More Fun with Homeopath Dana Ullman, MPH(!)

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Is that the best ya got? Quoting Benveniste!? If you're going to believe him now, then believe his research too. OR better, blind or not, you try doing Rey's work and see if you can create a different result just by thinking about it. Words, words, words, you got 'em. Now all you need is intelligence.

No. What we need is evidence.

Quote:

As for "profits," that's a great one. The entire sales of homeopathic medicines in the US is under $300 in retail sales...or $120-$150 in wholesales sales (to the manufacturers). The largest homeopathic company grosses maybe, what, $20-$30 million...that's gross, not net. Heck, that's a pimple on a rat's arss.

One of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, Boiron, has a turnover of 398,674,000 Euro (2006), and their estimate of the total world market is 1.5 billion Euro (source: http://www.boiron.com/ )

Research, man. Research.

The point of this is that the homeopathic industry has the financial power to do proper research. Boiron could easily foot the bill for a full-scale clinical trial, that would open a far bigger share of the 500 billion pharmaceutical market to them, if it was positive.

Anybody have a guess as to why they don't do it?

Quote:

If you want to talk about profits, get real. Get perspective...and once again,

Homeopathy has a rather tiny market share, but that is just a question of scale. Homeopathy is at least as profitable as conventional pharma.

Quote:

get intelligence.

I suggest you cut out the insults immidiately. People here have actually been treating you quite nicely. Let's keep it that way, shall we?

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Quote:

P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude.

Ehr, surely you mean low pressures?

I was wondering about this as well, but for another reason. Are homoeopathic remedies prepared at high altitude?

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Hey Delusions de Grandeur...
That's very interesting. I'm sure that water is not the only memory storage device in nature.
As for Bridgman's book...I mis-named it. It is THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE.

If you have the book in digital form somewhere, could you give me the piece which tells about the pressure-history dependant freezing pattern of water? I can't get a hold of this book at my local library. I find the idea rather fascinating, since for as far as I know water structures are extremely short-lived (<10^-6 s). If this phenomenon is real, then water should be able to store information without forming rigid structures. I don't have high hopes though, because this should be easilly demonstrated and I never heared of it.

But since I do have the means to try this I will carry out an experiment. I have access to a vaccum pump, air tight container, distilled water and an old fashioned light microscope at the campus. I bet if I find any hint of memory at all I'll be able to use a scanning electron microscope as well.

[Delusions_O_Grandeur]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

One of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, Boiron, has a turnover of 398,674,000 Euro (2006), and their estimate of the total world market is 1.5 billion Euro (source: http://www.boiron.com/ )
Hans

You're scaring the crap out of me. I didn't even know homeopathy was a mainstream form of medication.

They make me jealous. Why do they get all that money for selling unproven remedies while I practically kill myself in order to get my physics PhD?

-Sorry, double post!-

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

One of the largest manufacturers of homeopathic remedies, Boiron, has a turnover of 398,674,000 Euro (2006), and their estimate of the total world market is 1.5 billion Euro (source: http://www.boiron.com/ )

I checked the "research" section of their site.

It said this:

Quote:

In less than one decade, the conclusions from meta-analyses involving homeopathy have convinced their authors of the acceptability of homeopathic clinical trials and their positive results.

So it took nearly a decade to convince the authors of the study that their own trial was positive? ...Very persuasive, I must say.

later...

Quote:

These meta-analyses highlight the perfectibility of the research conducted in homeopathy.

Yup - the best example of perfectibility I've ever seen.


ETA: to be fair, I guess something might have been lost in translation.

Which makes me recall the best example of French mistranslation I have seen for a while when we went to Euro Disney in Paris and my son went on the Manchester United training session. There was this huge sign extolling the virtues of "The Mythical Manchester United".
(They meant legendary of course)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Please provide reference to some proving reports that use double blinding during the entire process.

Hans

Actually a serious failure is their lack of triple blinding, i.e. including the data analyst.

They set out to collect such amorphous and ill-defined data that the analyst is able to shape the interpretation any way they want: take a million random dots then express amazement that you can make pictures by joining some of them up.

What's worse is that they think they are being inclusive and expressing their holistic approach in this way so they don't even perceive that there is a problem.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by Deetee

The Mythical Manchester United".
(They meant legendary of course)

Huh? I see no reason at all to believe in the existence of either Wayne Rooney or David Beckham. Victoria Beckham is quite clearly a fictional character.

And you call yourself a sceptic!

I can't remember who said it now, but, it was said of David Beckham that he could not "even grow realistic hair".

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Golders Green.

Anyone?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

Golders Green.

Anyone?

So we are playing Homeopathic MC on the Beck Organon.

If I run my finger down the repertory I see Golders Green has Kentish Town as the Simillimum

[malbui]

Originally Posted by Lothian

So we are playing Homeopathic MC on the Beck Organon.

If I run my finger down the repertory I see Golders Green has Kentish Town as the Simillimum

A 12X preparation of High Barnet.

[Mojo]

Pimlico 30C.

[Rolfe]

South Kensington

Rolfe.

[krazyKemist]

Quote:

Some new research on the silicates in water provide some very provocative possibilities on how the structure in water can change and how these nano-sized "silica chips" and the nano-bubbles can influence the water.

Sure. As long as the silicates stay there. Everybody who knows a little of material science knows how the behavior at the liquid/solid interface is not the same as the one in the bulk liquid. Nothing in that work proves that water aquires 'vibrations' or whatnot and stays that way once material is removed (which is what they would have us believe for homeopathy).

As for homeopathy being used for more than 50 years, then translation would be "I'm old, so consequently, I'm right." Where would we be if that was true ?

Think I'll still be hanging on to my old chemistry and physics books for the time being.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

As for homeopathy being used for more than 50 years, then translation would be "I'm old, so consequently, I'm right."

This is sounding like "super peer review" again.

[Madalch]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

Think I'll still be hanging on to my old chemistry and physics books for the time being.

KrazyKemist, meet Mad Alchemist. Mad Alchemist, KrazyKemist.

[krazyKemist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans
Quote:
P.W. Bridgman, PhD, former professor of physics at Harvard for a couple of decades, and he is a Nobel Laureate. He wrote a book called THE PHYSICS OF HIGH ALTITUDE. He found that whenever one takes water to certain altitudes and freeze it, it freezes in a different pattern based on the high pressure of altitude.
Ehr, surely you mean low pressures?

I was wondering about this as well, but for another reason. Are homoeopathic remedies prepared at high altitude?

Mmmm...

More importantly, are they sold frozen ? I don't know, they pretend that LIQUID water retains information...(no, entropy does not exist) What does that have to do with the different types of ice formations ?

[Michael C]

James Gully, Dana Ullman, or whoever you are: I posted this question a while back but you didn't reply. I'd be very interested to know your answer: could a group of homeopaths determine the composition of a certain number of samples of different remedies (which would be labelled simply with randomly assigned code numbers) using the technique of proving?

The test could be designed to satisfy the needs of the homeopaths:

- The homeopaths would choose the substances to be used in the test: these would be substances that are considered to produce clearly-defined and easily distinguishable symptoms.

- The homeopaths would choose the people to do the provings: they could choose people that they know well (themselves included), so that they would be able to predict how these people would react to the different substances. They could do as many provings as they deem necessary.

Could the homeopaths determine which remedy was in which sample?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

While no one is obliged to continue contributing to discussions and some of us may even have "lives" that distract us from this forum, there is also such a thing as running away...

On which appropriate note I really can play only one move:

Dagenham East

[Rolfe]

As in, three stops beyond Barking?

When I asked some physicyst cronies to comment on the early papers in Millgrom's "Quantum Metaphor" series, the first email I got back said simply "Dagenham East". I checked the map, and sure enough.... But now, I think they added another station or something, because Dagenham East seems to be four stops beyond Barking, and the appropriate move is now Dagenham Heathway.

Given the proximity of the place, it's the disappointment of my life that there isn't a tube station at Havering, and that it isn't three stops beyond Barking.

Hmmm, now for the countermove. Ha, I have it!

Great Portland Street (at 6X).

