bomb (that question is NOT the point of it).

And I'm still waiting for your critique of the CHEST study on COPD (the #4 reason that people in the US die).

I'm not as interested in theories as I am in controlled studies.

I'm also interested in the physics of water...and that article referenced above from MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR is very intriguing and is worthy of anyone who is serious about science and medicine. His references to the 1,000+ studies on HORMESIS is also important...but I doubt you are really interested in studies or science, but I hope you can prove me wrong. Really. Let's get serious. Avoid the name-calling...and the paternalistic "Sir Dana" stuff. You're embarrassing other people who would like to agree with you.

Also, I believe you mean the chemistry of water - the physics of water is the physics of almost all liquids - thus hydraulics.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Understanding water and homeopathy

Understanding water is not a simple subject. I recommend reading the work of Rustum Roy, PhD, professor of material sciences at Penn State University and head of a material sciences lab that the ISI considers to be the best in the world. Besides having almost 700 papers published, he has had 13 papers published in NATURE.

Because I'm still a newbie to this list, I cannot provide a full URL for a recent article. Just add the www to it:

rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf

Dr. Roy will have another even more important article published shortly, though I wonder how many of you are serious enough to follow the science.

As for double-blind research, the arsenic study mentioned previously was a randomized double-blind trial for the GROUP A. This is undeniable. GROUP B choose not to be given a chance for a placebo, and if you wish, you can ignore this group. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that both the people in GROUP A who were given a homeopathic dose of arsenic and the people in GROUP B who were also given this medicine experienced a significant increase in certain detoxifying liver enzymes, while people in GROUP A who were given a placebo didn't.

The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.

The amazing feature of skeptics of homeopathy is that you assume that homeopaths have some magical power that other people don't seem to have and just by "magic" those people get better. An easier (and more probable) explanation is that nanopharmacology works.

I'm glad that some of you appreciate HORMESIS. If so, why do you think that medicine is ignoring it, despite the 1,000+ studies? Is homeo-phobia real?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Oh my.

I just read this. I thought that the degree of hubris he was exhibiting indicated at least some understanding of the necessary science. But instead he chooses to beat you over the head with uncontrolled studies on arsenic (hint: you actually have to read the study to see that it was uncontrolled since the authors chose to advertise otherwise (another hint: a control group actually has to be comparable to the treatment group to be considered a control group))? The write-up, particularly in the second study on ANA titres, is almost laughably awful.

Is it really necessary to even bother with this?

Linda

Another reason is that Dana Ullman (despite his lack of math skills and understanding of basic science) has set himself up as a big homeopathy expert. He has written several books... and does practice medicine without a license. From http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk11.html

According to Ollivier, Dana Ullman, an advisory board member of alternative-medicine institutes at Harvard's and Columbia's schools of medicine, is a leading spokesman for homeopathy.

Do a Google search on homeopathy, and his name pops up. Though I am quite fond of this google find: http://www.dcscience.net/quack.html where it says

But they completely ruin their case by including quite barmy homilies about homeopathy (and here), water structure and traditional chinese medicine. There is also an amazing piece of sheer pseudo-scientific nonsense, "Homeopathic Medicine is Nanopharmacology" by Dana Ullman (though elsewhere on the site, nanotechnology gets a bad press).

He is the American equivalent (or fancies himself as such) of the UK's Peter Fisher: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/default.asp?Display=110 ...
... or Lionel Milgrom (who is really not terribly observent): http://www.badscience.net/?p=341

(note if you have an hour to spare, the video of Dr. Goldacre debating Dr. Fisher at http://www.badscience.net/?p=339 is quite entertaining!)

Anytime his lack of answering direct questions (like the percentage of duck bits in some flu nostrum), lack of understanding basic science and general evasiveness can be brought to light is not only entertaining, but shows the exactly how the reality of homeopathy is so incredibly shallow.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...The COPD study was another great trial, as was the severe sepsis trial, both of which were conducted at the University of Vienna Hospital.
...

In the sepsis trial after 180 days 75% of the "homeopathic" patients survived, versus 50% of the "placebo" patients. Since the total number in the study was 35 people... it was not that big of a deal.

Do you know any math at all? We have figured out that you don't do percentages, so I guess basic statistics is just beyond any comprehension.

The conclusion I got from both papers is that if you are traveling try not to get sick in either Graz or Vienna while in Austria (stay in Salzburg, it may be touristy, but it is a nice touristy!... though the camping grounds were a bit too close to the train tracks).