More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

Mojo said:
This is just too funny! Ullman has shown up on the Grauniad's blog. Not only has he completely failed to spot the joke in the Little Black Duck's response to Winterson, but having complained about "mis-information", he then can't resist plugging his book in the same paragraph!
Click to expand...

:bearlaugh: It's nice to see that Dana can still provide us with entertainment. That's an excellent article by the Canard Noir. The article about Charles Darwin and Homeopathy is also well worth reading.
 
Wow...I commited a "crime" of promoting my book. Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

What is so ironic is that no one has the capacity to admit they may have been wrong. It is not worth talking to you.

Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research. Whoops.

Superficial reviews of research and history is the order of the day on this site. Sad and true. Good-bye.
 
JamesGully said:
Wow...I commited a "crime" of promoting my book. Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

What is so ironic is that no one has the capacity to admit they may have been wrong. It is not worth talking to you.

Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research. Whoops.

Superficial reviews of research and history is the order of the day on this site. Sad and true. Good-bye.
Click to expand...

Can this be nominated as the most ironic post of the week? Month? Quarter? Etc. . . ? :boggled:
 
Uh, you'll have to look and see how long ago are his posts where he calls us "intellectually dishonest" while steadfastly refusing to alter passages in his book which had been conclusively shown to be untrue.

These were better.

This is your thread, Dana, should you choose to exhibit some backbone.

Rolfe.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Can this be nominated as the most ironic post of the week? Month? Quarter? Etc. . . ? :boggled:
Click to expand...


I've tried three irony meters on it and they've all burst. I'm calling in some favours from guys in the industry to bring some heavy-duty gear into play as I really need to know how ironic this is. My current guess would be somewhere over 30 megaullmans, but without the right equipment I really can't tell.
 
malbui said:
I've tried three irony meters on it and they've all burst. I'm calling in some favours from guys in the industry to bring some heavy-duty gear into play as I really need to know how ironic this is. My current guess would be somewhere over 30 megaullmans, but without the right equipment I really can't tell.
Click to expand...

I'd be really worried in opening up a hole in the space time continum myself. Just make certain you stand waaay back. ;)
 
How do you KNOW what I have changed or have not changed in my book?

As a matter of fact, I did change my reference to OW Holmes' opinion of Benjamin Rush. Holmes still misunderstood homeopathy and shows an embarrassingly ill-informed and uninformed attitude towards the subject. He prided himself on his non-communication with homeopaths.

Is someone here going to defend Holmes' review of Andral's "research?" Come on, defend it! Andral's "research" is the only experimental data discussed in this essay, and it is total garbage. But heck, you defend garbage when you agree with the outcome (as you all have done with the Shang article in the Lancet, 2005).

And you have the audacity to call yourself good skeptics and/or defenders of science? Whooops.
 
Dana

I really don't what goes on in that shiny shiny head of yours, but please insert into it this one datum. None of us cares what those historical and famous people think about homeopathy. They have no special right to an opinion on the subject. It is quite bizarre, though typical of homeopaths' mode of thought that you would consider this a worthwhile project. Maybe as an insight into why some people believed stupid things, but you really seem to think that their opinions carry evidential weight.

The only reason anyone bothered to comment on these issues is because some of us knew enough about them to spot the lies and misrepresentations and so it was worth teasing you with them.

But please understand that no one here cares about your book.

We'd be much more interested in you responding to the straightforward question posed to you in your other eponymous thread.

I e-mailed somone earlier today and mentioned that the Grauniad thread had reached its time limit and predicted you'd show up here again. It's nice to be right in the small things as well as the big things.

I spend less of my day Googling my own name, but it obviously gives you pleasure.
 
Last edited:
Dana, you still have shown no evidence of any point that Holmes misunderstood about homoeopathy. Not one. I laughed myself all the way down the length of the Adriatic (on a cruise last month) thinking that you really seemed to imagine that Holmes was stating that a homoeopath would use a volume of alcohol 10,000 that of this sea to make a 17C potency. (Well, it was raining, and there's only so many times you can go for a swim in one day.)

You have not shown any evidence that Holmes prided himself on non-communication with homoeopaths (hint, general professional guidelines are no clue as to his personal behaviour, less still his attitude).

You have asserted certain facts about Andral in his later life, but have produced no evidence or citations for these assertions. Till you do that, there's nothing in Holmes's account of Andral's work that needs defending.

And by the way, have you any opinion on the total demolition job done on this forum on that pathetically poor paper by Rao et al. that you were so chuffed about earlier? The letter we wrote pointing out the errors has been accepted for publication by Homeopathy - well, signed by 4 PhDs, you know. When did you last have anything published in that journal, by the way?

Rolfe.
 
