More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Further to what Piprr just said and in response to James Gully, the point is that this experiment is exactly the sort of fragile and needlessly complicated model that is vulnerable to all sorts of extraneous influences that homeopaths keep choosing.

Of course it is not good science, nor is it a good model for homeopathy, but it was replicated by Randi et al because homeopaths chose it in the first place.

But all of this silly business of in vitro fiddling about is irrelevant to the question of whether homeopathy works. Do we have to keep reminding you that homeopathy means "like cures like" and this whole use of content-free solvent or sugar was only dreamed up by Hahnemann so he didn't make his patients so ill with his raw materials.

Let's return to your clinical evidence base;

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

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

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

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I suppose it is also worth reminding Dana, or anyone who is actually bothering to read and understand these posts, that when he quibbles over the minutiae of experimental models, we are meant to be talking about a medical therpay that is so robust that anyone who can manage to buy a pot of sugar tablets can achieve remarkable and robust clinical effects. The only problem is that when the labels are switched and sugar tablets that never pretended to have any power are used instead then the effects are just the same.

Yes, Dana, we know that you can find the odd positive study where the end-points have been chosen badly and the data have been dredged enthusiastically or the authors just get lucky. Of course, you'll get the odd positive study. You do know that when the roulette wheel stops spinning the ball has to end up somewhere. That's why replication is the key and no positive homeopathic trial has ever been successfully replicated.

We also know some other things about how homeopaths achieve their alleged successes. As Geni has said previously: homeopathy- more a set of excuses than a system of medicine.

 

[Michael C]

Regarding the work of M. Ennis, I already posted this link to the results of a study that tried to repeat her tests: http://www.vfk.ch/infos/fachliteratur/Baumgartner/Guggisberg2005.pdf. The study was conducted by scientists from the KIKOM (Institute for Complementary Medicine in Berne) and Ennis herself helped with methodological issues.

Here is the conclusion:

We were not able to confirm the previously reported large effects of homeopathic histamine dilutions on basophil function of the examined donor. Seemingly, minor variables of the experimental set up can lead to significant differences of the results if not properly controlled.

 

[Mojo]

I am still waiting for James Randi to publically acknowledge that neither the Horizon or the 20/20 "test" were really good tests of homeopathy.

It wasn't, and neither was the Ennis study, because it didn't actually test homoeopathy.

It is more than tad ironic that I make reference to good research, as in the allergy/asthma studies, and then show how homeopathic medicine influence basophils (which increase in numbers during allergic disorders), but no one here is even knowledgeable of this connection. Whooops.

It is more than a tad ironic that a proponent of a medical "system" (for want of a better word) that prides itself on "treating the whole patient" is so happy to extrapolate from experiments carried out on white blood cells to the entire organism. Even scientists acknowledge that there is a difference between in vitro and in vivo.

If you want to test homoeopathy, you need to test whether it does what it claims to do. It claims to cure patients, unless the goalposts have been moved even further than usual here.

And here's a study of homoeopathy as it's actually practised for asthma: Individualised homeopathy as an adjunct in the treatment of childhood asthma: a randomised placebo controlled trial.

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

 

[fls]

However, there IS a body of high quality research, and I have made some references to this research, but few of you read it, or read only the abstract, or still don't get it.

It is more than tad ironic that I make reference to good research, as in the allergy/asthma studies, and then show how homeopathic medicine influence basophils (which increase in numbers during allergic disorders), but no one here is even knowledgeable of this connection. Whooops.

I really expected more intelligence from this group of skeptics.

I'd be curious to see what kind of response you would make to an increase in intelligence (i.e. the knowledge and experience (expertise) required to understand the argument) from the skeptics. The only points that you respond to directly are those which are fairly easy for you to refute or to turn into a strawman (let's call it a low level of expertise). As the arguments from skeptics become more skilled, direct and knowledgeable (let's call it mid-level expertise), you begin to obfuscate with red herrings, additional strawmen, and references to invalid research. The most pertinent and detailed arguments (high-level expertise) you have ignored completely. How would you respond if we brought out our A Game? Stop posting altogether?

