MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

Anyone who has looked into the discussions around homeopathy for more than 10 minutes will have come across Dana Ullman (DU). Some 15 years ago, I had the pleasure to meet him in person during a conference in Boston. After the brief chat, I asked a UK homeopath who this bizarre person was. “Oh Dana!” he replied “Dana is alright.”

But is he? Let’s have a look at the evidence.

There are very few papers by DU listed in Medline, and most of these articles are simply opinion pieces. The opinions DU expresses there (or anywhere else) are usually not supported by good evidence; some of them are even outright dangerous. Here are a few quotes:

“…homeopathic care is cost effective…”

“…homeopathic medicines are effective…”

“…homeopathic medicine may play a useful role as an adjunctive and/or alternative therapy [for HIV infections]”

“[There are]…significant effects of homeopathic treatment in allergic patients.”

Occasionally, DU writes little essays full of utter nonsense, logical fallacies and falsehoods for HUFFPOST where he is nevertheless characterised in glowing terms: Dana Ullman, M.P.H. (Masters in Public Health, U.C. Berkeley), CCH (Certification in Classical Homeopathy) is “homeopathic.com” and is widely recognized as the foremost spokesperson for homeopathic medicine in the U.S.

Wikipedia, however, is more critical and cites the opinion of a judge who was presiding over a class action against a US homeopathic producer in which DU had been called as an expert witness: The Defendant presented the testimony of Gregory Dana Ullman who is a homeopathic practitioner. He outlined the theory of homeopathic treatment and presented his opinion as to the value and effectiveness of homeopathic remedies. The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted…Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.

The Encyclopedia of Americam Loons is even more poignant and describes DU as: A master of cognitive dissonance and memory bias, Ullman seems clinically unable to grasp the possibility that he may be wrong. Combined with a lack of understanding of science or medicine – and the possession of certain marketing skills – what we end up with is rather insidious.

Anyone who has debated with DU will have to concur with the claim that he fails to understand science or medicine. If you don’t believe me, please read his recent comments on the post about Prof Frass on this blog where he excels in producing one fallacy after the next (if he were on a mission to give homeopathy a bad name, he would be doing a sterling job!).

Despite all this abysmal ignorance, DU has one undisputed and outstanding talent: the knack of getting on people’s nerves and thus driving rational thinkers to distraction. In this way he even managed to be headlined as an ‘idiot‘!

I find it tempting to agree with the many experts who have called him an idiot, a moron or a laughing stock but, for now, I will resist that temptation. On the contrary, I want point out that he is much more cunning and clever than we give him credit for: after all, he runs a thriving business and lives off the nonsense he produces. To my mind, this is not idiotic; devious and unethical surely, but not idiotic nor laughable!

534 Responses to Dana Ullman, the ‘spokesperson’ for homeopathy

  • One of Dana Ullman’s major failings is that he religiously promotes any article he thinks promotes homeopathy, from supposedly basic science through to clinical studies, without actually reading them or even remotely comprehending them. He’s promoted articles which clearly point out the flaws in homeopathy or simply mock homeopathy as if they validate it. However, his latest gaffe of trying to claim that an article on a laboratory study of homeopathic plant extracts was published in Nature India, when it was patently obvious that it was just a brief report on an article published in the “Journal of Integrative Medicine”. The journal title is worrying enough! The article itself reported on a study which should never have been conducted, as the experimenters failed to understand the basic facts that they didn’t treat the “control” cell line with anything, let alone the 70% ethanol/30% water mix used to dilute the plant extracts out of existence in the “treatment”. It was patently obvious that Dana hadn’t actually read what was published on the Nature India website and hadn’t then actually read the paper itself. Having said that, I doubt he would have understood it.

    • Just to PROVE how full of shit Paul Morgan is, here’s what I posted at Twitter in reference to the article @ gene expression:
      “Homeopathic drugs modify gene expression in cancer cells – Nature India
      http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

      I didn’t say that this research was “published” in NATURE INDIA…I simply linked it because NATURE INDIA considered it worthy enough for their readers that I also thought it was worthy of the attention of others.

