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

[tomwaits]

Quote:

To clarify, the title of THIS dialogue is having fun with me...it is not what you say it is...and thus, I have the privilege of writing about what I consider to be important.

Correct. I could also create a thread talking about how monkeys fly out of my butt, but I wouldn't be doing a very good job of convincing anyone of that now would I?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

To clarify, the title of THIS dialogue is having fun with me...it is not what you say it is...and thus, I have the privilege of writing about what I consider to be important.

That's funny, I don't see you mentioned here.

Anyway, the subject of the thread is clearly stated in the first post, in the capital letters you seem so fond of. You still seem to be having comprehension problems.

I've replied to a couple of other points from your post in the appropriate thread.

[Rolfe]

Think about this. Anecdote is the weakest form of evidence. Not wholly useless, but if there is any real truth behind the anecdote, stronger evidence will inevitably emerge.

Homoeopathy has tons of unsubstantiated anecdotes - every single one of which is open to an alternative interpretation. If indeed the interpretation "homoeopathic remedies work" were valid, we'd expect to have seen some stronger evidence by now. (They've had 200 years, dammit!)

What is the next most reliable form of evidence? Why, it's the well-documented case report! Even before people start designing and executing full-scale trials, there have usually been a handful of these pubished as support for the proposition that the treatment involved is effective. It's not a hard thing to do. Any general practitioner can do it. All that's needed is comprehensive documentation of the case, with supporting x-rays, lab results, biopsy results and so on. In fact a single one of these doesn't weigh all that heavily in the scales of evidence, because odd coincidences do happen, however once a handful have been presented, preferably by different people, it starts to get quite compelling.

Pharmacotherapeutic medical literature is absolutely stuffed with such case reports.

All we've asked Dana is that he produce one such case report, even one not published before if he has the relevant supporting data, as a start in this direction. And remember, this isn't a single treatment for a single condition we're focussing on (like, say, asking specifically for a case report showing that penicillin has cured a life-threatening infection), he has the entire scope of what he claims to be a complete system of medicine to choose from.

He can't do it.

Instead he obfuscates desperately, picking around in the borders of statistical significance of crap trials set up be people trying frantically to cover up the fact that self-evident cures just don't actually happen in homoeopathy.

Look, if even a tenth of the unsubstantiated anecdote had the slightest basis in fact, we wouldn't need trials like these. Strict placebo-controlled trials are for showing whether something works when there's some doubt about it. Not for proving the self-evident. (Think about the concept of a placebo-controlled trial of insulin for diabetes - unethical, anyone?) Even new, untested treatments can skip this part, if they're obvious enough. Ever heard of a trial being truncated early because the drug was so good that it was soon clear that it was unethical to deprive the placebo group of it? Yes, has happened several times in real medicine.

Tell you what, Dana, if you can find a trial of a homoeopathic treatment that was stopped early because the benefits were so clear that it was considered unethical to go on depriving the placebo group of the benefit, we'll capitulate right here and now.

Otherwise, take your dodgy statistics and marginal data-dredged benefits to the other thread, and concentrate on finding that one, elusive patient with a documented homoeopathic cure.

Rolfe.

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Come on...you folks claim to be good in evaluating data, and you've barely started to provide an adequate review of this comparison article. Go for it...

My response to this posted here.

Linda

[Dana Ullman]

Monkey prefers to call me a "chump" rather than deal with substantative issues (again). Name-calling says so much about a person.

The fact that I'm here at all trying to talk with fundamentalists should be appreciated...but heck, you folks are (ironically) religious in your points of view. You believe that homeopathy cannot work and then interpret everything to fit that assumption into your reality. This strongly-held subjective view colors your thinking...and creates a bias and (ironically again) an unscientific attitude.

