More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Lothian]

HOW DOES A HOMEOPATH DETERMINE WHAT A MEDICINE IS EFFECTIVE IN TREATING?

I think the replies to this to date have looked at theory rather than practice.

In practice a homeopath will talk to the patient about the individuality of homeopathic treatments and how there are not general homeopathic medicines that always work, rather homeopathy is a delicate balance between medicine and the patient, a balance that needs a homeopath to manage. (Lets face it homeopaths don’t want a customer paying £2.30 a bottle down the local health shop when he can dispense within a £40 session).

What the homeopath will do is prescribe a different combination of placebos each ‘treatment’ and once the patient recovers he will determine that the last prescribed treatments were effective

 

[JJM]

Linda (fls) asked what we get out of this. I replied that I learn from many of you.

I must ask- what does GullyUllman get from this? His profound ignorance and immunity to education are manifest; and he is clearly, intellectually outclassed.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

Actually this is not quite true. Store-bought CDs have the information stamped onto them in a physical structure, that is true. However, homeopathy seems closer to recordable or re-writeable CDs where a blank CD can be written to and later wiped and used again. These CDs use a chemical dye that exists in two distinct forms which reflect the light in difference ways. When light of a specific frequency is shone on the dye it changes from one form to the other. The whole principle behind CDs is in fact chemistry. The difference between a blank CD-R and one with data is the chemistry.

Of course, the more important thing that you fail to noice is that chemistry is structure. That's all it is. Chemistry is all about the bonds between atoms and molecules. If the structure is different then so is the chemistry. That's the whole point of it. You can't say that something has a different structure but no chemical difference because the difference in structure is a chemical difference.

You claim there is no chemical difference between diamond and graphite? Clearly you have no understanding whatsoever of chemistry. The very big chemical difference between them is that in one each carbon atom has three covalent bonds while in the other each atom has four. I'll leave it as a class exercise for you to determine which is which.

 

[kieran]

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.

I can, without wasting too much of my otherwise valuable time, devise extensive tests for whether a CD-ROM is blank or has 18 encyclopedias on it, and also whether a particular substance is graphite or diamond ... If these issues were in debate (and applicable for the JREF prize) then I'd be at the front of the cue to take a test.

Many people have tried to construct tests about whether there is any effect on the water or the patients with homoeopathy - but the best that can be said is that there is a very slight statistical anomaly in some studies.

Some people speculate about how it might work ... big deal.

I prefer not to waste my time speculating about how something (for which there is no evidence) may or may not, work. Am I taking a fundamentally stupid or lazy position?

If there was a shread of reasonable and reproducable evidence then I'd be more than happy to use up time and effort understanding or speculating on how it works. So homoeopaths may be right, but they are just completely inept at illustrating any kind of homoeopathic effect, so it is more likely that they are, in fact, wrong.

Now, what smoke-screen do you wish to move on to in order to cover up your actual lack of any evidence?

 

[Chris Haynes]

I can, without wasting too much of my otherwise valuable time, devise extensive tests for whether a CD-ROM is blank or has 18 encyclopedias on it, and also whether a particular substance is graphite or diamond ... If these issues were in debate (and applicable for the JREF prize) then I'd be at the front of the cue to take a test.

..

...

To determine whether or not a basic CD-R is blank or has data written on it... turn it over, look at the business side of the disk. Since it is a dye that the laser writes on, the written part has a different color. It is subtle, but it is there (turn it about, you'll see a slight difference in reflectivity).

Now try that with a homeopathic remedy. Better yet, take several bottles... take off the labels, and then see if you can tell the difference between Natrum Mur 30C and Oscillococcinum 200C.

Of course, if anyone can really do that, there is a bunch of money to win!

 

[Dana Ullman]

Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.

Hydrogen Cyanide mentioned that there are many critiques of the work of the physicist Rey on this list, but when I read many (not all) of the responses on the randi list, I didn't find any reasonably good critiques. Please point me to what you consider to be the best one. I'm open to learning, but there is a lot of people on this list who think that they know what they're talking about, but who simply have not done their homework.

Speaking of H.C....if you will be convinced about homeopathy by a good experiment that will show that specific modern technologies can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another and even one post-Avogadro's number and another, then I will soone expect you to be a leading advocate for homeopathy. The newest work by Rustum Roy is just that. The newest study will be published shortly, and you get info about it at the webcast press conference that was held last month. The Penn State / University of Arizona research webcast on ultra-dilue sols on May 16 -- a recording of it is attached for your use. Because I'm a newbie, you'll have to cut and paste this url:
infiniteconferencing.com/Events/nch/051607nch/recording-playback.html.

To remind you, Dr. Roy has published over a dozen articles in NATURE.

I'm also glad that some of you acknowledge the importance of STRUCTURE of elements, not just chemical composition. You will learn more about the importance of the structure of water by reading Rustum Roy's work.

Mojo is totally incorrect on the use of "provings" in homeopathy. Provings are either single- or double-blind trials that homeopaths or researchers conduct to determine the symptoms that a substance causes. Every adequately trained homeopath uses information from provings to find a medicine for a person. Good homeopaths prescribe a medicine based on the overall SYNDROME (the totality of physical and psychological symptoms) rather than just the disease.

Gravy wonders why I haven't listed clinical trials. I wonder why Gravy doesn't read previous references! You asked for replicated trials. Here's 3 trials by INDEPENDENT researchers testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu:
Casanova, P, Gerard R. Bilan de 3 annees d'estudes randomisees multicentriques Oscillococcinum/placebo. Oscillococcinum-rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan : Laboratoires Boiron; 1992:11-16.

J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35.

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al, "Oscillococcinum in Patients with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo Controlled Double-blind Evaluation," British Homeopathic Journal, April, 1998,87:69-76.

Also...MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476. This trial of 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis showed a substantially significant difference in the objective measure of nasal airflow in patients given a 30C potency of the specific substance to which they were most allergic, as compared to those patients given a placebo (P=0.0001). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in visual analogue scales. In reviewing the 4 trials with allergy patients (N=253), the researchers found a 28% improvement in visual analogue scores in those given a homeopathic medicine, as compared to a 3% improvement in patients given a placebo (P=.0007).

As for a replicated basic science trial, Professor Ennis (a FORMER skeptic of homeopathy) was a part of this replication trial: Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflamm Res 2004; 53:181-8. Four independent laboratories, each associated with a university, conducted a series of experiments using dilutions of histamine beyond Avogadro's number (the 15th through 19th centesimal dilution, that is 10 -15 to 10 -19. The researchers found inhibitory effects of histamine dilutions on basophil degranulation triggered by anti-IgE. A total of 3,674 data points were collected from the four laboratories. The overall effects were highly significant (p<0.0001). The test solutions were made in independent laboratories, the participants were blinded to the content of the test solutions, and the data analysis was performed by a biostatistian who was not involved in any other part of the trial.

 

[JJM]

Mr. GullyUllman, I know a sig-line meant for you-

If you can't understand; maybe it's you: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

It goes with Mark Twain's observation that

ignorance gives rise to more confidence than does knowledge.

 

[Lothian]

Wow.............

Wow indeed, there is all this sound scientific evidence for homeopathy yet a little over 99.9% of scientists refuse to believe in it and denounce it as bunk. I wonder what they are missing? Unless, no, surely not, perhaps, I wonder, no that's daft, it can't be. James, Why do you think proper scientists aren't convinced by the wealth of solid evidence?

Am I right in thinking that Professor Ennis’s replicated basic science trial, is the same trail that spectacularly failed to replicate when conducted properly on the Horizon programme ?

 

[Michael C]

Am I right in thinking that Professor Ennis’s replicated basic science trial, is the same trail that spectacularly failed to replicate when conducted properly on the Horizon programme ?

