More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Mojo]

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?

Well, the fact that he can't come straight out and say they don't work means that he at least considers them to be plausible.

 

[manioberoi]

Well, the fact that he can't come straight out and say they don't work means that he at least considers them to be plausible.

I have already said I am not competent to comment on this - but it is NOT homeopathy.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have already said I am not competent to comment on this - but it is NOT homeopathy.

On whose authority do you make that statement? They are made by homeopaths and used by homeopaths to do homeopathy.

What do you say to that? Are those people dangerous frauds and lunatics? If they're not practising "homeopathy" then aren't they engaged in a fradulent activity?

See the problem here, manioberoi. When you try to equivocate and tell half truths or evade the issues you just lock yourself into an ever more ridiculous position.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s In case you need a clue, remember that the people using these machines rely on exactly the same evidence-base as you do and it leaves you no room for "reasonable doubt" that homeopathy works. As I keep telling you, until you disregard your evidence-base and admit you have nothing then you are just going to continue to make yourself look foolish.

 

[kieran]

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,

Oh deary deary me. It sounds like you still haven't really understood the "finer points of the objections" - otherwise you would be embarassed to claim confirmation "beyond reasonable doubt".

You didn't understand the importance of a properly controlled study (e.g. double blinded with strict protocols, careful choice of study groups to eliminate other factors, careful choice of condition to remove subjectivity from the analysis, ...) until these were explained to you very recently on this forum. So you obviously cannot have conducted any such studies, hence your "evidence" is currently very weak and very tarnished ... so how can you be sure "beyond reasonable doubt"?

I have commenced design of a set of studies with the help of some experts in the field of drug trials.

Maybe you should reserve your "beyond reasonable doubt" confidence until you actually have some data on which to base your opinion, instead of the wishful thinking that you have used to shape your philosophy and intellectual viewpoint thus far.

I thought we had already outlined a simple study that you could apply with little cost over a reasonably short time period - without the need for experts and the like ... anyone, anywhere is free to apply these concepts to see if things really are what they claim to be ... to get you started without any delays, why not just ask your local homoeopathic "practioner" to take part in a small scale exploratory study so you can start to find out some real information for yourself? - if these "practioners" come up with all the excuses you have been using so far, then ask yourself why they do that .

The worst thing you can do is go looking for the answer you want - you should only go looking for more information, and then look to see what conclusions can be drawn from it.

 

[kieran]

I do know that this is being "recorded," and in the near future, many of you will be embarrassed by your flat-earth attitudes.

I think that the position of "waiting for evidence before accepting it works" will not be embarassing regardless of which way the evidence actually points.

Blindly advocating it without being able to show any evidence ... now that is embarassing even if positive evidence does show up.

However, embarassment is not the main concern here. Evidence for homoeopathy is. Got any? Any at all? One little bit???

 

[kieran]

Good-bye...I'm going away again.

Is that as in ... I won't be around to answer your posts for {specify time period here} ... or as in ... I'm going home and taking my ball with me. (?)

 

[steenkh]

Proving that homeopathy works to the skeptics is an uphill task requiring much study to understand the nature and depth of the objections.

I have often noticed this problem for homoepaths, and though I believe it is real, I do not understand why it is so. After all, skeptics understand perfectly well the reasoning behind homoeopath claims.

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.

That is fine. You can present your ideas here, and we can tell you if you are on the right track. Unfortunately, you will probably encounter resistance from other homoeopaths if you design a study that leaves no room for argument.

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

That sounds great! We believe, of course that conclusive experiments have already been performed, but if they can help other people understand homoeopathy, we cannot have enough of conclusive experiments.

Working with ill patients have many ethical and practical problems, so if you try to design studies that uses healthy volunteers, it might be easier for you. A design to test the validity of the homoeopathic proving process could be a good start. After all, if homoeopathic proving did not work as advertised, all homoeopathic research right back to Hahnemann's time would be invalid. A positive result here would of course not conclusively prove homoeopathy right, but it ensure a solid foundation and gain much respectability to homoeopathy.

