More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Michael C]

Holmes' example was intellectually dishonest because it is a false metaphor. One cannot say that the atomic bomb is a placebo just because it is impossible for such small things as atoms creating big explosions...or others might note that a single atom cannot exist because the material in the atom is so much smaller than the space inbetween its component parts.

OK, but that's not what you said in the extract from your book. You said "However, Dr. Holmes had seemingly never read a single book on homeopathy or had any meaningful dialogue with a homeopath because he committed a classic error of calculation". This is simply not true. Holmes calculations are correct and he made it perfectly clear that he was making an illustration. If you think that the illustration itself is invalid, you may give your reasons, but what you actually do, in the extract from your book, is to misrepresent what Holmes really said.

Once more: you quote him as having said homeopathy "has taught us a lesson of the healing faculty of Nature which was needed, and for which many of us have made proper acknowledgements" to give the impression that he had finally confessed that Homeopathy works.

In fact, if the quote is put into context, Holmes's real meaning becomes clear: he meant that Homeopathy had been useful in making the fact clear that people often get better with no treatment at all: "Nature" does the work. As he says at another point:

"While keeping up the miserable delusion that diseases were all to be
"cured" by drugging, Homoeopathy has been unintentionally showing
that they would very generally get well without any drugging at all."

Please note that my point here is not to defend Holmes: it is to attack your own dishonesty in incorrectly or incompletely quoting him.

 

[steenkh]

It is hilarious in a tragic way to see how a man without good evidence accuses others of intellectual dishonesty, yet is himself repeatedly and grossly exhibiting intellectual dishonesty. Talk about living in glasshouses!

At least I have learned something about Dr. Holmes, who seems not to deserve the smear that JamesGully intends to publish in his new quote-mining exercise.

 

[Cuddles]

At least I have learned something about Dr. Holmes, who seems not to deserve the smear that JamesGully intends to publish in his new quote-mining exercise.

As they say, all publicity is good publicity. I'd never heard of Holmes and had never really looked at the origin of homeopathy. I've actually leant quite a lot from this thread, although probably not quite in the way JamesGully hoped.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I thought that the point was obvious: people who do not understand the past are condemned to repeat it...as this list has shown...

So which other achaic literature do you wish us to study, lest we repeat the past?

I do not have the time to respond to all of your questions and responses. You obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do.

Of course not. After all you are busy quote-mining, and making posts devoid of argument.

Holmes' example was intellectually dishonest because it is a false metaphor. One cannot say that the atomic bomb is a placebo just because it is impossible for such small things as atoms creating big explosions...or others might note that a single atom cannot exist because the material in the atom is so much smaller than the space inbetween its component parts.

You analogy is intellectually dishonest because that was not what Holmes said. He explained that there are no atoms in homeopathic remedies. Not small atoms, NO atoms. Shall I explain the difference to you?

The AMA Code of Ethics explicitly disallow consultations with homeopaths from the 1860s to the turn of the century, and this was one of the very few ethical codes that was ever enforces. Read some medical history books to learn about the "Consultation Clause."

What has consultation to do with talking?

And yet, once Andral himself acknowledged the SERIOUS problems with his "research," Holmes chose to not change a single word from his essays, even when the collection of his essays was published in 1891.

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty. Case book, indeed.

Even if this is correct, why exactly should we care?

I would hope that scientifically-minded people, including many people on this list who proclaim to be such, would join me in expressing concerns about Holmes and his ilk.

Which ilk? And why should we care at all? Holmes is long dead. None of us have used him as a reference for anything. How exactly is his conduct relevant for the discussion about homeopathy in the present?

Thanx, Rolfe. I appreciate it when you show your gentlemanly side. You are one of the few that doesn't name-call or belittle. I predict that one day you will be a leading advocate of homeopathy and nanopharmacology (I hope that your fellow skeptics here don't belittle you before of this remark).

That'll be the day!

Seriously: Careful; you are playing with fire, now.

Hans

 

[Mojo]

The AMA Code of Ethics explicitly disallow consultations with homeopaths from the 1860s to the turn of the century, and this was one of the very few ethical codes that was ever enforces. Read some medical history books to learn about the "Consultation Clause."

How would this have prevented him from talking to homoeopaths before writing his essay about homoeopathy in 1842?

 

[fls]

I would never expect you or anyone to say that a single study or a replicated study would "prove" entire system of homeopathy, just as I wouldn't expect you to say that it would disprove the entire system of homeopathy.

But the problem is that you and others specifically mention these studies when we point out that there is no evidence that homeopathy is valid. You have even referred specifically to the influenza studies when we have pointed out that reproducibility of results is one of the components of proof for a hypothesis. You do actually seem to think that these studies contribute to the proof of homeopathy which is why I felt compelled to point out that they do not.

However, I would expect scientifically-minded people to say that Oscillococcinum IS effective in the treatment of influenza and inflenza-like syndromes because three large, independently conducted double-blind studies have shown this to be true.

Again, you are grossly over-stating the case. Even just looking at whether or not water prepared in a certain manner is effective in the treatment of influenza, the results are equivocal. It is not clear whether or not differences were found between the treated and untreated groups because the researchers looked for and emphasized any differences while downplaying similarities, because there are always differences between goups and in this case they were larger than average, or because the special water actually had a tiny effect on influenza.

An honest scientist takes into consideration what conclusions can reliably and validly be drawn from the studies when deciding what can be stated to be true. The results only support the possibility that it is effective, but they most certainly do not exclude the possibility that it is not effective.

It is simply interesting that no one on this list has enough of a backbone to make this statement. Sadly, it is almost as though you are afraid of each other and almost as though you are all vying to seem to be more anti-homeopathic than the other.

Is there a prize?

Get a chance to read it. I don't have the URL right now, but I still assert that this response blows Orac out of the water, especially Orac is simply the theoretician, while Frass and his colleagues are the scientists and researchers. Heck, there are lots of things in nature that seem illogical but are real.

You misunderstood. I did read Frass' response and it was completely unconvincing. Orac wrote two different critiques and Frass only responded to one (per JJM).

ETA: I think I misread JJM's post. I assumed that Orac was Colquhoun. I saw Frass' response to Colquhoun. I did not see any response from Frass to Orac.

Linda

 

[Mojo]

Get a chance to read it. I don't have the URL right now, but I still assert that this response blows Orac out of the water, especially Orac is simply the theoretician, while Frass and his colleagues are the scientists and researchers.

If you want this taken seriously, I suggest that you find the url, or at least a proper published reference, and post it here. As far as I can tell, Orac hasn't had anything published in Chest. A search for Colquhoun as author, on the other hand, finds this.

 

[Mojo]

ETA: I think I misread JJM's post. I assumed that Orac was Colquhoun. I saw Frass' response to Colquhoun. I did not see any response from Frass to Orac.

The problem is JamesGully's habit of making claims about sources without providing references (also mentioned here).

 

[JJM]

{snip} ETA: I think I misread JJM's post. I assumed that Orac was Colquhoun. I saw Frass' response to Colquhoun. I did not see any response from Frass to Orac.

Linda

I see; that is an easy mistake to make, my bad. That is another caution about being accurate in this realm of real names and nom's de blog.

 

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, thinking, mustn't lose this long post, better copy it into Notepad for safety, then pressing Control-V instead of Control-C, is really dumb. Note to self, don't do that again.

I thought that the point was obvious: people who do not understand the past are condemned to repeat it...as this list has shown...

Well we see homoeopaths resolutely repeating all the same errors Hahnemann made, no change in 200 years, nothing new there then.

I do not have the time to respond to all of your questions and responses. You obviously have a lot more time on your hands than I do.

Not really. Funny, I was just thinking, it's odd James has so much time to trawl the internet looking for adverse comments about homoeopathy and/or himself, and butting in to argue. I'd never have time for all that. But the JREF Forum is a hobby of mine, you get such a good class of person here.

Mostly.

This is an easy one: This reference is on page 192 of Holmes' most famous book...his collection of essays entitled MEDICAL ESSAYS.

On page x from MEDICAL ESSAYS...

[Then finally, from the next post, "To clarify, Holmes' worship for Benjamin Rush was evidenced in Holmes' essay "Currents and Counter-Currents" written in 1860."]

OK, the first point James makes made in his critique specifically aimed at Holmes' essay Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions is in fact a criticism of something Holmes wrote in a completely different essay. Good start!

Even there, it takes Mojo to track down and quote Holmes' actual words. Thank you Mojo. I won't repeat it all here, but let's look at one passage.

