More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[SYLVESTER1592]

Not for your consumption. Others are also entitled to a reply.

"Originally Posted by Pipirr
How can you be so certain? "

I'm sorry, but I asked the same question. If you have another reply for me that is different...

SYL

 

[manioberoi]

The reason why I'm bugging you about this is because rheumatology is not a easy subject in internal medicine. You might want to think this over...
First look at all the known causes of arthritis then start limiting and start designing your trial to cater to a specific disease or cause.
I know this is hard to work around to, because you are used to reason from a symptom as your main viewpoint. You could choose a symptom with a shorter differential diagnosis. Just a suggestion...

SYL

Symptoms precede pathology in homeopathy for the good reason that the homeopathic remedy is designed to produce an artificial disease to activate the [vital force - black box] to drive out the real disease- so Caulophyllum 6C water potency for chronic arthritis of the small joints - fingers, toes and wrists . At times pathological approach ie use of Oxalicum acidum 6C water potency may work better but the percentage of cures would be expected to be higher with Caulophyllum 6C water potency than with Oxalicum acidum 6C water potency.

If I had to assure a 100 percent cure I may need to try another 4 to 5 remedies in the absence of knowledge of the underlying pathology.

Tests for underlying pathology would certainly help to shorten the selection process but only after Caulophyllum 6C water potency fails.

That in very simplistic terms is a short answer to your query.

Having treated different arthritic cases I stand by the suggestion.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Symptoms precede pathology in homeopathy for the good reason that the homeopathic remedy is designed to produce an artificial disease to activate the [vital force - black box] to drive out the real disease- so Caulophyllum 6C water potency for chronic arthritis of the small joints - fingers, toes and wrists . At times pathological approach ie use of Oxalicum acidum 6C water potency may work better but the percentage of cures would be expected to be higher with Caulophyllum 6C water potency than with Oxalicum acidum 6C water potency.

If I had to assure a 100 percent cure I may need to try another 4 to 5 remedies in the absence of knowledge of the underlying pathology.

Tests for underlying pathology would certainly help to shorten the selection process but only after Caulophyllum 6C water potency fails.

That in very simplistic terms is a short answer to your query.

Having treated different arthritic cases I stand by the suggestion.

Then I'm afraid you already have the first criticism to your trial (and maybe even the reason of rejection) before you even started, but keep on reading it may clarify why.

Good Luck

SYL

 

[manioberoi]

I'm sorry, but I asked the same question. If you have another reply for me that is different...

SYL

Sorry, I could not find it in this thread.
Could you help me to trace your question about how I "can be so certain?"

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Sorry, I could not find it in this thread.
Could you help me to trace your question about how I "can be so certain?"

Post # 618

 

[manioberoi]

???

Have you ever taken a plane somewhere? Do you know how much radiation you already have received? We are not aiming at overies or testikels and you are using it at the beginning and end of the trial to make the diagnosis and evaluate progression, so that is perfectly ethical.

SYL

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry could be used to advantage.

 

[manioberoi]

Saying that it works does not make it so...
Either present the proof or retract the statement. I think by now you understand what we mean by proof.

SYL

See:

Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jan-Mar;8(1):98-102.
"Inhibition of chemically induced carcinogenesis by drugs used in homeopathic medicine.
Kumar KH, Sunila ES, Kuttan G, Preethi KC, Venugopal CN, Kuttan R.
Amala Cancer Research Centre, Amala Nagar, Thrissur, Kerala State, India. 680555. [email protected].