A study I have always wondered about why it has not been performed, is whether homoeopathic remedies are affected by airport x-ray machines. surely this must be of great interest to homoeopaths all over the world, and it must be comparatively simple to make (if you can get access to an x-ray machine). Simply run an entire collection of homoeopathic remedies through the x-ray scanner, and let half of the test persons use these remedies, and the opther half use normal remedies, but of course cleverly disguised so that neither the test persons nor the tester knows which remedies they have been using before the analysis of the result has been done.

I know that this is not the kind of test you are aiming at, but perhaps you can think of good reasons why this test has not been performed, and whether this will have influence on your test designs.

 

[manioberoi]

On whose authority do you make that statement? They are made by homeopaths and used by homeopaths to do homeopathy.

What do you say to that? Are those people dangerous frauds and lunatics? If they're not practising "homeopathy" then aren't they engaged in a fradulent activity?

See the problem here, manioberoi. When you try to equivocate and tell half truths or evade the issues you just lock yourself into an ever more ridiculous position.

In India the strong legal framework ensures that these treatments are NOT HOMOEOPATHIC. Read the relevant extracts from the Act and Regulations below.


The Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973
24.
(l) The Central Council may prescribe standards of professional conduct and etiquette and a code of ethics for practitioners of Homoeopathy.
(2) Regulations made by the Central Council under sub-section (1) may specify which violations thereof shall constitute infamous conduct in any professional respect that is to say, professional respect that is to say, professional misconduct and such provision shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.
33(1) . The Central Council may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government, make, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this Act, and, without prejudice to the generality of this power, such regulations may provide for -
(k) the conduct of professional examinations, qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations;
(l) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette and code of ethics to be observed by practitioners of Homoeopathy;

Homoeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982

Regulations
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (l) of section 33 read with section 24 of the Homoeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 (59 of 1973), the Central Council of Homoeopathy,with the previous sanction of the Central Government, hereby makes the following regulations,namely :-

1. These regulations may be called the Homoeopathic Practitioners (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Code of Ethics) Regulations, 1982.

I. DECLARATION AND OATH
2.
(a) At the time of registration, each applicant shall submit the following declaration
and oath read and signed by him to the Registrar concerned attested by the
Registrar himself or by a registered practitioner of Homoeopathy

(5) I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity in accordance with
the principles of Homoeopathy and/or in accordance with the principles of
biochemic system of medicine (tissue remedies).

(b) Hahnemannian Oath
"On my honour I swear that I shall practise the teachings of Homoeopathy,
perform my duty, render justice to my patients and help the sick whosoever comes
to me for treatment. May the teachings of master Hahnemann inspire me and may I have the strength for fulfillment of my mission."

III. DUTIES OF HOMOEOPATHIC PRACTITIONERS TO THEIR PATIENTS

12. Acts of Negligence

(3) His acts of commission or omission shall not be judged by any non-homoeopathic
standards of professional service expected of him but by those standards as are
expected from a Homoeopath of his training, standing and experience.

(4) A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall use any drug prepared according to
Homoeopathic principles and adopt other necessary measures as required.


VII. PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
35. The following actions shall constitute professional misconduct

(4) Contravention of the provisions of laws relating to Drugs and regulations made
thereunder;

(5) Selling a drug or poison regulated by law to the public or his patients save as
provided by that law.

(6) Performing or enabling an unqualified person to perform an abortion or any illegal
operation for which there is no medical, surgical or psychological indication;

 

[manioberoi]

I have often noticed this problem for homoepaths, and though I believe it is real, I do not understand why it is so. After all, skeptics understand perfectly well the reasoning behind homoeopath claims.


That is fine. You can present your ideas here, and we can tell you if you are on the right track. Unfortunately, you will probably encounter resistance from other homoeopaths if you design a study that leaves no room for argument.


That sounds great! We believe, of course that conclusive experiments have already been performed, but if they can help other people understand homoeopathy, we cannot have enough of conclusive experiments.

Working with ill patients have many ethical and practical problems, so if you try to design studies that uses healthy volunteers, it might be easier for you. A design to test the validity of the homoeopathic proving process could be a good start. After all, if homoeopathic proving did not work as advertised, all homoeopathic research right back to Hahnemann's time would be invalid. A positive result here would of course not conclusively prove homoeopathy right, but it ensure a solid foundation and gain much respectability to homoeopathy.

A study I have always wondered about why it has not been performed, is whether homoeopathic remedies are affected by airport x-ray machines. surely this must be of great interest to homoeopaths all over the world, and it must be comparatively simple to make (if you can get access to an x-ray machine). Simply run an entire collection of homoeopathic remedies through the x-ray scanner, and let half of the test persons use these remedies, and the opther half use normal remedies, but of course cleverly disguised so that neither the test persons nor the tester knows which remedies they have been using before the analysis of the result has been done.

I know that this is not the kind of test you are aiming at, but perhaps you can think of good reasons why this test has not been performed, and whether this will have influence on your test designs.

It is much more important to get down to the trials proper than get sidetracked in side issues at this juncture as it takes much time and effort to organise a homeopathic double blind study -double blinding adversely affects the proper homeopathic interaction essential to the proper homeopathic process.

 

[steenkh]

It is much more important to get down to the trials proper than get sidetracked in side issues at this juncture as it takes much time and effort to organise a homeopathic double blind study -double blinding adversely affects the proper homeopathic interaction essential to the proper homeopathic process.

It is well known that doctors and patients can interpret the symptoms of an illness according to their wishes. It is also recognised that even simple data collection like counting the number of coloured cells in a sample can be subject to wishes and expectations of the one who makes the count. Jacques Benveniste found this out to his ruin, when his own researchers no longer achieved the same counts if they did not know what specimen they were counting. This is called 'bias'.

Do you have a cleverer method to eliminate bias than double blinding? Do you intend to eliminate bias in your test?

If not, you will convince nobody.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

manioberoi, you seem to be sharing JamesGully's problems with reading comprehension.

Never mind the fact that we are discussing matters of principle and what is actually true whereas you have responded with a set of national rules that have nothing at all to say about the validity of homeopathy itself, the rules themselves encapsulate the problem that I have presented you with and which you have evaded;

"(5) I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity in accordance with the principles of Homoeopathy and/or in accordance with the principles of biochemic system of medicine (tissue remedies)."

"(4) A practitioner of Homoeopathy shall use any drug prepared according to Homoeopathic principles and adopt other necessary measures as required."

The exact problem you must address is that reputable homeopaths use those silly machines and regard them as complete appropriate for the cteation of remedies "according to Homoeopathic principles". That's before you even move on to the get-out clause "adopt other necessary measures as required."

I think you need to try again.

I have already said I am not competent to comment on this - but it is NOT homeopathy.

On whose authority do you make that statement? They are made by homeopaths and used by homeopaths to do homeopathy.

What do you say to that? Are those people dangerous frauds and lunatics? If they're not practising "homeopathy" then aren't they engaged in a fradulent activity?

There is no unified definition of homeopathy. Homeopathy seems to be anything that someone who defines themself as a homeopath cares to declare it.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

p.s. As a follow-up, please define exactly what is the homeopathic principle for preparation of a remedy. Give us an unequivocal and step-by-step set of instructions to which the homeopath must adhere and from which no variation can be permitted. Make specific reference to whether succussion against a leather-bound Bible is a compulsory step.

 

[steenkh]

(b) Hahnemannian Oath
"On my honour I swear that I shall practise the teachings of Homoeopathy,
perform my duty, render justice to my patients and help the sick whosoever comes to me for treatment. May the teachings of master Hahnemann inspire me and may I have the strength for fulfillment of my mission."