The Horizon trial was similar to the Ennis trial, which was based on trials by Benveniste. Here's a reference to another trial that was unable to replicate the results of Ennis or Benveniste: http://www.vfk.ch/infos/fachliteratur/Baumgartner/Guggisberg2005.pdf

 

[Mojo]

Mojo is totally incorrect on the use of "provings" in homeopathy.

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.

Oh well, I guess that's "like cures like" thrown out of the window then...

 

[Mojo]

Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.

By the way, I notice that you're still avoiding any discussion of evidence as to whether or not homoeopathy actually works.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I'm back, but we seem to have broken him.

Shame.

 

[Mojo]

To remind you, Dr. Roy has published over a dozen articles in NATURE.

Was the article you're referring to published in Nature? If not, then this is not relevant: it's just an attempt on your part to give this particular paper an authority it may not have.

 

[Baron Samedi]

At least to some. This really was the last straw for me. I think I now at last understand why homeopathy is so incredibly persistent. It's persistency is the one thing that had me believe that "there had to be more to it than the placebo effect". I've been readin over the term 'emotional investment' without a second thought until it quite suddenly got stuck in my head and made me remember my experiences with homeopathy.

Healers in general (whether they are doctors or quaks) have a high social standing. Their patients concider them invaluable people in their lives. Homeopathy is an easy way for a person to achieve this standing. Once they have a stable circle of patients who keep telling them they feel better because of their treatments they will put themselves at the same level as a doctor. Because scientific research disproves the efficacy of their remedies they also start to think they know more then conventional doctors because those doctors can't even prove let alone understand how homeopathy cures people while they clearly see that they do. It's really not that hard to simply ignore or put down good scientific research when personal experience is valued above scientific research as a way of life.

Now imagine you're a 50 year old housewife with no higher education and you got all that. What happens when you give that up? From a noble and deeply spiritual healer battleing against sickness and prejudice of scientific researchers you are suddenly reduced to a deluded old woman who sells bottles of water, with virtually no chance of doing anything in the future that comes even close to the glory of her former position.

I tried to explain to my homepathic therapist that based on all the studies I had read that I could no longer believe homeopathy was effective, and that we both had to accept the concequences of that. I had to stop taking medicine, and since she always just wanted to make people's lives better, should close her shop. Well, I just kinda got shut out.

DOG, I just wanted to say what a good explanation you had here, and add in my two cents. You really hit the nail on the head. When I've talked to homeopaths, their successes are usually in the form of self referential follow-ups, as in, the "patient" comes back to the homeopath to say that they feel better. This kind of proof is never valid in any way (and I use the word "proof" very loosely here).

Think about companies who have a link on their web page, "Click here to contact us!" Who clicks that link? People whose comments are really complaints -- no one would ever take the time or energy to write back to say, "Hi, I bought your product and thought it was... well... okay." Same with homeopaths. They might treat 100 people with similar ailments, and of those, 10 come back to say that they feel "better". There's no comparisons against baseline, no control group, no comparisons against treating the ailment with a medicine, nothing but the 10 referrals. They have 10 positive feedbacks, so they continue, firmly in the belief that they did good. Forget about the other 90 people that didn't reply because the homeopathic remedy didn't work, or that the person cannot reply to anyone, period.

And yet, of course, the homeopath tells themselves, "Well, I was able to help just one person out there, and that makes it all worth while." It's that line, that reaching out of just one person, that sounds so noble, and yet shows how flawed their system is.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Mr Ullman,

You have chosen to lecture us on science but have shown no facility whatsoever in handling scientific evidence. Spouting the same old tired and discredited studies does not count and, more importantly, it does not show that you understand their content. Frankly if you did understand them you'd see why we find them funny. Anyway,

8. Explain, in yor own words, why those words of Beneviste's about Rey's experiments are so hilariously fatal to their credibility.

Come on, you like to talk the big talk. Show you can walk the big walk.