Now get out of that.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

That would have been tricky at a higher potency, but at only 6X I am still free to play Turnham Green*.









*As a proving symptom, of course.

[malbui]

Assuming that my leather-bound copy of the 1927 rulebook is an appropriate means of succussion, I think I'm now free to play a 12X Silvertown.

[Dana Ullman]

Ahhh...it is so sweet that so many of you miss me.

Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty. You claim that the homeopathic doses are too small to have any effect, and yet, you ignore the various basic science and clinical studies that I have referenced, only critiquing a small number of them, and even these critiques are usually inadequate.

No one has remarked about the work of the Italian chemist Elia:
--Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.

--Elia, V, Baiano, S, Duro, I, Napoli, E, Niccoli, M, Nonatelli, L. Permanent Physio-chemical Properties of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Homeopathic Medicines, Homeopathy, 93, 2004:144-150.

The best critique that someone gave to the work of Swiss physicist Louis Rey who published in a major physics journal was a statement by Jacques Benveniste (whose words and experiments you ridicule! So what is it going to be: do you trust Benveniste's words or not?)

No one has remarked about the 3 large clinical trials in the treatment of influenza...and the best critique offered was that the medicine used was made from duck's heart and liver (obviously a "quack medicine"), despite the fact that homeopaths have been hip to avian sources and connections to flu virus since the 1920s!).

No one has remarked substentatively on the four trials at the University of Glasgow on various allergic disorders.

No one has given a scintilla of critique of the study at the University of Vienna Hospital in the treatment of people with COPD (the #4 reason that people die in the US):
--Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A..
Influence of Potassium Dichromate on Tracheal Secretions in Critically Ill Patients, Chest, March, 2005.

Instead, you show your intellectual dishonesty. If I cite a study in a peer-review CAM journal, you call it a quack journal, and yet, when a peer-review CAM journal publishes a negative result to a homeopathic trial, you cite it without hesitation (and without acknowledgement of the irony).

I refer you to the work of Rustum Roy and emphasize his previous article on homeopathy and the structure of water, and then, I made reference to a NEW soon-to-be-published study (not theory) using spectoscopic analysis of homeopathic medicines that differentiate one from another and one potency from another (just what YOU requested), and then, several of you write sloppy accounts of a non-homeopathic writing of Dr. Roy's.

Some of you even went off the deep-end by saying that the 13 papers that Dr. Roy got published in NATURE are meaningless (I will be surprised if anyone on this list has gotten a single paper published in NATURE, let alone 13).

The bottomline here is that whether you agree with Dr. Roy or me or whomever, be intellectually honest. Acknowledge positive and negative studies.

When I referenced a four university replication study led by M. Ennis (a former skeptic of homeopathy), someone properly (!) made good reference to a failed replication study. Although this negative result was published in a CAM journal, I referenced one of its authors, Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, as an obviously honest researcher (he can and will publish whatever real data he gets, whether it is pro homeopathy or not). I encourage people to review the MANY studies he has done...and the best criitique that you folks get provide is that he is not the FIRST author on every study (wow...that was a weak critique...and yet, no one here critiqued this critique).

I will be the first to acknowledge that good research is very hard, especially on "frontier subjects" in science. Further, I am suspicious and cautious when researchers report consistently positive results on these frontier subjects. I am therefore pleased when my colleagues report both positive and negative results. This is good science, not party line junk science.

I sincerely hope that the SILENT people on this list read inbetween the lines to see the elephant in the room. In your efforts to be the "defenders of science," you have been shown to have a very unscientific attitude towards homeopathy.

But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your God, Charles Darwin.

Sometimes study with an N=1 provide important substantiation.

I take great pleasure to telling you a historical fact. Our greatly beloved Charles Darwin not only sought care from a highly respected homeopathic physician, Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.

Just read Darwin's letters to read about this story and learn something about his life...

From 1837 onwards Darwin was frequently incapacitated with episodes of stomach pains, vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, trembling, and other symptoms. In 1847, Darwin's illness worsened. He was again experiencing frequent episodes of vomiting and weakness, but he now was also experiencing fainting spells and seeing spots in front of his eyes. Darwin wrote that he was so sick that he was “unable to do anything one day out of three.” He was so ill that he wasn’t even able to attend his father’s funeral when he died on November 13, 1848.

In March 1849, an old HMS Beagle shipmate told him about a different type of medical treatment provided by James Manby Gully, MD (1808-1883), and his cousin told Darwin that two friends had benefited greatly from Gully’s care. Darwin decided to go and to take the entire family (his wife Emma and their seven children) (Keynes, 2002). Dr. Gully and his health spa were situated in Malvern (just southwest of Birmingham), which is around 125 miles from the Darwin’s home.

Dr. Gully was a medical graduate of the University of Edinburgh, and he was an unyielding opponent of the use of drugs of that time and age. His medical practice did not simply provide hydrotherapy or dietary advice; he also prescribed homeopathic medicines and recommended medical clairvoyant readings. After being at Dr. Gully’s spa for just nine days, Darwin laments that Gully had prescribed homeopathic medicine to him, “I grieve to say that Dr. Gully gives me homeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.”

And even though Darwin was extremely skeptical, just two days later (March 30, 1849) Darwin acknowledged, “I have already received so much benefit that I really hope my health will be much renovated” (Burkhardt, 1996, 107). After being there just eight days Darwin a skin eruption broken out all over his legs, and he was actually pleased to experience this problem because he had previously observed that his physical and mental health improved noticeably after having skin eruptions.

He went a month without vomiting, a very rare experience for him, and even gained some weight. One day he surprised himself by being able to walk seven miles. He wrote to a friend, “I am turning into a mere walking & eating machine” (Quammen, 2006, 112)

And after just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully’s treatments were not quackery after all. After spending 16 weeks there, he felt like a new man, and by June he was able to go home to resume his important work (Grosvenor, 2004). Darwin actually writes that he is “of almost perfect health” (Burkhardt, 1996, 108).

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (the novelist and writer), Lord Alfred Tennyson (the poet), Florence Nightingale (the famed nurse), George Eliot (the British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)(the Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (the art critic and the social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)(the British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay--1st Baron Macaulay (the poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873)(Desmond and Moore, 1991, 363). Further, three Prime Ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone (1809-1898)(England’s Prime Minister), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)(England’s Prime Minister), George Hamilton Hamilton-Gordon (known as Lord Aberdeen)(1784-1860), as well as Queen Victoria herself. Lord Aberdeen described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age” (Ruddick, 2001, 2).

And I bet that none of you know about the experiments that Darwin conducted using homeopathic doses.

I encourage you to do some homework on homeopathy before you respond to this email. Read the research on homeopathy (not just the quackbusters' interpretations on it) and read medical history (one historical FACT: homeopathy gained its greatest popularity in the US and Europe due to the impressive successes that it experienced in the treatment of infectious disease epidemics of the 19th century...any good medical history book confirms this...and yes, a forthcoming writing of mine will provide all of the detailed references...but they are readily available to those who look.

Most of all, maintain humility. Life and nature is full of mysteries, and your close-mindedness is not an effective strategy for learning.

Finally...I cannot help but sense that many (not all) of the people on this list were nerds as kids who were beat-up and/or ridiculed by others. Now, you take great pleasure to beating up and ridiculing others. I was neither a nerd nor someone who ridiculed them, but as a homeopath, I have learned to sympathize with those who had these experiences. I sincerely hope that you do not choose pass on the ridicule and that you learn to communicate with wisdom and compassion. To date, my experiment with you has shown that this experiment was a failure, but prove me wrong (the experiment isn't over yet).

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Sadly, I've grown tired of you, primarily due to your intellectual dishonesty.

Why not show some intellectual honesty yourself and answer the simple, direct questions that many have been asking. Here (for the third time) is mine:

Could a group of homeopaths determine the composition of a certain number of samples of different remedies (which would be labelled simply with randomly assigned code numbers) using the technique of proving?

The test could be designed to satisfy the needs of the homeopaths:

- The homeopaths would choose the substances to be used in the test: these would be substances that are considered to produce clearly-defined and easily distinguishable symptoms.