Are you willing to declare as fraud any "homoeopath" who does not follow Hahnemann to the letter? Or, if it is not necessary to follow his instructions to the letter, just what aberrations are allowed, and how do you determine this?

 

[Rolfe]

This is a really interesting point. Lots of things spring to mind.

What should the solvent be? I believe Hahnemann used alcohol a lot, although we had one homoeopath who declared he used "pure spring water". Others have declared that it has to be double-distilled water or even something called "nuclear water". But then, others use alcohol as did Hahnemann - principally vodka I believe.

How much shaking should be done? Hahnemann once said he had at first advocated ten shakes, but felt that was too much, and had revised it down to two shakes. Is shaking OK, or does it have to be taps on a leather-bound book? Does it have to be a leather-bound bible, as Hahnemann used, or will any old leather pad do?

Is the K method just as valid as the H method?

Is there any difference between using the liquid preparations, and the sugar pills? Hahnemann invented the sugar pill part because he was worried that extra shaking of a liquid remedy in transit could make it too powerful. So what precautions do those using liquid remedies take to make sure they're not dangerous?

Do all remedies have to be made up from scratch, or can you simply "graft" more by adding blank sugar pills to a bottle of pills? Does it matter whether you take the sugar pill as it is, or dissolve it in water (or alcohol?) and take that?

And at each step of the process, how do you satisfy yourself of the quality of the product? How do you tell it is as potent as it should be, and something hasn't happened either to deactivate it or to make it dangerously over-potent?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

I just started reading Ullman's sample chapter. He presents Ralph Waldo Emerson as an advocate of homeopathy. A little research led me to this quote from Emerson:

"Homoeopathy is insignificant as an art of healing, but of great value as criticism on the hygeia or medical practice of the time. So with Mesmerism, Swedenborgism, Fourierism, and the Millennial Church; they are poor pretensions enough, but good criticism on the science, philosophy, and preaching of the day."

(see the quote in context at http://emerson.thefreelibrary.com/Essays-Second-Series/8-1)

Could Mr. Ullman/Gully explain why an advocate of homeopathy would write that? And could he give a quote showing that Emerson supported homeopathy?

Time for one more! Ullman also presents Henry James as an advocate of homeopathy. As evidence, he gives a quote from The Bostonians, where one of the characters, Miss Birdseye, says of homeopathy "Well, it's generally admitted now to be the true system".

So the fact that Henry James put something into a character's mouth meant that he believed it himself? In particular, did he share the beliefs of Miss Birdseye, whom he described as "a confused, entangled, inconsequent, discursive old woman"?

Just highlighting this piece of interesting work from Michael C. Is it possible that most of Dana's alleged supporters of homoeopathy have been quoted out of context and wilfully misrepresented? I suppose if he can imply that Oliver Wendell Holmes became a convert to homoeopathy, anything's possible.

And this is his magnum opus? What a sad waste of a life.

It's just a pity it will probably be impossible to get any sort of publicity for the fact that this treatise is a pile of great, heaping lies. The fans will simply lap it up and start quoting it all over their forums.

It's a great example though of why it's essential to take every claim by a homoeopath back to its original basis. So often they lie and misrepresent, sometimes simply quoting the lies and misrepresentations of others, but always in the smug assumption that nobody will call them on their facts. I wonder how much of the historical stuff they quote is also false?

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

And this is his magnum opus? What a sad waste of a life.

Oh, I don’t know, I am sure it will be a great book and one day “The Homeopathic Revolution: Famous People and Cultural Heroes who Chose Homeopathic Medicine” will sit right up there next to “Blood letting –ye guide for modern barbers “

 

[Mojo]

I just started reading Ullman's sample chapter. He presents Ralph Waldo Emerson as an advocate of homeopathy. A little research led me to this quote from Emerson:

"Homoeopathy is insignificant as an art of healing, but of great value as criticism on the hygeia or medical practice of the time. So with Mesmerism, Swedenborgism, Fourierism, and the Millennial Church; they are poor pretensions enough, but good criticism on the science, philosophy, and preaching of the day."

