The Homeopathic Revolution by Dana Ullman: A Review
Saturday, December 15, 2007
There can be few comment-enabled web pages left in the world that do not testify to the fact that Dana Ullman has published his latest book: The Homeopathic Revolution: Famous People and Cultural Heroes Who Chose Homeopathy. His claim for the book is that,It is a project that may actually change the face (and the heart) of medicine and may make homeopathy a household word.
Dramatic stuff.
I have written about the book before, a few months before publication. This was because Ullman was making claims that I found incredible. Wherever you find a promotion for the book, you will find the claim that Charles Darwin was saved by homeopathy and this allowed him to publish the Origin. Ullman goes further and says that Darwin was an advocate of homeopathy. This was going to be easily verifiable, as all of Darwin's letters and writings are available online at the Cambridge Darwin Correspondence Project.So, I did check, and I wrote about my findings at some length. And what I found was that Darwin did nothing but ridicule homeopathy and made it very clear that he thought it was nonsense. Darwin did, at times, take homeopathic remedies. But only when convalescing at a spa near Malvern where the resident doctor made all his patients take the pills. But Darwin did this 'without an atom of faith'. It was quite clear that it would be difficult to reconcile Ullman's statements with Darwin's own stated beliefs, and it looked like we were seeing nothing but the usual homeopathic propganda.
As you might expect, Dana Ullman took exception to my analysis and claimed I had missed many references, that I was superficial and undertook inadequate scholarship, that I was partial in my quotations, and my analysis contained misinformation. He emailed me to say "my research on Darwin [has] surpassed yours by a significant degree" and,
I sincerely hope that you are a good enough man (or duck) to admit that you MAY have been a bit too rash in your previous comments. People will TRUST you more if you admit that you were wrong about something. I realize that this tends to be rare amongst quackbusters, but perhaps you are different.Now, to be fair, I was not reading from Ullman's book - it had not been published yet - only wondering how he came to such conclusions for his promotional material. So, out of courtesy, I got hold of a copy, read it, and now am in a position to give a fuller review and see if Ullman's own evidence stands up to scrutiny.
Charles Darwin
So, let's start off with Dana Ullman's coverage of Charles Darwin.
The first mention of Darwin is in the Introduction. Ullman obviously thinks Darwin is central to his thesis. He starts off by saying that Darwin had great admiration for his homeopathic doctor and his treatments, "though these facts are scandalously missing from the history of medicine and science". Later, in the chapter on Physicians and Scientists, Ullman devotes ten pages to Darwin and homeopathy. Now, given Ullman's denunciations of my analysis of Darwin, I was expecting a lot of significant material that I had missed. But, it is just not there. However, there is a lot of insignificant material, a lot of jumping to conclusions and unsubstantiated speculations. This appears to be the greater scholarship that Ullman alludes to.
So, Ullman readily admits that Darwin was openly scathing about homeopathy and that he never attributed any of his health improvements to homeopathy. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Nonetheless, Ullman claims that Darwin's healthier moments during his long illness could be attributed to homeopathy. Ullman provides no evidence for this assertion. Darwin did suffer a long standing illness. The illness was sometimes totally debilitating, and regularly he experienced periods of remission. One time he got better was when Darwin was recuperating at Dr Gully's hydrotherapy spa. Now because Dr Gully gave Darwin homeopathy remedies, Ullman then contends that the homeopathy caused Darwin's health improvements.
This is nothing other than the same systematic logical mistake that all homeopaths make - post hoc ergo propter hoc - "after this, therefore because of this". Just because one event follows another does not mean that one event caused another. The entire foundation of homeopathy is built on this logical fallacy, and Ullman makes no allowance for it. The nature of Darwin's illness is unknown; many have speculated as to what it was, from an illness picked up in South America to purely psychosomatic illness. Therefore, to make any assessment of how Darwin's illness should have progressed is to overstretch our knowledge of that illness. The fact that Darwin felt better after spending time at a relaxing spa should not surprise us. Ullman, however, finds it difficult to conceive of any explanation beyond a homeopathic cure.
One part of Ullman's analysis I thought was particularly misleading. He says,
After just a month of treatment, Charles had to admit that Gully's treatments were not quackery after all.
I emailed Dana to ask for a reference for this and to state how he came to this conclusion. He did have a reference, but it was quite clear that Darwin was talking specifically about the hydrotherapy treatments and made absolutely no mention of homeopathy. Darwin's opinions of the sugar pills appears to have been steadfast.
Ullman goes on to explore an area I did not; that is Darwin's research on the response of the insectivorous plant Drosera (sundew) to dilute ammonia salt solutions. Darwin was shocked at the response of the plant's tentacles to ever increasingly dilute solutions. Ullman pounces on this as proof of Darwin wanting to research homeopathic solutions. There are three things wrong with this: one, Darwin never says anything about his research being homeopathic in nature; two, homeopaths tell us that dilute solutions are not homeopathic - succussion is necessary (apparently); and thirdly, the solutions are still light by homeopathic standards - homeopaths dilute beyond the point that the original chemical will be present. Ullman makes a similar error on his own websites and elsewhere in his book when he calls homeopathy the science of nanopharmacology. Now diluting to the nano level (a billionth) is still well within the realms of standard analytical physical chemistry. Measuring dosages at the nano-mole level is now standard laboratory practice. Homeopathic dilutions make nano doses look positively gargantuan. I have no idea why Ullman wants to insists on such terminology when it is so obviously misleading.
Darwin was shocked at the results of his dilution experiments, not because he thought that it confirmed homeopathy, but because he did not expect such dilute substances to have such a dramatic effect. This was new science and he was instinctively cautious. Darwin wanted to replicate his own work and confirm his findings. He doubted his own experience, experiments and capabilities and made doubly sure he was not deceiving himself. This is something that homeopaths could learn from.
And on to Ullman's worst crime in this chapter. Ullman insists that Darwin was a supporter of homeopathy despite all the evidence to the contrary and he does this by asserting that he was afraid of what this peers would think if he said such a thing. Ullman does not present any evidence to back this up. I find this a terrible besmirchment of Darwin's character. One thing that you cannot say about Darwin was that he was unduley cowered in the fear of what the establishment might think of him. He did not launch his theory of evolution into a compliant and accepting orthodoxy. Darwin had to win over his scientific peers, the establishments of church and state, and society as a whole, through sheer strength of argument alone. Darwin was well aware of the implications of his work and how that might threaten the established view of a natural world created by a benevolent god. It took courage and much deliberation to take on this worldview and it is inconceivable that Darwin would quibble over a trifle such as homeopathy even if he did believe in it. No, Darwin knew homeopathy was nonsense. All the evidence points to that. Any other conclusion is just perverse.
