More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Rolfe]

I agree with you, KK. I remember once having this argument with one of Dana's fervent disciples.

In my work I routinely measure concentrations of substances in biological fluids in the nmol/l range. Most (OK, many, to avoid a fight) hormones are in circulation in that sort of concentration. It's routine. (Damn, I've just got a note in front of me to telephone a colleague to discuss some cortisol results - my scribbled memo-to-self says only 155/104/78, but in fact these are the cortisol concentrations of three different samples, units nmol/l.) When you start talking about free (that is non-protein-bound) hormone concentrations, you routinely get into the pmol/l range, which is three orders of magnitude more dilute - free thyroxine is measured in pmol/l.

These are perfectly ordinary biological concentrations of biologically active substances, and this has bugger-all to do with homoeopathy.

Whether or not the prefix "nano" is associated in the mind of the general public simply with "very small" (such as "nanobot"), no scientist in his or her right senses would employ the term that way. It's as bad as saying "to the general public, 'chronic', as a description of an illness, often just means 'very bad' - therefore I will use the word in that sense and to hell with what it actually means." You can't carry on a scientific conversation if you allow the use of "popular" meanings of words which have a precise scientific meaning.

If the word "nanopharmacology" means anything at all, it means the pharmacology of substances active at about 10^-9 moles/litre. Which has nothing at all to do with homoeopathic concentrations.

Rolfe.

 

[Pipirr]

I think there is also a clash of cultures that we see time and again between people who routinely work in the soft biological sciences and people whose expertise is in the phsyical sciences. We are used to working with mushy data and having to rely on statistical truths rather than simple black and white outcomes. I'm not sure it would occur to a physical scientist to blind and randomise a routine piece of bench chemistry.

Then there's the odd habit some chemists have of calling a blank sample in a run, a 'blind'. I always said, it's not really 'blind' if you know what it is.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm wondering why Dana keeps saying "take off the blinders" (I assume he means blinkers) when he has shown nothing that has impressed anyone, and yet at the same time he himself is constantly ignoring all the very serious objections to his viewpoint which are being constantly put in front of him.

I-am-not-a-psychologist, but it seems to me he's not a very clear thinker, but is very much invested in the world-view that homoeoapthy works. Therefore when something odd appears which looks as if it might support that world-view, he latches on to it enthusiastically and uncritically - hey look, this is wonderful, it must be true!!!

But at the same time he is stunningly unwilling to take off his own blinkers and address the points we feel to be fatal flaws in his thesis. He just keeps repeating, but look at this great paper - while ignoring both the reasoned criticisms which have been made of these papers, and the other points which keep being put to him.

Very poor intellect, I'm afraid, if we're getting personal.

Rolfe.

 

[krazyKemist]

It's noticeable that a lot of the pet scientists of the homs are physical scientists not biologists or medics (similar is clearly true of the ID/Creation brigade). I don't think it's a coincidence that we see a coterie of ageing physical scientists working outside their area of competence in a medical field where they have no basic feel for the appropriate metods of investigation. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, I had noticed that too. Being a medicinal chemist, I'm kind of halfway between cultures/methods myself (not a very confortable position, I can assure you ).

Also, physicists tend to hold people from other fields, particularly biologists, in comtempt. That comes from physics being at the most fundamental level of it all.

the Kemist

 

[manioberoi]

So, let's go ahead and do it! What is holding you back? Can't you find persons you can "presume" to be healthy?

The rest of what you wrote was indecipherable nonsense. I assume you think it releases you from actually doing any testing, even if you can find someone who is "presumed" to be healthy.

Precisely!!

This "indecipherable nonsense" is really quite simple to understand - if you do not you may seek clarification on the precise points you did not understand - line by line - and unless you do understand, it is difficult to comprehend the homeopathic versus conventional medicine trial conundrum.

A proving can not be replicated - because a proving is not cut and dried as a conventional medicine trial is.

I can see now why some would find it extremely hard to believe that homeopathy works.

They are looking for conventional medical answers from a homeopathic medicine - that is most of the time not a medicine as such (in terms of physical molecules) - it is a mere device (a black box) which signals the release of a mechanism (another black box) which leads to either:

-a cure,
-a suppression,
-an aggravation or
-no effect whatsoever;

and which of these will actually occur can not be foretold with any degree of certainty in advance.