      But rather than provide any analysis of the research, Paul Morgan and his ilk attacked me personally and continue to repeat the non-issue that this research wasn’t actually published in NATURE INDIA (BFD!). There is NO denying that NATURE INDIA published information about THIS study…and THAT was newsworthy.

      To this day, Morgan still harps on my supposed error, though this ad hom is simply a clear reflection of who he is…and the absence of integrity and the absense of good scientific thinking.

      Further, he chooses the shoot the messenger, NOT the message.

      Still further, those of you who actually have a good scientific attitude will benefit from reading the below article which references numerous other studies that show that homeopathic medicines have an influence on gene expression:

      Marzotto M, Olioso D, Bellavite P. Gene expression and highly diluted molecules. Front Pharmacol. 2014; 5: 237. 2014 November 12. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2014.00237
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4228849/

      To date, not a single skeptic or pseudo-skeptic (like Morgan) has said anything about the Marzotto review. I’m not surprised. When you are bankrupt intellectually, you try to bring up other bullshit issues.

      The bottomline is that Paul Morgan is not alone in his efforts to emphasize ad homs on me and other homeopaths.

      • @DU
        I’ve taken the trouble to find and look at the original publication. Like all published scientific work it’s susceptible to criticism, and the authors’ rebuttals in the link you cite help to address some (but not all) of those raised.
         
        For me, the problem with the study is simple. You and other believers in homeopathic witchcraft tell us that ultra-high dilutions are ‘potentized’, i.e. they are stronger and more effctive than the mother extracts. So why do Marzotto et al write: “Expecting effects to diminish with increasing dilution, we focused to a pair-wise comparison…”? Why does the 30c dilution have almost no notable effect on expression of any genes? (Maximum changes were –0.41-fold — log2 scale — for one gene treated with the 30c, vs. –0.5- to –0.84-fold for the 2c preparation). Surely these results fly directly in the face of your homeopathic nonsense about the potency of dilutions?
         
        Why is the comparison for all the dilutions restricted only to the genes that were significantly affected at 2c? Anyone who does expression array work knows how easy it is to get spurious but consistent changes that are not necessarily indicative of any pharmacological effect. I don’t have the time or patience to look through the raw data, duly and correctly deposited with NCBI, but if anyone does they might check whether there were genes other than the 56 seen at 2c whose expression altered a lot vs. control at higher dilutions.
         
        Even on a brief reading, the study is far from well executed. Journal clubs (comprising scientists at all levels) all over the world meet weekly and devote themselves to discovering flaws in published science; usually with success. They learn this way how to avoid making similar errors in their own experimental designs. It’s a process that I suspect would make mincemeat of the study you regard so highly.

        • Hello Frank…and welcome to this discussion.

          To clarify, you are misunderstanding homeopathy if you think that homeopaths assume that a homeopathic medicine is “stronger” the more it undergoes dilution and succussion. For instance, crude doses of arsenic will have a much stronger effect on the body that the nanodoses used in homeopathy, but most of these effects will have negative influences on the body and mind. As a homeopathic medicine undergoes “potentization” (succussion with sequential dilution), it is better able to sift through cellular membranes and can influence an organism.

          What is interesting in this discussion is that some skeptics here are actually and FINALLY acknowledging that homeopathic nanodoses do have biological effects…though they are asserting that the effects are simply not strong enough, and yet, this is like a person who proves that he can fly, but then, a skeptic asserts that the person is not flying as fast or as high as a jet (“big deal”?). Clearly, such people are missing the point, but clearly, my references to research are beginning to have an impact here. Cool.

          • @DU
             
            Forget the polite and condescending ‘Hello and welcome’. I’m not really sure why I bothered joining the fray. I now share with many other posters the realization that you just don’t read what anyone posts; or if you do, you’re not equipped with enough grey matter to understand what you’ve read.
             
            Your references are indeed beginning to have an impact. They’re rubbish! Saying so politely obviously doesn’t get through to your thinking centres. Their impact is totally negative on anyone with serious knowledge of things biomedical.
             
