More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Mojo]

Although some medical historians have referred to Gully as a hydrotherapist, this is just the historians way of writing homeopathy out of history.

I've checked out Gully's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (generally regarded as a pretty authoritative source of biographical information on British figures). No mention of homoeopathy there: he's described as "physician and hydropath". It also says he became "a fervent believer in spiritualism". And then of course there's the Bravo case.

So the best example for homeopathy in the thread so far is someone who lived almost 200 years ago and wasn't actually a homeopath? Sounds par for the course.

He may be considered a good example by homoeopaths because, according to the probate records referenced by the DNB, his wealth at death was £29,823 12s. 4d. That's in excess of £2,000,000 in today's money.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I see manioberoi is adopting another favourite tactic of our homeopathic visitors, the post and run.

I do wish he would answer this 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?

Do you know what? I don't think he dare answer it. It would mean he'd have to do some independent thinking instead of relying on copying other people's (invariably daft) ideas.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. JamesGully last posted here on the 19th June. Will he return? Does anyone care? What's the betting he'll still find himself incapable of answering a number of simple questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

What is it about thinking for themselves that so scares homeopaths? Frightened of letting go of Mummy's apron strings, perhaps.

 

[malbui]

I could have sworn that many pages ago we were told to expect a big bomb that would cause us all to reconsider our scorn for homeopathy. Did I miss it or has it simply not appeared yet?

 

[Pipirr]

I could have sworn that many pages ago we were told to expect a big bomb that would cause us all to reconsider our scorn for homeopathy. Did I miss it or has it simply not appeared yet?

James Gully has been reticient on what da big bomb actually will be.

Going on what he has said in this thread so far, I suspect it's Rustum Roy's upcoming publication in the journal Homeopathy. Details are scant at the present time, but expect lots of abuse of the concept of epitaxy, and fuzzy spectral analysis. Go here for details.

If not Roy, then it may have been the story that Charles Darwin once used the services of a homeopath. Named, coincidentally, James Gully. There's probably going to be a book about it soon.

 

[Mojo]

If not Roy, then it may have been the story that Charles Darwin once used the services of a homeopath. Named, coincidentally, James Gully. There's probably going to be a book about it soon.

A book coincidentally written by Dana Ullman.

 

[krazyKemist]

Going on what he has said in this thread so far, I suspect it's Rustum Roy's upcoming publication in the journal Homeopathy. Details are scant at the present time, but expect lots of abuse of the concept of epitaxy, and fuzzy spectral analysis. Go here for details.

This guy needs somebody to gift him a book on thermodynamics fast.

Any reviewer whom doesn't question him on that is a total blibbering idiot. Well I guess he can only publish this trash in Homeopathy.

the Kemist

 

[manioberoi]

Meanwhile...

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?

I do not remember a whisper of comment on my post :
#647
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
Not so easy to write the epitaph of homeopathy.

 

[manioberoi]

p.s. JamesGully last posted here on the 19th June. Will he return? Does anyone care? What's the betting he'll still find himself incapable of answering a number of simple questions.

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?

I did see that Dana Ullman said "No comments" on that one. It would be tricky to comment one way or the other without a knowledge of the occult, which none of us has been gifted with.

As far as regular classical homeopathy is concerned those two treatments do not find a place in the regular homeopathic practice.

 

[kieran]

I do not remember a whisper of comment on my post :
#647
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
Not so easy to write the epitaph of homeopathy.

Relevant part of that post included here ...

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
"Inhibition of chemically induced carcinogenesis by drugs used in homeopathic medicine.
Kumar KH, Sunila ES, Kuttan G, Preethi KC, Venugopal CN, Kuttan R.
Amala Cancer Research Centre, Amala Nagar, Thrissur, Kerala State, India. 680555. [email protected].

Homeopathy is considered as one modality for cancer therapy. However, there are only very few clinical reports on the activity of the drugs, as well as in experimental animals. Presently we have evaluated the inhibitory effects of potentized homeopathic preparations against N'-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) induced hepatocellular carcinoma in rats as well as 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas in mice. We have used Ruta, Hydrastis, Lycopodium and Thuja, which are commonly employed in homeopathy for treating cancer. Administration of NDEA in rats resulted in tumor induction in the liver and elevated marker enzymes such as gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, glutamate pyruvate transaminase, glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase and alkaline phosphatase in the serum and in liver. Concomitant administration of homeopathic drugs retarded the tumor growth and significantly reduced the elevated marker enzymes level as revealed by morphological, biochemical and histopathological evaluation. Out of the four drugs studied, Ruta 200c showed maximum inhibition of liver tumor development. Ruta 200c and phosphorus 1M were found to reduce the incidence of 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas and also increase the life span of mice harboring the tumours. These studies demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, at ultra low doses, may be able to decrease tumor induction by carcinogen administration. At present we do not know the mechanisms of action of these drugs useful against carcinogenesis."

Where would you like to start ...

• The abstract given there gives no indication that any control was applied.
• An absolute effect is claimed but the magnitude of that effect is not stated ... what do terms like "significant" mean?

All you put up was a sketchy abstract, maybe my cursory comments are covered fully and answered in the paper, but I don't have access to that ...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

There's an "interesting" discussion with a homeopath going on here (over several blog posts), if anyone would like to contribute.

http://homeopathy.wildfalcon.com/

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I do not remember a whisper of comment on my post :
#647
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
Not so easy to write the epitaph of homeopathy.