If I wished him to understand the tendencies of the American medical mind, its sanguine enterprise, its self-confidence, its audacious handling of Nature, its impatience with her old-fashioned ways of taking time to get a sick man well, I would make him read the life and writings of Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush thought and said that there were twenty times more intellect and a hundred times more knowledge in the country in 1799 than before the Revolution. His own mind was in a perpetual state of exaltation produced by the stirring scenes in which he had taken a part, and the quickened life of the time in which he lived. It was not the state to favor sound, calm observation. He was impatient, and Nature is profoundly imperturbable. We may adjust the beating of our hearts to her pendulum if we will and can, but we may be very sure that she will not change the pendulum's rate of going because our hearts are palpitating. He thought he had mastered yellow-fever. "Thank God," he said, "out of one hundred patients whom I have visited or prescribed for this day, I have lost none." Where was all his legacy of knowledge when Norfolk was decimated? Where was it when the blue flies were buzzing over the coffins of the unburied dead piled up in the cemetery of New Orleans, at the edge of the huge trenches yawning to receive them?

While we can see that Holmes was polite about Dr. Rush, and acknowledged his reputation, there isn't the slightest sign in anything quoted that he "worshipped" him. On the contrary, everything about these passages is critical, using Rush as the most prominent example of all that Holmes felt was wrong with the medical establishment of his time - the arrogance, the over-confidence, the too-ready resorting to "heroic" doses of questionable preparations and so on.

OK, untenable misinterpretation applied to Holmes' writings about Rush, presented as unquestionable fact without quotes from the original, and this straw man made the object of attack. Good start, James.

Holmes' example was intellectually dishonest because it is a false metaphor. One cannot say that the atomic bomb is a placebo just because it is impossible for such small things as atoms creating big explosions...or others might note that a single atom cannot exist because the material in the atom is so much smaller than the space inbetween its component parts.

Hamg on a minute! In your original post, you declared that Holmes had shown he didn't understand homoeopathic manufacture because he declared that 10,000 Adriatic seas were needed to make a 17C preparation. Now you realise that blatant misinterpretation has been blown out of the water you resort to another! Holmes employed no "false metaphor". What did he actually say?

For the fourth dilution it would take 10,000 pints, or more than 1,000 gallons, and so on to the ninth dilution, which would take ten billion gallons, which he computed would fill the basin of Lake Agnano, a body of water two miles in circumference. The twelfth dilution would of course fill a million such lakes. By the time the seventeenth degree of dilution should be reached, the alcohol required would equal in quantity the waters of ten thousand Adriatic seas. Trifling errors must be expected, but they are as likely to be on one side as the other, and any little matter like Lake Superior or the Caspian would be but a drop in the bucket.

He is of course explaining, quite correctly, that the dilution factor involved in a 17C preparation is such that it is equivalent to the original drop of mother tincture being dissolved in ten thousand Adriatic Seas. This is a sensible, reasonable and accurate way to explain to the listener, who might be misled by the relatively modest volumes of water actually used to make the serial dilutions, just what a ludicrous dilution factor is actually present.

It's not a metaphor, it's an illustration. I cannot understand what your grossly false analogy about atomic bombs has to do with this at all, but again you seem to be trying to set up a straw man (implying Holmes' argument is as silly as the atomic bomb one) and then knock it down.

So, first try is to claim Holmes said something he simply didn't say, and portray that as "ignorance". Then, when that is exposed, complete change of tack to present a completely silly metaphor, and claim that Holmes' argument (still never quoted) is as silly as that. Very slippery.

The AMA Code of Ethics explicitly disallow consultations with homeopaths from the 1860s to the turn of the century, and this was one of the very few ethical codes that was ever enforces. Read some medical history books to learn about the "Consultation Clause."

And once again, what has that got to do with anything? Holmes' essay was written in 1842, so quoting regulations of the 1860s is a little pointless. However, a code disallowing "consultations" (that is, professional collaborations regarding individual patients and their care) with homoeopaths is hardly the same as declaring that all homoeopaths should be sent to Coventry. Please provide evidence that Holmes prided himself in never talking to a homoeopath, as you declared was the case.

Please also provide evidence that Holmes "had never read a single book on homoeopathy", as you also declared was the case. And then explain how he manages to quote extensively from the writings of Hahnemann.

So herre we have two specific accusations, neither apparently with a shred of evidence to support it. Doing well.

And yet, once Andral himself acknowledged the SERIOUS problems with his "research," Holmes chose to not change a single word from his essays, even when the collection of his essays was published in 1891.

This is a classic example of intellectual dishonesty. Case book, indeed.

Forgive me, but given your virtual 100% record in misrepresenting what people have said and written, I'm not inclined to swallow this tale of recantation whole without actual quotes, dated, and from verifiable sources.

However, even if it were the case that Dr. Andral at some point came to believe that the criticisms of his work were reasonable, does that mean that Holmes had to share his opinion? It is clear from Holmes' essay that he was aware of the criticisms of Andral's work, he addressed these criticisms and dismissed them. What more would you have him do?

Still no acknowledgement that Holmes was aware of the criticism of Andral and dealt with it in his essay as he saw fit. Running true to form.

I would hope that scientifically-minded people, including many people on this list who proclaim to be such, would join me in expressing concerns about Holmes and his ilk.

Why should I be concerned about a writer whose work dates back to 1842? It's interesting only because it's relevant, and it's relevant because it's true. Holmes pretty much covered all the basic inanities and contradictions of homoeopathy in a witty and entertaining essay, way back then. It has endured on its merits, which are considerable. It will take more than the misinterpretations and straw-man attacks of an aggrieved homoeopath to damage that man's reputation.

[Regarding homoeopathy as a shining example of "first do no harm".]

I'm glad that you acknowledged this.

My God, is it me who is being misinterpreted and by implication misquoted now? I'm "acknowledging" nothing. It's well known that it was the observation (from homoeopathy) of how often people got well with nursing care only, and no effective medication, which prompted the realisation among some doctors of the 19th century that their methods were possibly actively harmful. Pointing out that homoeopathy provided a useful "control group" of untreated patients is in no way any acknowledgement that the arcane beliefs and practices of homoeopathy do the slightest good whatsoever, of themselves.

Thanx, Rolfe. I appreciate it when you show your gentlemanly side. You are one of the few that doesn't name-call or belittle. I predict that one day you will be a leading advocate of homeopathy and nanopharmacology (I hope that your fellow skeptics here don't belittle you before of this remark).

I'm no gentleman, believe me. Good Lord, what planet are you orbiting? I don't need to call names, because you do such a good job of showing yourself up for a fool, all by yourself, and an intellectually dishonest fool at that. The day I'm a leading advocate of homoeopathy - well, the phrase "cold day in hell" rather springs to mind.

Nanopharmacology? Well, I'm no pharmacologist, in spite of having done my PhD work in a pharmacology department, but I do know that there are even now active drugs which are effective in the body at the 10^-9 order of magnitude. This is of course what "nanopharmacology" really means, if anyone bothered to use the term. I anticipate there will be more in the future, as molecules are specifically designed to fit particular receptor sites. But that isn't what James means at all, is it. He's still trying to hijack a rather orphan term with a specific meaning to give some semblance of respectability to his witterings about preparations in the purely theoretical range of 10^-24 and beyond.

Get over it, James. Homoeopathy isn't nano-anything. It's just no-medicine.

I've got a bit more to say about the string of dishonesty that is James' post about O. W. Holmes, which seems to be a preview of something he is preparing for publication, but I want my tea now.

Bye!

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Hmmm, thinking, mustn't lose this long post, better copy it into Notepad for safety, then pressing Control-V instead of Control-C, is really dumb. Note to self, don't do that again.

Control-Z is your friend.

.....
Nanopharmacology? Well, I'm no pharmacologist, in spite of having done my PhD work in a pharmacology department, but I do know that there are even now active drugs which are effective in the body at the 10^-9 order of magnitude. This is of course what "nanopharmacology" really means, if anyone bothered to use the term. I anticipate there will be more in the future, as molecules are specifically designed to fit particular receptor sites. But that isn't what James means at all, is it. He's still trying to hijack a rather orphan term with a specific meaning to give some semblance of respectability to his witterings about preparations in the purely theoretical range of 10^-24 and beyond.

Get over it, James. Homoeopathy isn't nano-anything. It's just no-medicine.

There is actually some exciting things happening with nanotechnology/nanopharmacology:
http://www.nature.com/bjp/journal/v...l;jsessionid=12AE11B0B9705E4FBFF32CFE1AAC786C

And it has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy.

...The critique of the details of the study itself was on Orac's blog. I did not see a response from the authors there (although admittedly I didn't wade through all the posts, as a fight broke out over what to do about homeopathy).

...

The funny thing about the one angry guy, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/07/homeopathy_in_thecringeicu_1.php#comment-486142 , is that he lives in San Francisco, which I believe is close to Ullman. I apologize for goading him a bit, because I now believe he is actually quite ill. I won't do that anymore.

 

[fls]

I see; that is an easy mistake to make, my bad. That is another caution about being accurate in this realm of real names and nom's de blog.

It wasn't your fault - I misread something, and (to my even deeper shame) I took something that Ullman said at face value. That'll teach me!

Linda

 

[Mojo]

Please also provide evidence that Holmes "had never read a single book on homoeopathy", as you also declared was the case. And then explain how he manages to quote extensively from the writings of Hahnemann.

Well, "James" has evidently not read what Holmes wrote, but still feels able to [mis]quote him in his long streams of GullyBull^TM.

[Regarding homoeopathy as a shining example of "first do no harm".]

1. First, do no harm.
2. ???
3. Profit!

 

[Mojo]

Has he left the country again?

 

[steenkh]

Has he left the country again?

You must respect his line of work. Good quote-mining is a lot of work, and it takes time.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Has he left the country again?

Maybe he is hiding from "S.H.A.M. Scam Sam" who lives uncomfortably close to him (the short story is that this angry man's mother-in-law died from cancer after seeking treatment from a homeopath... then his wife disvorced him and ran off with the homeopath... and he feels that bloggers are not doing enough to bring the evil homeopaths down).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, I suppose you can't blame him for fleing. Once you get under Rolfe's gentelemanly hands, the flight reflex must get strong, if you're a homeopath .

Seems you guys broke this one, too. Whether he realizes it and wisely stays away, time will show, hehe.

Hans

 

[Rolfe]

But I hadn't finished with him! [stamps foot]

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

It looks to me as if James' post #763 is a preview of something he's preparing for publication. So let's have a look at how it stacks up in the accuracy stakes.

• James states that he's going to critique an essay by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. entitled Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions. He kicks off by lambasting Holmes for his "worship" of a Dr. Rush, but includes no references or substantial quotes. When we (that is Mojo) finally find out what he's talking about, it turns out to be contained in a different essay, one entitled Currents and Countercurrents.
• Having found what Holmes actually said about Dr. Rush, we find that he is in fact highly critical of the man, holding him up as a prime example of what he believes is wrong with the contemporary medical establishment, its arrogance, overconfidence and tendency to over-prescribe heroic quantities of possibly harmful substances. It may be that Holmes' gently ironic style of writing is simply miles above James' head, but he really needs to pay more attention to what he's reading if he's going to criticise it in print.
• James goes on to state that Holmes accused homoeopathy of being "barbaric" because of its use of snake venom. Once again, it took Mojo to find the actual passage referred to, in the preface to Medical Essays, not in the essay Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions. We find that Holmes has said nothing of the sort. After having opined that homoeopathy might be credited with unintentionally doing some good by demonstrating to the heroic brigade how often patients do just fine with no treatment, he looks at the other side of the scale. There he observes that homoeopathic doctrine, by continuing to promote such things as snake venoms as "specific cures", is retrograde, and harmful to progress. The term "barbarism" as describing the use of snake venoms (actual quantities) in medical treatment, is however reserved for the conventional medicine of his time. Far from being a contradiction of Holmes' elsewhere-expressed opinion that the entire materia medica of his time was worse than useless, it is part and parcel of that opinion.
• Next, James attacks Holmes' illustration of the ludicrous dilution factors achieved by homoeopathy's serial 1:100 dilutions. This one is so gross I have to quote it.

  However, Dr. Holmes got his calculations confused, and he incorrectly assumed that the homeopathic manufacturer had to have 10 times or 100 times more water than in the previous dilution. Dr. Holmes estimated that the 9th dilution would require ten billion gallons of water and the 17th dilution required a quantity equal to 10,000 Adriatic seas. Dr. Holmes could have easily corrected his error if he had simply gone into one homeopathic pharmacy or had a simple short conversation with a homeopath.

