More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)
- Thread starter sbernie87
- Start date
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
James Gully, MD was Darwin's homeopath!
Ahhh...it is so sweet that so many of you miss me.
Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty. You claim that the homeopathic doses are too small to have any effect, and yet, you ignore the various basic science and clinical studies that I have referenced, only critiquing a small number of them, and even these critiques are usually inadequate.
No one has remarked about the work of the Italian chemist Elia:
--Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.
--Elia, V, Baiano, S, Duro, I, Napoli, E, Niccoli, M, Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 93, 2004:144-150.
The best critique that someone gave to the work of Swiss physicist Louis Rey who published in a major physics journal was a statement by Jacques Benveniste (whose words and experiments you ridicule! So what is it going to be: do you trust Benveniste's words or not?)
No one has remarked about the 3 large clinical trials in the treatment of influenza...and the best critique offered was that the medicine used was made from duck's heart and liver (obviously a "quack medicine"), despite the fact that homeopaths have been hip to avian sources and connections to flu virus since the 1920s!).
No one has remarked substentatively on the four trials at the University of Glasgow on various allergic disorders.
No one has given a scintilla of critique of the study at the University of Vienna Hospital in the treatment of people with COPD (the #4 reason that people die in the US):
--Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A..
Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March, 2005.
Instead, you show your intellectual dishonesty. If I cite a study in a peer-review CAM journal, you call it a quack journal, and yet, when a peer-review CAM journal publishes a negative result to a homeopathic trial, you cite it without hesitation (and without acknowledgement of the irony).
I refer you to the work of Rustum Roy and emphasize his previous article on homeopathy and the structure of water, and then, I made reference to a NEW soon-to-be-published study (not theory) using spectoscopic analysis of homeopathic medicines that differentiate one from another and one potency from another (just what YOU requested), and then, several of you write sloppy accounts of a non-homeopathic writing of Dr. Roy's.
Some of you even went off the deep-end by saying that the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE are meaningless (I will be surprised if anyone on this list has gotten a single paper published in NATURE, let alone 13).
The bottomline here is that whether you agree with Dr. Roy or me or whomever, be intellectually honest. Acknowledge positive and negative studies.
When I referenced a four university replication study led by M. Ennis (a former skeptic of homeopathy), someone properly (!) made good reference to a failed replication study. Although this negative result was published in a CAM journal, I referenced one of its authors, Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, as an obviously honest researcher (he can and will publish whatever real data he gets, whether it is pro homeopathy or not). I encourage people to review the MANY studies he has done...and the best criitique that you folks get provide is that he is not the FIRST author on every study (wow...that was a weak critique...and yet, no one here critiqued this critique).
I will be the first to acknowledge that good research is very hard, especially on "frontier subjects" in science. Further, I am suspicious and cautious when researchers report consistently positive results on these frontier subjects. I am therefore pleased when my colleagues report both positive and negative results. This is good science, not party line junk science.
I sincerely hope that the SILENT people on this list read inbetween the lines to see the elephant in the room. In your efforts to be the "defenders of science," you have been shown to have a very unscientific attitude towards homeopathy.
But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your God, Charles Darwin.
Sometimes study with an N=1 provide important substantiation.
I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician, Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.
Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...
From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms. In 1847, Darwin's illness worsened. He was again experiencing frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.
In March 1849, an old HMS Beagle shipmate told him about a different type of medical treatment provided by James Manby Gully, MD (1808-1883), and his cousin told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Darwin decided to go and to take the entire family (his wife Emma and their seven children) (Keynes, 2002). Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), which is around 125 miles from the Darwin’s home.
Dr. Gully was a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, and he was an unyielding opponent of the use of drugs of that time and age. His medical practice did not simply provide hydrotherapy or dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin laments that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him, “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”
And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated” (Burkhardt, 1996, 107). After being there just eight days Darwin a skin eruption broken out all over his legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.
He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine” (Quammen, 2006, 112)
And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After spending 16 weeks there, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work (Grosvenor, 2004). Darwin actually writes that he is “of almost perfect health” (Burkhardt, 1996, 108).
Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (the novelist and writer), Lord Alfred Tennyson (the poet), Florence Nightingale (the famed nurse), George Eliot (the British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)(the Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (the art critic and the social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)(the British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay--1st Baron Macaulay (the poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873)(Desmond and Moore, 1991, 363). Further, three Prime Ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone (1809-1898)(England’s Prime Minister), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)(England’s Prime Minister), George Hamilton Hamilton-Gordon (known as Lord Aberdeen)(1784-1860), as well as Queen Victoria herself. Lord Aberdeen described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age” (Ruddick, 2001, 2).
And I bet that none of you know about the experiments that Darwin conducted using homeopathic doses.
I encourage you to do some homework on homeopathy before you respond to this email. Read the research on homeopathy (not just the quackbusters' interpretations on it) and read medical history (one historical FACT: homeopathy gained its greatest popularity in the US and Europe due to the impressive successes that it experienced in the treatment of infectious disease epidemics of the 19th century...any good medical history book confirms this...and yes, a forthcoming writing of mine will provide all of the detailed references...but they are readily available to those who look.
Most of all, maintain humility. Life and nature is full of mysteries, and your close-mindedness is not an effective strategy for learning.
Finally...I cannot help but sense that many (not all) of the people on this list were nerds as kids who were beat-up and/or ridiculed by others. Now, you take great pleasure to beating up and ridiculing others. I was neither a nerd nor someone who ridiculed them, but as a homeopath, I have learned to sympathize with those who had these experiences. I sincerely hope that you do not choose pass on the ridicule and that you learn to communicate with wisdom and compassion. To date, my experiment with you has shown that this experiment was a failure, but prove me wrong (the experiment isn't over yet).
Ahhh...it is so sweet that so many of you miss me.
Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty. You claim that the homeopathic doses are too small to have any effect, and yet, you ignore the various basic science and clinical studies that I have referenced, only critiquing a small number of them, and even these critiques are usually inadequate.
No one has remarked about the work of the Italian chemist Elia:
--Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.
--Elia, V, Baiano, S, Duro, I, Napoli, E, Niccoli, M, Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 93, 2004:144-150.
The best critique that someone gave to the work of Swiss physicist Louis Rey who published in a major physics journal was a statement by Jacques Benveniste (whose words and experiments you ridicule! So what is it going to be: do you trust Benveniste's words or not?)
No one has remarked about the 3 large clinical trials in the treatment of influenza...and the best critique offered was that the medicine used was made from duck's heart and liver (obviously a "quack medicine"), despite the fact that homeopaths have been hip to avian sources and connections to flu virus since the 1920s!).
No one has remarked substentatively on the four trials at the University of Glasgow on various allergic disorders.
No one has given a scintilla of critique of the study at the University of Vienna Hospital in the treatment of people with COPD (the #4 reason that people die in the US):
--Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A..
Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March, 2005.
Instead, you show your intellectual dishonesty. If I cite a study in a peer-review CAM journal, you call it a quack journal, and yet, when a peer-review CAM journal publishes a negative result to a homeopathic trial, you cite it without hesitation (and without acknowledgement of the irony).
I refer you to the work of Rustum Roy and emphasize his previous article on homeopathy and the structure of water, and then, I made reference to a NEW soon-to-be-published study (not theory) using spectoscopic analysis of homeopathic medicines that differentiate one from another and one potency from another (just what YOU requested), and then, several of you write sloppy accounts of a non-homeopathic writing of Dr. Roy's.
Some of you even went off the deep-end by saying that the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE are meaningless (I will be surprised if anyone on this list has gotten a single paper published in NATURE, let alone 13).
The bottomline here is that whether you agree with Dr. Roy or me or whomever, be intellectually honest. Acknowledge positive and negative studies.
When I referenced a four university replication study led by M. Ennis (a former skeptic of homeopathy), someone properly (!) made good reference to a failed replication study. Although this negative result was published in a CAM journal, I referenced one of its authors, Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, as an obviously honest researcher (he can and will publish whatever real data he gets, whether it is pro homeopathy or not). I encourage people to review the MANY studies he has done...and the best criitique that you folks get provide is that he is not the FIRST author on every study (wow...that was a weak critique...and yet, no one here critiqued this critique).