JamesGully said:
Yes, I initially used the name, James Gully, here because he was Darwin's homeopathy. Le Canard wrote an article about this subject, but he forgot to do one thing: he forgot to do adequate homework. You cannot get an accurate picture of Darwin's experience with homeopathy and with Dr. Gully by doing superficial research.
Click to expand...


When you introduced Darwin and his alleged support for homoeopathy to this thread, you said:
JamesGully said:
Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...
Click to expand...


Now, Darwin's correspondence is available on the web, and we were able to find the very letters that you quoted. We found that they did not say what you claim they say.

We found that Darwin described Gully as a "Hydropathist" who needed a second doctor to act as a homoeopath, and that Darwin referred to Gully's treatments as "the Water Cure".

We found that a letter from which you quoted the words "I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated" in such a way as to give the impression that he attributed this to homoeopathy actually said "I am now not at home (though I have so dated this letter) but have come to Malvern for two months to try the cold water cure, and I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated."

We found that another letter from which you quoted a brief mention of homoeopathy also detailed the rest of the treatments Gully prescribed for Darwin. Note that Darwin describes this as his hydropathical diary.
As you say you want my hydropathical diary, I will give it youf1 —though tomorrow it is to change to a certain extent.— 1⁄4 before 7. get up, & am scrubbed with rough towel in cold water for 2 or 3 minutes, which after the few first days, made & makes me very like a lobster— I have a washerman, a very nice person, & he scrubs behind, whilst I scrub in front.— drink a tumbler of water & get my clothes on as quick as possible & walk for 20 minutes—f2 I cd. walk further, but I find it tires me afterwards— I like all this very much.— At same time I put on a compress, which is a broad wet folded linen covered by mackintosh & which is “refreshed”—ie dipt in cold water every 2 hours & I wear it all day, except for about 2 hours after midday dinner; I don't perceive much effect from this of any kind.— After my walk, shave & wash & get my breakfast, which was to have been exclusively toast with meat or egg, but he has allowed me a little milk to sop the stale toast in. At no time must I take any sugar, butter, spices tea bacon or anything good.—f3 At 12 oclock I put my feet for 10 minutes in cold water with a little mustard & they are violently rubbed by my man; the coldness makes my feet ache much, but upon the whole my feet are certainly less cold than formerly.— Walk for 20 minutes & dine at one.— He has relaxed a little about my dinner & says I may try plain pudding, if I am sure it lessens sickness.—

After dinner lie down & try to go to sleep for one hour.— At 5 olock feet in cold water—drink cold water & walk as before— Supper same as breakfast at 6 oclock.— I have had much sickness this week, but certainly I have felt much stronger & the sickness has depressed me much less.— Tomorrow I am to be packed at 6 oclock A.M for 1 & 1⁄2 hour in Blanket, with hot bottle to my feet & then rubbed with cold dripping sheet;f4 but I do not know anything about this.— I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.
Click to expand...
You only quoted the last sentence.

We found that a year and a half after you claimed that Darwin had attributed his recovery to homoeopathy, he wrote this:
You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things.
Click to expand...


There was nothing in the letters you quoted, or in any other letters we found, that supported your contention that Darwin attributed his recovery to homoeopathy, and, of course, no evidence whatsoever that he wouldn't have been able to write The Origin... were it not for homoeopathy. Remember: these letters were the very place where you claimed that we would "read about this story". This is not a question of "superficial research"; it is a question of the sources you chose to rely on not saying what you claimed they did.

If you have some other letters or other writings of Darwin's that support your case, please post references or links for them. If not, I trust that you also removed the references to Darwin's belief in homoeopathy from your book.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that Mojo and Rolfe, I'd forgotten how gross Ullman's distortions of the truth were. It's really quite brazen
 
Besides finding this thread highly informative regarding the scam that is homeopathy, I also find it intriguing how similar are the deceitful practices of JamesGully and DOC in all his Christianity threads. Will we now find a Pseudoscience Gene to complement the God Gene?
 
Hey, James. If I ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping aids, what would happen to me? Are you willing to make a large wager on it?
 
Mister Earl said:
Hey, James. If I ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping aids, what would happen to me? Are you willing to make a large wager on it?
Click to expand...
Probably not. Most homoeopaths think that the remedy magically what it is supposed to do, and it will never harm you - except if you are participating in a proving, in which case you will get lots of strange symptoms.
 
They also say that any number of pills taken at the same time still counts as a single dose - it's the potency (i.e. the number of dilutions and succussions) that determines the size of the "effect".
 
But on the other hand, it often happens if you debate with homoeopaths that they ask you to take some pills of their favourite remedy, and surely you will see some ghastly effect, but you asked for it!

If you actually take the pills they will not believe you took it, and then they will claim that you got it from some disreputable pharmacy that is well-known for selling inefficient remedies!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom