More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Oh, by the way as far as mouse controls go: after selecting text click on the right mouse button (right as in "right hand side"), it should bring up a small menu. (stuff I learned from computer nerd spouse)
Click to expand...


Doesn't work in the reply boxes. Don't know why. That's why I was using control-C, with occasionally fatal results.

But thanks for your help!

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Doesn't work in the reply boxes. Don't know why. That's why I was using control-C, with occasionally fatal results.

But thanks for your help!

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Egads! You are right!

Truly bizarre.

Though I have the menu list on my browser (I had to add it on, it is not there by default), and the drop down menu under "Edit" did have "copy" and "paste"
 
SYLVESTER1592 said:
{snip} In some countries, the rules are set up in such a way that homeopaths or "alternative healers" can't always be called quacks based on the law. Recently one of these alternative healers has won a lawsuit against the anti-quackery association in my country and demanded rectification of the statements. {snip}
Click to expand...
The magicians/entertainers, Penn and Teller, have a TV program here called "Bull ____." In the first episode, Penn explains that they are going to be unusually profane in the series because, if they call someone a quack or a fraud, they will spend a long time in court proving their assertions. However, if they call people the things that rule-8 prohibits, they can do that with impunity.

You gotta love it.
 
I'm copying this from the thread in Science and Medicine where we discussed the Roy paper and decided to write this Letter to the Editor pointing out its most
egregious anomalies. Sorry for the duplicaton, but if Dana comes back to look at "his" thread I want him to see this, and so far he's shown no signs of following links to other threads here.

Dana, this went in an envelope with a stamp on it. As a proper academic contribution to the debate. By the way, the only signatory without a PhD has finished writing his thesis and is merely waiting to be examined on it. Enough "scientific chops" for you?

27th August 2007.

Dr. Peter Fisher,
Editor, Homeopathy,
The Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital,
60 Great Ormond Street,
London, WC1N 3HR.

Dear Sir,

We wish to draw to your attention serious anomalies and incongruities in the UV absorption data presented in the paper by Rao et al., published in your July 2007 issue [1].

In a study of this nature, which in effect is examining multiple samples of ethanol, the over-riding concern must be absolute uniformity in the source of the solvent. For the data to be valid, it is essential that every drop of ethanol used must be sourced from the same stock bottle. However, the authors fail to make any mention of this point, and it is clear from the results presented that the source of ethanol in this investigation was most certainly not uniform.

The most striking anomaly is the UV spectrum presented for "plain ethanol", a single trace repeated three times in figure 3. The provenance of this sample is not recorded. This trace reveals extremely high absorbance (greater than 0.8 absorbance units) at 250nm, falling off steeply towards 400nm but still above 0.4 units by 350nm, and demonstrating an absorbance peak of 0.65 units with a l-max of about 330nm. It is simply impossible to represent this trace as being ethanol of any recognised degree of purity. Spectroscopic grade ethanol has an absorbance of less than 0.05 units between 250 and 400nm [2], and even USP/NF pharmaceutical grade ethanol has an absorbance of less than 0.3 units at 250nm, falling off to less than 0.1 units by 270nm [3]. If the substance measured by the authors as "plain ethanol" was indeed ethanol at all, it is clear that it contained extremely high levels of impurities, possibly including acetone.

In contrast, the spectra of the samples which were diluted and succussed (Nat mur, Nux vomica and the "succussed ethanol" with no mother tincture), and which were presumably all supplied by Hahnemann Laboratories as detailed on page 178, demonstrate substantially lower levels of impurities. While still not being spectroscopic grade ethanol, these samples could well represent ordinary pharmaceutical grade ethanol. The authors claim these samples are "different", however the evidence presented for this is weak to nonexistent.

Figure 1 presents one trace each for Nat mur and Nux vomica, each at 6C, 12C and 30C potencies. The traces are said to be "representative", however with no information on repeatability or how the "representative" traces were selected, it is impossible to say whether there is any real difference between any of the six spectra.

Figure 2 purports to address this point, but then fails to present the necessary data. The legend declares that 10 samples of each of the six remedy preparations were analysed. The accepted way to present such data would be as mean absorbance ± standard deviation for each wavelength point, or at least for a representative selection of wavelength points. Statistical analysis could then be used to demonstrate whether or not there was a real difference between any of the remedies or potencies. However, the authors have instead chosen to present only two traces for each preparation, as "envelopes of differences". The derivation of these traces is not explained, although we surmise that "extreme" high and low traces for each preparation were chosen to provide an impression of the range of results obtained. This is not an appropriate method of handling data of this nature, as most of the information is lost and statistical analysis is rendered impossible.

A further difficulty with figure 2 is that the upper (open circles) trace in the top graph of fig 2a (30C Nat mur) appears to be a duplicate of the upper (filled circles) trace in the top graph of fig 2b (30C Nux vom). Comparison with other traces of the two remedies indicates that this trace is really one of Nux vom, which has been duplicated into the Nat mur graph in error.

Paucity of data, ambiguity of presentation and lack of statistical analysis prevent any conclusions being drawn from the information in figure 2.
Comparison of figure 2 with figure 1 reveals that all six traces presented in figure 1 are taken from figure 2, in each case the filled-circles traces. If indeed the traces in figure 2 represent the extreme range of results obtained, this is startling, as the traces in figure 1 are stated to be "representative". In addition, while it does appear that the Nux vom samples tended to demonstrate higher absorbances than the Nat mur samples (excluding the obvious mistake noted above), in two out of the three potencies the higher Nux vom trace from fig 2 has been chosen for inclusion in fig 1, thus exaggerating the apparent difference.

Figure 3 (b and c) again repeats the same six traces as figure 1, this time grouped by remedy. Presented in this way, it is clear that there is absolutely no difference between the three potencies of Nat mur, and that while variation between the Nux vom potencies is a little more pronounced, again all three appear to come from the same population. The same is true of the three potencies of "succussed ethanol" presented in fig 3a.

On simple visual inspection it does appear that there may be genuine differences between the three remedies (although no statistics are presented to allow this to be tested), with the Nat mur showing the lowest absorbtion and the Nux vom the highest, with the succussed ethanol lying somewhere between. Nevertheless, these differences are entirely consistent with small differences in purity of the ethanol stock used for preparation of the three remedies - small, that is, relative to the very high level of impurity evident in the "plain ethanol" sample presented alongside. This degree of variation in UV absorbance is entirely to be expected between different batches of pharmaceutical grade ethanol, which is not prepared with spectroscopic analysis in mind. The authors make no mention of having stipulated to Hahnemann Laboratories that all material sent to them should be prepared from the same stock bottle, and the data presented indicate that the different remedies, possibly prepared at different times, simply came from different bottles of ethanol.

We hope you will agree that these are very serious points, and it is regrettable they were not identified by your own scrutineering process. It is clear that the data presented are wholly inadequate to support the authors’ assertion that UV spectroscopy can differentiate between the two remedies, and between different potencies of the remedies. If the authors wish to test their assertion so that it can be substantiated it will be necessary to repeat the work from the beginning, ensuring that all samples used in the study are sourced from the same bottle of stock solvent, that all duplicate preparations for precision assessment are separately prepared de novo from the mother tinctures, and that sufficient data are generated to allow robust and valid statistical analysis of the results.

Yours faithfully,

Rolfe
JJM
Wilsontown
Pipirr

References:
1. Rao, M. L., Roy, R., Bell, I. R. & Hoover, R. (2007) The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy. Homeopathy 96, 175-182.
2. Sigma Aldrich catalogue, ACS spectrophotometric grade ethanol 95.0%, at www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/SIAL/493511
3. Sigma Aldrich catalogue, USP/NF grade ethanol 190 proof, at www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/ALDRICH/493538
Click to expand...


Any comment, Mr. Ullman?

Rolfe.
 
Where has Dana got to?

It would be nice to hear his views on Roy's thoroughly busted paper.

p.s. Rolfe, did you send David Colquhoun a copy of your letter?
 