I will be the first to acknowledge that good research is very hard, especially on "frontier subjects" in science. Further, I am suspicious and cautious when researchers report consistently positive results on these frontier subjects. I am therefore pleased when my colleagues report both positive and negative results. This is good science, not party line junk science.
I sincerely hope that the SILENT people on this list read inbetween the lines to see the elephant in the room. In your efforts to be the "defenders of science," you have been shown to have a very unscientific attitude towards homeopathy.
But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your God, Charles Darwin.
Sometimes study with an N=1 provide important substantiation.
I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician, Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.
Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...
From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms. In 1847, Darwin's illness worsened. He was again experiencing frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.
In March 1849, an old HMS Beagle shipmate told him about a different type of medical treatment provided by James Manby Gully, MD (1808-1883), and his cousin told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Darwin decided to go and to take the entire family (his wife Emma and their seven children) (Keynes, 2002). Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), which is around 125 miles from the Darwin’s home.
Dr. Gully was a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, and he was an unyielding opponent of the use of drugs of that time and age. His medical practice did not simply provide hydrotherapy or dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin laments that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him, “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”
And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated” (Burkhardt, 1996, 107). After being there just eight days Darwin a skin eruption broken out all over his legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.
He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine” (Quammen, 2006, 112)
And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After spending 16 weeks there, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work (Grosvenor, 2004). Darwin actually writes that he is “of almost perfect health” (Burkhardt, 1996, 108).
Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (the novelist and writer), Lord Alfred Tennyson (the poet), Florence Nightingale (the famed nurse), George Eliot (the British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)(the Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (the art critic and the social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)(the British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay--1st Baron Macaulay (the poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873)(Desmond and Moore, 1991, 363). Further, three Prime Ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone (1809-1898)(England’s Prime Minister), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)(England’s Prime Minister), George Hamilton Hamilton-Gordon (known as Lord Aberdeen)(1784-1860), as well as Queen Victoria herself. Lord Aberdeen described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age” (Ruddick, 2001, 2).
And I bet that none of you know about the experiments that Darwin conducted using homeopathic doses.
I encourage you to do some homework on homeopathy before you respond to this email. Read the research on homeopathy (not just the quackbusters' interpretations on it) and read medical history (one historical FACT: homeopathy gained its greatest popularity in the US and Europe due to the impressive successes that it experienced in the treatment of infectious disease epidemics of the 19th century...any good medical history book confirms this...and yes, a forthcoming writing of mine will provide all of the detailed references...but they are readily available to those who look.
Most of all, maintain humility. Life and nature is full of mysteries, and your close-mindedness is not an effective strategy for learning.
Finally...I cannot help but sense that many (not all) of the people on this list were nerds as kids who were beat-up and/or ridiculed by others. Now, you take great pleasure to beating up and ridiculing others. I was neither a nerd nor someone who ridiculed them, but as a homeopath, I have learned to sympathize with those who had these experiences. I sincerely hope that you do not choose pass on the ridicule and that you learn to communicate with wisdom and compassion. To date, my experiment with you has shown that this experiment was a failure, but prove me wrong (the experiment isn't over yet).
Michael C
Graduate Poster
Why not show some intellectual honesty yourself and answer the simple, direct questions that many have been asking. Here (for the third time) is mine:
Could a group of homeopaths determine the composition of a certain number of samples of different remedies (which would be labelled simply with randomly assigned code numbers) using the technique of proving?
The test could be designed to satisfy the needs of the homeopaths:
- The homeopaths would choose the substances to be used in the test: these would be substances that are considered to produce clearly-defined and easily distinguishable symptoms.
- The homeopaths would choose the people to do the provings: they could choose people that they know well (themselves included), so that they would be able to predict how these people would react to the different substances. They could do as many provings as they deem necessary.
Could the homeopaths determine which remedy was in which sample?
gmanontario
Muse
How typically dishonest of the sCAM crowd. Use people long-dead as references for their quackery. Very convenient since not one of these cases can be examined by medical experts today.
Got any modern people who can prove they benefitted from your particular brand of idicoy or are you going to contunually use unverifiable references..