Adolf Hitler
For me, in his treatments of Darwin, Ullman looses all credibility in his analysis. It would be enough to stop here in this review, but his analyses of Adolf Hitler is in some ways even more perverse.
Now, Ullman's book is about famous people and cultural heroes. Obviously, Ullman does not see Hitler as a cultural hero and he makes this clear. But in doing so, he then feels it necessary to show that Hitler was not an advocate for homeopathy and never benefited from it. But again, this is in the face of contradictory evidence that Ullman himself presents.
In the chapter Politicians and Peacemakers, Ullman describes how Hitler took nux vomica and belladonna, two staples of every homeopath's pharmacy, every day for nine years up to his suicide. Unlike Darwin, Hitler was convinced that these pills were saving his life. Now, to get around the rather nasty conclusion that this supremely evil man was a supporter of homeopathy, Ullman tells us that it was unlikely that Hitler's pills had undergone the proper dilution and succussion process, and were therefore not properly homeopathic. This contrasts rather starkly with Ullman's insistence that Darwin's simple dilutions were part of some homeopathic experimentation.
But the rather nasty conclusion is, and at risk of invoking Godwin's Law, that the Nazi state was rather enraptured with homeopathy. It would be surprising if it was not. German nationalism latched onto all sorts of mystical and distinctly Germanic notions during these terrible decades. The fact that homeopathy was of German origin no doubt had some bearing on its adoption by the various Nazi doctors in attendance to Hitler. Ullman insists that the pattern of prescribing remedies to Hitler did not match standard homeopathic practice, but one must also take into account that Hitler's doctors would also have done anything the Führer desired. These were not standard prescribing times.
It is difficult to come away with any other impression that Ullman is twisting his own presented evidence to reach whatever conclusion he chooses. If there is any credibility left, it is dashed when you note that one of the sources that Ullman references for his information on Adolf Hitler is the discredited historian David Irving.
'No Smoke Without Fire'After looking at these examples, it is difficult to take any of the biographical details and conclusions seriously. But in a very important regard, this is utterly immaterial because it does not matter one jot what Darwin or Hitler thought about their experiences with homeopathy. Their opinions do not prove or disprove whether homeopathy is nothing but nonsense.
In order to judge Ullman's book, we ought to see if Ullman succeeds in the task he sets himself. The subtiltle of the book is Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy? Does Ullman answer this question? In short, no.
Ullman assumes the answer from the start, and it is the answer of the commited homeopath - that homeopathy is a powerful healing force. And so in doing so, he fails to address the obvious problems with taking a string of historially based anecdotes. In looking at peoples accounts of homeopathy, you have to take into account the various ways in which people might acquire mistaken beliefs. Ullman does not do this and so we have no way of weighing the importance of this mass of ancdotes.
Even homeopaths do not deny that people are subject to a placebo response when taking medicines. This can be personally interpreted as a positive healing response to an otherwise inert pill. Also, many illnesses, being cyclical in nature, allow natural disease remissions to be attributed to the cure. This is almost undoubteldy what was going on in Darwin's case. When he was at his worst, he went to see Dr Gully. Any subsequent improvement would be attributed to whatever Dr Gully was doing - Darwin thought it was the hydrotherapy; Ullman the homeopathy. There are other ways of being fooled, of course. There is no need to go into them here. The point is that Ullman should have considered them in detail in his book if he wants us to take his mass of anecdotes as serious evidence. The fame and celebrity of Ullman's cultural heroes make no difference to the importance of these subjects' beliefs. If one person can hold a mistaken belief about a healing experience then so can thousands of others. Mere numbers make no difference. It does not enhance the quality of the evidence in anyway. A common delusion can produce millions of the deluded.
This point is noted by the writer of Ullman's foreward, Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital, when he says,
Of course, the fact that the extraordinary range of talented, intelligent, and independent-minded people depicted in this book benefited from homeopathy does not represent a scientific argument.I would agree fully, but maybe just caveat that these people believed they benefited. But rather bizarrely, Fisher then immediately says,
"but, it is a strong 'no smoke without fire' argument".This sounds so out of place for a man who considers himself to be a man of science. It is the talk of gossiping schoolgirls in an unsupervised playground. Of course there can be smoke without fire. It is entirely possible for large numbers of people to hold entirely mistaken beliefs, even intelligent celebrities and politicians. And so, this book has the significance of the nauseating and suffocating mobile wedding disco smoke machine, designed to hide the balding uncoolness of the past-it DJ. The book is a 400 page fig-leaf and Ullman is using his celebrity gossip and bizarre interpretations to obscure the embarrassing lack of convincing evidence that would show us homeopathy is nothing but a discredited philosophy, practiced by scientifically illiterate narcissists, using inert sugar pills.
As such, this book is not going to 'change the face and heart of medicine'. It is of interest only to those who want their prejudices confirmed and their delusions massaged. To really understand why so many people can so easily be sucked into the irrationality of alternative medicine is going to take another book. There may be a few of those along soon.
************************************************************************************
See also Orac's review of excerpts from the Homeopathic Revolution.
Labels: celebrity quackery, dana ullman, homeopathy
posted by Le Canard Noir at
1:12 AM
109 Comments:
"To really understand why so many people can so easily be sucked into the irrationality of alternative medicine is going to take another book. There may be a few of those along soon."
In fact, there was one along just recently: a UK edition of Michael Shermer's Why People Believe Weird Things was published by Souvenir Press in September. It doesn't cover homoeopathy (or, indeed, much in the way of alternative medicine) specifically, but whatever irrationality is being considered, the reason people get pulled into it are basically the same.
Darwin proposed and defended the theory of evolution to a scientific and lay audience incredibly hostile to it, but was afraid to give public support to homeopathy? That's given me a good laugh to start my day.
But really, comprehending evolution is simple - there is this small thing called EVIDENCE. And in the 200-odd years since Darwin proposed the theory, evidence has continued to accumulate, strengthening our understanding.
Now, in 200 years, homeopathy has produced no evidence but still relies on anecdote and a mish-mash of badly designed and performed "studies" which just do not hold (even homeopathic) water.
But the bottom line is - it wouldn't matter if Darwin HAD believed in homeopathy. It still doesn't work, and if all Ullman can produce is "famous people believe in it" that is simply fatuous.