The homeopath is required to soldier on with the next and the next and the next & c remedy - good homeopaths hit on the right remedy in 1 or 2 attempts, others may even require 9 to 10 attempts to hit on the right remedy - oh! and more than one right remedies would be required. Which of the diseases of the set of diseases repertorised will be cured first and which last can also not be foretold.

Nevertheless the overall health would improve and pathologies will fall off one by one over 3 to 6 months, at times longer.

Let me clarify that I am NOT a proponent of homeopathy per se - rather I am a proponent of ALL systems of healthcare that can justify the confidence of the public in their ability to cure.

A homeopathic proving can NOT be replicated - see my earlier posts. It would be impossible.

Let me once again clarify that I am NOT a proponent of homeopathy per se - rather I am a proponent of ALL systems of healthcare that can justify the confidence of the public in their ability to cure.

If I were to meet with a serious accident I would be foolish to seek homeopathic treatment (other than as a supplementary support) - conventional medicine is the way to go. But for cancer (except certain cancers where conventional medicine has exhibited very high percentage of cures - not 5 or 10 years of deathly survival but CURE) I would ordinarily seek out homeopathic cure (sorry, treatment) alongwith naturopathy, ayurveda & c - certainly NOT some of the chemotherapy treatments having poor cure rates); also depending on the specifics, some radiation therapy, gene therapy whenever it is approved.

First and foremost most people resort in the first instance to conventional medicine - very few to ALL other systems.

Homeopathy is the most sought after next only to systems recognised by conventional medicine - this when 99 percent of those seeking the homeopathic treatment have no idea WHATSOEVER how it works - some homeopaths have some ideas, but are not in a position to prove it. Neither do most of them attempt to explain how it works and mostly do not reveal the name of the remedy. Normally people turn to homeopathy only when they find no relief (or even worsening due to toxicity) with the conventional drugs.

Having said that I REPEAT that homeopathy works. Two "anecdotal" instances:

1. In 1980s a case of haemmorhoids(operated with recurrence) cured by a homeopath in Srinagar(J&K), never suffered from that problem again - the person is a heavy drinker and continues to enjoy his drinks - prefers not to use homeopathy since the homeopath advised him that drinking and smoking make the remedies ineffective. Apparently he believes the homeopath!!

2. In 1979 I was posted at Srinagar(J&K) and suffered from severe IBS( stomach complaints ever since 1968 on account of drinking dirty river water during a 3 day training exercise) - the consultant senior medical specialist of the Army Base Hospital sent me back to the unit with 10 different drugs to take saying that if these do not work he would be left with no option but to board me out of service on medical grounds. Not finding any relief I approached the local medical specialist - I had never even heard of homeopathy, but this specialist, asked me to meet him after working hours at his residence - he gave me the address of an old homeopath in Srinagar who would give me some SUGAR PILLS. Disbelieving this whole business, I went anyway, since I had nothing to lose. Since 1979, I was cured (in just 3 weeks) - have never since taken even an aspirin - and currently at age 58 participated in two 42 km marathons in the last two years.

There are many more such cases - they would also be discounted on grounds of "anecdotal" or for being published in some "obscure" journal of complementary, alternate & c medicine.

There certainly are homeopaths who do not believe that homeopathic remedies work and so cases of giving conventional drugs would obviously be found off and on. This in no way detracts from the efficacy of homeopathy in the right hands and for the right purposes.

Just for the record the WATER POTENCIES work much much better than the SUGAR PILLS, so if any serious trials are carried out this be kept in view.The selection of the more characteristic / pathological remedies would also help in getting over some of the problems of the "homeopathic versus conventional medicine trial conundrum" whenever modalities can be agreed upon - but only after "indecipherable nonsense" has been deciphered!!

 

[Oualawouzou]

-Provings can't be replicated;
-Results from trials from a given medicine changes over time and depending on the person doing the proving;
-Effects on patients are unpredictable.

Is all the above correct?

Then how is homeopathy different from ingesting random substances until "something" happens? And how do you ascribe the "something" to the homeopathic remedy and not any other cause?

I will shake a stuffed koala over your head when you are sick. Sometimes, you'll get better. Sometimes, you'll get worse. It's hard to tell, really. Koalas are impredictable. How is this different from homeopathic remedies?

ETA:

whenever modalities can be agreed upon

Since all our propositions for a protocol have been turned down, how about you give us a brief example of a protocol you would consider acceptable? It doesn't have to be thorough, we can work together on ironing out the details, but give us something that you wouldn't consider flawed from the get-go. You speak of tests, but we have no idea what kind of test could be carried out given the way the discussion is headed.

 

[manioberoi]

-Provings can't be replicated;
-Results from trials from a given medicine changes over time and depending on the person doing the proving;
-Effects on patients are unpredictable.

Is all the above correct?

Then how is homeopathy different from ingesting random substances until "something" happens? And how do you ascribe the "something" to the homeopathic remedy and not any other cause?

I will shake a stuffed koala over your head when you are sick. Sometimes, you'll get better. Sometimes, you'll get worse. It's hard to tell, really. Koalas are impredictable. How is this different from homeopathic remedies?

ETA:

Since all our propositions for a protocol have been turned down, how about you give us a brief example of a protocol you would consider acceptable? It doesn't have to be thorough, we can work together on ironing out the details, but give us something that you wouldn't consider flawed from the get-go. You speak of tests, but we have no idea what kind of test could be carried out given the way the discussion is headed.

All of the above are correct.
It is different from random because there is at any point in time a finite set of symptoms associated with the one remedy that is prescribed at one time - the homeopath matches these with what he observes- if deviations occur he moves on to the next remedy - each persons treatment would run an individual course, barring genus epidemicus - where a set of remedies would be applied to a population in an epidemic.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

-Provings can't be replicated;
-Results from trials from a given medicine changes over time and depending on the person doing the proving;
-Effects on patients are unpredictable.

Is all the above correct?

Then how is homeopathy different from ingesting random substances until "something" happens? And how do you ascribe the "something" to the homeopathic remedy and not any other cause?

I will shake a stuffed koala over your head when you are sick. Sometimes, you'll get better. Sometimes, you'll get worse. It's hard to tell, really. Koalas are impredictable. How is this different from homeopathic remedies?

ETA:

Since all our propositions for a protocol have been turned down, how about you give us a brief example of a protocol you would consider acceptable? It doesn't have to be thorough, we can work together on ironing out the details, but give us something that you wouldn't consider flawed from the get-go. You speak of tests, but we have no idea what kind of test could be carried out given the way the discussion is headed.

The funny (sad really) thing is that most of the world's population would buy into it if someone with enough social standing recommended it.

 

[Oualawouzou]

All of the above are correct.
It is different from random because there is at any point in time a finite set of symptoms associated with the one remedy that is prescribed at one time - the homeopath matches these with what he observes- if deviations occur he moves on to the next remedy - each persons treatment would run an individual course, barring genus epidemicus - where a set of remedies would be applied to a population in an epidemic.

But that's precisely the problem.

Assuming that homeopathy does work, what is there to match if a remedy's action cannot be predicted with any sort of accuracy? How can you match one thing with a second ever-changing, perpetually transforming other thing?

And to the risk of repeating myself:

Since all our propositions for a protocol have been turned down, how about you give us a brief example of a protocol you would consider acceptable? It doesn't have to be thorough, we can work together on ironing out the details, but give us something that you wouldn't consider flawed from the get-go. You speak of tests, but we have no idea what kind of test could be carried out given the way the discussion is headed.

 

[Michael C]

A homeopathic proving can NOT be replicated - see my earlier posts. It would be impossible.

Then why bother doing it in the first place?

 

[manioberoi]

I've snipped out the bit where you constructed as many obstacles as you thought you needed to "get out of jail" ...



I did ask (in my original message to you) why you have to "come up with blocking tactics" ... and you didn't disappoint by providing an instant illustration.

Why is it that you just keep coming up with problems, and never suggest solutions. If there is a flaw in the test ideas we present, why don't you improve the procedure to remove the flaw, rather than just moan about it? Is it because you are actually scared of what you might find out if such a test was properly conducted? If you take me up on this offer, remember that a test should be a simple as possible, and as complex as necesary. Please don't just add complexity in order to cloud the issue.

