More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

In fact, a lot of the most groundbreaking work is done in people's youth. In mathematics, for example, it is well established that almost all the really important work is done by people under 30, which is a maximum of 9 years after graduation. In fact, assuming a medical degree back then was still six years, as it is now, that would mean that far from being dismissed due to inexperience, this was just about Holmes' last chance to really publish anything noteworthy.

Mozart was only six when he wrote his first music, does that mean we should dismiss it because he didn't have enough experience?


I checked Holmes' biography. (I may have erroneously said O. W. Holmes Jr. in an earlier post. This was of course wrong, the writer of the essay in question was O. W. Holmes, Sr. His son, born in 1841, the year before the publication of the essay under discussion, was a very well-known US judge.) He was 32 or 33 when he gave the lecture that was published as Homoeopathy and its Kindred Delusions. And it seems to me that six years post-graduation is quite an experienced doctor, and I'd certainly have no qualms about letting someone six years out of medical school treat me! I've heard some very penetrating lectures by lecturers in their early 30s, too.

Be fair, though. You may have to be a child prodigy to do groundbreaking maths, but Holmes still had a long and productive medical career ahead of him at 33. Lots of people in the biological sciences have published excellent and novel work right up to their retirement.

By the way, I just noticed that Holmes also wrote several well-loved hymns. I'm surprised Dana didn't cast that one up as some twisted proof that he "wasn't a sceptic" or something!

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
"I am presently finishing the most important work of my life."

Bit of a waste of a life.

But I can see why he'd be so resistant to accepting correction. There's a big pile of his silly books that would need to be pulped and a lot of grovelling letters to be written to reviewers who have been misled by its content.
 
By the way, I just noticed that Holmes also wrote several well-loved hymns. I'm surprised Dana didn't cast that one up as some twisted proof that he "wasn't a sceptic" or something!


Ah, but Dana wants Holmes to be a skeptic so that, by misquoting him and throwing up strawmen, he can show that skepics are wrong.
 
:cry:

But I want him to come back! He's lots more fun than Neil!

He was wittering on about how Roy (the 84-year-old retired materials scientist who appears to think you can tell homoeopathic alcohol from ordinary alcohol because the former does not demonstrate the significant absorbance at 320nm seen in the latter) is about to publish something really interesting. I really, really want to see this, because I'm hoping for an explanation of how Roy seems to be the only spectroscopist on the planet who has managed to measure a significant absorbance at 320nm in pure ethanol.

Roy's UV spectra in the slideshow referenced by Dana quite early in this thread are the lamest thing I've seen in a long time. I'd have said the chances of him getting any version of that past any scrutineer who wasn't actually dead were nil. So I'm really keen to see when Dana is going to reference this upcoming paper.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
In the webinar powerpoint (slide 21), Roy indicates that some of this research will be published this year. Possibly in the July edition of Homeopathy, but this edition hasn't been released as yet.

The defining role of structure (including Epitaxy) in the Plausibility of Homeopathy.

Manju L Rao, Rustum Roy, Iris R Bell, M Richard Hoover

Homeopathy (in press 2007)

From the title alone, it looks like another speculative paper in the style of Milgrom.


Dana Ullman has been hyping up Roy’s upcoming publication, although he has been shy as to what publications exactly are of interest.

In Orac’s blog Respectful Insolence, on May 21st, he wrote the following:

Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water. I can tell you that later this week a new study on homeopathy and water will be published by two internationally respected professors of material sciences: Rustum Roy, PhD (of Penn State University) and Bill Tiller, PhD (former head of material sciences at Stanford). If any of your fellow skeptics can claim greater understanding of water than these two gentlemen, please publish your work.

Maybe he was referring to the webinar, in which case the terms ‘study’ and ‘published’ have a different meaning for Mr Ullman (MPH!). If there was another actual, published, peer reviewed paper, then I don’t know to what he was referring.

Watch this space for the latest update from Homeopathy and Roy’s upcoming, groundbreaking, bomb-dropping, paradigm shifting, vague musings about epitaxy….
 
Last edited:
Actually, I think wahrheit nailed him in post #3.


.... Looks to see what Warheit said ....

.... This must be a very dumb person who considers himself being very smart. And as long as there are people more stupid than him, he is doing fine.


Absolutely. Also a very arrogant person who boasts about his humility, of course.

Pipirr - sounds as if it's another Milgrom-style content-free speculation. Along quite different lines from Milgrom, but why should that matter? I mean I suppose it can be flakes of silica altering the structure of water, and quantum!

You know, these people are actually seeing "patients", and doling out sugar pills, and charging good money for all that. Already. But even if it were shown that there is a hitherto unsupected property of water, that for some bizarre reason the rest of science and biology (especially immunology, with its heavy reliance on 1:1 serial agitated dilutions!) has failed to notice, that wouldn't necessarily validate their clinical practice at all. I mean, we've still got the like curing like part, and the provings, and the persistence of this water property in the dry sugar pills to overcome, never mind finding an actual physiological explanation for clinical improvement....