Bravo - a trenchant and funny analysis of Ullman's revolutionary work. But it highlights yet again, I suspect, the futility of engaging in debate with folks whose conceptual models are still couched in pre-Enlightenment (and fundamentally magical) systems of belief. There appear to be increasing numbers of people who believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden / UFO's / the rapture / creationism u.s.w., including such famous imbeciles as George Walker Bush - and a surprising number of the homeopaths I have encountered... Interestingly (to me, anyway), some of these types now use 'Enlightenment values' as a term of abuse.
An historical perspective suggests that whereas climbing out of the magical mire is slow and difficult, it's easy to fall rapidly back; it's impressive and surprising that we have gotten this far. The scientific method provides our pitons, ice-axe and oxygen, but whatever progress we have made to date is no guarantee that we'll continue to progress. It's clear that difficult times lie ahead, and I wonder to what extent the scientific and liberal components of our time will survive the imminent bunch of singularities.
ps Another book well worth reading is Murder in Amsterdam, by Ian Buruma. Buruma uses the murder of Theo van Gogh by a young deracinated Muslim as a starting point for an analysis of the clash between Enlightenment and pre-E values. Insightful and illuminating.
Thanks quacknet - I will look up that book.
As for the futility of debate, I fully understand that I will never convince a committed homeopath that they are making basic thinking mistakes. Their resistance to self-analysis is what I find so fascinating about the whole subject of quackery. Why did Ullman not cover the problems of accepting testimonial evidence? It is not as if it is an obscure subject or could be unknown to him. Just deliberate avoidance of an area that might challenge what he wants to believe.
Anyway, looking foward to this: Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine. by R. Barker Bausell. Popping into the OUP shop soon to see if it is out in the UK yet.
Good review. One minor quibble though. David Irving isn't wholly discredited as a historian, it seems he has allowed his beliefs to cloud his interpretation of the facts and to perhaps create facts to fit his theories but if a historian like Max Clifford is prepared to acknowledge his work then you can't use Irving as some sort of ad hom attack on Ullman. Besides David Irving was a great influence on Slaughterhouse Five and nobody would argue that Vonnegut is a lesser figure because of that.
I think it would be fair to say that as a historian Dana Ullman is worse than David Irving.
LCN said "Their resistance to self-analysis is what I find so fascinating about the whole subject of quackery."
So do I but I've always assumed that there are at least two types of quackery. There's the sort which is presented by the genuinely deluded and there's the sort which is presented by get rich quick merchants who would sell their own grandmothers if it helped them make money.
I suspect that Ullman is of the first type, i.e. he's genuinely deluded. These sorts of people have the same sort of mindset as the accolytes of religions. It's almost entirely pointless arguing with them (regardless of how much fun it is) because accepting that they might be wrong hurts their brains.
The second type of quacks (the charlatans) are more akin to high priests. If you argue with them then, given the opportunity, they'll hurt your brain.
There has been some discussion about this on wikipedia. Dana Ullman keeps editing his own page (he was banned for this, but has used at least two sock-puppets) to remove the references to Darwin's own writings, and to make himself look like a genius. Although I think wikipedia is flawed, I think that people like Dana Ullman should be corrected at every turn.
Dear Mr. Duck,
Thanx for all of the attention. Yes, this book deserves attention due to the modern explanation for why homeopathy makes sense and works, the scientific evidence the book provides to backup these statements, the history of medicine that the book uncovers, and the personal stories about the use of and/or appreciation for homeopathy from so many of the most respected people of the past 200 years, including many people who were previously skeptical about homeopathy.
I’m sorry that you chose to provide only details about Charles Darwin and Adolf Hitler (who I show was prescribed herbs in STRONG herbal doses by a German doctor who never referred to himself as a homeopath nor had any homeopathic training). There is a big difference between the exceedingly strong doses of these herbs that Hitler used and the exceedingly small doses that Darwin used in his experiments. People interested in my statement about Darwin on this matter and on his experiences with Dr. Gully will benefit from going to my article on the subject.
In writing this book, I chose to “connect the dots” of the many cultural heroes who used and/or appreciated homeopathy, and I chose to correct some historians who have incorrectly asserted that some famous people used or appreciated homeopathy. My book verifies that Hitler was neither an advocate nor a user of homeopathic medicines. Later in the book, I also show that some historians have suggested that Napoleon was an advocate for homeopathy, though I have disproved this (but I did provide some interesting stories of the use and appreciation for homeopathy by Napoleon III and his family).
I’m glad that you didn’t do what some skeptics of homeopathy have written. Some people have actually insisted that Gully wasn’t really a homeopathic doctor. Scholars of Darwin know that Gully was a homeopathic doctor AND a hydrotherapist.
You wrote that I asserted that “Ullman goes further and says that Darwin was an advocate of homeopathy.” The story of Darwin is the longest story in my book, and I never say directly that he was an “advocate of homeopathy,” though I certainly show how much it benefited from homeopathic treatment as well as from the care that his homeopathic doctor, Dr. James Manby Gully, provided for him. The link that you provide is to an excerpt from my book in a homeopathic magazine. The editors took the liberty to write that statement about various famous people and their advocacy of homeopathy. I didn’t write those precise words.
You also note that I refer to homeopathy as a “nanopharmacology.” You emphasized that homeopaths make use of much smaller doses that “one-billionth” but you missed reading or neglected to mention my statement on page 24 that says:
“The prefix nano derives from Latin and means dwarf; today, the prefix is used in nanotechnology or the nanosciences, which explore the use of extremely small technologies or processes, at least one-billionth of a unit, designated as 10-9, though our use of the word nanopharmacology and nanodose draws from its modern usage, suggesting “very small and very powerful.” Are you now going to tell Steve Jobs that he should change the name of his company’s invention, the Nano, because it isn’t one-billionth in size?
I encourage people to avoid making knee-jerk judgments or assumptions about homeopathy. That is way too easy. Straw men are easy to knock down. Instead, I encourage you to explore WHY homeopathy has persisted, WHY so many of the smartest people in the past 200 years used and/or appreciated it, and WHY the majority of scientific evidence from both basic science and clinic research verify that the placebo response is an inadequate explanation for all of the effects that homeopathic medicines have been found to have.
Finally, my chapter on “Why Homeopathy is Hated and Vilified” is worthy of you and your readers’ attention.
Thanks for this review. For those who are interested, Ullman is unwise enough to give a sample chapter of the book at www.homeopathicrevolution.com: you can see which "literary greats" were, according to him, enamoured of Homeopathy.
Of course the most important point is this: just because a certain well-known writer may have believed in "X", it doesn't mean that it's true. So what? Arthur Conan Doyle believed in fairies.
In any case, the chapter allows those who are interested to check out the miserable quality of Ullman's research without having to buy the whole book. He considers, for instance, that Henry James was an advocate of homeopathy because one of the characters in The Bostonians endorsed it. No matter that this character, Miss Birdseye, was described by James as "a confused, entangled, inconsequent, discursive old woman".
Revelation: some famous people, at various points in the past, used homeopathy.
We don't know whether they used it because they truly believed in it, or because they had no idea what the homeopath was really giving them, or because it was part of a whole rag-bag of "therapies" they were getting, or if they knew it was crap but took it to humour the doctor, or if their spouse persuaded them, or if they took it because the homeopath was their drinking buddy, or combinations of the above, or...
(contd. ad infinitum)
Only the first thing on this list is even vaguely germane to Dullman's argument, which in itself isn't germane to anything (some people who don't really believe in CAM remedies on an intellectual level still take them - again, so what?). And we have heard that Dullman misrepresents people who clearly didn't believe in the stuff (like Darwin) as enthusiasts if they ever once swallowed a potion. If William Osler truly believed the ingredients (i.e. the water) in a homeopathic remedy had any biological effect, then I am a monkey's uncle. Did Osler believe in a kind of holistic approach to patients - in the sense a modern GP might use the phrase - yes. But that is not the same as Osler believing in magic.
Dullman's logorrhoea and bug-eyed determination reminds me oddly of the kind of born-again Christian zealots who used to harangue night-club queues about sin, even when repeatedly told to bugger off.
I encourage people to avoid making knee-jerk judgments or assumptions about homeopathy.
Is 200 years long enough to consider it? D Ullman you insult people's intelligence.
Here's an example of how you insult everyone:
Are you now going to tell Steve Jobs that he should change the name of his company’s invention, the Nano, because it isn’t one-billionth in size?
A ridiculous question from a ridiculous man who think's everyone is as stupid as him. "Nano" is Mr Job's name for a product. It's not illegal, or wrong or even confusing, much as you wish it were.
I think you need to concentrate more on finding that incontrovertible example of a non-self-limiting condition being cured by homeopathy. You've had long enough to do it... and about 200 years of records. You people do keep proper medical records, don't you?
The prefix "nano-" denotes a factor of 10 to the power of -9, that is to sat, one billionth. The majority of homeopathic remedies have nothing to do with nano-, or even femto- (one quadrillionth) doses: they are so diluted that there is hardly any chance that any of the original substance remains at all.
Michael: Your defintion of nano is just one, not the only one. My book says this clearly, and as did my previous post...but you and othes have created a new definition of double-blind (you close both of your eyes).
PV: I agree. Steven Jobs didn't break any law by calling his product, Nano. Likewise, because the popular meaning for nano is very small and very powerful, this is a perfect way to describe homeopathy...as a nanopharmacology.
Schaunard: Henry James was a Swedenborgian, and like virtually all Swedengorgians, he was a known advocate for homeopathy. His writings that refernce homeopathy in one of his most famous novel is simply evidence of this.
As for Mrs. Birdseye, it seems that you are either showing your male chauvinism, your misogony, or your ignorance. Mrs. Birdseye was the grand dame of the women's movement in the novel. If this is the way you want to refer to such a leader, please don't tell your wife or girl friend or mother.
There IS a good reason that so many literary greats spoke and/or wrote well about homeopathy, and there are also good reasons that some of the people on this list don't get it (you folks on this list ARE smart, but your razor-sharp intellect is so narrowly focused that you miss so much of nature and life and healing). Your loss.
Dullman: Your defintion of nano is just one, not the only one. My book says this clearly, and as did my previous post...but you and othes have created a new definition of double-blind (you close both of your eyes).
That is an admission of deception. You are redefining words to suit your agenda and argument. Nano has a very specific meaning as understood by most people. By changing its meaning you are attempting to fool people and that's not very nice, nor very clever. There is a word for people who calculate to deceive and it's not very nice. Here is the definition from the OED:
A mountebank or Cheap Jack who descants volubly to a crowd in the street; esp. an itinerant vendor of medicines who thus puffs his ‘science’ and drugs.
One who puffs his wares; a puffer.
An empiric who pretends to possess wonderful secrets, esp. in the healing art; an empiric or impostor in medicine, a quack.
An assuming empty pretender to knowledge or skill; a pretentious impostor.
Can you guess the word?
@Gimpyblog - having read Richard Evans' book on the UK Irving trial I have to say that Irving has been completely discredited as a historian. He was found to be guilty by a judge of deliberately fabricating some of his most celebrated source material. That's the worst sin a historian can commit - analogous to a scientist publishing articles based upon fabricated experimental data. Moreover, the judge deemed that Irving fabricated his sources in order to pursue a political objective.
As Max Hastings(!) writes in the article you linked to "Irving, however, no longer seriously expects to be regarded as one of us [a historian]. He is a spokesperson for the Nazi regime from its grave who almost relishes ostracism."
Certainly, he was a colourful character and people will tell amusing anecdotes about him, and he did find out numerous sources about the Nazis. But that does not diminish the fact that as a scholar Irving has been totally discredited as a "falsifier of history".
Hey Gimpy...
The FASEB Journal seems to disagree. This published something I wrote in which I even used the word "nanopharmacology" in the title. Let'sHaveASeriousDiscussionOfHomeopathyAndNanopharmacology
I still assert that we need a serious discussion on homeopathy and nanopharmacology, instead of these ill-informed and mis-informed diatribes.
Sorry, Brave Sir Dana, but "nano" has a very specific numerical meaning. You cannot add definitions to suit your need.
Just like "micro" has a specific meaning, so does "nano". And while I do not think wikipedia is the most reliable source, it does have a decent article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotechnology
and here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanomedicine
You trying to include in part of your techno-babble is fraudulent.
Point taken Mr Chopper. The point I was trying to make was that Irving was at one point credible and though his reputation is now in tatters he has apparently published some reasonable work in his time.
DUllman, you are going to have to provide a credible reference, ie. one you didn't write, to prove your definition of nano is in common use.
Dana - to answer some of your points.
You disprove Hitler was an advocate of homeopathy by a timely and transient definition of what homeopathy is. You are not even consistent with this definition in the book. This is not surprising because homeopaths cannot even agree themselves on what defines being a homeopath (see how UK homeopath members bodies have fought over the Summer). Some homeopaths are quite happy using dilutions well with the 'pharmacological' range and thus are consistent with Hitler's usage (if you are correct about this).
By adopting the term nanopharmacology you are definitely at risk of misleading the unknowledgable. Look at how scientifically illiterate supporter of homeopathy, Jeanette Winterson, misused the term nano in her defense of homeopathy in the Guardian. Your adoption lends itself to that sort of error. I personally believe many homeopaths deliberately use the terms like 'small doses' or 'nano doses' as a fig leaf to avoid having to defend the reality of 'no doses'. I hope you are not part of that dissimulation.
In short, Dana, your book fails because you do not anticipate your critics reactions and take positions on those criticisms. Look at how, say, Dawkins does this in The God Delusion. Instead, you pretend these criticisms do not exist. Rather, you create straw men such as the ideas that homeopathy is vilified because it is a threat to established medical interests. I bet you none of your critics here and elsewhere would earn an extra penny if homeopathy disappeared tomorrow, or even loose any money of it doubled in size. This position of yours looks to me as if you do not treat the critics of homeopathy as being sincere and deserving of attention. My personal criticism is that homeopaths do not act within the boundaries defined by our best knowledge of the effects of homeopathy and thus endanger their patients by massively overstating their capabilities.
You are not alone in ignoring that criticism. The homeopathic community does not want to hear it. Instead, it just wants to hear your lovely stories about celebrities, sports stars and royals and their supposed love of your sugar pills.
*sigh* "nanopharmacology"
Well, speaking as a teacher of, and researcher in, pharmacology, if this were to mean "pharmacology of drug molecule molecular interactions on the nanometer scale" it would mean something. That would be an appropriate analogy with "nanotechnology".
If it is instead being used (as DUllman uses it in his bamboozling way) to mean (or rather to conceal the meaning):
"pharmacology attributed to molecules that are no longer present in the solution, i.e. non-existent molecules"
- then there are several more succinct words: one of the less vulgar would be "rubbish".
ANDY, YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY ON EARTH ALL THESE FAMOUS, INTELLIGENT AND WELL RESPECTED PEOPLE BOTHERED TO TAKE HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE IF IT DIDN'T WORK??!! You mention Hitler and Darwin and leave off Charles Dickens, Tennyson, Beethover, Goethe, Bernard Shaw, Thackeray, Disraeli, Gandhi, Lincoln & 10 other American Presidents, as well as 7 Popes, etc. etc. etc. Were they all deluded too?!?!
I can't be arsed with debating dingbats like Dullman any more, so I think I will leave the debunking to others and settle for outright ridicule in future.
As David Colquhoun has repeatedly demonstrated, well-directed scorn is all homeopathy merits, for all their self-important posturing.
"No molecules! No molecules!"
Or: "It's magic, stupid"
Or: "Homeopathy: Christians do water into wine, we do water into medicine"
In answer to Louisez:
Many of the people cited lived in the early to mid 19th century, before we had much scientific medicine or knew what molecules were.
I am also willing to bet few to none of them had any scientific education. Have we ever had an American president with a science degree apart from Jimmy Carter? If you told me Reagan was a homeopathy fan, that would come as no great surprise given his enthusiasm for astrology. And when Bill Clinton had angina he called the cardiac docs for angiography and a quadruple bypass, not the homeopath for a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.
And we already know Popes believe in magic, don't we?
Dr. Aust said "Have we ever had an American president with a science degree apart from Jimmy Carter? "
Yes, Herbert Hoover, a couple others like Grant and Eisenhower attended West Point, which is actually much like an engineering school (Carter went to the Naval Academy).
William Harrison did start to study medicine before joining the military. Though that was at a time when medicine was about as safe as handling gunpowder.
The others were mostly lawyers, professors, farmers and one hats sales man. You are probably right about the level of science education.
Even in the 19th century, several of those who called themselves homeopaths did start to avail themselves to what was becoming modern medicine. Some became half-homeopaths that actually prescribed real drugs, and even performed surgeries.
But in those days there was not much regulation, or even much in the way of medical education. The so-called "medical" doctors in the 19th century had little or no scientific training. Most of them learned as apprentices, being taken in by a practicing doctor to help and learn a trade. From:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/history/ ..."Toward the end of the 19th century, American medical education was in chaos; most medical schools were little more than trade schools. Often, it was easier to gain admission to one of these than to a liberal arts college."
One interesting historical figure that you might want to investigate is Abraham Flexner.
The appeal to authority to people who died a century ago really does not make any sense. Or even those who died 50 years ago... really it is an appeal that has turned to dust.
LouiseZ said...
"You mention Hitler and Darwin and leave off Charles Dickens, Tennyson, Beethover, Goethe, Bernard Shaw, Thackeray, Disraeli, Gandhi, Lincoln & 10 other American Presidents, as well as 7 Popes, etc. etc. etc. Were they all deluded too?!?!"
A typical and vacuous appeal to fame and celebrity. Yes, these people almost certainly didn't know about the placebo effect, so they were almost certainly ignorant if not deluded - that is if they were taken in by it in the first place. You know, one isn't immune from ignorance or delusions just because one is famous or clever in some other discipline. Science is nothing to do with how many stripes or gold medals one wears, or how important one is perceived to be.
Remember when "JamesGully", i.e. Dullman said at JREF;
"Be careful because this book IS dangerous. It'll kill your misinformation on homeopathy. It'll mangle your unscientific attitude towards homeopathy. It is that dangerous."
It certainly looks dangerously embarrassing to its author.
The twisting and turning to vainly attempt a defence of that steaming pile of horse dung is increasingly hilarious.
And it's not like the topic even matters. A lengthy and pointless argument from authority and antiquity is an amazingly profligate way to burn any residual credibility any homeopath might have.
Tthe homeopathic measure of credibility must work through dilution, so the less they have the more powerful they think they are.
LouiseZ said,
"You mention Hitler and Darwin and leave off Charles Dickens, Tennyson, Beethover, Goethe, Bernard Shaw, Thackeray, Disraeli, Gandhi, Lincoln & 10 other American Presidents, as well as 7 Popes, etc. etc. etc. Were they all deluded too?!?!"
Not necessarily deluded, but, on the basis of what we know now, they were wrong.
If you go back another hundred years or so from Darwin's time, you will find that the majority of scientists (and presumably the majority of informed non-scientists) believed that a substance called "phlogiston" was released for substances when they were burned. Once it was demonstrated that substances gain weight on burning rather than losing it, the theory was demonstrated to be wrong and was abandoned. This doesn't mean people who believed in phlogiston theory before it was disproved were deluded: phlogiston theory was consistent with the state of knowledge at the time.
But the fact that large numbers of respected scientists believed in phlogiston theory certainly doesn't mean that it was correct, just as the fact that large numbers of respected figures believed (or that many people still do believe) in homoeopathy does not mean that it works. The thinking behind Dana's collection of celebrity endorsements is fatally flawed.
LousieZ - others have explained why we need not be impressed by the sheer number of Popes that believe in homeopathy. Presumably you also believe in transubstantiation?
But you raise Charles Dickens. That is an interesting one. Now Ullman makes the classic mistake of assuming that characters in his novels share the same beliefs as Charles Dickens.
Dickens was a satirist. In an obscure sort story, The Mudfog Papers Dickens describes a messianic figure called Sir William Courtenay who believes that homeopathy can raise the dead and should be prescribed to the recently deceased.
Sounds horribly like satire to me.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Talking of science degrees, there are lots of homeopathic practitioners who hold them.
Spending hours trashing homeopathy is never going to take away the truth that it works. You probably don't realise that the path of history is littered with skeptics who changed their minds about it.
In fact trashing homeopathy seems to be the full time job of some of you and what we are all dying to know is who is paying you?!!
Canard, I challenge you to phone Ainsworths Homeopathic Pharmacy 0207 935 5330 and order a Lycopodium 10M powder and tell me you don't feel ANYTHING at all after taking it! That is Lycopodium 10,000c. Lycopodium is Moss, so you can have lots of fun joking about it. It is one of the main remedies for Suspicious and Skeptical people. I take no responsibility for the after effects as you have fully documented on this website your total disbelief in homeopathy, that you believe homeopathy has no effect whatsoever.
LouiseZ said:
"Spending hours trashing homeopathy is never going to take away the truth that it works. You probably don't realise that the path of history is littered with skeptics who changed their minds about it.
In fact trashing homeopathy seems to be the full time job of some of you and what we are all dying to know is who is paying you?!!"
No one who maintains a genuinely and usefully acceptable approach to evidence quality can possibly believe in homeopathy. The fact that there are many numpties who say, "I was sceptical but then I tried it" show how shallow was their understanding in the first place.
Why do I spend hours trashing homeopathy? Because it is an interesting topic and has some importance in our public life because of the damage that is being done to the intellectual life of our society by the fools and fellow-travellers who are trying to force this discredited therapy into the mainstream without being held to account to the same standards required of any other medical therapy or even any other consumer product.
If homeopathy was genuinely so reliably powerful why have standards of evidence had to be set so low in order for the products to be legally sold?
When the MHRA caved in to EU pressure to regularise the selling of homeopathic sugar it was after not a single remedy had been submitted to the usual licensing process to enable it to show that it worked. Instead, idiot politicians and time-serving bureaucrats subverted the whole system of medicines licensing to gain special dispensation for homeopathy. Frankly, if this is what is required to maintain the market in your sugar pills you should be throughly ashamed to call yourself a supporter of homeopathy. It is an absolute disgrace and the fact that such stupidity has become public policy in the UK is an embarrassment.
But you're so clever, perhaps you can answer thsi question;
GIVE ONE, YOU ONLY NEED ONE, INCONTROVERTIBLE EXAMPLE, WITH REFERENCES, OF HOMEOPATHY CURING A NON-SELF-LIMITING CONDITION.
Options include, AIDS, metastatic melanoma, rabies, Addison's disease, Type 1 Diabetes.
If you cannot come up with even one single example you should have the honesty and humility to admit you are wrong.
(Honesty and humility from an advocate of homeopathy! Who am I kidding? But, let's give LousieZ a chance before we draw the usual conclusions)
LouiseZ - that would not be a convincing experiment since it is obviouslt I will feel something after taking a powder, but knowing it is due to the homeopathy is another thing.
Do you think you could do my challenge?
That would be much more convincing. You would shut me up very quickly and then you could lauch at us sceptics?
In short, a much more convincing test than a book of anecdotes. And could be done for the price of a few copies. What do you think?
I was not aware about this Book till I read this Blog. Notwithstanding all the nonsense written against Homoeopathy I would like to read it at the first opportunity.We care the least for the critics of Homoeopathy. These critics do not venture to write a single word about the modern drugs- after all loyalty also pays dividends!!!
Wow! Krishna, that made no sense at all.
Meanwhile, I'm keen to see if LouiseZ can answer my question or successfully take the duck's challenge. Indeed, Dana should do the same. There really is no point in either of them posting anything else unless they can rise to these challenges. What, other than abject moral cowardice or lack of basic honesty, would prevent them?
Re: Henry James.
Henry James Sr. (the novelist's father) was a Swedenborgian theologian. His sons Henry and William (the psychologist) were not - as far as I am aware - Swedenborgians. William James was a founder member of the Society for Psychical Research and one of his areas of interest was the psychology of religious experience. They were both notoriously independent minded and analytical thinkers so it seems unlikely that they advocated homeopathy unquestioningly (and I've seen no evidence that they did so at all).
Didn't know that about the elder James, Palinurus.
That is very interesting since US homeopathy in the second half of the 19th century was closely associated with the Swedenborgians, and this is evident in the writings of James Tyler Kent (1849-1916). So it is easy to see how Henry James might have known about homeopathy; but believing in it is something else.
James Tyler Kent, for those that don't know, is the second most famous historical homeopath after Hahnemann, and the main "father" of the modern homeopathic obsession with ultra-dilutions ("30C" and above). Kent was a firm believer in believer in "The Vital Force", and it his teachings that contemporary British homeopathy takes most of its world-view from.
Sample Kent quote from around 1900:
"All sickness originates from internal causes; internal causes are spiritual; therefore all sickness has a spiritual basis"
@gimpyblog. Indeed, Irving was renowned for hunting down obscure people and interviewing them, as well as being a meticulous searcher of documentary evidence. He found an awful lot of information. The trouble is that he systematically abused this source material in order to rehabilitate Hitler's reputation, and deny the magnitude of the holocaust.
In any given book we really don't know whether a piece of information: a) accurately reflects the source material; b) is based upon a source, but has been misinterpreted; or c) is a fabrication.
Regarding Hitler's use of homeopathy, I concur with Le Canard that any 'historian' that uses Irving as a source should be criticised at the very least for incompetence.
LouiseZ - what if I took a whole tub of Lycopodium 5MM (is that the strongest?) whislt online with a webcam? I might feed a few to my cat too. Slip some into the fish bowl too.
Whilst this in no way is a substitute to my test, what do you think would happen to me? What is the worst thing you think I could take?