Mojo said:
You seem to need a sub for the article itself, but the comments can be seen here without one.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

Rolfe, would you consider adding a short comment there? As the first author of our letter to the editor, I defer to you on that.
 
Mojo said:
You seem to need a sub for the article itself, but the comments can be seen here without one.
Click to expand...
The number of pro-homeopathic comments there are horribly depressing. Particularly the one that says "Why do we hold on to useless theories like evolution but call homeopathy unscientific?"
 
JJM said:
Thanks for that.

Rolfe, would you consider adding a short comment there? As the first author of our letter to the editor, I defer to you on that.
Click to expand...


What do you think we should write? I see Roy has posted there. Just ask him where he got his ethanol from?

I have great scepticism about his claim to have no connection with homoeopathy. The PowerPoint presentation is very woo-ish, as indeed is some of the language in the paper itself. I mean, come on, "polychrest"???

BSM, should we perhaps wait for a response to the letter before getting David Colquhoun involved?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
What do you think we should write? I see Roy has posted there. Just ask him where he got his ethanol from?
Click to expand...


Perhaps something like:

Rustum Roy cautions Philip Ball against joining "far too may scientists in a much more dangerous, and ludicrous, practice... of requiring an “explanation” or “theory” before accepting and dealing with solid, repeatable facts and observations which remain the only basis of real science."

On the principle of accepting solid, repeatable facts and observations, we couldn't agree more. With that in mind, myself and others have taken the opportunity to scrutinise the experimental data presented in Roy's paper. While the authors claim to have found evidence for a detectable effect of homeopathy with standard spectroscopic techniques, we found a host of serious errors.

{Insert specifics here?}

It is gratifying to see the homeopathic community presenting such evidence for wider scrutiny and evaluation. In the spirit of furthering scientific debate, not on the theory, but on the experimental evidence for homeopathy, we have sent a letter detailing our criticisms of Rao et al's data to the editor of Homeopathy.
Click to expand...

Although JJM may have something else in mind.
 
Rolfe said:
I have great scepticism about his claim to have no connection with homoeopathy. The PowerPoint presentation is very woo-ish, as indeed is some of the language in the paper itself. I mean, come on, "polychrest"???
Click to expand...


No kidding. This is the guy that founded "Friends of Health: a non-profit organization fostering the art and science of whole person healing".

www.friendsofhealth.org

Gah, there's a link to a John of God video there. Psychic healing???!
 
Since Roy did not address his Homeopathy paper in the Nature comment, I planned to ignore his post. My thought was along the lines
In the issue of Homeopathy under consideration, Rao et al (reference) published an article concerning, among other things, the UV-Vis spectroscopy of ethanol and ethanol-based homeopathic preparations. Their reference spectrum of "pure ethanol" is obviously highly contaminated, if it even is based on ethanol. The spectra of their homeopathic preparations appear to be spectra of ordinary, potable ethanol taken from different sources (i.e., production lots). We have sent a letter to the editor (Peter Fisher) describing these errors in more detail.
Click to expand...
That should light a fire under any scientist. I thought to send it now because 1- it may put pressure on Fisher to respond, and B- it is still a current event.

I am open to suggestion; but I still defer to Rolfe. We should have a uniform front.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I have great scepticism about his claim to have no connection with homoeopathy. The PowerPoint presentation is very woo-ish, as indeed is some of the language in the paper itself. I mean, come on, "polychrest"???
Click to expand...


If you Google "Rustum Roy" and homeopathy, you'll find plenty of evidence of his involvement with homoeopathy. He popped up defending it against Shang et al., for example. There, he's quoted as saying:
The underpinning of the editorial content of the Lancet as it relates to homeopathy relies on a quaint old idea from the nineteenth century that the ONLY way that the property of water can be affected or changed is by incorporating foreign molecules.
Click to expand...
He seems to have missed the fact that the Lancet paper in fact relied on "a quaint old idea from the nineteenth century" called the randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial.

And presumably he's forgotten that he's authored papers with titles like "The Structure of Liquid Water; Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy" and "The defining role of structure (including epitaxy) in the plausibility of homeopathy".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom