More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Mojo]

 

[Cuddles]

When you consider that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century

Homeopathy didn't "become popular" in the 19th century it was invented in the 19th century.

How about calling the tablets "lactose" and the liquids "water/alcohol"?

I vote for calling them alcohol. And drinking them in copious amounts.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Badly Shaven Monkey said that there was discussion elsewhere on this list that provided a critique of Rey's thermoluminesence work. I read a lot of study on this list about his work, but I saw no reasonable or good critique of it. Because it was published in such a high grade physics journal, the ball is in the skeptics' court to provide a specific critique. Please enlighten me.

I appreciate Hans remarks about me (calling me "literate"). Thanx Hans. You're one of the few gentlemen here. There is too much name-calling and knee-jerk reactions.

I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.

Although Hans doesn't like it when I (or probably anyone else) uses the word "may," I prefer to remain humble in what I know (and don't know) until there is further verification (skeptics should appreciate this type of attitude rather than rebuke it).

The fact that double-distilled water has both silica fragments floating in it along with whatever was the original medicinal substance, I wonder if the structure of the water is changed.

I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it? Structure actually is very important.

Another important question is: what is the chemical difference between graphite and diamond? Nothing...and yet, one of one of the softest elements and one is one of the hardest. It isn't the chemical composition that is so important as it is its structure.

As for the CDs: there is NO chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. The difference between these 2 disks is that information is stored on one and there is no information stored on the other.

The bottomline here is that homeopaths may have found a way to store information in water. I realize that most of the people on this list tend to have a knee-jerk anti-homeopathic reaction, but I challenge you all to explore the possibility that the homeopaths may be right.

In the meantime, please also consider reviewing the other articles that I referenced earlier by the Italian chemistry professor Elia whose work has been published in grade A science journals.

I realize that some of you will try to pick out one error in my thinking, and I do not claim to be a techie...but I urge you to explore AND acknowledge what may be RIGHT in what I've presented here (this may be a rare one for you...but can it happen?).

 

[Yahzi]

Obviously, I really speak for nobody here but myself

Don't be so modest.

You're speaking for everybody with a brain.

 

[Yahzi]

How can you distinguish an active homoeopathic remedy from the inactive stock solvent?

What? That's easy!

An active remedy is one you pay me for.

 

[Yahzi]

I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it? Structure actually is very important.

It's not that the concept of structure of water is foreign to us; it is that the concept of structure is foreign to you.

Structure implies, well, structure. Water implies the opposite of structure; liquids are a state characterized by their lack of structure. Indeed, if they had structure, they wouldn't be liquids.

Ice has structure. Because it's, you know, solid. Ice particles don't move around.

Water does not have structure. Because it's, you know, liquid. Water particles move around.

You keep talking about CDs and information. Well, have you ever tried to write your name on water?

I can write my name on a CD with a pen, an old rusty nail, or a complicated CD writing machine. But the only way I can write my name in water, and read it 3 seconds later, is if I freeze the water first.

So it has, you know, structure.

I realize that some of you will try to pick out one error in my thinking

The only difficulty was restricting myself to one.

but I urge you to explore AND acknowledge what may be RIGHT in what I've presented here (this may be a rare one for you...but can it happen?).

Ah, nothing is more ironic than a post that begins with a plea for us to avoid knee-jerk namecalling, and ends with an insult to our integrity.

 

[Mojo]

I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.

If the remedy in question is silica.

And would you like to clarify the apparent non-sequitur in that last sentence: "because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number"? are you suggesting that this effect wouldn't occur if non-distilled water was used?

The bottomline here is that homeopaths may have found a way to store information in water.

The "bottomline" here is that there is no evidence that they have. Speculating about mechanisms for an alleged effect does not make that effect real.

 

[Gravy]

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?

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

Said "controlled studies" shown to be bunk. 45 minutes later:

Rather than discuss the clinical research literature or the basic science literature in homeopathy, let's first talk about more fundamental issues in homeopathy...how they may work. First...I do not know a single physician or patient who didn't take aspirin just because s/he didn't know its mechanism of action (and we only began to understand this just 20 or so years ago).

Likewise, just because we don't yet fully understand how homeopathic medicines work doesn't mean that they don't nor does any disproven theory about the mechanism of action disprove clinical efficacy (we can have this discussion at another time).

Seriously, James/Dana, have you no shame? I've never seen such a fast retreat back to the emotional safety of woo-woo "theory." What happened to your challenge to examine controlled studies?

​

 

[Mojo]

"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly chickened out."