(see the quote in context at http://emerson.thefreelibrary.com/Essays-Second-Series/8-1)

Could Mr. Ullman/Gully explain why an advocate of homeopathy would write that? And could he give a quote showing that Emerson supported homeopathy?

The quotation from Twain is remarkably similar to the out-of-context quotations from Holmes:

When you reflect that your own father had to take such medicines as the above, and that you would be taking them to-day yourself but for the introduction of homoeopathy, which forced the old-school doctor to stir around and learn something of a rational nature about his business, you may honestly feel grateful that homoeopathy survived the attempts of the allopathists to destroy it, even though you may never employ any physician but an allopathist while you live.

Note that Twain isn't recommending homoeopathy here: he's saying (just as Holmes did) that homoeopathy (and other competing systems may have done good by making "allopathy" reconsider its treatments.

Ullman sources several of his quotations from "Ober, 1997". Here's the article in question. Some more of Twain's comments about various systems illustrate his attitude towards "allopathy" and homoeopathy, as well as hydropathy:

Twain had no difficulty describing the shortcomings of each of the various medical approaches available in this unregulated era. Allopathic medicine was notable for its heroic and toxic treatments.

"f a citizen was inclined to take salts by the ton, ipecac by the barrel, mercury by the quart, or quinine by the load, and thus be cured of his ailment or his sublunary existence by the wholesale, he was at perfect liberty to invite he services of a medicus of the allopathic style ... "

Homeopathic medicine, using infinitely small and diluted doses of agents that mimicked the disease being treated, was the essence of nontherapy.

"f another citizen preferred to toy with death, and buy health in small parcels, to bribe death with a sugar pill to stay away, or go to the grave with all the original sweetners undrenched out of him, then the individual adopted the "like cures like" system, and called in a homeopath physician as being a pleasant friend of death's."

Alternative approaches, such as hydropathic medicine, appeared equally ineffective.

"Citizens there were too, who liked to be washed into eternity, or soaked like over-salt mackerel before they were placed on purgatorial gridirons, and these, "of every rank and degree", had the right to pass their few remaining days in an element that they were not likely to see much of for some time."

Twain was intrigued by those who combined features of all of the available treatment programs.

"Then again there were those who saw "good in everything" and who believed that whatever is is right and these last mixed the allopathic, homeopathic, and hydropathic systems, qualified each with each, and thus passed to their long homes, drenched, pickled, sweetened, and soaked."

And from the conclusions of the article:

Even as Twain ridiculed the unscientific approaches taken by practitioners of hydrotherapy and homeopathy, he continued to defend the importance of medical freedom of choice. He particularly recognized the importance of the competing systems in pressuring allopathic medicine to evolve into a new scientific discipline far removed from its noxious origins as a sect based on bloodletting and remedies such as Aqua Limacum (a concoction containing herbs, snails, earthworms, "Goose Dung," "Sheep Dung," "Strong Ale," and "Shavings of Hartshorn"

Ullman quotes from elsewhere in the article but for some reason doesn't seem to have noticed these comments.

Going back to Twain's comment about "those who saw good in everything": the original James Gully was a hydropath, but also introduced elements from other symptoms. Remember Darwin's comment about Dr. Gully:

It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything— when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep—an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist!

 

[Mojo]

I like Ullman's repeated appeals to fiction; not only relying on 19th century characters, but imaginary 19th century characters as support for homoeopathy!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I like Ullman's repeated appeals to fiction; not only relying on 19th century characters, but imaginary 19th century characters as support for homoeopathy!

Is arguing from imaginary authority in support of an imaginary therapy still a fallacy?








Yes.