But never mind that, Roy makes some unfounded assumptions (and some elementary mistakes in his UV spectroscopy), and hey, the money-raking scam is validated, of course!

Rolfe.
 
Don't see any mention of Tiller in the forthcoming article or the lecture (other than a reference to the 2005 paper).
 
Last edited:
Dana Ullman has been hyping up Roy’s upcoming publication, although he has been shy as to what publications exactly are of interest.

In Orac’s blog Respectful Insolence, on May 21st, he wrote the following:
Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water.


He's very keen on the "nano-" prefix, isn't he. Perhaps his attempt to introduce the term "nanopharmacology" is some sort of tacit admission that homoeopathy has been discredited to the extent that it needs a rebrand, despite his attempts to prop it up with anecdotes about famous dead people.
 
Don't see any mention of Tiller in the forthcoming article or the lecture (other than a reference to the 2005 paper).


The 2005 paper might be the soon to be released article that Dana was talking about.

That paper is two years in the past now, but who knows? With quantum nanohomeopathy, the evidence can always be in the future. Or, simultaneously, the 200 year old past.

Just not right now, where we can get to look at it.
 
despite his attempts to prop it up with anecdotes about famous dead people.

But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.

Unfortunately his vast expertise does not seem to render him capable of having a coherent opinion about these questions;

So, 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?


I think I have said this before, but when I first started paying serious attention to homeopathy I was very circumspect in my opinions and cautious with my criticisms. I sort of wondered whether I would meet an intelligent homeopath who had thought through the problems I perceived and had well-reasoned responses. That has never happened and I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions. They literally personify all that they claim to be the worst in the world of conventional medicine as caricatured by them.

When I feel generous I pity them for wasting their lives on this bunch of hooey. Imagine getting to the Pearly Gates and finding St Peter doubled up with mirth at them having piddled away their earthly existence with this nonsense. Though the more likely destination would be somewhere hotter and more sulphurous.
 
But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.


Well, frankly, he's fooling nobody but himself. I mean, shaving the remaining patches is no more convincing than a comb-over, is it?
 
Well, frankly, he's fooling nobody but himself. I mean, shaving the remaining patches is no more convincing than a comb-over, is it?

I wonder whether any of the less woo-ish appearing rentaquote providers that are listed at http://www.homeopathicrevolution.com/ would alter their views of the value of his book if presented with hard evidence of the serious misrepresentations in it.
 
I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions.


What really sickens me is exactly what we've seen from Dana. The misrepresentation, the quote-mining, and general blatant dishonesty. I know we're not supposed to say they're dishonest, but it's the feature that pervades everything from the cherrypicking of cases to the selective out-of-context quoting to the constant pretence that there's no money in it.

They're so good at blandly asserting what simply isn't so. Then they just keep on asserting it time and time again even after it's been clearly shown to them that it isn't so. To the point where the repetition starts to get the claim accepted as fact. And of course it's impolite to call someone a liar, isn't it. I mean, how dare you, that's a slur!!

Rolfe.
 
But isn't that the most extraordinary thing. He seriously seems to believe that this is an important project when all his, let's be generous, gross distortions of historical truth are slave to an attempt to create a giant appeal to antiquity and appeal to authority fallacy. And this was from someone who wanted to discuss research that would apparently knock our socks off and open our eyes, only to trot out the familiar sad parade of usual suspects.

Unfortunately his vast expertise does not seem to render him capable of having a coherent opinion about these questions;

So, 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?


I think I have said this before, but when I first started paying serious attention to homeopathy I was very circumspect in my opinions and cautious with my criticisms. I sort of wondered whether I would meet an intelligent homeopath who had thought through the problems I perceived and had well-reasoned responses. That has never happened and I have now interacted with some who seem to be regarded as the best in their field. The more I have seen the more they have sickened me with their resistance to rational argument, constant use of fallacious reasoning and knee-jerk resort to censorship of contrary opinions. They literally personify all that they claim to be the worst in the world of conventional medicine as caricatured by them.

When I feel generous I pity them for wasting their lives on this bunch of hooey. Imagine getting to the Pearly Gates and finding St Peter doubled up with mirth at them having piddled away their earthly existence with this nonsense. Though the more likely destination would be somewhere hotter and more sulphurous.
Proving that homeopathy works to the skeptics is an uphill task requiring much study to understand the nature and depth of the objections.

This forum has helped me to understand the finer points of the objections - since I have taken 30 years to confirm beyond reasonable doubt that homeopathy works, I have commenced design of a set of studies with the help of some experts in the field of drug trials.

It may take a few months or years but the proof when it comes would be conclusive.

Regards.

Sarvadaman Oberoi
H 485 FF Ansals Palam Vihar
Gurgaon 122017 Haryana INDIA
Mobile: +919818768349 Tele: +911244076374
Website: http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/index.htm
email: manioberoi@gmail.com
 

Back
Top Bottom