Oh wait I just remembered who I was addressing. Never mind I know the answer.
BTW I had a homeopath a-hole tell me my brain cancer could be cured easily and quickly by drinking magic water and burning brown candles in my ears. I hope you're at least a little smarter than that fool, but I may be asking way too much.
Michael C
Graduate Poster
No, he's not my God: I don't believe in God. Darwin was a genius, but being a genius doesn't prevent people from saying or doing stupid things. Look at all the astrological and alchemical nonsense that Newton spent so much time on, for instance. The fact that I respect Darwin's work on evolution does not mean that I believe his theories on the supposed inferiority of women, or any other bad ideas he may have had.
That's a pretty wild assumption! How can you know what would have happened to Darwin if he hadn't been treated by Gully?
Condescending Ad Hominem attacks have no place in a scientific discussion.
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Well...we're going to a predictably bad start.
Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that I present and then choose to bring up other issues...but to answer those issues, I challenge anyone to read a homeopathic materia medica and compare the symptoms of a medicine with its presently known toxicology. You'll be impressed (or surprised). The only difference is that homeopathic text will provide even greater detail.
As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.
As for modern-day people using homeopathy...you know that you're asking an easy question. The answer to this question will be in my forthcoming book. I just wanted to whet your appetite about homeopathy by describing its use by your God, Charles Darwin.
Please stop avoiding the issues presented. Let's keep a focus. Your scientific training should come in handy for this, even though it seems that an unscientific attitudes seems to prevail here. Sad but true.
I'm really hoping that a real dialogue takes place here, not just posturing.
Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that I present and then choose to bring up other issues...but to answer those issues, I challenge anyone to read a homeopathic materia medica and compare the symptoms of a medicine with its presently known toxicology. You'll be impressed (or surprised). The only difference is that homeopathic text will provide even greater detail.
As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.
As for modern-day people using homeopathy...you know that you're asking an easy question. The answer to this question will be in my forthcoming book. I just wanted to whet your appetite about homeopathy by describing its use by your God, Charles Darwin.
Please stop avoiding the issues presented. Let's keep a focus. Your scientific training should come in handy for this, even though it seems that an unscientific attitudes seems to prevail here. Sad but true.
I'm really hoping that a real dialogue takes place here, not just posturing.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,490
I have not posted in this thread before so I guess I am one of those SILENT ones.
You don't have to convince me that homeopathy "works", you don't have to convince any of the other skeptics who have posted. However, I would think that, after 200 years, that homeopaths could have convinced the scientific community in general that it is valid. A good start would be unambiguious evidence that has any effect other than that of a placebo.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Dana Ullman
Thinker
- Joined
- May 22, 2007
- Messages
- 201
Dear Gord in Toronto and other silent ones...
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.
As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.
As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.
Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.
As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.
As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.
Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
I think you are right, but we have to be careful what we say when we address specific people. I see you have removed your snippets on the webpage.
Some of these homeopaths don't take being called a quack very lightly and go to court over it. In some countries, the rules are set up in such a way that homeopaths or "alternative healers" can't always be called quacks based on the law. Recently one of these alternative healers has won a lawsuit against the anti-quackery association in my country and demanded rectification of the statements. The cost of this is threatening to put the anti-quackery association out of business...
Doctors have very few rights, they have the right to make the decision about a therapy based on their knowledge ( in my country at least), but all the rest are duties and requirements. Quacks are well versed in dealing with the laws and the institutions that watch over the quality of medical practice and the disciplinary board. As a matter of fact if you need to address the disciplinary board, you are most likely to get the best arguments for your defense from them. For a quack, medicine is a business, nothing more. As long as they can make money of of it, they will exist. They are immune to the law in some cases or tolerated by the law in others as long as they don't go too far. When this is the case, the law is basically on their side...
As long as people can't understand why homeopathy can't work or give it "a chance" because it can't do any harm (except to your wallet) they are not getting proper evidence based treatment. I think this is possibly the only argument that will sway people to look skeptically at homeopathy and alternative healers. I think a skeptical approach towards homeopathy and alternative medicine should also include the law, it's not about science or medicine, we all agree on that, it's about business...
My point is: dealing with quacks is not only about medicine or science, but also about the law. You can be right in every possible way, but you need a lot more to get justice...
a skeptical approach and providing a better understanding of what they are selling, may be an eye-opener to some people. Demanding proper scientific evidence is another. Making evidence based medicine the guideline for medical practice is the key to end quackery in combination with the proper application of the law and people's desire to change the law accordingly...
Just a thought...
SYL
politas
Pirate King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,080
Homeopathic "provings" do not in any way demonstrate the effectiveness of a homepathic treatment regimen.
Also, in homeopathic provings which include a placebo group, the provers on placebo have in some circumstances been observed to produce symptoms similar to those who are taking the remedy, which one would think would result in those symptoms being discounted. Strangely, this does not seem to be the case, and homeopaths instead consider that the placebo person has been affected by some kind of magical resonance.
Homeopaths are unable to explain their craft without resorting to magic.
Also, in homeopathic provings which include a placebo group, the provers on placebo have in some circumstances been observed to produce symptoms similar to those who are taking the remedy, which one would think would result in those symptoms being discounted. Strangely, this does not seem to be the case, and homeopaths instead consider that the placebo person has been affected by some kind of magical resonance.
Homeopaths are unable to explain their craft without resorting to magic.
gmanontario
Muse
Nope a predictably bad countinuance is more accurate.
I'd be surprised if even on quack remedy worked or even made sense scientifically. Otherwise it's all fantasy hopefulness.
Impressive way to try and explain away the shortcomings. Got any stats to back up the BS?
Chales Darwin is nobody's god, but you are Hahnemann's fool. I wouldn't waste a dime on your pulp trash.
You first.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,490
OK. The first thing I note is that MDs are not scientists. So, so what?
In 1986 J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller published that they had discovered "high temperature superconductivity"; a material that conducted electricity without resistance at 35-degrees Kelvin. They had no theory as to how this was possible and even today there is no good explanation. They got the Nobel Prize. How does this differ from Homeopathy? Replication. So much for "most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith".
If homeopathy cured so many and it so obviously worked, why did it fall out of favour among the educated? Why did the markeplace not work?
gmanontario
Muse
Prove it was the homeostupidity that cured him of something or other. Suprise everyone by using some real verifiable evidence.
I've lived 40 years (and counting) after my first visit to Dairy Queen.
Correlation != causation, even the dumbest of researchers realize that. I would imagine it's tough to continue the delusions if you start to use logic.
Nope I refuse to allow a lobotomy any time soon. Yours has worked quite well it seems.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
I’m a bit confused here. I think you got your numbers for the Netherlands from this site.
The last survey in the Netherlands was done in 1988 and 1990 as far as I know showing 47% of the doctors prescribing alternative therapies on occasion. The numbers were not near as high when looking at doctors who considered alternative medicine was enough of a therapy on its own. 8% considered alternative medicine a good alternative (NTvG 1988; 132(20): 904-6). You have to keep in mind that some of the doctors do both regular and alternative medicine and alternative medicine also included manual therapy (which in some practices includes physiotherapy).
Also the number of doctors that were prescribing alternative therapies (47%) did so in a small amount of cases mostly referring to their colleagues who did something like this on the side before the introduction of the law BIG, which regulates medical interventions in the Netherlands. In 1990 there were a lot of doctors willing to send people in for alternative medical treatments, there was no legal problem doing this and no real problems had occurred.
Since that time, some people have died by the lack of proper care by alternative healers ans charges have been brought to the practitioners. A case of a TV personality who died. This changed things even further. 3 doctors were suspended from practice for the rest of their lives.
Furthermore, over the counter medicine in the Netherlands also includes many regular drugs. The most common one paracetamol is actually one that is recommended by doctors to be bought over the counter, due to insurance costs for the patient and the higher cost of prescription. Some other drugs are also moved from prescription to the over the counter variant. This leads to a reduced control over the drug use by patients and less of a need to support requests from patients requesting alternative medicine, they can get it without intervention of a medical doctor…
So I think that these numbers need updating. It has not been done yet as far as I know, but 17 year old numbers seem less relevant at this time.