  Is this clear or is it clear? James actually seems to think that Holmes really believed a homoeopathic manufacturer would actually use a volume of solvent (not water, by the way, alcohol!) equivalent to 10,000 times the volume of the Adriatic to make every 17C preparation. Does James think at all? And based on that preposterous misinterpretation, James accuses Holmes of never having read a single book on homeopathy or having any meaningful dialogue with a homeopath, and indeed declared that Holmes prided himself in never talking with a homoeopath! James can provide no evidence that Holmes never talked with any homoeopath, or read a single book on homoeopathy, and is in the latter accusation calmly ignoring Holmes' extensive quotes from Hahnemann's own writings.
• Once the illustrative rather than literal meaning of Holmes' "calculations" is pointed out to him, James backtracks to declare it a "false metaphor". To do this he produces a quite stunningly false (and indeed meaningless) metaphor to do with atoms in an atomic bomb, and baldly asserts that Holmes' sensible and well-explained illustration is a silly as that. Two own goals in one! No James, it's not literal, but it's not a metaphor either, it's an illustration. Care to try again to explain where it's wrong?
• James then appears to criticise Holmes for inconsistency between one statement that homoeopathy had become popular because conventional physicians over-medicated their patients, and another that "the public insists on being poisoned". There is no contradiction there, they are two sides of the same coin. When the public "insists on being poisoned" (that is, on being given something they believe to be medicine), then a doctrine that gives them harmless sugar pills might well flourish when compared to one which gives harsh purgatives! Baseless criticism.
• James then proceeds to criticise Holmes' references to work carried out by a Dr. Andral, which James asserts was subsequently repudiated by Andral. Two points emerge. First, James has not shown the evidence that Andral repudiated his work (and based on track record, forgive me if I suspect that the reality of what he said may have been somewhat unlike what James asserts it to be). Second, if we actually read Holmes' writings (this time actually in the essay in question), we find that he is well aware that Andral's work had been criticised by homoeopaths, and he makes reference to Andral having completely repeated some of his work subsequent to some criticism. Holmes confronts the critics square on, debunks them quite effectively, and makes it clear why, in his opinion, Andral's work was useful and valid. But does James allow the merest hint of this in his critique? Of course not.
• James concludes by having the gall to imply that Holmes actually came to believe that homoeopathy was a valid method of treatment, saying that he "confessed" that homeopathy “has taught us a lesson of the healing faculty of Nature which was needed, and for which many of us have made proper acknowledgements”. It's the word "confessed" that's so dishonest here. Holmes quite properly observed that on one sense homoeopathy might be regarded as having done conventional medicine a favour, by providing a control group of untreated patients which allowed observation of how well most people will recover when nature is left to her own devices. (Of course he then decided that on balance homoeopathy was a retrograde influence, by its promotion of the idea that there were "specifics" such as snake venom for all conditions, but that's by the way.) To represent this as any sort of acknowledgement that the arcane beliefs and practices of homoeopathy had any validity is perhaps the worst example of intellectual dishonesty in the entire thing.
• Finally, James repeatedly accuses Holmes' work of being "full of obvious errors of fact", having "numerous .... errors of fact", containing "misinformation", and being "neither rational nor accurate". However, he has not quoted one single factual statement from Holmes' work which he has shown to be in error. Nor has he shown any irrationality.

James seems to think that Holmes should have revised his essay in the light of the matters that he has singled out to criticise. As can be seen, these criticisms are entirely unfounded, and based on misreading and misinterpretation of what Holmes wrote. In some cases I wonder whether Holmes' witty, urbane and sophisticated writing style is just so far over James' head that he simply doesn't understand what Holmes is actually saying. However, some of the misinterpretations are so gross (the idea that Holmes was declaring that homoeopathic manufacturers literally used a volume of alcohol 100,000 the volume of the Adriatic Sea to make each 17C preparation, for one, and the implication that Holmes by 1861 had "confessed" that homoeopathy was valuable, for another, are pretty hard to sustain), that I think we have to conclude wilful intent.

However, these misinterpretations and errors of fact have now been pointed out to James. In particular, James has acknowledged that Holmes' passage about the dilution factors is not an "error of calculation" at all, and has backtracked to declaring it a "false metaphor".

So, goose and gander sauce. Will James now revise what he has written to address all the errors and misinterpretations and straw men he has been caught peddling? In something that seems not even to have been published yet, and so relatively easily amended? I mean, not to do so - wouldn't that be intellectually dishonest?

Don't hold your breath.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

The trouble is that the gullible nitwits who buy the book will believe every word of his GullyBull^TM; they won't follow up references (even if he bothers to provide them in enough detail for them to be easily followed up) and they won't see what has been posted here.