 

[Michael C]

I realize this concept of "structure of water" may be foreign to many people, but think of it this way: what is the chemical difference between a blank CD-ROM and a CD-ROM that has 18 encyclopedias on it?

No, there's no chemical difference between the two CD-ROMs. But there is a vital difference between the CD-ROM with 18 encyclopaedias on it and some water that may or may not have information stored in it: we know exactly how to get the information into the CD-ROM and we know exactly how to get it out again. If we send the CD-ROM to somebody without telling them what's on it, they can find out. But what if we send them a bottle of water? They have absolutely no way of telling if the structure of the water contains information from arnica, nux vomica, pulsatilla or maybe nothing at all. And the best homeopathic laboratories in the world cannot help them.

So I'll repeat my question, because it would be nice to have a straight answer:

How do you know that the distilling of water removes all the "memory" that it had, but water that comes into contact with lactose and then evaporates will transfer its memory to the lactose?

 

[Geckko]

I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.

Wow,

So we're actually talking about the wonderous physiological efffects of "glass water" then.

 

[Rolfe]

Silica? Wow, Kumar lives!

Before speculating as to how homoeopathic remedies might "work", it is first necessary to show objectively that they do have some effect. Medically, we have seen nothing which can't be explained by coincidental recovery and wishful thinking. Individual reports of dramatic miracle cures retreat into statistical noise when any larger trial is done. The best anecdotes James has recounted are so old that nobody can check their veracity. Statistically positive reports are invariably published by homoeopathic proponents and open to much methodological criticism. Nobody has ever been able to design a satisfactory trial which gives repeatable results no matter who is carrying it out.

Proving trials are full of subjectivity and post hoc rationalisation. Where there are control subjects, they invariably report just as interesting symptoms as those given the remedy. While many homoeopaths insist that one only has to take a remedy and experience the proving symptoms to be convinced (and I have done this at the urging of one of them and experienced nothing out of the ordinary), none of them is able to distinguish between a real potentised remedy and the unpotentised stock carrier material in this way.

So why is there any need to propose weird and wonderful theories about the memory of water when we have no proven repeatable phenomenon which needs such an explanation? James, don't you realise that if you had a real effect there, one which you or anyone else could reliably demonstrate, the world's physicists and chemists would be all over it, trying to find out what's going on that apparently contradicts all they think they know about the universe? And hey, they'd start by examining the phenomenon, not by assuming the phenomenon exists and going off at a tangent looking for possible mechanisms which don't really relate to the phenomenon as described (for example, if the phenomenon is described in normal water, they won't be looking in deuterated water). Instead, all we see are one or two homoeopathic enthusiasts clearly in well over their heads, publishing work which is mainly composed of speculation about what might possibly cause a phenomenon they can't actually demonstrate.

First, demonstrate your phenomenon in a way that will convince reasonable people that there's more there than coincidence and imagination. Then we'll see. You could start by showing that you can actually tell a potentised remedy, the basic tool of your trade, from an unpotentised sham. Any way you like. Any way at all. If you can't do it, then what is there to explain?

Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, ....

Please demonstrate that Hahnemann, who after all claimed to have discovered the alleged phenomenon, did all the early investigation of it, and whose work is still held to be the basis of all homoeopathic practice, used double distilled water.

Rolfe.

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

JamesGully:

There really is only one hope left for homeopathy. Test a homeopathic remedy while carrying out proofings simultaneously. Take three randomly composed groups. Use group A to carry out the proofing. After those symptons occuring more often than expected in group A have been determined, see if these *specific* symptons also occur more often than expected in group B. It is imperative that the experimenters doing the proofing are not aware of the results from group B until they are done. If the spikes in group A were caused by chance, you will have little chance to find the same spikes again in group B. Group C will be your placebo control group. Any symptons occuring unusually often in this group are the result of bias, and may not be used to find common spikes between group A and B.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Before I reference some of the clinical trials, I thought I would first focus our discussion on a more difficult subject: how homeopathic medicines may work.

I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

Several years ago, I debated Saul Green, PhD, a chemist and skeptic of homeopathy. He thoroughy embarrassed himself and fellow skeptics by answering this question by saying that it was "folk wisdom." Needless to say, that is not the right answer.

What do YOU think is the right answer?

 

[Michael C]

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

As far as I know, the process used is that known as "proving". A number of people are given a homeopathic preparation of a substance (30c potency seems to be popular) and any symptoms they report are noted. In the reports of proving that I've seen, the homeopaths and the provers apparently knew what the original substance was, and there seemed to be a lot of subjective analysis of data.

I'll be very grateful if you can give a detailed account of how proving is done, or point me to some references. In particular, two things interest me:

1. Are any provings done using double-blind methods?

2. If you had two homeopathic remedies with dissimilar effects, but had lost the labels on the bottles so that you no longer knew which remedy was in which bottle, could a proving enable you to find out which was which?

 

[Pipirr]

I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Dana, for a pithy comment Louis Rey's research, allow me to quote the man who kick-started the 'memory of water' idiocy, Jacques Benveniste:

"This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did."

Quite so.

Perhaps you and your colleagues would like to put some of your large profit margins to good use, and try to repeat his work, using better designed protocols. Heck, if even Benveniste can see the faults, that piece of science must have really stunk.

So how about it? What plans do you have to increase the evidence base for homeopathy? Or are you just going to cling to opinion pieces and speculation by retired professors?

 

[Mojo]

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

You're asking about homoeopathic "provings". A remedy is given to a number of volunteers and they report what they feel. It's often said that homoeopaths then use the remedy to treat patients suffering from a similar pattern of symptoms to those apparently produced by the remedy.

This isn't really how homoeopaths (or classical homoeopaths, at least) treat patients, though. They ask the patient for a detailed description of their symptoms, and then select an appropriate remedy. If this doesn't work, they select another remedy. This is repeated until the patient appear to show an improvement, or appears to get worse (this is described as an "aggravation"). The last remedy given is then identified as the correct one.

So in fact the way homoeopaths determine what a remedy is effective in treating is to apply the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy on an individualised case-by-case basis.

 

[Gravy]

Before I reference some of the clinical trials, I thought I would first focus our discussion on a more difficult subject: how homeopathic medicines may work.

Still running away? It's been repeatedly explained to you that unless homeopathy can be shown to work, there's no need to hypothesize about its mechanism. Without properly controlled, repeatable results to point to, we may as well be discussing how prayer works or how unicorn bladders function.

I still find it interesting that no one is responding to my references to the high quality basic science research published in grade A science journals, specifically the work of Rey, Elia, and Roy. Roy's work on the "structure of water" seems to be too technical for some of you. That's OK...I don't expect everyone to understand every area of science, but just because you don't understand how you can "write" on homeopathy doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Please direct me to the properly controlled, repeatable studies that demonstrate the efficacy of homeopathy.

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude. However, he found that once water is frozen at one altitude, it "remembers" the structure of the water and refreezes in a similar pattern at a different altitude. Water does seem to have a memory, and you can seem to "write" on it.

You're digging deeper and deeper. Evidence that water "remembers" a compound of which no molecules are present? Well?

Since some of you claim to be literate on homeopathy, I challenge you to answer one of the most basic questions about homeopathy: HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

A homeopath doesn't, since homeopaths don't use medicine. Feel free to prove me wrong by pointing to those trials and studies.

What seems to be the delay?

 

[Chris Haynes]

"When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled
Yes brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly chickened out."

Hence the term: Brave Sir Dana

Oh, I notice Mr. Gully is complaining that "no one responded to the "scientific" studies I mentioned" ... actually, we have. You just chose to ignore them. For instance the Rey studies have been discussed often on this forum, all you have to do is use the search feature to find them (hint, look at the bottom of the black banner on top of the page for the word "Search").

 

[Madalch]

I was disappointed that nobody made any comment on my reference to the recent discovery of silica fragments falling off from the inner part of glass bottles in the making of the homeopathic medicines. Because homeopaths have always used a double-distilled water, this "contamination" with silica or silicate fragments may help us understand the possibility of a certain physicality to the homeopathic doses even beyond Avogadro's number.

If this were the cause of homeopathic "cures", then any water that's been in a glass container will work as well as any remedy, the only difference being in the kind of glass (fused quartz, borosilicate, etc) used. There'd be no difference between one "remedy" and another, or the water that comes straight out of the kitchen tap and into a glass.

Another important question is: what is the chemical difference between graphite and diamond? Nothing...and yet, one of one of the softest elements and one is one of the hardest. It isn't the chemical composition that is so important as it is its structure.

The chemical difference between diamond and graphite is not nothing. They may have the same elemental composition (pure carbon), but the molecular structure is completely different- graphite contains sheets of sp2 hybridized carbons; diamond contains a lattice of sp3 hybridized carbons.

When we talk about structural differences, we're talking about molecular structures- that's why diamond is different from graphite, and ethanol is different from dimethyl ether (despite them both being C2H6O).

Water does not change its molecular structure. It's an oxygen with two hydrogens bonded to it, with approximately 109 degrees between the two O-H bonds.

Any further structure in the liquid state doesn't last for any significant amount fo time.