Homeopathy is considered as one modality for cancer therapy. However, there are only very few clinical reports on the activity of the drugs, as well as in experimental animals. Presently we have evaluated the inhibitory effects of potentized homeopathic preparations against N'-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) induced hepatocellular carcinoma in rats as well as 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas in mice. We have used Ruta, Hydrastis, Lycopodium and Thuja, which are commonly employed in homeopathy for treating cancer. Administration of NDEA in rats resulted in tumor induction in the liver and elevated marker enzymes such as gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase, glutamate pyruvate transaminase, glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase and alkaline phosphatase in the serum and in liver. Concomitant administration of homeopathic drugs retarded the tumor growth and significantly reduced the elevated marker enzymes level as revealed by morphological, biochemical and histopathological evaluation. Out of the four drugs studied, Ruta 200c showed maximum inhibition of liver tumor development. Ruta 200c and phosphorus 1M were found to reduce the incidence of 3-methylcholanthrene-induced sarcomas and also increase the life span of mice harboring the tumours. These studies demonstrate that homeopathic drugs, at ultra low doses, may be able to decrease tumor induction by carcinogen administration. At present we do not know the mechanisms of action of these drugs useful against carcinogenesis."

 

[manioberoi]

Then I'm afraid you already have the first criticism to your trial (and maybe even the reason of rejection) before you even started, but keep on reading it may clarify why.

Good Luck

SYL

I am willing to listen and learn.

 

[manioberoi]

I conclude from this that you will be looking at hand osteoarthritis. I think you should know that the DNA differences in leukocyte telomere length that are seen have only been published recently. You would be using a method that has been around for a little while.

Do you regard this as the golden standard.

Did you consider that?

(Adding a link to the article)
BTW in regard of the X-ray comment, I seriously do hope that you were not thinking of evaluating DNA from chondrocytes...
Second: maybe you should consider this (link) it may clarify why diagnosis is important for your method to work. Maybe reconsider other tests I mentioned.

SYL

Thanks. Agree , also Xray as suggested.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

6 Polo ponies stationed 500 kms away, that I have never seen - veterinary treatment over 3 months of 1 failed - treated homeopathically on indications reported by owner(s) ( as advised by veterinary). Later 5 more cases- ALL 6 recovered. Veterinary now wants to learn homeopathy!! But veterinary homeopathy is not recognised in India. ( Steroidal autoimmune disorders, worms not removed by conventional drugs came out in numbers (40 to 50)with 10 days of Cina 6c, repeated ligament injuries cured and stopped recurrence using ACTH 6C followed by Ruta 6C- these are verifiable from the owners some of whom I have only spoken on phone but never met).

I have been cured among other problems of a slipped disc in 2005- back was bent sideways and forwards ( confirmed by specialist of AIIMS) with 5 days of Hypericum perforatrum 6C followed by 5 days of Calcarea carbonica 6C) - I could walk straight on the fourth day.

56 year old lady suffering from arthritis and high BP taking losacar for 10 years - treated homeopathically - BP 120/80 - no drugs, arthritis cured, took part in public dance performance last week.

Post brain tapeworm infestation (treated conventionally) lesion in MRI - treated homeopathically - cleared up in 30 days as seen in MRI - a polo player whose horse was cured.

These are all recent cases.

There were no controls. Was it all a fluke? For every case cured there is one that is only partially or not at all benefited - but homeopathy has its limitations - coffee, tobacco, environment etc.

The diagnosis is done conventionally. The treatment is by homeopathic analysis.

That is how I am so sure.

Let's get on with finding a way to get these trials properly designed.

Once that has been done we can find out who is going to organise the trials so that there is no question of adverse comment either from the homeopaths or from the practitioners of conventional medicine, whichever way the trial goes. It won't be the end of homeopathy or for that matter of any of the pathys. They would meander on as usual.

We know that "spontaneous remission" actually happens. Diseases are cured without intervention by anybody. If I collect anedotal evidence of such cures, should I recommend that patients do nothing to get cured? Claims similar to yours are made by many quacks. Without medical diagnoses and comparison to statistics of the general population, they mean nothing.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Dana Ullman has NOT claimed that homeopathy has a viable treatment or cure for HIV/AIDS. So far neither does conventional medicine claim to have a cure for HIV/AIDS.

All that Dana Ullman has said is that Homeopathic treatment holds promise for such cure / treatment and proper trials need to be carried out so as to establish this. He has at no time stated that patients should abandon conventional treatment and look for homeopathic treatment for HIV/AIDS.

Do you find this objectionable?

Yes, because it includes "wishful thinking".

This is very dangerous ground you and Ullman are walking on. If you even think of promising some kind of effect with your magic water or sugar pills you better have some durn good data.

Where is that data... and is it replicable?

 

[manioberoi]

We know that "spontaneous remission" actually happens. Diseases are cured without intervention by anybody. If I collect anedotal evidence of such cures, should I recommend that patients do nothing to get cured? Claims similar to yours are made by many quacks. Without medical diagnoses and comparison to statistics of the general population, they mean nothing.

Spontaneous remission in 6 out of 6 cases??

 

[manioberoi]

Yes, because it includes "wishful thinking".

This is very dangerous ground you and Ullman are walking on. If you even think of promising some kind of effect with your magic water or sugar pills you better have some durn good data.

Where is that data... and is it replicable?

What wishful thinking? What dangerous ground? aka "Conspiracy Theory"
The official position of homeopathy in India is clearly stated - At present homeopaths will only carry out counselling for HIV / AIDS prevention as part of their public health duties.

All HIV / AIDS cases are notifiable by law and are to be dealt with strictly by conventional medicine.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Spontaneous remission in 6 out of 6 cases??

Third hand report of inadequately described clinical cases. There are many reasons why 6 out of 6 cases might be reported through hat same unreliable chain as being "cured".

I'm afraid that by your repeated use of such anecdotes, I'm afraid that yu reveal that deep dow you simply do not understand the need for pairing clinical cases with placebo-treated controls. Like every homeopath I have ever met, you regard proper trials as window dressing for something you think you already know. Your great mistake is in failing to accept that the evidence base on which you rely to "know" what you think you know is utterly flawed and is simply logically incapable of supporting the conclusions you draw from it.

Which is wht I have asked you, several times, the same question, which you have steadfastly failed to answer;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry could be used to advantage.

Why would you want to use DEXA when you are looking at cartilage damage?...

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Thanks. Agree , also Xray as suggested.

Great,
Now you need to have a definitive diagnosis and set up clear inclusion criteria. This means you would have to work trough the differential diagnosis of arthritis. I recommend you let conventional medicine take care of that. It would mean that you would also have to do the other tests to make sure you are only looking at osteoarthritis... since conventional medicine has an entire sub-specialty that deals with rheumatology I think you would do better to let them handle this part of making the diagnosis (it is safer in the way that you don't run the risk to misdiagnose and postpone treatment, but also in the way that it protects your research from possible unforeseen errors: the object of the research is to evaluate the drug, not the homeopath making the diagnosis) .

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

The basis and reasons to do research...

Some quotes in this thread to make you think about why you are deciding to do research. It's probably the most important part of the start of your research, so look at it carefully:

Third hand report of inadequately described clinical cases. There are many reasons why 6 out of 6 cases might be reported through hat same unreliable chain as being "cured".

I'm afraid that by your repeated use of such anecdotes, I'm afraid that yu reveal that deep down you simply do not understand the need for pairing clinical cases with placebo-treated controls. Like every homeopath I have ever met, you regard proper trials as window dressing for something you think you already know. Your great mistake is in failing to accept that the evidence base on which you rely to "know" what you think you know is utterly flawed and is simply logically incapable of supporting the conclusions you draw from it.

Which is what I have asked you, several times, the same question, which you have steadfastly failed to answer;

Which do you want to admit, either homeopathy is scientifically testable or your entire clincal case record must be ignored? There is no third option. Which do you want to choose?

I thought you understood what we consider proof....?
As this will only serve to "prove"that homeopathy works in your opinion and a negative result does not mean anything to you, why do you want to do the trial?

You do the trial to make up your own mind and advance the knowledge in your profession...Not for us. We couldn't care less at this point.

If there was some evidence of homeopathy working, we would pay attention, but don't do it for us...

Do you understand what I'm saying?

SYL

I thought you understood what we consider proof....?
As this will only serve to "prove"that homeopathy works in your opinion and a negative result does not mean anything to you, why do you want to do the trial?

You do the trial to make up your own mind and advance the knowledge in your profession...Not for us. We couldn't care less at this point.

If there was some evidence of homeopathy working, we would pay attention, but don't do it for us...

Do you understand what I'm saying?

SYL

In the Netherlands it is largely frowned upon in palliative care, but a trial as complementary treatment could be conceivable. As an alternative treatment, replacing pain medication, it is hardly ethical, so that in my opinion is a definite No No. I don't know how things works in the US and Canada, but I imagine the sentiment would be the same. Homeopaths in the Netherlands have told some of their patients after they had already left the hospital that paracetamol is enough to kill the pain in combination with the homeopathic treatment. To say this to a slowly dying terminal patient in severe pain... Well, I think you can imagine what I what I would like to do (and I'm not just talking about the patient).


Actually, you just mentioned an illness that will clear up by itself and for which there is no treatment of the cause but only supportive treatment. So test away...
The timeline of the test needs argumentation, as would the reason to treat a patient.
The argument is, you need to show that there is a reason to test a drug on a patient. The reason (most often) could be that laboratory test showed a promising effect of the drug on animals or cell culture. Another reason could be that the drug was designed for another illness but has shown a promising effect that had not been recognized before. Yet another reason could be that many case reports led to a small patient group presenting beneficial effects of an formerly unknown substance. This has happened in the case of homeopathy, but the following trials failed to show a conclusive or even promising result under careful scrutiny by peers in the medical world. This normally means further research is shelved. But you don't start testing on patients first and analyze later. That is something you do in the lab on animals or cell culture. Even if the new drug is only a derivative of a already known drug, testing normally starts in the lab. I understand very well that you believe it is all bunk and they are only getting water anyway, so there would be no problem. But by subjecting patients to a trial, they have to follow the trial protocol. This means the patients are subjected to tests and a regimen that is often an infringement on the normal care given by their physician. For a benign problem (something you would encounter in a General Practitioner's office on a Monday morning) this can probably be done and the burden of the trial can be minimized. For more serious disease it becomes another story and I would have serious problems with the reasons for such a trial.

In general: A drug that does not work in the lab, does not make it to the patient.

( On a side note: I think some of the few exceptions where shortcuts were taken and testing in humans started long before labtests were finished were trials done by Bayer in WWII and more recently trials done on HIV patients in Africa, but I think we can agree this should not be considered normal )

SYL

Thank you, that's one

So if all the evidence is questionable, the objective results are lacking in the performed trials, you acknowledge that the chemical difference can not be shown, that the homeopathic solution would only show placebo...
Why pursue the idea that the effect would be different.
If there is an effect on the water even after the diluted chemical substance is gone, why can't you show it?
If the effect is the same as placebo in well-designed trials, if the chemical analysis is the same as placebo, if you can't show the mechanism of action, if you can not produce a reason for it to work... Why can't you draw the conclusion that it is a placebo?

How about those other comments...

SYL

You do realize this can be tested for, right? (ETA: just like you can test weither or not prayer helps in recovery. Or shaking stuffed koalas over sick people. No "molecules" to be analyzed, but the effects of those practices can easily be analyzed, just like the effects of any attempted treatment can be analyzed, regardless of the intricacies of the treatment itself.)

If homeopathic remedies work, then they have an effect on patients. If homeopathic remedies work differently depending on weither or not they have been exposed to, say, sunlight, then they will have different effects on patients.

Two groups. One treated with non-sunlightified remedies. One treated with sunlightified remedies. Compare the results.

That's one of the major points of clinical trials: replace anecdotes with data.

In fact, I'm starting to believe you have absolutely no idea what clinical trials are about and how they differentiate from a guy on the street telling you what happened to his sister-in-law last year.

It is very interesting to see that you use the word may here? How would you find out if such exposures did or didn't have an effect? (Clue: you could try with and without such exposures and look for a difference ... maybe you could even put in steps to avoid any bias by blinding the process ...)

Have you any proof for these possible claims or are you just adding to your list of obstacles in the hope we will get bored? Why do you have to keep coming up with excuses/obstacles? Why don't you care about finding out if homoeopathy does, or doesn't, work?

Given all the ways you have listed that homeopathy can fail... what makes you think homeopathy works at all?

I'm wondering why Dana keeps saying "take off the blinders" (I assume he means blinkers) when he has shown nothing that has impressed anyone, and yet at the same time he himself is constantly ignoring all the very serious objections to his viewpoint which are being constantly put in front of him.

I-am-not-a-psychologist, but it seems to me he's not a very clear thinker, but is very much invested in the world-view that homoeoapthy works. Therefore when something odd appears which looks as if it might support that world-view, he latches on to it enthusiastically and uncritically - hey look, this is wonderful, it must be true!!!

But at the same time he is stunningly unwilling to take off his own blinkers and address the points we feel to be fatal flaws in his thesis. He just keeps repeating, but look at this great paper - while ignoring both the reasoned criticisms which have been made of these papers, and the other points which keep being put to him.

Very poor intellect, I'm afraid, if we're getting personal.

Rolfe.

As you can see several of us have raised the question why you would want to do a study. As long as homeopathy does not recognize that science progresses and that a new paper can completely destroy what you tried to prove, there will be no progression. The latching on to papers once published 100 years ago, that have long been refuted is an example of that. So is the persistent referral to anecdotal "evidence".

Can you subscribe to BSM and Rolfe's comments and decide to take notice of the results, including when they turn out negative? I mean you are asking us to look at evidence when it turns out positive, this would also mean that you would have to look at it when it turns out negative...

I think a negative result would have to be weighed against the positive ones. The fact that a paper is refuted actually shows it does not work and means your evidence ends up in the bin.

It would also mean that the collected works and corresponding conclusions about the anecdotal evidence gathered in the last 150 years is useless and belongs in the bin. You would start over in a scientific manner and work through a way to build a discipline that could improve itself. Conventional medicine has taken that step long ago. Can you subscribe to these things?

Please read it carefully and think it over. It is an important premise to start of on your research. You do the best research you can, compare it with others and accept the outcome to improve your discipline. If you can not do that, then there is no point in doing research, because you don't use it anyway...

SYL

 

[krazyKemist]

There is no conspiracy. Its all about money.

Homeopaths would lose but the public would lose much much more.

1 in 100 people using homeopathy always go to a homeopath for the remedy. The rest only consult a homeopath for an intractable problem and use the remedy kits for routine problems.

mmm... I'm not sure the public would lose that much... After all, what I believe is that homeopathic manufacturers sell high-priced placebos. Telling people what it is might actually save some lives.

But don't you think that's a little like... cheating ? What I mean is that, well, pharmas have to spend money to prove efficiency, homeopaths do not. Homeopathic remedy manufacturers just sell water at a very high profit rate.

Pharmas stand to lose as much, if not more, when a drug causes harm (see the Vioxx case). The pharmaceutical industry is a high risk venture and its money is quite volatile, since it usually comes from the stock market. One scandal not only costs you from people who are suiing you, but also from a loss of investors. They are no angels (I've seen enough to know that !), but their behavior only reflects the mentality of the stock market.

the Kemist

 

[krazyKemist]

Spontaneous remission in 6 out of 6 cases??

Not quite... I think that you misunderstand. Those are actually 6 remission cases out of an unknown number of patients. You can't remove cases out of statistics simply because they do not work to your satisfaction. It does not work that way. It is the main reason anecdotes are not data. You have to follow-up every one of them.

Now if you really want to do actual testing, some people here have suggested very good protocols. What I would add is to get your hands on a Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) guide from FDA or equivalent from another drug testing agency and follow it to the letter. That way, when comes time to submit your paper, you will be able to defend its quality to good journals.

Another thing is to follow the process of peer review in the right order, meaning, publish first in a specialized journal that is known for its rigor, rather than a wide spectrum or public-oriented one where review might be too whooly or done by non-specialists.

the Kemist

 

[krazyKemist]

Like these?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=2655683&dopt=Abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=595be723c5173e8b1cbaa97deb3ea544
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001957.html

Linda

Thanks

Hey, those actually work! I'll get the full papers when I get the chance.

the Kemist