That's not even an attempt to answer the question. The question remains;

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?

Please cease your evasions they are deeply discourteous.

You have had a response to your copying here of that abstract. It would not be reasonable of you to post it without being in a position to comment in detail on the methods used, so to echo Kieran, please tell us what controls were used and tell about the statistical methods. The abstract gives no basis on which to form an opinion.

I do hope that your opinion of that study is not based solely on the abstract that really would be inept. Just to be clear, I shall give you another binary question: have you read the full paper for that abstract? Yes or No?

 

[Pipirr]

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.

Inhibition of Chemically Induced Carcinogenesis by Drugs Used in Homeopathic Medicine

Full text is freely available, here:

http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No1/Kuttan 98-102.pdf

 

[kieran]

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.

Inhibition of Chemically Induced Carcinogenesis by Drugs Used in Homeopathic Medicine

Full text is freely available, here:

http://www.apocp.org/cancer_download/Volume8_No1/Kuttan 98-102.pdf

Excellent - a constructive step ... apparently controls were used, and quantitative results were included. Why have we had to wade through the dross to get to here?

The spread of surviving animals between a conventional medicine, pure ethanol and various homoeopathic ethanols was only 11 to 13 (out of 15) in these tests. Other indicators used showed more pronounced benefits for the homoeopathic remedies - but I'll wait until I hear from more qualified people here to see what those indicators mean in reality and how reliable they are normally considered.

Has anyone attempted replication of these results?

Do we, at last, have something interesting to discuss?

 

[fls]

Excellent - a constructive step ... apparently controls were used, and quantitative results were included. Why have we had to wade through the dross to get to here?

The spread of surviving animals between a conventional medicine, pure ethanol and various homoeopathic ethanols was only 11 to 13 (out of 15) in these tests. Other indicators used showed more pronounced benefits for the homoeopathic remedies - but I'll wait until I hear from more qualified people here to see what those indicators mean in reality and how reliable they are normally considered.

Has anyone attempted replication of these results?

Do we, at last, have something interesting to discuss?

Comparisons were not made with the relevant controls. It was not blinded. Relevant outcomes showed no difference. Irrelevant outcomes (the relationship between liver enzymes and cancer is less straightforward than they intimated (increase or decrease can be associated with both improvement or worsening)) showed some differences, but at some point you have to wonder how much data mining was going on. The lack of blinding alone makes these results invalid.

The answer to your last question is "no".

Linda

 

[manioberoi]

Excellent - a constructive step ... apparently controls were used, and quantitative results were included. Why have we had to wade through the dross to get to here?

The spread of surviving animals between a conventional medicine, pure ethanol and various homoeopathic ethanols was only 11 to 13 (out of 15) in these tests. Other indicators used showed more pronounced benefits for the homoeopathic remedies - but I'll wait until I hear from more qualified people here to see what those indicators mean in reality and how reliable they are normally considered.

Has anyone attempted replication of these results?

Do we, at last, have something interesting to discuss?

Thanks for the reference. It is a plausible foundation study for further research. However:

In this study a mention is made of Pathak et al 2003 using Ruta 6C.

In order to avoid homeopathic aggravation and get more reproducible results, use of 6C water potency ( and RO water as control) has been discussed earlier.

The basis for this lies in the works of Hahnemann, Francisco Xavier Eizayaga, MD, Robin Murphy, ND and some French homeopaths;6C water potency is both a balancing potency and a cumulative potency - that is, it avoids grave aggravation, indicates when to stop, and effectiveness of remedy is cumulative by means of repetition.

The results here are fairly good even though use of potencies of 1M and 200C was made - ordinarily 30C has been used traditionally in homeopathic studies of the recent past - I feel there is need to change to 6C water potency. (presently vast majority of Indian homeopaths are using 10M, 1M, 200C which is quite likely to - and often does cause severe aggravation.

 

[manioberoi]

Comparisons were not made with the relevant controls. It was not blinded. Relevant outcomes showed no difference. Irrelevant outcomes (the relationship between liver enzymes and cancer is less straightforward than they intimated (increase or decrease can be associated with both improvement or worsening)) showed some differences, but at some point you have to wonder how much data mining was going on. The lack of blinding alone makes these results invalid.

The answer to your last question is "no".

Linda

Your fetish for chemical/physical tests of the homeopathic remedies(placebo), double blinding / controls & c is all very well for conventional drug treatment efficacy - however homeopathy does not operate on the principles of conventional drugs.

For a detailed understanding of these issues read:
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/nel046v1.pdf

The observations in this paper should be kept in mind while attempting to evolve an acceptable frame of reference for homeopathic trials; suitable modifications could be made in the traditional mode of drug trials to incorporate the issues raised in this paper.

 

[manioberoi]

That's not even an attempt to answer the question. The question remains;

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?

Please cease your evasions they are deeply discourteous.

You have had a response to your copying here of that abstract. It would not be reasonable of you to post it without being in a position to comment in detail on the methods used, so to echo Kieran, please tell us what controls were used and tell about the statistical methods. The abstract gives no basis on which to form an opinion.

I do hope that your opinion of that study is not based solely on the abstract that really would be inept. Just to be clear, I shall give you another binary question: have you read the full paper for that abstract? Yes or No?

I am sorry for the delay, it was unintentional.
I hope #734 #737 and #738 have resolved the issue?

 

[Mojo]

manioberoi, would you like to comment on the serious side-effects of a homoeopathic treatment mentioned here?