My reference to the Reilly work is another classic example. I mention the 4 studies, and one person gives a critique of the 4th study. Ok...although I haven't yet re-reviewed that study to determine if what he said was true or not, but I couldn't help but notice that he choose to ignore the 3 previous studies...such as the 1986 trial in the Lancet for starters. For the record, this study has consistently been described as well-designed, well-controlled, and with strong comparative results.

[Mojo]

Try to find the other thread, Dana. Shouldn't be beyond someone with your research skills.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

You I believe that homeopathy cannot work and then interpret everything to fit that assumption into your my reality. This strongly-held subjective view colors your my thinking...and creates a bias and (ironically again) an unscientific attitude.

I corrected the errors in your post.

Quote:

My reference to the Reilly work is another classic example. I mention the 4 studies, and one person gives a critique of the 4th study.

Are you trying to build up a martyr case for yourself by claiming that your studies have not been taken up, when in fact they have been taken up in their very own thread, for which you have been supplied with links repeatedly? Your homoeopath friends will probably believe you without you going through the charade of actually posting here, but nobody on this forum will regard you more highly for wilfully ignoring tons of posts written for your benefit.

[Professor Yaffle]

Maybe he has selective blindness and literally cannot see the words "other" and "thread".

Or maybe he is just ducking like a quack*.







*I so rarely say anything witty or humorous that when I crack a joke I repeat it endlessly until someone laughs out of pity...

[fls]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

As for studies, the critique of the COPD study is simply too weak to have been published in a peer-review journal.

Letters aren't usually published critiquing an article long after the fact, unless that article turns out to have ongoing importance. Since that COPD trial made no impression on the practice of medicine, making sure that critiques of it are published is of relatively little importance.

Quote:

The worst thing that was said about the allergy research by David Reilly et al was that it was "isopathic" rather than homeopathic. For those of you who don't know, homeopathic makes reference to the principle of SIMILARS and isopathic to the principle of SAMENESS. Thus, Reilly and others conducted 4 separate trials on various types of allergic conditions, including asthma, usually using homeopathic doses of the same substance to which the person was allergic.

Though techinically, Rolfe is correct in calling this method of prescribing to be isopathic, the bottomline is that these medicines were homeopathically prepared to the 30C potency (a dose that should have no remaming molecules of the original substance).

After the 4th trial, Reilly concluded that either homeopathic medicines work or randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies don't. Are you going to be so cynical about science to assume the latter now? I hope not.

It is not necessary for us to accept the conclusions of the author. Especially if other conclusions can be drawn from the data. His individual study was an example of data dredging, as well as his meta-analysis using the other studies. It is just as reasonable to come to the conclusion that data dredging allows one to come up with invalid conclusions.

Quote:

Others have criticized this set of studies because these conditions are self-limiting. Hmmm. Asthma? Really? Actually, there's an increase in death rates from asthma these days...does a disease that can kill you still make it self-limiting? Hmmm.

Asthma is characterized by exacerbations and remissions; remissions that can occur in the absence of any treatment.

Quote:

I hope that SOME of the people who read this are not so antagonistic to homeopathy to see something might be going on with homeopathy beyond the placebo effect...but the attitude on this list probably scares people from admiting it. My condolences...

What you mean is that you hope that some of the people who read this will be fooled by your posturing into failing to notice the vacuity of your arguments.

Linda

[fls]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Maybe he has selective blindness and literally cannot see the words "other" and "thread".

Or maybe he is just ducking like a quack.

He has obviously found the other thread and is reading it; he makes references to statements made in that thread.

That last line is frickin' hilarious. Can I borrow it?

Linda





(apologies for editing your post, but I didn't think you'd mind)

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

Monkey prefers to call me a "chump" rather than deal with substantative issues (again).

I have not called you a chump. I only pointed out that forum rules could not prevent you from looking like a chump. Forgive me if I am wrong and you can find a forum rule that prevents you from making yourself look like a chump or indeed a buffoon. Though, I am afraid you may be in for a disappointment if you read the rules again.

But really, so much better than looking like a chump or a buffoon, would be answering a simple question, the substantive question that this thread was created for;

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

You seem to have missed the fact that there is a whole thread specially devoted to dealing with the substantive issues raised by your diversionary tactics, evasions, misrepresentations and apparent confusion in examining the published record of homeopathy.

It must be because you are so busy curing AIDS patients that you have simply overlooked that thread. Obviously there can be no other explanation.

[wilsontown]

Have to say, I enjoyed 'ducking like a quack' too...

[tomwaits]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

My reference to the Reilly work is another classic example. I mention the 4 studies, and one person gives a critique of the 4th study. Ok...although I haven't yet re-reviewed that study to determine if what he said was true or not, but I couldn't help but notice that he choose to ignore the 3 previous studies...such as the 1986 trial in the Lancet for starters. For the record, this study has consistently been described as well-designed, well-controlled, and with strong comparative results.

Great research, that! And you want us to take you seriously? You have serious problems, my friend.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Or maybe he is just ducking like a quack*.

[Professor Yaffle]

Originally Posted by fls

He has obviously found the other thread and is reading it; he makes references to statements made in that thread.

That last line is frickin' hilarious. Can I borrow it?

Linda





(apologies for editing your post, but I didn't think you'd mind)

Indeed you may borrow it*. My dream is that it will spread across the internet so that one day I will be idly reading a blog and someone will use it. And I will smile smugly to myself and think "That was MY idea" in full Vic Reeves accent.

*However as payment I require one nomination for the December pith awards. I have never been nominated before and I am profoundly jealous of those who are nominated each month without fail.

[MRC_Hans]

Dana impersonating Monty python's black knight. I liked the original better.

Hans

[Professor Yaffle]

Thanks Linda!

[fls]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Thanks Linda!

I should point out that I thought about nominating the post earlier, you just gave me the needed kick-in-the-butt.

Linda

[Professor Yaffle]

It has been pointed out elsewhere that I am not as original as I thought I was...

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2003/2_pan.htm

[Island Skeptic]

Quote:

Others have criticized this set of studies because these conditions are self-limiting. Hmmm. Asthma? Really? Actually, there's an increase in death rates from asthma these days...does a disease that can kill you still make it self-limiting? Hmmm.

My son had asthma as a child, but has not had an asthmatic episode since he was 12 years old. (He is now almost 20yrs old).

I have asthma, but I have not had an asthmatic episode in years. Perhaps it was the cigarette I smoked on New Years eve 2002.... "Like cures like?"

Quote:

I hope that SOME of the people who read this are not so antagonistic to homeopathy to see something might be going on with homeopathy beyond the placebo effect...but the attitude on this list probably scares people from admiting it. My condolences...

Mr Gully (and the rest of the readers here): Did any of you read my offer a few pages back to be Mr. Gully's test subject?

What I would like more than anything is for Mr. Gully to cure my COPD, since it will most likely be the cause of my early death --unless my coagulation disorder (FVL & PCD genetic mutations) gets me first.

If Mr. Gully holds a cure --or more effective treatment-- for my ailments, it seems rather cruel to deny me of that treatment. (I am only 40 years old!)

I'm making an offer to help Mr. Gully respond to the ultimate question of this thread (GIVE ONE INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION).

Mr. Gully, can your homeopathy treat any of my conditions? If so, will you please prove it???

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Maybe he has selective blindness and literally cannot see the words "other" and "thread".

Or maybe he is just ducking like a quack*.







*I so rarely say anything witty or humorous that when I crack a joke I repeat it endlessly until someone laughs out of pity...

I was planning on nominating this, it was so good I assumed it was a well-known line already.