OK - here we go again. Having to iterate around tweaking a test procedure while the woo creates obstacles each time they get cornered ...

There is no reason that the double blind trials have to be "short". I think that Hans' perspective would be that it would be nice to get a definitive answer as to the efficacy of homoeopathy as soon as possible (in our own life-times would be nice!) but maybe you aren't really interested in that. Why can't we conduct the controlled double blind test along "suitably long" time-scales if that is your latest objection?

Just out of interest, in all those papers you were so fond of flooding the message board with in your early posts ... you know - the ones that you claim supported your belief that homoeopathy works - what was the length of those trials from start to finish? Did you consider them all "long enough" because you like the reported results? Are any results you don't like not "long enough"? Think about it ... this is just creating a world where you can choose results, rather than observe them ... why do you need to do that?

Remember, once we get past your latest invented obstacle, and you move on to the next ... you are the one proving that they have no interest in finding out the truth about homoeopathy ...

• If it works ... great ... what's wrong with proving it to everyones satisfaction so we can get on with using it more and more.
• If it doesn't work, then either you have been duped or are a charlatan.

I have said elsewhere that the present protocols for conventional medicine are not suited for homeopathic trials - also some collaborative efforts are ongoing between CCRH and AIIMS in India wherein homeopaths are being educated on the methodology followed in conventional medicine - as far as I know they are attempting a direct copy (using the ICMR Guidelines designed for conventional medicine directly) - not a good idea in my opinion - but it is a start - if at first, as I expect, the trials throw up some problems, I am sure the two entities will sit together and graduate to find a direct methodology more suited for homeopathic trials (eg not accepting smokers, coffee drinkers, since these substances have high propensity to cancel out the homeopathic effect) and acceptable to the searching scientific mind, (maybe a 6 month homeopathic trial treatment (require to include dietary and exercise control) of 20 to 30 individuals with a common set of lifestyle diseases (eg diabetes with high BP) - where the aggregate percentage of cure results could be set at say 50 percent with at least 20 percent fully cured within 6 months, would count for more than some blind infatuation with placebos and double blinding - I do not see why conventional medicine would have a problem here because a physical test of most homeopathic remedies would show placebo anyway).

 

[manioberoi]

Then why bother doing it in the first place?

Because it provides valuable information of currently obtained symptoms for interpreting the effects of administration of the homeopathic remedy.

 

[Oualawouzou]

Because it provides valuable information of currently obtained symptoms for interpreting the effects of administration of the homeopathic remedy.

But you have said yourself that these symptoms obtained at the time of proving very well may not be the ones obtained at the time the remedy is given, and furthermore that the symptoms felt by the prover very well may have nothing to do with the effects the remedy will have on the patient (ETA: or would have on the patient should he use the remedy at the exact same time the prover is doing the proving)... So why bother doing provings in the first place, since the data (I use that term loosely) is worthless to determine any future outcome?

 

[manioberoi]

Then why bother doing it in the first place?

That was a very important question. It does require a more detailed explanation

A proving is conducted with a remedy on a set of provers. The symptoms revealed are a function of:

-the remedy
-the potency of the remedy
-the environment
-the prover

While the first two are generally functions that would cause repeat symptoms, it is entirely a different matter when it comes to the last two - they are variable and hence the variation in the symptoms.

Next objection was that this is too random a system to be workable.

Yes, but in aggregating the random systems we are actually building up what is called the remedy picture - a full picture would require every person on earth to be proved in all environments- when we prove 10 in environment 'A' - a partial picture is built up - then later we prove 20 in environment 'B' - a more comprehensive picture is built up - this gives rise to the oft heard "well proven remedy" - it means simply that large number of provings have been conducted on the remedy.

More provings mean less chaos and more order - not more chaos as some of you thought.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

rather I am a proponent of ALL systems of healthcare that can justify the confidence of the public in their ability to cure.

Score 10 Kumars to me. Thank you. None of you were quick enough. They were just asking to be taken.