You have still not answered the other questions, so here they are again;

1. Can you tell us whether remedies are neutralised by airport X-ray scanners?

2. Can you tell us about 'grafting remedies' and whether you think that works.

3. Do you tell agree that during a homeopathic proving the people involve risk serious and long-term harm being caused?

4. Can you tell us whether either of these machines works?

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

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

5. Can you tell us whether "constitutional remedies" work?

6. what are the more likely explanations of the alleged successes reported in 19th century epidemic disease?

7. please explain why, in the context of homeopathic pharmacy, the use of double-distilled water is so utterly irrelevant. (Clue: do the arithmetic to find out the concentrations of substances other than H2O in DDW).

The problem here, is that we can track your evasions perfectly well and keep highlighting them. You are supposed to be one of homeopathy's "Big Hitters". Surely you can do better than this.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

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.

Were you? Bits of silica come off glass during washing. I think this is up with revelations like "The Sun is hot" and "Man finds arse with both hands". Undoubtedly true, but hardly relevant to your cause.

Mind you, I expect you can make all your remedies by grafting so the chemistry of water has no relevance to you. I wonder why you keep wanting to discuss these irrelevances. As has already been pointed out, you said you wanted to discuss trials. But, instead you keep banging on with these fairy stories of mechanisms for your non-existent effect.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Mojo says that I haven't answered the question "Does homeopathy work?" My references to the randomized double-blind and placebo controlled trials on influenza don't count? How about my references to the work by Dr David Reilly and team on allergy and asthma? And how about the high quality studies on basophils by Ennis and a 4 university laboratories.

As the for BBC's Horizon trial...that one was totally laughable, laughable. This is one reason that I have no respect for James Randi. He has been informed of the "junk science" that the BBC and ABC's 20/20 created, and rather than stand on the side of good science, he stood on the side of "junk science." The producers of these experiments thought they were getting a replication trial of Ennis' work, but that is NOT what they got. According to Wayne Turnbull, the "lab technician" who did the study, he created his own study...but sadly, because he was ill-informed and inexperience (and unpublished) in basophil research, he created many embarrassing mistakes in the trial. For a full critique of Turnbull work, see:
homeopathic.com/articles/media/index.php (cut and paste it).

Note: Wayne Turnbull was the "scientist" (actually, he is a lab technician with no published research on basophils) who Horizon and 20/20 hired.

Briefly, The Horizon and 20/20 experiments used a chemical, ammonium chloride, that is known to destroy basophils, the type of white blood cell that was under study. The experiment was designed to fail even before any homeopathic medicine was administered. Because this chemical was not used in any of the previous studies that have been published in peer-review scientific journals, this study was "junk science" and that any results from this study are of no value.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experiments also used a chemical called "foetal calf serum" (the blood from a calf foetus). According to experts in basophils and experts who had previously conducted this experiment successfully, this chemical complex is not a "recognized medium" for laboratory experiments of this sort, and its effects on basophils are presently unknown. It should also be noted that the experiment produced by Horizon and 20/20 was created by an employee at a London hospital who didn't know the answers to some simple questions about basophils when asked by Professor Ennis. Also, to be done correctly, this experiment requires "clean" basophils, and the use of foetal calf serum alters the binding reactions of the basophils. Whooops.

• The Horizon and 20/20 experimenter left the blood containing basophils to be collected to sit and sediment for 4 hours. It is known that basophils are extremely fragile, thus, leaving them to sit for 4 hours disturbed their viability and rendered them useless for scientific experimental purposes. Whooops.

I will be curious if people on this list will stand with Turnbull. Come on, stand up and be counted. Stand with an unpublished lab tech or four university laboratories who used respected and well-published PhD scientists.

I've already answer Mr. Monkey's questions about which I care...re-read my previous emails.

As for Roy's research, I previously mentioned that he has had over a dozen articles published in NATURE. This fact suggests that he is a highly respected scientist.

One of the ways that I have observed the fundamentalist thinking of the participants on this list is that you NEVER admit error and NEVER admit to ANY studies or replications of studies. I'm still waiting for some critique of the flu trials, the allergy/asthma trials, the thermodynamics research by Elia, good critique of Rey, and good critique of Roy (not just the character assassination baloney that too many of you love to do)...

You've got some work to do. Now, who of you is brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all?

 

[Lothian]

You've got some work to do. Now, who of you is brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all?

I am certainly brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be some value and logic and science to homeopathy after all. I am also brave enough to acknowledge that they MAY be aliens walking the earth disguised as humans.

Obviously the latter is far more likely but the evidence for that is lacking as well.

Now are you brave enough to consider why over 99.9% of scientists do not take homeopathy seriously ?

 

[Deetee]

"Mr. Monkey"

I absolutely love it!


Here is Mr Ullman's link to his Horizon response.
......which links to "Generally sexy information about homeopathy today!"

ETA: Not sure what he means by "today!" though - his latest info dates from 1997.
Any chance of a sexy update, Mr Ullman?

 

[fls]

Wow. If that is the best critique that you skeptics can give on the serious basic science studies that I previously posted (no one has mentioned anything about the work by Elia on the thermodynamics of homeopathics), then, there must be some quiet supporters of homeopathy here.

I think what you are seeing is that sometimes we can't be bothered to mount a response to ideas that are without merit. It's not like you have demonstrated an ability to discuss the critques anyway.

Gravy wonders why I haven't listed clinical trials. I wonder why Gravy doesn't read previous references! You asked for replicated trials. Here's 3 trials by INDEPENDENT researchers testing Oscillococcinum in the treatment of the flu:
Casanova, P, Gerard R. Bilan de 3 annees d'estudes randomisees multicentriques Oscillococcinum/placebo. Oscillococcinum-rassegna della letterature internationale. Milan : Laboratoires Boiron; 1992:11-16.

J.P. Ferley, D. Zmirou, D. D'Admehar, et al., "A Controlled Evaluation of a Homoeopathic Preparation in the Treatment of Influenza-like Syndrome," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, March, 1989,27:329-35.

R. Papp, G. Schuback, E. Beck, et al, "Oscillococcinum in Patients with Influenza-like Syndromes: A Placebo Controlled Double-blind Evaluation," British Homeopathic Journal, April, 1998,87:69-76.

Also...MA Taylor, D Reilly, RH Llewellyn-Jones, et al., Randomised Controlled Trial of Homoeopathy versus Placebo in Perennial Allergic Rhinitis with Overview of Four Trial Series, BMJ (August 19, 2000)321:471-476. This trial of 51 patients with perennial allergic rhinitis showed a substantially significant difference in the objective measure of nasal airflow in patients given a 30C potency of the specific substance to which they were most allergic, as compared to those patients given a placebo (P=0.0001). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in visual analogue scales. In reviewing the 4 trials with allergy patients (N=253), the researchers found a 28% improvement in visual analogue scores in those given a homeopathic medicine, as compared to a 3% improvement in patients given a placebo (P=.0007).

This was not a trial of homeopathy, but of isopathy. There is no "law of similars" involved in the choice of treatment, but rather the selection of a causative agent - an idea at odds with rest of homeopathy. To claim that proof of one is proof of the other is false.

Also, it doesn't even serve as proof of isopathy in this particular study. There was no difference found between the two groups on the main outcome measure. Sure, the researchers pretended that they really meant one of the many other things they measured that happened to be different between the two groups, to be the main outcome measure. But their power calculations put the lie to that claim.

As for the rest of your clinical trials that prove homeopathy, even if you ignore the biases, you are simply picking out, post hoc, those trials which happen to fall above some arbitrary point on a Gaussian distribution as proof that the distribution isn't Gaussian.

So, homeopathy researchers demonstrate yet again that if you violate the assumptions of significance testing it is possible to "produce research findings when they should not be produced".* We get it already. You can stop any time now.

Linda

*Definition of "bias" cribbed from this.