As for Big Pharma putting money into research...they actually put more money into salaries and advertisement than research (in order to convince us that they are helping us)...read Marcia Angell's book to enlighten yourself on the "science" of modern drugs.

You are confusing the business of developing and marketing drugs with the science behind the use of therapeutics.

Marcia Angell's book is a useful read, but I would add the caveat that it is one-sided - that is, it purposely shows us the backside of what we are used to looking at from the front. The two together are meant to form a complete picture (I think).

Linda

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Thanks for pointing me to the Guggisberg study. (http://www.vfk.ch/infos/fachliteratur/Baumgartner/Guggisberg2005.pdf) I was getting ready to poke professors at the faculty of medicine to attempt the Ennis study, but I no longer have to try unless somebody can point out a serious flaw in the Guggisberg study.

Homeopathy may have been proven to be bunk, the memory of water may be highly questionable, but if there's any reasonable chance to find evidence anywhere, I'm going to start poking researchers on the campus again.

does the JREF have a web repository to neatly pile up all scientific studies grouped per supernatural phenomenon by the way?

 

[Pipirr]

I am getting ready to drop the big big bomb on you folks....

Ready yet?

 

[Dana Ullman]

Mojo...the basophil study doesn't test the "system of homeopathy," but it did test homeopathic doses. That was significant, especially since this research was replicated by four university labs.

Linda...yeah...I'm glad you are encouraging people to read Marcia Angell's remarkable book. I bet we have more in common than you'd like to believe.

Good for Michael C...finally, someone who is beginning to do some homework. Yes, doing replications is vital, and I'm glad that some people who are involved in homeopathic research are honest researchers and show both positive and negative results. I want SCIENCE to win. For the record, this experiment was very different than the one done by Benveniste. Don't confuse them.

Now that we can see that Stephan M. Baumgartner (one of the authors of the above trial) is an honest researcher, I encourage you to review his other work:
--ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17544864&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

-- ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16230858&ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

-- ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17057391&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Plus...do a PubMed search for many other trials that he has conducted. The vast majority of his trials show that homeopathic nanodoses (and beyond nanodoses) have significant biological activity.

Isn't THAT your biggest bugaboo on homeopathy? Don't you simply assume that homeopathic medicines are just "placeboes." You assume that because you haven't (yet) reviewed the "body of evidence" that strongly suggest that the placebo explanation is "inadequate."

Hey, Rolfe. You seem to be an admirable guy. I'd love to hear your input on some of this discussion. I simply ask that you do some homework first. Review the literature. Go beyond the superficial.

Let's try to keep this discussion academic, not personal.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Benveniste is brought back from the dead!

Wow...I just found and read the source of the Benveniste quote about the work of Louis Rey...in the June 12, 2007, online issue of Drug Discovery published by NATURE: nature.com/drugdisc/news/articles/d130603-1.html

What is so impressive is that this journal has just announced that Louis Rey is publishing new research in Physica A, and yet, NATURE was able to get a quote from Benveniste's grave (he died in 2004). NATURE is now claiming to talk to people in the grave. Hmmm. Or...maybe they are simply dredging up old critique of older research.

If you still think that NATURE is objective on homeopathy, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind. In contrast, the NEW SCIENTIST commonly reports on high quality basic science research on homeopathy. I encourage you all to go to newscientist.com and read the variety of articles (not all positive!) that they've published over the years. Be brave because you're going to get humble (humilty is one of the highest qualities of a good scientist). We can all benefit from it.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I would say, "At the risk of repeating myself", but it's not a risk it's a certainty. Here we go again.

Let's return to your clinical evidence base;

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

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

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

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

You assume that because you haven't (yet) reviewed the "body of evidence" that strongly suggest that the placebo explanation is "inadequate."

No. Many of us have reviewed the evidence. Homeopathy is a placebo at best. I think you can work out what it is at worst.