 

[krazyKemist]

1. In 1980s a case of haemmorhoids(operated with recurrence) cured by a homeopath in Srinagar(J&K), never suffered from that problem again - the person is a heavy drinker and continues to enjoy his drinks - prefers not to use homeopathy since the homeopath advised him that drinking and smoking make the remedies ineffective. Apparently he believes the homeopath!!

2. In 1979 I was posted at Srinagar(J&K) and suffered from severe IBS( stomach complaints ever since 1968 on account of drinking dirty river water during a 3 day training exercise) - the consultant senior medical specialist of the Army Base Hospital sent me back to the unit with 10 different drugs to take saying that if these do not work he would be left with no option but to board me out of service on medical grounds. Not finding any relief I approached the local medical specialist - I had never even heard of homeopathy, but this specialist, asked me to meet him after working hours at his residence - he gave me the address of an old homeopath in Srinagar who would give me some SUGAR PILLS. Disbelieving this whole business, I went anyway, since I had nothing to lose. Since 1979, I was cured (in just 3 weeks) - have never since taken even an aspirin - and currently at age 58 participated in two 42 km marathons in the last two years.

There are many more such cases - they would also be discounted on grounds of "anecdotal" or for being published in some "obscure" journal of complementary, alternate & c medicine.

Ok. First off, these two problems are known to resorb by themselves. IBS (if it was IBS, which itself is a quite fuzzy diagnosis) in particular can be managed quite well through diet. It also could have been an infection (...dirty water...) fought off naturally by the immune system. Without any help from homeopathy. Conventional medecine does take into account the body's hability to heal itself, contrarly to what many alt med proponents claim.

Second, a finding of that magnitude, backed by quality data, not anecdote, will always find a place in a quality journal. If one assumes the contrary, then one enters the realm of conspiracy theories (the big bad pharmas are controlling the good papers). Some good medical journals publish case studies, so the problem is not unique to homeopathy. What is the difference ? How do you transform anecdotes into data ? Simple: follow-up. The biggest difference between alt med practitionners and doctors is that doctors have the habit of following up all their patients. When you have follow-up, documentation, of all your cases (not only those that work, no cherry picking), then you can compile statistics. Data.

How is that impossible for homoepathy ? Is a homeopath unable to follow-up his/her patients ? To document every case ? To compile statistics ?

the Kemist

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

manioberoi,

Thus far people have been very polite to you, but there comes a point where just repeating the same stupid things despite irrefutable arguments to the contrary just becomes ridiculous.

Now read and answer the damn question;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?

 

[krazyKemist]

(eg not accepting smokers, coffee drinkers, since these substances have high propensity to cancel out the homeopathic effect) and acceptable to the searching scientific mind, (maybe a 6 month homeopathic trial treatment (require to include dietary and exercise control) of 20 to 30 individuals with a common set of lifestyle diseases (eg diabetes with high BP) - where the aggregate percentage of cure results could be set at say 50 percent with at least 20 percent fully cured within 6 months, would count for more than some blind infatuation with placebos and double blinding - I do not see why conventional medicine would have a problem here because a physical test of most homeopathic remedies would show placebo anyway).

Ok, as long as the placebo group does not accept smokers and coffee drinkers too. Both groups have to be homogenized. Meaning having similar composition. And, the "infatuation" conventional medicine has with double-blinding is due to the placebo effect itself, the way people have of getting cured simply because they believe something is curing them. So to prove the claim that homeopathy has any effect at all, that it is not the placebo effect alone acting, there must be a placebo group, double-blinded. This is not about convincing us that something is a placebo with a physical test, but rather that a homeopathic remedy is not a placebo !

the Kemist

 

[Mojo]

Just for the record the WATER POTENCIES work much much better than the SUGAR PILLS

An interesting assertion, bearing in mind that pretty much all the homoeopathic remedies I've ever seen on sale have been in the form of sugar pills, and none have been in the form of "water potencies". Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? How much better do the water potencies work?

 

[Mojo]

And, the "infatuation" conventional medicine has with double-blinding is due to the placebo effect itself, the way people have of getting cured simply because they believe something is curing them.

Or of reporting a cure or improvement because they believe something is curing them, or, of course, that nasty habit patients have of simply getting better without any intervention...