The problem is that alternative medicine keeps changing its face, reinventing the old idea under a new name. This leads to doctors and patients trying similar things again and again. It says a lot about the scientific decay among clinicians. The lack (or erosion) of scientific insight and knowledge about fundamental sciences, physiology and pharmacology makes them easy prey for all who make up a good story... I´m sorry to say that the education of medical staff has declined beneath an academic level in some cases...
I´m still hopeful about the future and the way evidence based medicine may spark critical thought and a new awareness among clinicians.
SYL
Last edited:
I agree with you. Among the problems:{snip} My point is: dealing with quacks is not only about medicine or science, but also about the law. You can be right in every possible way, but you need a lot more to get justice...
a skeptical approach and providing a better understanding of what they are selling, may be an eye-opener to some people. Demanding proper scientific evidence is another. Making evidence based medicine the guideline for medical practice is the key to end quackery in combination with the proper application of the law and people's desire to change the law accordingly...
Just a thought...
SYL
1- It is profitable (and easy) to convince an ignorant legislature to allow licensure of quackery. Easy because the quacks get their customers to write in favor of it (and it is not a budget item for the legislature), and because the opposition has no funding or time to mount a strong opposition.
2- The standard of care is then set by the respective licensing boards. Recently, a video of a chiropractor in the state of Washington showed her practicing "touchless" chiropractic. Thousands of people saw it (including me). Yet, when a doctor filed a fraud complaint- the chiro board said they saw her touching the customer; therefore, it was not fraud!? Also, two and a half years ago, a naturopath killed a woman in Utah. The ND's lawyer said he would not be in trouble if he had a license. It seems you can kill with impunity if you have a license.
Physicians are not necessarily scientists. That there are physicians that have not yet fully embraced evidence-based medicine, especially in Europe, is not particularly wonderful - old habits die hard. Also, I'd be interested in the source for your numbers. Considering that you have demonstrated a willingness to misrepresent information and make stuff up, it would be foolish for any of us to believe those numbers without a reference.
On the other hand, physicians in Canada (where the evidence-based movement originated) don't prescribe homeopathic medicines.
Linda
I recently read an account of an orthopedist who retired from the military. S/He said that supervisors wanted him/her to clear patients off medical care. The solution, in some cases, was to refer them to chiropractors. Not because chiro is legitimate; but because it solved the immediate problem. Many people present in doctors' offices with no diagnosis/treatment available. Shipping them off to homeopaths is easy, as is homeopathy adopted by the doctor. The office visits last longer; but the doctor is being paid by the hour.(snip) Also the number of doctors that were prescribing alternative therapies (47%) did so in a small amount of cases mostly referring to their colleagues who did something like this on the side before the introduction of the law BIG, which regulates medical interventions in the Netherlands. In 1990 there were a lot of doctors willing to send people in for alternative medical treatments, there was no legal problem doing this and no real problems had occurred. {snip}
SYL
Michael C
Graduate Poster
OK, let's imagine an example: you, the homeopath, choose three homeopathic remedies that will produce different, easily-distinguishable symptoms. We'll call them substance A, B and C. You are given a sample, and your task is to ascertain if the sample is substance A, B, C or a placebo. You may choose provers whom you already know, so you should have a clear idea of how they react to the three different substances. How many provers would you need in order to find the answer?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
So, James Gully pops up to give us a quick run through of the most popular logical fallacies, starting with argument form antiquity, with a quick combination of argument from antiquity plus uncontrolled anecdote and moved on to argument from authority. Though that loast one, I will confess, is actually more a disingenuopus misrepresentation. I, after all, have also allowed referral to magic water retailers. This is not because I believe in it but because I ran out of breath trying to explain to the client why they are wasting their money.
James Gully/Dana Ullman, we have discussed your favourite papers. They are all worthless trash. What you have failed to do is answer a number of simple and direct questions. Now, I wonder what would be a better qualification for the description of "intellectual dishonesty".
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?
James Gully/Dana Ullman, we have discussed your favourite papers. They are all worthless trash. What you have failed to do is answer a number of simple and direct questions. Now, I wonder what would be a better qualification for the description of "intellectual dishonesty".
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?