            “As a homeopathic medicine undergoes “potentization” (succussion with sequential dilution), it is better able to sift through cellular membranes and can influence an organism.” What is it that is better able to “sift through cellular membranes” (!) Where did you learn biology? From a colouring book? If there’s no active substance left in, say a 30C dilution, then it must be the mysterious water memory that sifts through membranes. Except that in the paper you cite it has to be ethanol memory as well as water memory.
             
            “some skeptics here are actually and FINALLY acknowledging that homeopathic nanodoses do have biological effects…though they are asserting that the effects are simply not strong enough”. Horseshit with a dressing of larks vomit! Guy Chapman has already explained to you that “nano-” means only 10^–9-fold; nowhere near homeopathic doses which are typically dilutions vastly (absurdly) greater than 10 to the power minus 9. I am in no way FINALLY acknowledging that nanodoses have biological effects: I have personally worked for years with molecules that have biological effects at 1 nM concentrations. My (technical) questions in the post above remain perfectly valid, even in the context of your “sifting through membranes” crap. If the ultra-dilutions sift better through membranes, that’s precisely what they have to do to affect gene expression within the cell lines used in the Marzotto study. Therefore, according to your biologically, chemically and physically inept reasoning, the lower doses should produce a stronger response.
             
            On this blog I try to be patient, rational, and suffer fools gladly. Just recently you and one or two other posters seem to have turned foolishness into an art form.

          • Frank…you seem to be a virgin to homeopathy…and you’ve just PROVEN that it is YOU who has not read the dialogue, including the many references to LANGMUIR’s article that provided hard evidence via spectroscopy and PHOTOS of nanoparticles persisting in homeopathic solutions…at dose levels similar to which hormones and cell signaling agents operate…but you prefer to show your arrogance with large doses of ignorance. Sad…and typical of poor thinking and unscientific attitudes.

          • Dana, the British Homeopathic Association states, “The more stages of dilution and succussion the preparation has gone through, the more potent the medicine is – so a 30c medicine is more potent than a 6c medicine” (http://www.britishhomeopathic.org/what-is-homeopathy/the-medicines/).

            Obviously you believe otherwise. This should be trivially settled by reference to a simple experiment: find a homeopathic remedy that has a specific, objectively testable and repeatable clinical effect, and try different potencies in a randomised double-blinded trial. Except, of course, that no homeopathic remedy *has* a specific, objectively testable and repeatable effect.

            And this is one of the core problems the reality-based community has with homeopathy. Pretty much nothing is amenable to objective tests, so homeopaths treat even the most fundamental doctrines – such as whether dilution and twerking increases potency – as a matter of mere opinion, agreeing only in their quasi-religious conviction that homeopathy definitely “works”. Profound differences of opinion are handled by schism, like a two-bit cult. Or practitioners simply adopt mutually contradictory beliefs, such as offering “nosodes” as an alternative to vaccines and then claiming that tests which show these to be bogus are invalid because only individualised homeopathy is the True Homeopathy.

            This inevitably leads to the impression that homeopaths are deluded, stupid, charlatans, or some mix of all three.

            Science is not like homeopathy. If two groups of scientists have different views, they attempt to test them and either discard the incorrect one or form a new theory that encompasses all the observed facts.

            This happened with homeopathy: the idea that the use of inert remedies appeared to work because of “mind over matter” alone was once common, but now we know that homeopathic “remedies” appear to work because of a wide range of effects and confounders including expectation effects, natural course of disease, observer bias and so on. Scientific understanding of the causes of nonspecific effects is much more nuanced than it used to be.

            Homeopathic understanding, however, draws no distinction between objective truth and mere opinion. there’s no mechanism for systematically discarding incorrect ideas, data showing something to be wrong is simply ignored. That means homeopaths are not only likely to be wrong, but that they will inevitably become more wrong over time.

      • Any reasonable person would have referenced the study or at least the abstracting source, your transparent attempt to imbue it with with greater importance by referencing it through Nature where no peer review would take place was easily exposed.

        Marzotto et al is a good example of the dishonesty of homeopaths. If the ‘high dilutions’ in the title refer to real concentrations of chemicals this is hardly groundbreaking material and you are dishonest in promoting it, if it refers to zero concentrations as found in homeopathy then the title is dishonest.

        Paul Morgan may be insulting you by calling you out on this but that is not an ad hominem. Your lack of scientific knowledge and inability to deal with simple logic is matched with your misunderstanding of common phrases, not good attributes for someone who styles themselves as an author commenting on scientific issues.

      • It is so much fun watch these pseudo-skeptic attack me personally…and yet, NOT a SINGLE person has explained by NATURE INDIA considered this article that shows how homeopathic medicines influence gene expression:
        http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

        Needless to say, only pseudo-skeptics can say that there is no plausibility to homeopathy. To everyone else, it seems that one way that we can now explain how homeopathic medicines work is via up- and down-regulation of specific genes. I look forward to seeing a rich new field of nanopharmacology interface with modern gene research. A new era is upon us…and I’m glad that real skeptics will help us go forward here leaving behind the pseudo-skeptics that gather at this website.

        • 1) NATURE INDIA presumably considered this article because they want publicity.
          2) Only homeopaths say that there is plausibility to homeopathy.
          3) You look forward to seeing a rich new field of nanopharmacology interface with modern gene research…fine, but until compelling evidence is on the table, stop making a fool of yourself!

          • That’s it! NATURE INDIA only publishes references to research because it wants publicity!

            And yet, you have the chutzpah to ask for EVIDENCE from me when you prefer to draw your evidence from your backside???!! I’m glad that you are keeping a record of this conversation for posterity.

          • IF YOU SEE THIS FOR POSTERITY, YOU SHOULD START BEHAVING AS THOUGH YOU WERE NORMAL

          • Dana, I will acknowledge that you are the world expert in proctomancy, hence, for example, your ludicrous claims about Darwin. Now, when you’ve wiped the spittle off your monitor, perhaps you could get around to providing that evidence that like cures like, and describing what, exactly, would cause you to change your mind? After all, you wouldn’t want to be “close-minded” like those horrid skeptics, would you?

          • “NATURE INDIA presumably considered this article because they want publicity”

            I interpreted their reporting of the study as an “and in local news…” piece.

        • Dana, you accuse people of attacking you personally, after saying “Just to PROVE how full of shit Paul Morgan is, here’s what I posted at Twitter” – and you keep demanding that we explain to *your* satisfaction why a specific journal publishing a specific thing would not amount to total vindication of your entire argument, when I have explained to you several times why that specific thing does not, and cannot, validate the inverted house of cards that is the homeopathic belief system.

          Your belief system builds unevidenced assumption on unevidenced assumption on unevidenced assumption. Proving that some assumption at some point down the line may possibly be true for some very specific substances, does not make it true for the wider class of substances touted by homeopathists, and it absolutely does not validate all the other unevidenced assumptions – particularly those which are contradicted by well established principles of physics, chemistry, biology and physiology.

          SEE! THE CARPET HAS AN ALUMINIUM THREAD! AIRPLANES ARE MADE OF ALUMINIUM! IF YOU CAN’T PROVE THAT THE CARPET DOES NOT CONTAIN ALUMINIUM, THEN THE CARPET CAN FLY! SCIENCE!

        • Dana,

          Repeatedly posting the link to the Nature India page outlining the abstract of a paper doesn’t give the original greater credibility or earn it higher standing. It simply continues to demonstrate how little you care about reality. An abstract reference to an article doesn’t lend credence to the quality (or lack thereof) of the original paper, that is only gained by how the original paper adds to the body of knowledge of science. There is nothing positive or negative that can be attributed to the fact that Nature India posted an abstract summary on its website. It certainly doesn’t prove or disprove homeopathy.