 

[Pipirr]

Wow...I just found and read the source of the Benveniste quote about the work of Louis Rey...in the June 12, 2007, online issue of Drug Discovery published by NATURE: nature.com/drugdisc/news/articles/d130603-1.html

What is so impressive is that this journal has just announced that Louis Rey is publishing new research in Physica A, and yet, NATURE was able to get a quote from Benveniste's grave (he died in 2004). NATURE is now claiming to talk to people in the grave. Hmmm. Or...maybe they are simply dredging up old critique of older research.

Well, that is odd. A slow news week over at Nature...?

If you still think that NATURE is objective on homeopathy, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind. In contrast, the NEW SCIENTIST commonly reports on high quality basic science research on homeopathy.

Personally, when comparing Nature and New Scientist, I prefer to make the following distinction:

one is a peer-reviewed journal, and one is not.

 

[Dana Ullman]

Hey Monkey...I already told you that I do not know about those machines. Do you know about EVERY technology in conventional medicine?

I finally got it: Many of the people on this list are the nerds that the mean kids verbally and sometimes physically attacked. My condolences...but this doesn't mean that you can now try to verbally abuse others who don't agree with you. Grow up.

Your decision to continually repeat the same (off-topic) questions will not get an answer...and the fact that you think that these machines "are" homeopathy (rather than one tool that some people use to find a homeopathic medicine) is a part of your ill-informed understanding of homeopathy. Get cured of this by reading the references to which I have been referring you (and others).

As for the New Scientist...are you saying that it is junk science or not? Who else are you going to distance yourself until you realize that you are an island...

 

[fls]

Isn't THAT your biggest bugaboo on homeopathy? Don't you simply assume that homeopathic medicines are just "placeboes." You assume that because you haven't (yet) reviewed the "body of evidence" that strongly suggest that the placebo explanation is "inadequate."

Ah, I forgot about the "vague references to much better evidence waiting in the wings". So is that what we get for our A Game? You'll let us in on your secret cache?

Hey, Rolfe. You seem to be an admirable guy. I'd love to hear your input on some of this discussion. I simply ask that you do some homework first. Review the literature. Go beyond the superficial.

Rolfe may be too busy to weigh in, as she has talked about moving into a new house.

Let's try to keep this discussion academic, not personal.

Too late. You've already demonstrated your bad faith several times over.

Linda

 

[fls]

Since I made a duplicate post, I may as well get your opinion on this, Mr. Ullman.

I hope to run a marathon, so I've increased the length of my runs. I run in my neighbourhood (lots of cul-de-sacs and crescents) and I used to just stop in at my house whenever I needed a drink of water. Now that I go further away, I've been carrying a bottle with me in my hand. I've noticed that I'm much more tired at the end of my runs than I used to be, especially if my bottle is emptied, so I've been trying to figure out why. It occurred to me that the water in my bottle gets a lot of shaking and that it may be similar to succussion. So what am I succussing? Air! And what are the symptoms caused by air? Vitality! By the time I have finished the bottle, I am close to eliminating all symptoms of vitality from my body, which explains why I am tired.

Since I don't actually wish to eliminate all the vitality from my body, do you have any suggestions for how I may prevent the potentiation of the water? Are their particular movements that don't lead to succussion that I should practise - a back and forth sloshing, for example? Or perhaps homeopaths have specially designed fanny packs (I cannot be the first to have noticed this)?

Linda

 

[Mojo]

If you still think that NATURE is objective on homeopathy, you must be deaf, dumb, and blind. In contrast, the NEW SCIENTIST commonly reports on high quality basic science research on homeopathy.

New Scientist is a magazine that provides a weekly commentary on current developments in science. As such it often reports material that is somewhat speculative. It isn't peer reviewed, and doesn't publish the actual research.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Hey Monkey...I already told you that I do not know about those machines. Do you know about EVERY technology in conventional medicine?

I finally got it: Many of the people on this list are the nerds that the mean kids verbally and sometimes physically attacked. My condolences...but this doesn't mean that you can now try to verbally abuse others who don't agree with you. Grow up.

Your decision to continually repeat the same (off-topic) questions will not get an answer...and the fact that you think that these machines "are" homeopathy (rather than one tool that some people use to find a homeopathic medicine) is a part of your ill-informed understanding of homeopathy. Get cured of this by reading the references to which I have been referring you (and others).

Hmmm...still dodging the question. Why is that? You seem also not to have missed the most essential point- what are we to make of the anecdotal evidence of people who use those ludicrous devices? Their clinical experience is exactly on a par with yours. Do you have any reason not to take it at face value? If not, why not?

By the way, I have not said or implied that these machines "are" homeopathy. That's your failure of reading comprehension tripping you up again. Nor are these machines intended to "find" a remedy. They are intended to make remedies, indeed the clue is in the name of one of the machines, the "Remedy Maker". They claim to operate by mysterious principles, but have clearly been thrown together from real electrical components.

The topic, by the way is "More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)". I'm certainly having fun and you are standing in for Dana Ullman here, so that's pretty much on-topic.

I would have hoped by now that you had got the message that these various ill-thought out chemistry experiments have nothing at all to do with the practice of homeopathy. Why do you keep referring to them? You said you wanted to discuss clinical trials but have done precious little of that.

But, homeopaths' evidential base is grounded in their clinical experience. Clinical experience gained using, for instance, remedies made by expensively retailed electrical machines that seem to be sold without any need to demonstrate their claimed effects.

So, I return to your clinical evidence base;

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

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

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

Bear in mind that the users of these machines rely on exactly the same anecdotal experience and fallacious post hoc reasoning that every other homeopath does. Are the homeopaths who use these machines right or wrong in thinking they work?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

I'll give you a new question just so you can show how well you understand the interpretation of clinical trial data;

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s.

Do you know about EVERY technology in conventional medicine?

Of course not, but I can expect to make a reasoned assessment of the likelihood of a technology doing what it claims to do. I can also expect to make a reasoned judgement of evidence gathered using such technology.

Come on, you must try harder.

 

[Rolfe]

Hey, Rolfe. You seem to be an admirable guy. I'd love to hear your input on some of this discussion. I simply ask that you do some homework first. Review the literature. Go beyond the superficial.

Let's try to keep this discussion academic, not personal.

I have to say that I have practically gone blind reviewing the literature on homoeopathy. I have yet to see one shred of genuine evidence that the claimed effects are anything more than a combination of coincidental recovery and wishful thinking.

I find it fascinating that such dramatic stories are told of amazing individual "miracle cures" - and yet as soon as any sort of controlled study is done these dramatic, wonderful effects retreat into the borders of statistical noise. (Hey, would that maybe be because the dozens of people who didn't happen to experience a convenient coincidental recovery don't get on the testimonials pages?)

I find it quite amazing that not one single one of all these hundreds of thousands of homoeopaths out there can demonstrate that they can, in any way at all, distinguish between a potentised remedy (the very tools of their trade) and an unpotentised sham.

I find it remarkably telling that there is no way to answer the simple questions such as, do airport security scanners deactivate homoeopathic remedies, or, does grafting produce active remedies, or, do any of the wacky devices BSM has mentioned produce active remedies, or even, if a homoeopathic pharmacy was scamming its clients and selling them ordinary untreated sugar pills, how could we tell?

Why is that, do you think? Simple. Because there is no way to distinguish between a properly-prepared potentised remedy and the unpotentised carrier material.

If you can't do that, then you don't even have a starting point.

By the way, you never did answer my invitation to show that Hahnemann, the inventor, discoverer and founder of homoeopathy, on whose pioneering work all subsequent work in the subject is based, and whose findings (and provings) are still in use today, always used double distilled water.

Rolfe.

 

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

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.

I can't find "The physics of high altitude" by Bridgman. I did find the book "The physics of high pressure". I couldn't find the contents of the book on the web though. Are you sure he actually confirmed that water freezes in a different pattern depending on it's pressure/temperature history? A simmilar efffect occures in magnetizable substances. Magnetization can depend on the history of the magnitude of magnetization. This is called hysteresis.

So my question to the people who know a lot about physics would be: "Does water show any sign of hysteresis in any temperature/pressure range at all?" This has little to do with homeopathy but I *am* curiuous.