Even More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/denis_maceoin/2007/11/your_ignorance_is_showing.html

Unfortunately the time-gate has closed on that thread. I wonder whether JamesGully or his extremely close friend Dana Ullman will dare to show up here to keep it going.

It was getting to be fun.

I think we can assume he reads these forums, so I'll ask the question that he seems determined to overlook in his paranoid fantasies of " Big Pharma reps who are hired guns". Though, I should also like to know, if Big Pharma is hiring "guns" does anyone know what the pay is like and whether it can compete with the living that Mr Ullman is making for himself?

"GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION."

 

[Rolfe]

I note Dana did turn up in the original thread, right on cue. Saying that we are right to be afraid of his book, because it is very dangerous.

And saying goodbye, that he will no longer debate with us. Presumably, to certain definitions of "debate".

Here is the post, for your delectation.

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.

This guy has flounced off more times than Kumar!

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

BSM, the thread arising from that Comment is Free article is amazing, and I've only got a short way down it. The most utterly delicious moment was when one of the very few homoeopathy defenders (Baba Yaga) turned out to be also a 9/11 "Truther", and expressed amazement that we thought we could see through the "conspiracy" of homoeopathy, but still swallowed the government's "conspiracy" theory (that a bunch of Arabs hijacked some airliners and flew them into the buildings) without question.

Why am I less than totally amazed by this?

Rolfe.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

BSM, the thread arising from that Comment is Free article is amazing, and I've only got a short way down it. The most utterly delicious moment was when one of the very few homoeopathy defenders (Baba Yaga) turned out to be also a 9/11 "Truther", and expressed amazement that we thought we could see through the "conspiracy" of homoeopathy, but still swallowed the government's "conspiracy" theory (that a bunch of Arabs hijacked some airliners and flew them into the buildings) without question.

Why am I less than totally amazed by this?

Rolfe.

Must be a reader of the whale.to website.

 

[Rolfe]

I also loved the descent to Godwinism of the poster who likened the anti-homoeopathy sentiments being expressed to anti-Semitism. And defended the comparison by revealing that, as a Jew, s/he was all too used to such things.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ben Goldacre Jewish?

Rolfe.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I also loved the descent to Godwinism of the poster who likened the anti-homoeopathy sentiments being expressed to anti-Semitism. And defended the comparison by revealing that, as a Jew, s/he was all too used to such things.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ben Goldacre Jewish?

Rolfe.

No idea. Judaism is supposed to pass through the maternal line isn't it? His mum is Noosha Fox^WP. But I have no idea if she is jewish either...

PS: Did you know Himmler was married to a homeopath?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Will he, won't he, will he, won't he, come and join the dance?

Oh, I'm so excited, I can hardly wait.

I expect, even as we sit here, he's collating the records of a load of AIDS patients or someone with metastatic cancer that he cured. It's going to be so great!!!

Because he must have personal experience of really treating serious diseases. He can't have spent his entire career treating people with achy tummies or ME and separating them from their money.

His website sells loads of books. They must be full of rip-snorting case histories. This is going to be such an easy task for him.

Ooh, I can't wait.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sshhh! Sshhh!

Don't spoil the moment with too many posts, let's keep that big question in view, you know how easily distracted homeopaths can be;

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.

 

[ultracrepidarian]

Hi from a newby....the Grauniad thread was fun (I was a participant, and I understand at least one of you was (were?), too), and the great stuff you guys posted on the other Ullman thread here was fantastic reference - thanks. The effort you put in elsewhere in assessing the UV absorption data, and sending a critical letter was also impressive.

Having to dig up references to each paper quoted in favour of homeopathy, and assessing it from scratch in response to yet another baseless claim from a cut'n'paste merchant is tiresome. Critiques of many of the old favourites can usually be found online - has anyone collected links to all these various critiques in one place? Lots of work involved there, I know, but it would be a useful resource. (I lack the computer skills to do it, before it's suggested; sorry....)

 

[Dana Ullman]

Heck...let's have fun with this one...I'm sure that you'll now agree that ALL of these basic science journals are now advocates of homeopathy and are no longer trustworthy. In fact, no one is trustworthy except you. Hmmm...what is the name for this type of thinking and self-congratulatory attitudes?