So apologies for making that assumption, and let me confirm how good a line it was.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Look, if even a tenth of the unsubstantiated anecdote had the slightest basis in fact, we wouldn't need trials like these. Strict placebo-controlled trials are for showing whether something works when there's some doubt about it. Not for proving the self-evident. (Think about the concept of a placebo-controlled trial of insulin for diabetes - unethical, anyone?) Even new, untested treatments can skip this part, if they're obvious enough. Ever heard of a trial being truncated early because the drug was so good that it was soon clear that it was unethical to deprive the placebo group of it? Yes, has happened several times in real medicine.

Tell you what, Dana, if you can find a trial of a homoeopathic treatment that was stopped early because the benefits were so clear that it was considered unethical to go on depriving the placebo group of the benefit, we'll capitulate right here and now.

Otherwise, take your dodgy statistics and marginal data-dredged benefits to the other thread, and concentrate on finding that one, elusive patient with a documented homoeopathic cure.
Rolfe.

Rolfe, I think this new challenge is a fantastic one. (Dana has failed to answer the previous one, will he give this one a go?) This is indeed a clear cut indicator of clinical benefit. Is there any trial of homeopathy where this has happened?

Dana Ullman:

Can you provide a single example (with reference) of a homeopathy trial which has been discontinued early because the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board concluded it would be unethical to deprive study participants of homeopathy, such was its obvious clinical benefit?

[Professor Yaffle]

Jaana - I read your offer, and it sounds like a good idea - except I was a little worried by your offer to cease conventional treatment and didn't rally want to get involved with something like that.

[mattbee]

I make similar offers to be a test subject when speaking to homeopaths and have not found it works yet! I suffered a pneumothorax, being very close to a homeopath was given remedy (or remedies) to relieve the pain giving me a comfortable ride to hospital. It didn't work!! No difference for the eczema "cure" I have had, nor cold remedies...

If only one had worked, then I could have been the subject of the answer...

[fls]

Originally Posted by mattbee

I make similar offers to be a test subject when speaking to homeopaths and have not found it works yet! I suffered a pneumothorax, being very close to a homeopath was given remedy (or remedies) to relieve the pain giving me a comfortable ride to hospital. It didn't work!! No difference for the eczema "cure" I have had, nor cold remedies...

If only one had worked, then I could have been the subject of the answer...

None of those would count as eczema can remit without treatment and colds resolve without treatment. Even a pneumothorax will go away on its own (as well as pain).

Linda

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

You fell right into that trap that I placed for you.

Is it just me, or is anyone else picturing Dana sitting in his secret headquarters under the crater of an extinct volcano, stroking a long-haired white cat?

[Island Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Jaana - I read your offer, and it sounds like a good idea - except I was a little worried by your offer to cease conventional treatment and didn't rally want to get involved with something like that.

Professor, I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing. I would certainly dissuade anyone else with a serious medical condition from stopping conventional treatment as well.

But this is the way I look at it:

Mr. Ullman/Gully appears to be very confident in his practices. If his homeopathy genuinely works, he would not hesitate to take my challenge because I am giving him the opportunity to be the very first person to prove the efficacy of homeopathic remedies on a non-self-limiting condition, in a well documented case, for which he certainly would be awarded the Nobel Prize --and I would receive immortality in history books as the very first test subject in the ground-breaking experiment that changed the meaning of physics and medicine forever. (Plus the bonus of being cured).

(See how selfish & egotistical I am? )

Or, if he knows his remedies do not work, he would decline my offer (assuming he has a conscience and would not wish to be responsible for my premature death) --in which case this debate would be over (until the next duck comes quacking) because it either works or it doesn't.

[Professor Yaffle]

But you have missed a third (and very common) result. The homeopath is supremely confident that they can cure you, but it doesn't work and your health suffers as a result of removing the conventional medicine. Remember at least one homeopath was so confident in their system of medicine that he allowed his child to die rather than get treatment with proven medicine.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

OK, while accepting that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, I think we can draw some safe conclusions;

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

Can't.

Can you provide a single example (with reference) of a homeopathy trial which has been discontinued early because the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board concluded it would be unethical to deprive study participants of homeopathy, such was its obvious clinical benefit?

No.

Have you cured anyone of AIDS yet?

No.

It would have been better for these to have been answered directly, but I think we are used to those tactics by now.

[Island Skeptic]

Quote:

It would have been better for these to have been answered directly, but I think we are used to those tactics by now.

Which is why I was not afraid to offer myself as a test subject. I knew he wouldn't bite (and wish i had placed a hefty bet on it). All practitioners of alternative "medicine" that i have known will only work on patients who believe.

Mr. Gully will never answer your questions because there are no such cases.

Ye of little faith... ;-)

[Dana Ullman]

If any of you have a sincere interest in personally testing homeopathy, you should do so in the way that others do that: go to a professional homeopath who is certified (DHt, RShom, or CCH in the US). Let's make this an objective thing, especially since any good homeopath must do a thorough interview with the patient, and I don't know how you would feel telling me about your personal health history, your emotional and mental state, let alone all of your varied and personal physical symptoms.

Some of you may remember our earlier discussion about Charles Darwin and homeopathy. I previously gave you only a portion of my chapter on Darwin from my book, "The Homeopathic Revolution," and predictably, some people (such as Mr. Quackometer, le canard noir) did a superficial investigation of the subject and came to many erroneous conclusions.

Because of the misinformation that the Quackometer posted and that many of you have reiterated, it is time to make some corrections in the truth of the history of our esteemed Charles Darwin, a poster child for the real benefits of homeopathy.

Let me also say that people who want to be more informed might benefit from reading the entire chapter on "Physicians and Scientists" in my new book, "The Homeopathic Revolution," or heck, some of you might be adventurous enough to read the entire book.

Although Charles Darwin was only 39 years old in November, 1848, he was so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral. Ever since 1837, he suffered from persistent nausea and vomiting, heart palpitations, widespread boils, and trembling, and since 1847, he had fainting spells and spots before his eyes...and his symptoms were getting increasingly worse. My question is: could he have lived 10+ years longer to 1859 to have completed his book, and even if he did survive that long, would he have been as productive (remember: according to Darwin, he was unable to work one day in every three...and further, I should have quoted Darwin himself when he wrote:
"I was not able to do anything one day out of three, & was altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled.* I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh." (He acknowledges that he may be dying...in 1849!)
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1236.html

Charles Darwin and family arrived in Malvern on March 10, 1849.

On March 19, 1849, Darwin acknowledges that he takes homeopathic medicines without an atom of faith, but the important point was that Gully prescribed these medicines to him immediately upon his arrival, while the water cure program is a many month process, and Darwin experienced that healing crisis (the skin eruption) just 8 days after treatment began...mentioned in the following link. This 1234 link notes that Gully is cautious in his use of homeopathic medicines in chronic diseases, and yet, obviously, he felt that they were indicated in Darwin's case. Gully prescribed them, and Darwin took them...
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1234.html

Actually, it was just 2 weeks after arriving that CD wrote "I much like and think highly of Dr. Gully" and more...
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1235.html

Please note that he wrote this BEFORE he began the "sweating process" (he was just at the beginning the hydrotherapy program). Darwin's improvement also occurred before Gully recommended that Darwin give up his snuff (which he recommended in May 1849).

On March 28, 1849, he had not have any vomiting for 10 days (a rare experience for him):
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1236.html
"I feel certain that the Water Cure is no quackery." Please note that I wrote that CD "had to admit that Gully's treatments were not quackery after all." That statement is correct.

By April 19, 1849, he had turned into an eating and walking machine!
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1240.html

On May 6, 1849, CD writes: "Dr. G., moreover, (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently) tells me he has little doubt but that he can cure me, in the course of time, time however it will take." Gully, like many homeopaths/hydrotherapists, do not tend of over-state their confidence. Although Gully seemed to be confident with Darwin and although one might stretch the truth to believe that Gully's "confidence" was the primary treatment of Darwin, the fact of the matter is that Gully didn't use his "confidence" as a common treatment strategy.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1241.html

On September 4, 1850...
Mr. Quackometer (and others) like to make reference to PART of the quote below...but it is important, even essential, to note the entire quote. Even though CD acknowledges that homeopathy makes him "wrath," he notes that people seem to get better from the treatment (please also know that the "clairvoyance" seems to be diagnostic, not any type of "psychic" treatment).

"You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything* when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep*an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.*
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1352.html
One important reason that so many people are so passionate about homeopathy is that the results are often very rapid and very obvious, and because many people have tried many other treatments before homeopathy (treatments that might have just as likely to have tried to elicit a placebo effect), the homeopathic treatments often work because it is not simply a placebo effect.

Some people have referred to Gully as Darwin's "friend." There is no evidence that they were "friends." CD admired Gully, but I haven't seen any records of a personal relationship...have you?

People should stop the MYTH that my book is about "celebrities." Celebrities are but one group of people who are in this book. There are also physicians and scientists, politicians, corporate leaders, literary greats, and so many other smart and successful people.

Besides all of the above information, there is a lot more that I have in my book. I hope that people here do your homework. You may be shocked to find that your own cultural hero, Charles Darwin, has given us his personal story and some good research (yes, some excellent research) that has confirmed the power of nanopharmacology (once again, please remember, that "nano" does not simply mean one-billionth. Steve Jobs has proved that. In popular nomenclature, it means very small and very powerful, just like homeopathic medicines.

This is enough to chew on for a while. Please follow the links that I have provided and enjoy watching your paradigm transform...

Finally, as some of you begin to change your worldview, you will realize that homeopathic medicines are not just "diluted" but that the process of serial dilution and vigorous shaking, repeatedly done, is different than regular water or "small doses," just as atomic bomb is not a placebo and that is power when things bump into each other.

[fls]

Sorry. That one doesn't count either. The state of medicine in the 19th century was such that one cannot tell what condition(s) Darwin suffered from, therefore one cannot determine the prognosis. That is, your example is not necessarily non-self-limiting.

Next?

Linda

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Maybe Darwin was allergic to snuff?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1236.html

Says nothing about homoeopathy.

Quote:

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1234.html

I've already quoted this one for you here, after you had quoted, shall we say, rather selectively from it. This is the letter in which Darwin wrote about his "hydropathical" diary. As I observed before, the homoeopathy was only a very small component of the treatment. How do you know that it wasn't, for example, the diet and exercise regime that caused any improvement observed? How do you know it wasn't the "Water Cure", for that matter? How do you know that Darwin wouldn't just have got better without any treatment?

Quote:

Actually, it was just 2 weeks after arriving that CD wrote "I much like and think highly of Dr. Gully" and more...
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1235.html

Please note that he wrote this BEFORE he began the "sweating process" (he was just at the beginning the hydrotherapy program). Darwin's improvement also occurred before Gully recommended that Darwin give up his snuff (which he recommended in May 1849).

I note also that there's no mention of homoeopathy there.

Quote:

On March 28, 1849, he had not have any vomiting for 10 days (a rare experience for him):
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1236.html
"I feel certain that the Water Cure is no quackery." Please note that I wrote that CD "had to admit that Gully's treatments were not quackery after all." That statement is correct.

And note again that homoeopathy is not mentioned. He is talking about hydropathy.

Quote:

By April 19, 1849, he had turned into an eating and walking machine!
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1240.html

And once again, homoeopathy is not mentioned, and there is nothing to indicate that any improvement was caused by homoeopathy.

