More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Pipirr]

Just what I was thinking. The gushing fan-boy attitude and the frank advocacy of the wondrous benefits of what he's studying don't belong in a serious paper by a mile. What was that journal he claimed had accepted it, and who publishes it anyway? If it's really a reputable journal I'd bet a fair bit that it wasn't accepted in that form. I mean, anybody can produce slick pdfs these days, and it isn't an actual journal-page pdf.

Considering the speculative nature of the paper and the fact that some dubious comments had gotten past review, I assumed that having a Nobel prize gives an author some latitude.

But guess how much?

The paper:

Materials Research Innovations, 2007, vol 11 No 1. "Ultradilute Ag-aquasols with extraordinary bactericidal properties: role of the system Ag–O–H2O".

A journal of that name was discontinued by Elsevier in 2003. However, Materials Research Innovations still exists. This webpage describes their interesting publication and review policy, and their reason for being:

Starting a new journal may be justified if, like in all science, it really breaks new ground. M.R.I’s raison d’etre is that it, itself, is an innovation.


The second reason is that virtually the entire active research community—especially mature scientists—are dissatisfied with the peer-review system for two reasons. (The younger generation,having experienced no other and unaware of other national or international science-funding policies, grumbles but acquiesces, being subdued by absurdly incorrect arguments such as: "There is no other system.")

The traditional peer review (TRP) system simply can’t handle, in a reasonable way, the reporting of genuine innovation; any step-function (as distinct from the usual incremental) advances. Peer-review, by unanimous acclamation, has failed this test. Alfred North Whitehead spotted this weakness 50 years ago. "Advance in detail is permitted; fundamental novelty is barred," he wrote in the 1950s.

The third area where there is acknowledged failure of the peer-review system, is the huge waste of time of authors and reviewers and in the delay to publication schedule.

So peer review as we know it, is not to be used. What is? Something called Super Peer Review (SPR).

What is SPR? Traditional peer "review" is review of the content of papers. TPR obviously has been unable to provide any guarantee of quality or even reality. We remind the reader that all the cases of out-and-out fraud (including e.g. the series of fabricated papers a là Alsabti), or major errors have all been in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. cold-fusion; polywater; and the much worse, very recent "harder than diamond" fiasco. There, a non-existent-will-o-the-wisp claim has been cited 6,000+ times and caused the waste of thousands of person-years of work in proving it wrong; etc., etc.).

In contrast, super peer review (SPR), instead is based on sound epistemology. It recognizes that the quality of any research is the product of the quality of the person doing it and the quality of the work done.

The interesting test of the M.R.I concept was: Who would be willing to sign on as editors? The answer was: one of the most distinguished assemblages of such for any materials journal, worldwide. Next, could we find a leading publisher? We were fortunate that indeed such a world-class publisher as Springer-Verlag of Heidelberg took up this challenge.

Super peer review is based on reviewing the authors, not the particular piece of work. Moreover, that review can be done easily and on objective criteria.

What is the major criterion? That the author (at least one) shall have published in the open, often peer-reviewed (!!) literature, a large (30-50 papers) body of work. The reasoning is simple. Every author is eager to get his work on the record. If they have a track record to preserve, they are hardly likely to risk it by publishing flawed work.

One further deterrent is that part of the system also is, that any other author with similar credentials, if she/he thinks the original paper is flawed in any way, will be able to publish a response without further review.

The only other criterion is that the work be "new," "a step-function advance," etc. For that purpose, M.R.I. requires that every author address this question explicitly in the text itself: How does this work relate to previous work and why is it an Innovation?

Well, that explains a few things. But who was it that wrote all that?

None other than:

Materials Research Innovations
Dr. Rustum Roy, Editor-in-Chief
Springer-Verlag, publisher.


Zing.

 

[Mojo]

So peer review as we know it, is not to be used. What is? Something called Super Peer Review (SPR).

Or "appeal to authority", as it is more usually known.

 

[kieran]

So this super peer review ... "recognizes that the quality of any research is the product of the quality of the person doing it and the quality of the work done."

There is something (albeit very little) to be said for this - however, the balance in super peer review is completely wrong. Work carried out by a genius deserves more attention than work carried out by a moron. However, if the work is sh!te then it is still sh!te.