- The homeopaths would choose the people to do the provings: they could choose people that they know well (themselves included), so that they would be able to predict how these people would react to the different substances. They could do as many provings as they deem necessary.

Could the homeopaths determine which remedy was in which sample?

[gmanontario]

Quote:

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (the novelist and writer), Lord Alfred Tennyson (the poet), Florence Nightingale (the famed nurse), George Eliot (the British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)(the Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (the art critic and the social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)(the British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay--1st Baron Macaulay (the poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873)(Desmond and Moore, 1991, 363). Further, three Prime Ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone (1809-1898)(England’s Prime Minister), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)(England’s Prime Minister), George Hamilton Hamilton-Gordon (known as Lord Aberdeen)(1784-1860), as well as Queen Victoria herself. Lord Aberdeen described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age” (Ruddick, 2001, 2).

How typically dishonest of the sCAM crowd. Use people long-dead as references for their quackery. Very convenient since not one of these cases can be examined by medical experts today.

Got any modern people who can prove they benefitted from your particular brand of idicoy or are you going to contunually use unverifiable references..

Oh wait I just remembered who I was addressing. Never mind I know the answer.

BTW I had a homeopath a-hole tell me my brain cancer could be cured easily and quickly by drinking magic water and burning brown candles in my ears. I hope you're at least a little smarter than that fool, but I may be asking way too much.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

But heck, don't just listen to me...listen to your God, Charles Darwin.

No, he's not my God: I don't believe in God. Darwin was a genius, but being a genius doesn't prevent people from saying or doing stupid things. Look at all the astrological and alchemical nonsense that Newton spent so much time on, for instance. The fact that I respect Darwin's work on evolution does not mean that I believe his theories on the supposed inferiority of women, or any other bad ideas he may have had.

Quote:

Darwin could not have completed his seminal work, Origin of Species, in 1859, if he didn't receive this homeopathic care 10 year prior to its publication.

That's a pretty wild assumption! How can you know what would have happened to Darwin if he hadn't been treated by Gully?

Quote:

Finally...I cannot help but sense that many (not all) of the people on this list were nerds as kids who were beat-up and/or ridiculed by others. Now, you take great pleasure to beating up and ridiculing others. I was neither a nerd nor someone who ridiculed them, but as a homeopath, I have learned to sympathize with those who had these experiences. I sincerely hope that you do not choose pass on the ridicule and that you learn to communicate with wisdom and compassion.

Condescending Ad Hominem attacks have no place in a scientific discussion.

[Dana Ullman]

Well...we're going to a predictably bad start.

Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that I present and then choose to bring up other issues...but to answer those issues, I challenge anyone to read a homeopathic materia medica and compare the symptoms of a medicine with its presently known toxicology. You'll be impressed (or surprised). The only difference is that homeopathic text will provide even greater detail.

As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.

As for modern-day people using homeopathy...you know that you're asking an easy question. The answer to this question will be in my forthcoming book. I just wanted to whet your appetite about homeopathy by describing its use by your God, Charles Darwin.

Please stop avoiding the issues presented. Let's keep a focus. Your scientific training should come in handy for this, even though it seems that an unscientific attitudes seems to prevail here. Sad but true.

I'm really hoping that a real dialogue takes place here, not just posturing.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

<< SNIP >>

I sincerely hope that the SILENT people on this list read inbetween the lines to see the elephant in the room. In your efforts to be the "defenders of science," you have been shown to have a very unscientific attitude towards homeopathy.

<< SNIP >>

I have not posted in this thread before so I guess I am one of those SILENT ones.

You don't have to convince me that homeopathy "works", you don't have to convince any of the other skeptics who have posted. However, I would think that, after 200 years, that homeopaths could have convinced the scientific community in general that it is valid. A good start would be unambiguious evidence that has any effect other than that of a placebo.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Some other people of significant notoriety who benefited from Dr. Gully’s care include Charles Dickens (the novelist and writer), Lord Alfred Tennyson (the poet), Florence Nightingale (the famed nurse), George Eliot (the British novelist), Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)(the Scottish essayist, satirist, and historian), John Ruskin (the art critic and the social critic), Edward Bulwer-Lytton (1803-1873)(the British novelist, playwright, and politician), Thomas Babington Macaulay--1st Baron Macaulay (the poet and politician), and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873)(Desmond and Moore, 1991, 363). Further, three Prime Ministers sought Dr. Gully’s care, including William Gladstone (1809-1898)(England’s Prime Minister), Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)(England’s Prime Minister), George Hamilton Hamilton-Gordon (known as Lord Aberdeen)(1784-1860), as well as Queen Victoria herself. Lord Aberdeen described Dr. Gully as “the most gifted physician of the age” (Ruddick, 2001, 2).

I think you'll find that all these patients died.

[Dana Ullman]

Dear Gord in Toronto and other silent ones...
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.
As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.

As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.
Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

...
Well, to get an idea of my knowledge of homeopathy, you might read my article here: http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/Hom...%20article.htm

I have invited other homeopaths to comment on it and point out any factual errors in it. So far there have been no takers. Perhaps you ...?

...

It is not Dr. Green's duty, or mine, or any other skeptic's, to know how homeopathy works. It is your duty, as a proponent of the practice.

See above, but a perfectly valid answer would be: "I haven't the slightest idea. You tell me."

Hans

I think you are right, but we have to be careful what we say when we address specific people. I see you have removed your snippets on the webpage.
Some of these homeopaths don't take being called a quack very lightly and go to court over it. 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. The cost of this is threatening to put the anti-quackery association out of business...

Doctors have very few rights, they have the right to make the decision about a therapy based on their knowledge ( in my country at least), but all the rest are duties and requirements. Quacks are well versed in dealing with the laws and the institutions that watch over the quality of medical practice and the disciplinary board. As a matter of fact if you need to address the disciplinary board, you are most likely to get the best arguments for your defense from them. For a quack, medicine is a business, nothing more. As long as they can make money of of it, they will exist. They are immune to the law in some cases or tolerated by the law in others as long as they don't go too far. When this is the case, the law is basically on their side...

As long as people can't understand why homeopathy can't work or give it "a chance" because it can't do any harm (except to your wallet) they are not getting proper evidence based treatment. I think this is possibly the only argument that will sway people to look skeptically at homeopathy and alternative healers. I think a skeptical approach towards homeopathy and alternative medicine should also include the law, it's not about science or medicine, we all agree on that, it's about business...

My point is: dealing with quacks is not only about medicine or science, but also about the law. You can be right in every possible way, but you need a lot more to get justice...
a skeptical approach and providing a better understanding of what they are selling, may be an eye-opener to some people. Demanding proper scientific evidence is another. Making evidence based medicine the guideline for medical practice is the key to end quackery in combination with the proper application of the law and people's desire to change the law accordingly...

Just a thought...

SYL

[politas]

Homeopathic "provings" do not in any way demonstrate the effectiveness of a homepathic treatment regimen.

Also, in homeopathic provings which include a placebo group, the provers on placebo have in some circumstances been observed to produce symptoms similar to those who are taking the remedy, which one would think would result in those symptoms being discounted. Strangely, this does not seem to be the case, and homeopaths instead consider that the placebo person has been affected by some kind of magical resonance.

Homeopaths are unable to explain their craft without resorting to magic.

[gmanontario]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Well...we're going to a predictably bad start.

Nope a predictably bad countinuance is more accurate.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Once again, you are ignoring the evidence that I present and then choose to bring up other issues...but to answer those issues, I challenge anyone to read a homeopathic materia medica and compare the symptoms of a medicine with its presently known toxicology. You'll be impressed (or surprised). The only difference is that homeopathic text will provide even greater detail.

I'd be surprised if even on quack remedy worked or even made sense scientifically. Otherwise it's all fantasy hopefulness.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.

Impressive way to try and explain away the shortcomings. Got any stats to back up the BS?

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for modern-day people using homeopathy...you know that you're asking an easy question. The answer to this question will be in my forthcoming book. I just wanted to whet your appetite about homeopathy by describing its use by your God, Charles Darwin.

Chales Darwin is nobody's god, but you are Hahnemann's fool. I wouldn't waste a dime on your pulp trash.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Please stop avoiding the issues presented. Let's keep a focus. Your scientific training should come in handy for this, even though it seems that an unscientific attitudes seems to prevail here. Sad but true.

I'm really hoping that a real dialogue takes place here, not just posturing.

You first.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Dear Gord in Toronto and other silent ones...
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.

OK. The first thing I note is that MDs are not scientists. So, so what?

Quote:

As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.

In 1986 J. G. Bednorz and K. A. Müller published that they had discovered "high temperature superconductivity"; a material that conducted electricity without resistance at 35-degrees Kelvin. They had no theory as to how this was possible and even today there is no good explanation. They got the Nobel Prize. How does this differ from Homeopathy? Replication. So much for "most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith".

Quote:

As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.
Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.

If homeopathy cured so many and it so obviously worked, why did it fall out of favour among the educated? Why did the markeplace not work?

[gmanontario]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

snipped more anti-science bullcrap as repeated ad mauseum by the woo crowd ....

As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.

Prove it was the homeostupidity that cured him of something or other. Suprise everyone by using some real verifiable evidence.

I've lived 40 years (and counting) after my first visit to Dairy Queen.
Correlation != causation, even the dumbest of researchers realize that. I would imagine it's tough to continue the delusions if you start to use logic.

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.

Nope I refuse to allow a lobotomy any time soon. Yours has worked quite well it seems.

[SYLVESTER1592]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Dear Gord in Toronto and other silent ones...
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.
As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.

As for all of Dr. Gully's patients dying...yeah...in old age. Darwin living over 30 years after his 1st visit to his homeopath.
Is this really the best ya got? I'm expecting you to become homeopaths shortly.

I’m a bit confused here. I think you got your numbers for the Netherlands from this site.
The last survey in the Netherlands was done in 1988 and 1990 as far as I know showing 47% of the doctors prescribing alternative therapies on occasion. The numbers were not near as high when looking at doctors who considered alternative medicine was enough of a therapy on its own. 8% considered alternative medicine a good alternative (NTvG 1988; 132(20): 904-6). You have to keep in mind that some of the doctors do both regular and alternative medicine and alternative medicine also included manual therapy (which in some practices includes physiotherapy).

Also the number of doctors that were prescribing alternative therapies (47%) did so in a small amount of cases mostly referring to their colleagues who did something like this on the side before the introduction of the law BIG, which regulates medical interventions in the Netherlands. In 1990 there were a lot of doctors willing to send people in for alternative medical treatments, there was no legal problem doing this and no real problems had occurred.

Since that time, some people have died by the lack of proper care by alternative healers ans charges have been brought to the practitioners. A case of a TV personality who died. This changed things even further. 3 doctors were suspended from practice for the rest of their lives.

Furthermore, over the counter medicine in the Netherlands also includes many regular drugs. The most common one paracetamol is actually one that is recommended by doctors to be bought over the counter, due to insurance costs for the patient and the higher cost of prescription. Some other drugs are also moved from prescription to the over the counter variant. This leads to a reduced control over the drug use by patients and less of a need to support requests from patients requesting alternative medicine, they can get it without intervention of a medical doctor…

So I think that these numbers need updating. It has not been done yet as far as I know, but 17 year old numbers seem less relevant at this time.

The problem is that alternative medicine keeps changing its face, reinventing the old idea under a new name. This leads to doctors and patients trying similar things again and again. It says a lot about the scientific decay among clinicians. The lack (or erosion) of scientific insight and knowledge about fundamental sciences, physiology and pharmacology makes them easy prey for all who make up a good story... I´m sorry to say that the education of medical staff has declined beneath an academic level in some cases...

I´m still hopeful about the future and the way evidence based medicine may spark critical thought and a new awareness among clinicians.

SYL

[JJM]

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592

{snip} My point is: dealing with quacks is not only about medicine or science, but also about the law. You can be right in every possible way, but you need a lot more to get justice...
a skeptical approach and providing a better understanding of what they are selling, may be an eye-opener to some people. Demanding proper scientific evidence is another. Making evidence based medicine the guideline for medical practice is the key to end quackery in combination with the proper application of the law and people's desire to change the law accordingly...

Just a thought...

SYL

I agree with you. Among the problems:
1- It is profitable (and easy) to convince an ignorant legislature to allow licensure of quackery. Easy because the quacks get their customers to write in favor of it (and it is not a budget item for the legislature), and because the opposition has no funding or time to mount a strong opposition.
2- The standard of care is then set by the respective licensing boards. Recently, a video of a chiropractor in the state of Washington showed her practicing "touchless" chiropractic. Thousands of people saw it (including me). Yet, when a doctor filed a fraud complaint- the chiro board said they saw her touching the customer; therefore, it was not fraud!? Also, two and a half years ago, a naturopath killed a woman in Utah. The ND's lawyer said he would not be in trouble if he had a license. It seems you can kill with impunity if you have a license.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Dear Gord in Toronto and other silent ones...
Actually, 40% of French MDs and 20% German MDs prescribe homeopathic medicines...over 40% of British MDs refer to homeopaths and 45% of Dutch MDs consider homeopathic medicines to be effective.
Once again, please do your homework, and think before writing.
As for providing "evidence" again to scientists, I again refer to just some of the references that I provide above...but the REAL PROBLEM is that most scientists are CLERGYMEN in disguise holding dearly to their faith.

Physicians are not necessarily scientists. That there are physicians that have not yet fully embraced evidence-based medicine, especially in Europe, is not particularly wonderful - old habits die hard. Also, I'd be interested in the source for your numbers. Considering that you have demonstrated a willingness to misrepresent information and make stuff up, it would be foolish for any of us to believe those numbers without a reference.

On the other hand, physicians in Canada (where the evidence-based movement originated) don't prescribe homeopathic medicines.

Linda

[JJM]

Originally Posted by SYLVESTER1592

(snip) Also the number of doctors that were prescribing alternative therapies (47%) did so in a small amount of cases mostly referring to their colleagues who did something like this on the side before the introduction of the law BIG, which regulates medical interventions in the Netherlands. In 1990 there were a lot of doctors willing to send people in for alternative medical treatments, there was no legal problem doing this and no real problems had occurred. {snip}

SYL

I recently read an account of an orthopedist who retired from the military. S/He said that supervisors wanted him/her to clear patients off medical care. The solution, in some cases, was to refer them to chiropractors. Not because chiro is legitimate; but because it solved the immediate problem. Many people present in doctors' offices with no diagnosis/treatment available. Shipping them off to homeopaths is easy, as is homeopathy adopted by the doctor. The office visits last longer; but the doctor is being paid by the hour.

[Michael C]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As to the question, will a homeopath be able to predict what medicine was used in a proving? Yes and no. If there are an adequate number of provers who give an adequate number of symptoms, a significant number of homeopaths will be able to determine which medicine was proven, except if a strange and rare medicine was used.

OK, let's imagine an example: you, the homeopath, choose three homeopathic remedies that will produce different, easily-distinguishable symptoms. We'll call them substance A, B and C. You are given a sample, and your task is to ascertain if the sample is substance A, B, C or a placebo. You may choose provers whom you already know, so you should have a clear idea of how they react to the three different substances. How many provers would you need in order to find the answer?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

So, James Gully pops up to give us a quick run through of the most popular logical fallacies, starting with argument form antiquity, with a quick combination of argument from antiquity plus uncontrolled anecdote and moved on to argument from authority. Though that loast one, I will confess, is actually more a disingenuopus misrepresentation. I, after all, have also allowed referral to magic water retailers. This is not because I believe in it but because I ran out of breath trying to explain to the client why they are wasting their money.

James Gully/Dana Ullman, we have discussed your favourite papers. They are all worthless trash. What you have failed to do is answer a number of simple and direct questions. Now, I wonder what would be a better qualification for the description of "intellectual dishonesty".

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?

It's a very simple question and capable of a single-word answer.

I'll give you a new question just so you can show how well you understand the interpretation of clinical trial data;

9. I set a p-value for significance of 0.05 and run 100 trials. In no trial is the test substance distinguishable from the control. How many trials can I expect to show an apparent "effect" from my test substance?