Quote:

On May 6, 1849, CD writes: "Dr. G., moreover, (and I hear he rarely speaks confidently) tells me he has little doubt but that he can cure me, in the course of time, time however it will take." Gully, like many homeopaths/hydrotherapists, do not tend of over-state their confidence. Although Gully seemed to be confident with Darwin and although one might stretch the truth to believe that Gully's "confidence" was the primary treatment of Darwin, the fact of the matter is that Gully didn't use his "confidence" as a common treatment strategy.
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwi...ntry-1241.html

And, once again, Darwin is not writing about homoeopathy, but about the "Cold Water Cure".

Quote:

On September 4, 1850...
Mr. Quackometer (and others) like to make reference to PART of the quote below...but it is important, even essential, to note the entire quote. Even though CD acknowledges that homeopathy makes him "wrath," he notes that people seem to get better from the treatment (please also know that the "clairvoyance" seems to be diagnostic, not any type of "psychic" treatment).

"You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one's ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever. How true is a remark I saw the other day by Quetelet, in respect to evidence of curative processes, viz that no one knows in disease what is the simple result of nothing being done, as a standard with which to compare Homœopathy & all other such things. It is a sad flaw, I cannot but think in my beloved Dr Gully, that he believes in everything* when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep*an homœopathist, viz Dr. Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered.*
http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-1352.html

I think the letter you were after was this one. Admittedly, the letter sent to Charles Lyell on 2nd September 1850 is perhaps more favourable to homoeopathy than the one sent to Fox on the 4th by virtue of not mentioning it, but it doesn't really add anything to your argument, does it?

The letter shows Darwin's attitude towards homoeopathy. It doesn't tell us that homoeopathy (or any of the other quackery perpetrated) actually caused the recovery: you're falling into the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. There is certainly nothing there to indicate that Darwin thought that homoeopathy was responsible.

Oh, and by the way:

Quote:

On September 4, 1850...
Mr. Quackometer (and others) like to make reference to PART of the quote below...

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...12#post2700512

Quote:

You may be shocked to find that your own cultural hero, Charles Darwin, has given us his personal story and some good research (yes, some excellent research) that has confirmed the power of nanopharmacology

Is that the stuff about the sensitivity of Drosera to dilute solutions of ammonium salts, published in Darwin's book on insectivorous plants? This work has nothing to do with homoeopathy. It just shows that the plants were sensitive to very small (but not non-existent) amounts of the salts.

You've provided evidence that Darwin thought that hydropathy was an effective treatment, but nothing to indicate that he considered homoeopathy to be anything other than quackery.

Oh, and by the way, the fact that Darwin believed in it doesn't mean that hydropathy isn't also quackery.

Now, to get the thread back on topic:

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

[Dana Ullman]

Well, well, well. We are off to a bad start.

I finally figured Linda out. She must believe in reincarnation because it seems that everything is "non-self-limiting." The fact that Darwin thought he was dying is of no consequence. Persistent and intense nausea and vomiting and heart palpitations, both of which he had for over 12 years, and the fainting spells and spots before his eyes that he had for over 2 years are considered non-self-limiting. Cool.

Next thing that I will hear from you is that hydrotherapy cured him. Cool. Now all of the skeptics will be water-cure fanatics. See you all in the hot tub!

As for snuff...whooops...you're showing your lack of homework skills. Gully allowed him his snuff during the first couple of months of treatment...and because Darwin experienced significant relief within the first 8 days, you gotta do better than this.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

The fact that Darwin thought he was dying is of no consequence. Persistent and intense nausea and vomiting and heart palpitations, both of which he had for over 12 years, and the fainting spells and spots before his eyes that he had for over 2 years are considered non-self-limiting.

What condition was he suffering from? Do you have evidence that it was not self limiting?

[Criticalist]

Originally Posted by JamesGully

especially since any good homeopath must do a thorough interview with the patient, and I don't know how you would feel telling me about your personal health history, your emotional and mental state, let alone all of your varied and personal physical symptoms.

Interesting. Perhaps you could tell me how the homeopaths who performed the severe sepsis study that you are fond of mentioning conducted these in depth interviews? I would be keen to hear this , as 90% of these patients were on mechanical ventilation at the time of inclusion, and thus would have unable to engage in any form of communication.

As an aside, speaking for myself I fail to see the relevance of whether Charles Darwin believed in homeopathy. Who cares if he did or not? We accept his theory of evolution because it is supported by enormous amounts of evidence, and for no other reason. We do not accept homeopathy because the evidence is lacking. For all I know Charles Darwin believed in mermaids, leprechauns and the healing power of chocolate mousse. The fact I accept his theory of evolution doesn't mean I have to accept all of his beliefs.

[Dana Ullman]

Criticalist has brought up that severe sepsis study. Thanx. Is this another one of those self-limiting conditions too? Hmmm.

The point to "individualization of treatment" in homeopathy is that AFTER a homeopathic physician does a conventional diagnosis (or if a homeopath is not medically trained, after a patient gets a diagnosis from a physician), the homeopath seeks to observe whatever unique symptoms the sick person has. We see the disease as a part of an overall syndrome...and then, prescribe a medicine for the complex of symptoms, not just one symptom or one disease. I'm sure that this makes sense to some people.

To clarify, my note above that makes reference to being off to a bad start was written before Mojo's statement was posted. Mojo has at least done some of the reading, even though he has his feet firmly planted in mid-air, doing all he can to avoid the most obvious conclusion that homeopathy played an important role in the significant improvement in Darwin's health.

Mojo asked if Darwin might have experienced major improvement without ANY treatment. Hmmmm. Hey, Mojo...you gotta do better than that. Darwin tried no treatment for 12 years…and then, within 8 days of being under Dr. Gully’s treatment, Darwin begins to experience significant improvements. Are you all now becoming advocates for the powerful effects of water-cure? Cool.

If you cannot agree with the probability that homeopathic medicines play a role here, you are more than double-blind, you are deaf, dumb, and blind.

The point is that Darwin was smart enough to explore and personally use treatments with which he didn't understand or even didn't believe in is a part of his deep wisdom. The smartest of us have to stretch our own beliefs. The smartest of us have to continually explore. In THIS case, this use of Dr. Gully's treatment proved to be very helpful.

You can make all of the excuses and theories that you want, but you have to admit that one real possibility, if not probability, is that homeopathic medicines had a dramatically beneficial effect on Charles Darwin...and further, we may not have even heard of him if not for going to Dr. Gully and receiving homeopathic medicines.

In the September 1850 letter, Darwin noted that the girl improved. Are you saying that Darwin assumed that diagnostic clairvoyance was therapeutically effective? Cool...you are much more metaphysical than I am.

And further, Darwin was not alone in his use of homeopathy, even if he was somewhat silent...and it was absolutely necessary for him to be silent about this (as he noted in his Drosera experiments, he was extremely embarrassed to have to report on them). What would have been the reception to his theories if he publically proclaimed that he benefited from homeopathy or even that he went to a homeopath?

This is a good reason that so many of the smartest and most successful people of the 19th century sought out and used homeopathic medicines...and there are equally good reasons that people do so today.

We all can agree that water-cure, if effective at all, rarely provides rapid improvement in chronic ailments like that of Darwin.

As for the Drosera (sundew) experiments...did you read how small of a dose Darwin (and his son) used in these experiments. Yes, there were trace (extremely extremely trace) amounts of ammonia salts remaining...but the results were very significant on these plants...and as Darwin noted, these plants don't even have a nervous system (imagine the sensitivity of living things that have one!).

[tomwaits]

FOR THE LAST TIME: WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT DARWIN. I DON'T CARE IF DARWIN THOUGHT HE COULD SHOOT SALT-FLAVORED MIND BULLETS BY THINKING OF THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS. It is completely irrelevant. Prove that homeopathy works. That's all we care about. You are making yourself look like a complete fool.

[Mashuna]

Your best example of homeopathy is still from the mid-nineteenth century? Well, I can believe that, at least.