There is nothing wrong with the conventional peer review system in this respect ... peer reviewers are anonymous but the authors are not, if a reviewer receives a piece of work by a respected figure, then they will be more likely to look deeper when they have doubts, so that people with good reputations (i.e. proven track records for quality) will be able to push more off-beat ideas than those who do not. But if the idea is not good then the reviewer should eventually treat it as such, regardless of the author.

 

[malbui]

There is something (albeit very little) to be said for this - however, the balance in super peer review is completely wrong. Work carried out by a genius deserves more attention than work carried out by a moron. However, if the work is sh!te then it is still sh!te.

I remember talking about this a few years ago with a bloke I used to sit next to at football, who was head of department at a respected UK university and well-known in his particular field of specialised chemistry. His viewpoint was simple: he was only as good as his last piece of research. No matter how many good and ground-breaking papers he'd authored over the last thirty years, he couldn't rely on his reputation to get away with publishing sh!te.

 

[Mosquito]

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.

I haven't bothered to read the other many pages of answers, I just wanted to chip in that your lack of (critical) thinking in this part disappoints me.

200C would be like 10^-398%, I suppose, but that is only one order of magnitude wrong (unless *I* am wrong, that is ).

The big problem here is that there are (only) about 10⁸⁰ elementary particles in the entire visible universe (give or take a few orders of magnitude, which does not matter to my argument here). I am pretty sure you know this, as you are a long time contributor to this forum, and you are *not* an ignoramus.

This leads to you either having a rather weird definition of "several dozens" or you think the Earth is substantially bigger than it is.


The truth is that any molecule of "duck stuff" or anything else is at least a 10^-78% of all matter in the visible universe, and you are off by some 320 orders of magnitude, maybe more! That is not very good presicion...

The universe is big, but with these kinds of numbers, one just get numb to the realities of them

At about 12C we have a "less than one molecule pr mol"-dilution (or something like that, anyhow).

Somewhere around 40C we have a "less than one elementary particle pr universe"-dilution. As you know; 200C dwarfs 40C into the ridiculous...


Mosquito - pedantic, so correct me...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, I made a spreadsheet for this somewhere. I'll dig it up. However, this is really a discussion about whether homeopathic "dilutions" are totally, utterly, utterly, completely insanely ridiculous, or if we should leave out one "utterly".

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hey Delusions de Grandeur...
That's very interesting. I'm sure that water is not the only memory storage device in nature.

False statement. Uou are implyingthat water is indeed a memory storage device. No evidence exists for this. None at all.

As for Bridgman's book...I mis-named it. It is THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE.

And how is this relevant for the topic at hand?

The good news about our dialogue here is that several of you have publically stated that you will consider homeopathy as valid if there is some technology that can differentiate one homeopathic medicine from another, even at post-Avogadro number doses.

You reading comprenension must be below par. What people have publicly stated is that ONE of the things invalidating homeopathy is the lack of any way to differentiate a valid homeopathic remedy from a non-valid one.

Several other things have, however, been mentioned that ALSO invalidated the claims of homeopathy.

Cool...because THIS is the subject of Rustum Roy's forthcoming article. I previously gave a link to a webcast discussion of this new research. Did anyone out there get a chance to hear/see it?

Why should't we just wait for the publication of his peer-reviewed report?

.. Oh, right: It will never materialize.

As for airport scanners...as I previously said, there is no hard evidence that it creates any problem. However, because some homeopaths prefer to be conservative (that's right!), they prefer to avoid things that may neutralize their medicines,

So, why are they conservative about x-rays? Why not sunlight, radio waves, loud noises, flower scents? I mean, if they are just making wild guesses, then .....

especially since there's no every day easy-to-access technology that will tell them whether or not their medicines have been neutralized or not

There is not only no technology at all, there is no methodology whatsoever. None at all.

(Roy discusses several technologies, not just one, that measure homeopathics).

Discussing does not cut the cake.

As for Monkey...I do not know about those machines, and I do not comment on things about which I do not know.

You are a high-profile homeopaths and you don't even have an opinion on this important part of contemporary practice? Interesting....

By the way, I find it interesting that you folks feel comfortable referring to studies in the alternative medicine peer-review literature when it is a "negative" study, but when they publish a "positive" study, you call these same journals "quack literature." Hmmmm.

Just provide your evidence. Evidence.


Hans

 

[fls]

At a certain point in the dilution series, it changes from a measure of the average number of parts per million/billion/trillion to the probability that the single part left in the solution is contained within the drop selected for the next dilution. Maybe instead of presenting the dilution as one part per the number of particles in the known universe, we should present it as the probability that the single part is contained within the final solution?

Linda

 

[fls]

This thread is more fun when Mr. Ullman posts.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

As for Bridgman's book...I mis-named it. It is THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE.

And how is this relevant for the topic at hand?

Maybe high pressure aids spallation.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I haven't bothered to read the other many pages of answers, I just wanted to chip in that your lack of (critical) thinking in this part disappoints me.

200C would be like 10^-398%, I suppose, but that is only one order of magnitude wrong (unless *I* am wrong, that is ).

The big problem here is that there are (only) about 10⁸⁰ elementary particles in the entire visible universe (give or take a few orders of magnitude, which does not matter to my argument here). I am pretty sure you know this, as you are a long time contributor to this forum, and you are *not* an ignoramus.

This leads to you either having a rather weird definition of "several dozens" or you think the Earth is substantially bigger than it is.


The truth is that any molecule of "duck stuff" or anything else is at least a 10^-78% of all matter in the visible universe, and you are off by some 320 orders of magnitude, maybe more! That is not very good presicion...

The universe is big, but with these kinds of numbers, one just get numb to the realities of them

At about 12C we have a "less than one molecule pr mol"-dilution (or something like that, anyhow).

Somewhere around 40C we have a "less than one elementary particle pr universe"-dilution. As you know; 200C dwarfs 40C into the ridiculous...


Mosquito - pedantic, so correct me...

Thanks for the correction, after all I did invite it. I realized later that I goofed on the percentage which should have been 10^-398.

I was actually unaware of the actual numbers of particles in the universe. It makes homeopathy use of 200C even more stupid and silly with the actual number!

"Dammit, captain, I am only an engineer, not an astrophysicist!".

Edit to add: I also only gave Brave Sir Dana the attention to detail he so richly deserves: Not much, or better yet "only in homeopathic doses".

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

This thread is more fun when Mr. Ullman posts.

Linda

I think we mave have broken our homeopath again. We hadn't even been playing very rough.

Do they come with a warranty so we can get our money back or does this count as "fair wear and tear"?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Maybe instead of presenting the dilution as one part per the number of particles in the known universe, we should present it as the probability that the single part is contained within the final solution?

To keep that simple and save a load or repetitive typing: for all practical purposes let's just call it 0.

 

[Mojo]

I think we mave have broken our homeopath again. We hadn't even been playing very rough.

Do they come with a warranty so we can get our money back or does this count as "fair wear and tear"?

A blast from the past.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Service Announcement
We have recently been made aware of cases where attempts have been made to reprogramme Kumarbot by coarse use of facts, evidence and references to reality. Kumarbot was not designed to withstand such brutal software enhancements and BIOS failures are likely.

There's always the bloody small print. I'd forgotten about that clause. I think our money's gone.

 

[steenkh]

Mmmm, I made a spreadsheet for this somewhere. I'll dig it up.

This results from this spreadsheet has been useful before, but it seems to have disappeared at the latest reorganisation of the JREF board. How about linking to it on your own homoeopathy page?

 

[MRC_Hans]

OK; I'm late (very busy, currently), but as Mr. JG is also only posting at considerable intervals, I suppose I'm not entirely out of circulation.

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.

Wasn't it about sample size and controls? The problem with thermoluminiscence is that it is extremely sensitive, essentially capable of detecting just a few atoms, and the detected substances are very common as contaminants. Therefore the missing controls are crucial.

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.

Why should the finding of yet another source of contamination provide an explanation? All you get is yet more disturbances you need to explain away.

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 problem with the word "may" is that it can be used for anything. I can also say that homeopathic remedies may work by entrapped spirits, and it would be fully as valid as your theses.

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.

Why?

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.

Structure is indeed important. However, the term structure when referring to liquids means something quite different than when referring to solids.