If I did this, would you take my test?
On the "nano" thing, permit me to propose a new prefix to remove any ambiguity: "homeo", meaning "nil / non-existent / no longer present". This allows writers to use long technical sounding words such as "homeopharmacology" without any risk that they might, however inadvertently, cause their readers to think they're referring to any existing and totally different discipline.
LouiseZ: I challenge you to phone Ainsworths Homeopathic Pharmacy 0207 935 5330 and order a Lycopodium 10M powder and tell me you don't feel ANYTHING at all after taking it!
Oooh, now this does interest me. I am willing to take any dose you ask of any homeopathic remedy you choose, but there are some important things to note. Firstly, I feel something pretty much all the time: happy, sad, interested, perky, bored, hungry, thirsty, sleepy, wakeful, an itchy nose etc... so you ought to choose a remedy which would produce noticibly dramatic and unusual effects. Secondly, you must specify - without revealing them to me - in advance what you expect me to feel or experience as a result of taking the remedy. Even better would be for me to keep a detailed diary (of a type and level of detail to be specified by you) of symptoms, feelings, thoughts and experiences while taking the remedy but also of the same things before I start taking it. If the remedy has a noticeable effect then it should be clear to any homeopathic practitioner who reads the diary when I started taking the remedy. So when the test has finished you can read the diary and tell me when I started taking the remedy (which will of course not be revealed to you until you've answered). Each day's diary page and dosage information will of course be submitted to a mutually trusted 3rd party (and/or I'll send you a secure hash of them, which removes the need for a 3rd party) every day, to prevent any retrospective alteration by me.
*chuckle*
well said rob, well said.
I'm completely at a loss as to why I should be convinced by the "argument from celebrity" - especially as most exemplars referred to in this thread are conveniently no longer around to refute their alleged support for homeopathy. While I might admire the formal skill and imagery in the poetry of WB Yeats, that doesn't mean I admire his enthusiasm for the Occult or his authoritarian leanings; equally, Newton's discoveries in gravitation and mechanics are supreme intellectual achievments, but that doesn't mean I'm with him in his views on creationism or alchemy, given the evidence amassed since his lifetime. To do so would be just simplistic and credulous.
I wonder what supporters of homeopathy have to say about Professor Edzard Ernst, who, despite training in and practice of homeopathy, is increasingly sceptical of its claims of efficacy:
"...So what do systematic reviews and meta-analyses of rigorous clinical trials tell us? In 1997, Linde and colleagues published a meta-analysis of 89 controlled clinical trials, which concluded that the ‘clinical effects of homeopathy are not completely due to placebo’ [2]. Since then, more than 20 further systematic reviews or meta-analyses have become available [3–8]. Collectively they fail to demonstrate convincingly that homoeopathic remedies differ from placebos. As science cannot prove a negative, we are not able to state categorically that homoeopathy is ineffective, but we can be certain of one thing: its clinical effectiveness has not been established. Of course, our doubts are significantly increased by the absence of a plausible mechanism of action..."
(British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62(6), December 2006)
The 'how could a lot of famous people be wrong' question feels like satire in itself. Scientology, monkey testicle elixers, magnetism/electric cures, and the worst excesses of every pseudoscientific delusion are always to be found running rampant in the rich and famous--historically and in the present. People are, en masse, frequently wrong about things--famous people more, rather than less, so as far as I can tell. Unless of course drunk driving, baby dangling, inbred designer dogs, dressing like a hooker and racist outbursts are also wonderful ideas.
I think I'll write a book about how many historically significant people benefited (placebo effect) from blood letting... I'm sure there were thousands!
I don't get it?
Hitler was a BAD man, and he didn't use homeopathy. So homeopathy must be GOOD.
Darwin was a GOOD man, and he might've used it. So homeopathy must be GOOD.
What if Hitler loved cheese but hated paper cuts? Does that make cheese BAD but paper cuts GOOD?
I'm confused.
LouiseZ: I accept your "Lycopodium 10M Challenge" on the simple condition that you specify in advance (but preferably without telling me) what you expect the effect (for which I totally absolve you of all responsibility) will be. I will of course take the Lycopodium 10M in the presence of witnesses so they can see whether anything happens and I cannot claim it didn't effect me if it really did so. To prevent anything "antidoting" the remedy (I believe that's the correct homeopathic term) I will abide by reasonable conditions you want to specify about what I cannot eat or drink shortly before of after taking it.
(Offer to take the Lycopodium Challenge cc'ed by e-mail to Louise Mclean of Zeus Information Service, who a bit of googling suggests is the person behind the the 'LouiseZ' identity who posted the challenge)
Rob - good on you.
I suggest a mass sceptic suicide live on webcam. All of us take a tub full of the worst, strongest, maddest remedy LoiuseZ can can up with. Try to kill us L. We are game.
I'm a bit concerned about the tub-full of homeopathic remedy. Might we not be in danger of drowning or dying of a sugar rush?
I'm a bit concerned about the tub-full of homeopathic remedy. Might we not be in danger of drowning or dying of a sugar rush?
Diarrhoea could be a problem for the lactose-intolerant.
@ Rick
sorry to add to your confusion, but what about Hitler's (reported) vegetarianism and abstention from alcolhol and smoking?
...maybe that's why I trust evidence more than celebrity endorsement when it comes to decisions about my health.
Shouldn't that be Zeus Misinformation Service?
She offers Homeopathic consultaions and prescriptions by phone. Hardly seems like the personal touch.
I'm just trying to think of the details of how the Lycopodium Challenge should be conducted. If LouiseZ does respond, presumably the symptom(s) which she expects to manifest themselves should be revealed in advance not to me but to at least one witness or referee present when I take the Lycopodium 10M (or any other remedy of Louise's choosing), so there's a referee who knows specifically what to look for?
Dana:"The FASEB Journal seems to disagree. This published something I wrote in which I even used the word "nanopharmacology" in the title. Let'sHaveASeriousDiscussionOfHomeopathyAndNanopharmacology
I still assert that we need a serious discussion on homeopathy and nanopharmacology, instead of these ill-informed and mis-informed diatribes."
The only mention of nanopharmacology is "Let’s have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy."....twice, in the heading and final line. No definition no discussion nothing. This is a letter. A letter, nothing more. A letter to a journal is no indication of editorial endorsement. In fact a few issues later the editor-in-chief responds Response to: Let'sHaveASeriousDiscussionOfHomeopathyAndNanopharmacology Not exactly the ringing endorsement you claim Dana....
For completeness, and it is very funny,
Here is the response from the editor in chief of the journal to Ullman's "Let’s have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy"
Response to: Let’s have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy
Gerald Weissmann, Editor-in-Chief
MR. ULLMAN IS CLEARLY A DEVOTEE of his art, and I respect his opinions. I’m afraid that I view Mr. Ullman’s references to the efficacy of homeopathy as modern versions of those Dr Holmes distrusted:
... cases reported by the Homoeopathic physicians...would for the most part be considered as wholly undeserving a place in any English, French, or America periodical of high standing if, instead of favoring the doctrine they were intended to support, they were brought forward to prove the efficacy of any common remedy administered by any common practitioner. There are occasional exceptions to this remark; but the general truth of it is rendered probable by the fact that these cases are always, or almost always, written with the single object of showing the efficacy of the medicine used, or the skill of the practitioner, and it is recognized as a general rule that such cases deserve very little confidence. Yet they may sound well enough, one at a time, to those who are not fully aware of the fallacies of medical evidence (1) .
REFERENCES
Holmes, O. H. (1892) "Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions." http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html. Accessed September 2006
(Thanks to RH)
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Homeopathy: Holmes, Hogwarts, and the Prince of Wales Another article from the FASEB that published Dana's letter and that he claims to show his odd take on the definition of the prefix "nano-" is accepted by the scientific community. Doesn't exactly show Dana Ullman in a particularly good light, but he is mentioned by name!
Dr Oliver Wendell Holmes, M.D. - seems to have been one of the first quackbusters.
Anything about quackery written by Gerald Weissmann is usually a great read, and the Holmes, Hogwarts... column is a corker.
He is well worth reading on "Intelligent Design" as well.
I am still amazed Peter Fisher agreed to write the foreword for Dullman's book. He has gone down in my estimation. I truly cannot imagine what powers of "Doublethink" Fisher must possess to defend homeopathy, and pat nitwits like Dullman on the back, while possessing an MRCP. Bizarre.
D ullman seems to have gone away.
I think the appropriate word is: BUSTED!
Sadly no response yet from LouiseZ suggesting what she expects the effects of Lycopodium 10M to be. But let's try and set up the Lycopodium 10M Challenge. It can't be before the new year, and we should allow enough time for LouiseZ to respond and/or other homeopaths to get involved, so let's pencil it in for 3pm on Saturday the 26th of January. I'll have ordered a "100 powder doses" set of Lycopodium 10M from Ainsworths just like LouiseZ challenged, collect it at 3pm and go to The Dover Castle pub just around the corner. I will then take the whole lot* in the presence of anyone who cares to be there. Any and all homeopaths are especially welcome: I'll even buy you a drink with my own money. They can even accompany me to Ainsworths to see for themselves that I really do buy genuine Lycopodium 10M, and satisfy themselves that I don't mishandle it or contaminate it or do anything which might cause its magical powers to dissipate.
I'll be sure to send invitations to some UK homeopaths. Stick it in diaries: 4th Saturday in January, 3pm, Ainsworths Pharmacy in London.
* I have no idea how much "100 powder doses" is. Obviously if it's a giant tubful then I won't get through it all, but I'll do my best and certainly be able to manage a good few heaped spoonfuls in the course of the afternoon.
-- Rob
D ullman seems is getting desperate:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3258326#post3258326
so;
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3259014#post3259014
I think Dullman must have run away.
Same old, same old.
Don't worry, he will come back spouting the same drivel about Gully being a homeopath, that the Chest paper showed homeopathy worked, that Oscillococcinum works for flu and that water is like a CD-ROM.
Then we will go and send the links where he was told multiple times that he was wrong.
ACH wrote about his mode of operation here:
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3902&sid=21f71e6dc700d656412ccd9fbba4a1fd
And, as if by magic, the bookwriter appeared - back on my Darwin post, "spouting the same drivel about Gully being a homeopath".
Wow. are you psychic, hcn?
Sadly, I am not psychic.
Brave Sir Dullman is just too predictable.
HCN:
Here's another dullman classic for your list:"Is it just a coincidence that silica has a tendency to store and to broadcast information?"
That post also provides an outing for our 'umble 'omeopath's favourite word.
"I’m glad that you knew all this, even though the best scientists have humility on what they don’t know."
Does our serial self-publicist use a different dictionary from the rest of us?
I don't know if anyone noticed this comment from Dullman in the Guardian thread:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2229492,00.html
"It is also hard not to notice that these people have an active network that alerts each other about possible pro-homeopathy articles on the web, and then, they swarm and seek to infect their vemon into the discussion."
But as was rather brilliantly pointed out in the 19, 2007 2:11 comment by Commander Keen:
"Hi Dana, you mean a network like the one you describe here?
http://otherhealth.com/showthread.php?t=9233 "
That's how he keeps cropping up in everything that mentions homeopathy. He's basically (a very watered down) Candyman.
Hey Mr. Duck and Duck-friends,
It is interesting how so many of you refer to my book as a "celebrity" book. It would help to read the book or just look at its Table of Contents (Dana Ullman's new book) to see how wrong you are. I hate to let TRUTH get in the way of your rants, but truth has a way of emerging.
You will find chapters on Literary Greats, Physicians and Scientists, Politicians, Corporate Leaders, Women's Rights Leaders, amongst others (and one of the longest chapters in the book is the one on Physicians and Scientists).
As for Mr. Duck's weak and ill-informed critique of my book, this weakness is evidenced by my online article on Charles Darwin and his homeopathic doctor. There is NO controversy amongst medical historians on WHO was the physician who Darwin most admired and who he obtained his greatest health benefits: Dr. James Manby Gully.
If you want to be directed to Darwin's writings on his experiences with Dr. Gully, read and judge for yourself: Dana Ullman's article about Darwin's doctor.
This link will also link you directly to Dr. Gully's book on "water-cure" and his statements about the importance of and the significant therapeutic benefits he and his patients received from homeopathic medicines.
Sorry if truth gets in the way of your belief. And because you cannot change the past or rewrite history, perhaps it is your beliefs have to evolve (you are for evolution, aren't you?).
It seems as though the LINK to my online article to Charles Darwin and his favorite physician, James Manby Gully, was a broken link. Try this one:
Dana's article on Darwin's homeopath
Oh Brave Sir Dana, you are a clueless git!
HCN, it seems that my solid evidence that Darwin's favorite doctor was a hydrotherapist and a homeopath really pisses you off. This evidence is derived from Dr. James Manby Gully's own book and is undeniable. Rather than to respond to it in any rational way, you instead choose to call me names.
The irony is that