A Homeopathic Product with Suspected Immunomodulatory Activity:
Recently several microscopy techniques were utilized to demonstrate that the complex homoeopathic medicine, called Canova,* activates macrophages. Piemonte and Buchi (2002) demonstrated both in vivo and in vitro that mice macrophages treated with Canova were activated according to morphologic, biochemical and molecular criteria. The results showed that TNF- release decreased after repeated doses of Canova, and De Oliveira et al. (2006) showed the enhancement in nitric oxide (NO) production and in inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). NO and reactive oxygen species (ROS) are critical in host defense and against tumoral cells. The improvement in immune response of treated Sarcoma 180-bearing mice was demonstrated by Sato et al. (2005). A reduction in sarcoma size was observed and a significant infiltration of lymphoid cells, granulation tissue and fibrosis occurred surrounding the tumor. All animals from the treated group survived, and a total regression of the tumor was shown in 30% of them. All microscopy techniques showed that monocytic lineage (CD11b) and stromal cells (adherent cells) from bone marrow were activated by treatment (Abud et al., 2006). The scientific studies with homoeopathic medicines indicate the need of a careful examination of the interplay between homoeopathic medicaments and macrophages in the treatment of a malignancy. The functional relationship between immune cells production of cytokines and the response to homoeopathic treatment is an important area for future research.

* Canova is a combination of several well-known homeopathic remedies (Aconite, Bryonia, Thuja, Arsenicum album and Lachesis).


Abud AP, Cesar B, Cavazzani LF, de Oliveira CC, Gabardo J, Buchi Dde F (2006). Activation of bone marrow cells treated with Canova in vitro. Cell Biol Int. Oct;30(10):808-16.

Cesar, B, Abud AP, de Oliveira CC, et al. (2007), Activation of mononuclear bone marrow cells treated in vitro with a complex homeopathic medication. Micron. Feb:22.

de Oliveira CC, de Oliveira SM, Godoy LM, Gabardo J, Buchi Dde F. Canova (2006). A Brazilian medical formulation alters oxidative metabolism of mice macrophages. J Infect. 2006 Jun;52(6):420-32.

Piemonte MDR, De Freitas Buchi D (2002). Analysis of IL-2, IFN-gamma and TNF-alpha production, alpha5 beta1 integrins and actin filaments distribution in peritoneal mouse macrophages treated with homeopathic medicament. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. Jul;34(3):255-63.

Sato DYO, Wal R, de Oliveira CC, et al (2005) Histopathological and immunophenotyping studies on normal and sarcoma 180-bearing mice treated with a complex homeopathic medication, Homeopathy: the Journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy; 94, 26-32.

Seligmann IC, Lima PD, Cardoso PC, Khayat AS, Bahia MO, Buchi Dde F, Cabral IR, Burbano RR (2003). The anticancer homeopathic composite "Canova method" is not genotoxic for human lymphocytes in vitro. Genet Mol Res. Jun 30;2(2):223-8.

 

[fishkr]

A Homeopathic Product with Suspected Immunomodulatory Activity:
Recently several microscopy techniques were utilized to demonstrate that the complex homoeopathic medicine, called Canova,* activates macrophages. Piemonte and Buchi (2002) demonstrated both in vivo and in vitro that mice macrophages treated with Canova were activated according to morphologic, biochemical and molecular criteria. The results showed that TNF- release decreased after repeated doses of Canova, and De Oliveira et al. (2006) showed the enhancement in nitric oxide (NO) production and in inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS). NO and reactive oxygen species (ROS) are critical in host defense and against tumoral cells.


Dear Doctor,

I'm just a regular guy, so maybe you can explain to me what this stuff means in plain english. There are a lot of big technical words in this reference, but like most scientific and technical ideas, I'm hoping that they should be explicable to a layman. I mean if a guy like me can get to a rudimentary understanding of how my computer works, surely you can spell out exactly what, in this context, you mean by all this and how the Canova stuff works. I might need it some day, but being skeptical I usually feel better the more I know.

Thank you very much in advance.

 

[JJM]

Heck...let's have fun with this one... {snip}

Okay. You still cannot provide reliable, clinical evidence because it does not exist. I looked-up one article, and they did not specify the potency, nor was there any evidence that the prep was not tampered with. A 2X prep, or a prep with a (hidden) active ingredient, can produce the results they see.

Nonetheless, there remains the fact that there is no evidence for homeopathic efficacy in humans.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Dana, I think you'll find that this thread opens by asking you a very simple question

You have failed to answer it again. If you'd like to start a thread on these in vitro studies, then please do so. For now:

Are you prepared to confirm that you have read each of those papers in their original?

I'd hate to think you were just cutting and pasting summaries of papers you haven't read. Having had your butt kicked on your misrepresentation of those Frass papers one might have hoped that you'd have learnt a lesson.

But, since reading comprehension and consistency do not seem to be included in your skill-set, possibly squeezed out by the space required to maintain that enthusiasm for self-promotion, here is the question you have not answered;

"GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION."

Your silence on this is becoming ever more revealing.

 

[Rolfe]

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.

Bunch of references almost exclusively dealing with in vitro investigations, those which do involve in vivo work seem to have been carried out on laboratory mice.

This does not even begin to address the question. While I'm sure neither BSM nor I would presume to insist that non-human patients be excluded from consideration, what you have presented is all benchwork! No actual patients, no case-taking, and no cure.

Remember, we're always being told how important the case-taking and the individualisation of the remedy is, the necessity for getting the right simillimum and so on. The fact that homoeopathy treats the whole patient, not just the disease. And we're always being given examples of alleged miracle cures, which on closer examination all turn out to be highly suspect, with no definite confirmation of the diagnosis, or the recovery, or that any recovery was not attributable to concurrent treatment with conventional medicine and so on.

So, BSM was asking for just one such miracle cure, fully and comprehensively documented. And all you can come up with is some studies on mice, not individualised, and interestingly enough demonstrating what is often alleged to be a heinous homoeopathic crime, polypharmacy.

Have you really and truly got not one single documented case where homoeopathy cured someone with a documented diagnosis of something non-self-limiting, with the recovery also clearly documented (lab results would be nice), and excluding the possibility of conventional medicine being able to take the credit? Not a single one? Really and truly?

Now I suppose we could start to nitpick our way through these papers you've cited. Been there, done that, with other publications you were very keen on (Rao et al., anyone?). Every single such paper which has been represented to me as containing good evidence for homoeopathy has turned out to be so badly designed, executed and presented that the possibility of deliberate obfuscation bordering on fraud could not be discounted. I'm not really expecting anything better from this lot.

So, would you rather do another journal critique exercise on these papers (I'd like to know for a start whether the preparation in use was in fact ultramolecular or not, I certainly don't see any mention of "30C" or anything like that), with results I suspect I can predict?

Or could you maybe address BSM's question, and present a properly-documented case of a recovery from a non-self-limiting condition which can be plausibly attributed to homoeopathy?

Rolfe.

 

[Dana Ullman]

You skeptics are so easy to tweak. You ALL insist that homeopaths use too small of a dose to have ANY biological effect. Then, you squirm and squirm and squirm when you are shown evidence of a biological effect. You avoid the evidence. Will someone respond to my previous post in an intelligent way? And please stop saying what you think the important question is (as though there is just one important question). There are many important questions.

Here's another basic science study (the squirming can begin).

Jonas et al (2006) injected 100 Copenhagen mice with a standardized dose of MAT-LyLu rat prostate cancer cells, From day 2, animals were given 100 μL daily of one of four homeopathic remedies in rotation (Thuja occidentalis 1000C, Conium maculatum 1000C, and Sabal serrulata 200C and Carcinosin 1000C) or control water by oral gavage. Tumor volume was measured every four days. Animals treated homeopathically had a 23% decrease in tumor incidence, and significantly longer overall and tumor-free survival, as compared with controls. Tumor volume among tumor-bearing animals was 38% lower in the homeopathically treated group, and tumor weight was 13% lower, than in the control group. In an attempt to elucidate mechanisms for this phenomenon, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) was measured in tumor tissues of the two groups. There was a 6% reduction in PCNA-positive cells in the homeopathy-treated group as compared to control. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated d-uridine triphosphate nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay of tumor tissues demonstrated a significant 19% increase in apoptotic positive nuclei in the homeopathy-treated group as compared to control. Cell viability and apoptosis gene expression were not affected, as measured by MTT assay and rAPO-1 multiprobe, respectively. The authors concluded that, in this model, homeopathy slowed progression of cancer and reduced cancer incidence and mortality.

Jonas WB, Jaya P, Gaddipati NV, et al (2006). Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Integr Cancer Ther; 5; 343

I bet you think that these mice are simply responding to the loving care of the experimenter. Even though this was a double-blind trial, you seem to believe that homeopaths have a mystical power. Ironically, you are much more metaphysical than I am.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Do you know what, folks?

I really think he has not got an answer for this one;

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION

I have already suggested, Dana, that you start a thread to talk about research studies. Though if your past record is anything to go by they will not be worth reading. Nonethless, I suggest you create a new thread and post the full citation to this study and any others you wish. Well, no, I'll even make a new thread for you. Herehttp://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99751 it is.

This thread is for answers to the question already posed and evaded yet again. I will reiterate;

GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You skeptics are so easy to tweak. You ALL insist that homeopaths use too small of a dose to have ANY biological effect. Then, you squirm and squirm and squirm when you are shown evidence of a biological effect. You avoid the evidence. Will someone respond to my previous post in an intelligent way? And please stop saying what you think the important question is (as though there is just one important question). There are many important questions.

Here's another basic science study (the squirming can begin).

Jonas et al (2006) injected 100 Copenhagen mice with a standardized dose of MAT-LyLu rat prostate cancer cells, From day 2, animals were given 100 μL daily of one of four homeopathic remedies in rotation (Thuja occidentalis 1000C, Conium maculatum 1000C, and Sabal serrulata 200C and Carcinosin 1000C) or control water by oral gavage. Tumor volume was measured every four days. Animals treated homeopathically had a 23% decrease in tumor incidence, and significantly longer overall and tumor-free survival, as compared with controls. Tumor volume among tumor-bearing animals was 38% lower in the homeopathically treated group, and tumor weight was 13% lower, than in the control group. In an attempt to elucidate mechanisms for this phenomenon, proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) was measured in tumor tissues of the two groups. There was a 6% reduction in PCNA-positive cells in the homeopathy-treated group as compared to control. Terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase mediated d-uridine triphosphate nick end labeling (TUNEL) assay of tumor tissues demonstrated a significant 19% increase in apoptotic positive nuclei in the homeopathy-treated group as compared to control. Cell viability and apoptosis gene expression were not affected, as measured by MTT assay and rAPO-1 multiprobe, respectively. The authors concluded that, in this model, homeopathy slowed progression of cancer and reduced cancer incidence and mortality.

Jonas WB, Jaya P, Gaddipati NV, et al (2006). Can homeopathic treatment slow prostate cancer growth? Integr Cancer Ther; 5; 343

I bet you think that these mice are simply responding to the loving care of the experimenter. Even though this was a double-blind trial, you seem to believe that homeopaths have a mystical power. Ironically, you are much more metaphysical than I am.

I can't figure out from the above whether there were 100 mice or 33-1/3 mice in each of the three groups but, in any case, the sample size seems small. In the world of real medicine such a study would be repeated with larger sample sizes by someone else. I'll wait for those results before cheering.

 

[Baron Samedi]

I can't figure out from the above whether there were 100 mice or 33-1/3 mice in each of the three groups but, in any case, the sample size seems small. In the world of real medicine such a study would be repeated with larger sample sizes by someone else. I'll wait for those results before cheering.

Gord, it looks like there was 48 in the control group, and 48 received the homeopathic cocktail.

And I think their conclusions were closer to your reaction than Dana/James

Given the lack of mechanism to explain our findings,
any interpretation of these data should be done cautiously.
However, we employed a careful, systematic,
and blinded approach (pilot tests; sufficiently powered,
blinded study; confirmatory histopathology;
PCNA and TUNEL assays) and therefore felt the
information should be published so others can attempt
independent replications.

(bold mine)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

This should probably be discussed in the other thread set up specifically for that purpose (linked in BSMs last post).

Wouldn't want to distract Mr Ullman from the topic of this thread.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

This should probably be discussed in the other thread set up specifically for that purpose (linked in BSMs last post).

Wouldn't want to distract Mr Ullman from the topic of this thread.

And what would that topic be, Professor?

Oh, yes;


GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION

I haven't done it for a while, but I'm going to start a clock on this.

Time since Dana first posted after this question was originally posed;

T+02d 00h 59m 19s