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.

Again, this is solid state physics. You cannot make any direct inferrences to liquids.

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

"May". However, we're in June now .

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.

We have already done that. Now I challenge you to explore the possibility that homeopaths may be wrong.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Such a discussion may be interesting, provided someone can come up with a plausible theory. So far, nobody has.

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.

All those studies have been addressed in the past, and I think you know this. Reasonable critique levelled at a study meand that it must, at best, retain the status "inconclusive", thus pending repetition and/or further research.

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.

Ehr, surely you mean low pressures?

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.

Or the observed effect is due to something else. One of the problems with the many studies of freezing patterns is that there a numerous structures observable in any frozen sample. I have yet to see a study that accounted for the distribution of such structures. .. To put it in a slightly more blunt way: If you examine a sample of frozen water, you can pick out practically any pattern you would like to see.

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?

Well, to get an idea of my knowledge of homeopathy, you might read my article here: http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/Homeopathy article.htm

I have invited other homeopaths to comment on it and point out any factual errors in it. So far there have been no takers. Perhaps you ...?

However, the short answer is that the classical homeopath "takes" the case, mapping the totality of the patient's symptom profile. He then uses the Materia Medica (or, nowadays, some software) to find a remedy the proving profile of which matches the patient's profile. Thisi s supposed to be the similum and is administered to the patient. In strictly classical homeopathy it is administered as a single dose, but most modern homeopaths ask the patient to take repeated doses over some time.

If the patient recovers, the homeopath writes it down as yet anothe victory of homeopathy.

If the patient gets worse, the homeopath calls it homeopathic aggravation and a sign that the patient should continue the treatment.

If there is no improvement after a time, the homeopath conducts a new taking and prescribes another remedy (some homeopaths don't take the trouble to do a taking, but just finds another remedy).

This continues till the patient recovers and the homeopath can record yet another cure for homeopathy (or the patient finds another doctor, or dies, or leaves the country, in which case the homeopath simply forgets about the case).

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.

I am getting tired of your ad hominems. You should attack the argument, not the man. He did not embarrass anybody. It is not Dr. Green's duty, or mine, or any other skeptic's, to know how homeopathy works. It is your duty, as a proponent of the practice.

What do YOU think is the right answer?

See above, but a perfectly valid answer would be: "I haven't the slightest idea. You tell me."

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Please provide reference to some proving reports that use double blinding during the entire process.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Linda...In ALL due respect, your reference to "isopathy" as distinct from "homeopathy" stands on sand. The bottomline "problem" that skeptics have with homeopathy is the "potentized dose" (please note that I do not consider the "potentized dose" to be a small or microdose, any more than an atomic bomb is a small bomb just because the very tiny atoms are smashing into each other).
It is interesting how you haven't acknowledged that the "isopathic medicine" used in these trials was sub-Avogadro's number. And why oh why, have these studies been published in the LANCET and the BMJ?

Not on sand at all. Hahnemann made a sharp distiction between hoemopathy and isopathy. That it has been made on sub-Avogadro dilutions may be interesting if we are discussing it as an isopathy trial, but since we are currently discussing homeopathy, it is totally irrelevant.

By the way...I am still waiting for SOMEONE to defend Wayne Turnbull and the BBC' Horizon programme or ABC's 20/20. Stand up and call it "good" science or "junk" science!"

TV programs will always at best be "popular" science. That dosn't mean that it is intrinsically invalid, however.

I am getting ready to drop the big big bomb on you folks, and I predict that many of you will be singing another tune.

We can't wait.

Some of you have suggested that 99.9% of scientists don't believe in homeopathy, as though this is proof of something because it wasn't too long ago that 99.9% of physicians believed in bloodletting and mercury and on and on and on (and "scientists" have been not only the biggest promoters of allopathic medicine but also their best "PR" persons).

Yes, 99.9% of scientists can be wrong. However, it requires some rather heavy evidence.

No one yet has figured out who is James Gully...and I'm not referring to Dana Ullman. I am not talking about who it is that is writing this. I am asking you: WHO is the real James Gully? Come on...there has got to be someone knowledgeable enough to know WHO he was.

I haven't the slightest idea. Any particular reason I should care?

Hans