          Whether you understand this or disagree with this point is totally irrelevant. Science adds greatly to the body of knowledge because it is a rigorous methodology that gets to the facts behind a hypothesis. When one fails to follow this rigorous methodology the credibility of the material generated is diminished. When the work, that fails to follow rigorous methodologies, is predicated on a hypothesis lacking in sound supporting evidence the results are diminished further. When the work further entails a premise that rejects widely recognized tenets of a sound evidence-based, factual body of knowledge (or discipline) the results are appropriately deemed to lack any value.

          The last bit about is oft stated as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, a fundamental truth supporters of homeopathy continually ignore and cry foul when their nonsense is rejected. When you can prove water has memory, upending the entire body of knowledge found in chemistry and physics (& laying claim to Noble prizes in both disciplines) then we might listen to what you have to say. Until that time, anything you put forward about homeopathy will be greeted with the ridicule and derision it warrants.

          • This is true, and for a science fan the clinching proof of homeopathy’s wrongness is probably its complete lack of explanatory power. All true scientific knowledge casts light on the nature of reality. Religious “truth” (including homeopathy) tells us nothing other than that people believe it.

            Homeopathy’s place in the category of pre-scientific belief is clear to me from the fact that the authority of “similia similibus curantur” is cited to Hippocrates, in the same way that pre-scientific doctors were taught Hippocrates and Galen through towards the close of the 19th Century. Why is Galen no longer the core medical text it once was? Because science showed his ideas to be largely wrong. Pasteur and Lister learned Galen and Hippocrates, subsequent generations learned the germ theory because after more than two millennia of continuous use the traditional texts were shown to be little more than philosophical musings, disconnected from any real insight into human physiology.

            The entire debate exists only because medical regulation was introduced when homeopathy was on the wane, so still entrenched in the beliefs of some of the old guard. Science swept away pretty much the entirety of pre-20th Century medical practice, but legislation preserved in aspic a set of practices that were current in the 1950s. If the NHS had been set up a decade later it is extremely unlikely it would have funded homeopathy at all, in my view, and actually the falsity of New Age beliefs is at last becoming apparent, hence the fact that it is almost extinct on the NHS now. Homeopaths have wasted half a century of everybody’s time trying to disprove the ability to walk on water. Unfortunately a lot of people drowned in the attempt.

        • “To everyone else…”

          Hmm… I think you may be speaking a foreign language.

          Google translate says:
          From : Homeopathese > “To everyone else”
          To : English > “To a small fraction of fringe group with a demonstrated inability to grok science or the scientific method”

          Sweet, what DU said is starting to make sense in that context.

      • Dude, the Marzotto review talks about nanomolar doses, not homeopathic doses. I know of no scientist who would say nanodoses have no effect.

        Regarding the Nature news, the original article uses a low threshold of significance for altered gene expression. Care to explain why ? Or do you refuse to criticize the studies that you cite ?

    • Just to further verify how much bias Edzard Ernst has, how much of an embarrassment he is to science and medicine, and to prove that he regularly shows evidence of “bad faith” ethically, here’s a summary of two studies on using homeopathic Arnica after carpal tunnel syndrome, one on which Ernst didn’t participate and one in which he did. Can you tell?

      A study of 37 patients who were recovering from carpal tunnel release surgery who were treated with either a placebo or Arnica 6X in tablet and Arnica ointment (5%). The study found that those patients given this homeopathic medicine had a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pain after two weeks when compared to patients given a placebo (p<.03), though there was no difference between the groups in pain after the first week nor no difference in grip strength or swelling (Jeffrey and Belcher, 2002).

      Another study tested Arnica 6C and 30C in the treatment of people with carpal tunnel syndrome who underwent hand surgery (Stevinson, Devaraj, Fountain-Barber, et al, 2003). This study of consisted of 64 adults who were given placebo, Arnica 6C, or Arnica 30C for seven days before the surgery and for 14 days afterwards. Although the researchers claim that the results did not find any difference between subjects given a homeopathic medicine or a placebo, this is not an accurate interpretation of this study. First of all, one of the primary outcome measures was pain after 4 days of surgery, and the study found that the patients, whether given a placebo or a homeopathic medicine, didn’t have any pain at this date. It is impossible for a homeopathic medicine to provide better relief than this result!

      It should also be noted that patients given Arnica 6C required 45% less post-operative analgesia than those patients given a placebo. This difference seems to be clinically relevant, but the researchers didn’t even comment of this obvious fact.

      Finally, it should be noted that no homeopaths recommend taking Arnica in any potency for 7 days prior to the surgery (usually one day at most is recommended). Further, homeopaths would not prescribe Arnica for 14 days after a surgery. More typically, homeopaths would prescribe Arnica or another indicated remedy for only as long as the patient experienced pain and discomfort, and homeopaths usually prescribe more frequent repetition at first and then taper the dose down.

      Jeffrey, S, and Belcher, H, Use of Arnica to Relieve Pain after Carpal-tunnel Release Surgery, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2002;8(2):66-68.

      Stevinson, C, Devaraj, VS, Fountain-Barber, A, Hawkins, S, Ernst, E, Homeopathic Arnica for Prevention of Pain and Bruising: Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial in Hand Surgery. J Roy Soc Med 2003;96:60-65.

      • First of all, one of the primary outcome measures was pain after 4 days of surgery, and the study found that the patients, whether given a placebo or a homeopathic medicine, didn’t have any pain at this date. It is impossible for a homeopathic medicine to provide better relief than this result!

        In other words, homeopathy and placebo have the same results, which is what honest researchers – including Prof. Ernst – have been saying for some 200 years.

      • So the homeopathy was used in a way that no homeopathy should be used. And yet it (apparently) worked. Do I see Mr Uncredible tying himself in rhetorical knots again? And citing n=37 studies as proof positive isn’t going to do you any favours either. Carry on, Dana. This is fun.

      • here’s a summary of two studies on using homeopathic Arnica after carpal tunnel syndrome, one on which Ernst didn’t participate and one in which he did. Can you tell?

        I’m guessing Prof Ernst was involved in the paper that lists “Ernst, E.” among its authors.

        Have you been drinking?

        Now, instead of posting some weird out-of-context post a long way up the thread, how about you deal with all the substantive questions that you abandoned.

      • Pop goes the weasel!

      • See LANCB

        Dana, the point about clinical trials is that you don’t simply count the number, you have to look at the quality. Also undeclared conflicts of interest, such as being a homeopath or being funded by Big Sugar.

        The scientific consensus includes all findings, even the ones you prefer. It finds that homeopathy doesn’t work.

        Sucks to be you.

      • you are a never-ending source of amazement! do you know the difference between herbal and homeopathic arnica? do you know that Jeffrey et al used “Homeopathic Arnica tablets and herbal Arnica ointment”. do you ever read or think before posting a comment? do you know anything at all about arnica? obviously not! let me inform you:
        Homeopathic Arnica is made from ‘Arnica Montana’, a perennial herbaceous plant, which grows abundantly in the Alps and many other mountain ranges worldwide. Homeopathic Arnica remedies must not be confused with herbal preparations of the same plant. The latter are poisonous, if taken by mouth, and therefore only for external use.
        Homeopathic Arnica products are highly diluted; therefore, they are non-toxic and for both external and internal administration. Homeopathic arnica is used mostly in ‘clinical homeopathy’; that is to say it is employed by clinicians and patients – it is readily available as an OTC-product – for ‘cuts and bruises’ without the need to account for the individual characteristics of the patient.
        Several clinical trials have tested whether homeopathic Arnica is better than placebo for healing injuries. Two independent systematic reviews evaluating the totality of this evidence have cast serious doubt on its effectiveness.
        THIS LITTLE PASSAGE IS FROM A DRAFT OF A BOOK WHICH I INTEND TO PUBLISH IN 2016. IT SEEMS THAT YOU SHOULD BUY IT.

      • @Dana: Why do you include the first of these studies? Arnica 6X is not homeopathic, it is a topical cream with active ingredients. I believe this has been pointed out to you before. It’s also published in a SCAM-specific journal, where negative results are as common as rocking horse shit.

        The conclusion of the second trial you cite is: “The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.” You choose to reinterpret this, because you say the authors are “biased”. Odd, that, because the learned Judge said precisely that of you: “The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.”

        Arnica at pharmacological doses works, arnica at homeopathic doses does not. This is a surprise to nobody. Homeopaths use a trial of a non-homeopathic dose of arnica, to claim legitimacy for the homeopathic dose. This is also a surprise to nobody. And you choose to reinterpret the results to give a more favourable outcome to homeopathy, based on which you call Prof. Ernst an “embarrassment” to science and medicine. This, again, is a surprise to nobody.

        I can only assume you wear bulletproof shoes, because otherwise you would have no feet left by now.

        • I assume you mean the 5% ointment is not homeopathic.

          It’s really funny, arnica ointment for external application was long known before Hahnemann, but suddenly it becomes a homeopathic remedy if made by homeopaths (or a anthroposophic remedy if made by a anthroposophic company)

          But then it should also work highly diluted and taken orally for the same symptoms (and several more).

          I wonder if that was just based on transferring “old knowledge” to homeopathic procedures or really based on provings. When I look at the symptoms for which arnica is used, it’s hard to imagine such a proving (or easy if you compare it with the day report of a casualty station at a beer festival)

          • “If you want to claim that like cures like, you have to prove it. You have to identify the property of matter that confers cure by symptomatic similarity, and demonstrate that it is sufficiently common as to cover all the materials used in homeopathy”

            Dear Mr. Guy (Tracey Doll #3):

            http://het.sagepub.com/content/29/7/561.abstract

            The review of molecular biologist, Roeland Van Wijk, is about of molecular mechanist about homeopathy and isopathy in low potency regime. In words of Van Wijk, PhD:

            “It is suggested that the discovery of Hahnemann’s Similia similibus curentur (‘let like be cured by like’) is still worthwhile in the 21st century. In this respect, the comparative research on the relation between postconditioning hormesis and the homeopathic Similia principle is an interesting challenge for both science and homeopathy.”

            Wow. Mr. Ernst never cites this research. Why? Humm… it’s a mistery asigned to the Scooby Doo squad… James Randi, where are yooouuuu?

          • Reply to Mr. Egger
            Claims starting with ‘it is suggested…’ are not research just speculation. Van Wijk did get a PhD in molecular biology but the moment he claimed that sugar and water has any different effect than sugar and water or that there is such an entity as biophotons he lost all credibility.

            By the way, can you think of any scientific law or theory that isn’t contradicted by homeopathy? Only one that comes to mind is General Relativity. No doubt we will soon abouthave an Ullman claiming that nanobolecules travel relativistically to gain mass.

          • Egger wibbled:

            “If you want to claim that like cures like, you have to prove it. You have to identify the property of matter that confers cure by symptomatic similarity, and demonstrate that it is sufficiently common as to cover all the materials used in homeopathy”

            Dear Mr. Guy (Tracey Doll #3):

            http://het.sagepub.com/content/29/7/561.abstract

            The review of molecular biologist, Roeland Van Wijk, is about of molecular mechanist about homeopathy and isopathy in low potency regime. In words of Van Wijk, PhD:

            “It is suggested that the discovery of Hahnemann’s Similia similibus curentur (‘let like be cured by like’) is still worthwhile in the 21st century. In this respect, the comparative research on the relation between postconditioning hormesis and the homeopathic Similia principle is an interesting challenge for both science and homeopathy.”

            Do you understand the difference between a statement of faith and robust evidence? It would appear not.

            Van Wijk references hormesis, which is a temporary inflexion in the dose-response curve observed in a minority of materials at doses; dose response returns to its usual exponential decay below this narrow band. This is completely inconsistent with the claims of homeopathy, which claims to be a universal or at least general property of matter and claims to persist (and increase, according to most homeopaths) indefinitely.

            Prof. Ernst probably doesn’t cite this research because it is rubbish. But thank you for alerting me to the entertaining work of Van Wijk, I found this one particularly amusing: The search for a biosensor as a witness of a human laying on of hands ritual. A peerless example of tooth-fairy science.

          • Reply to Acleron:

            In the paper of Van WIjk the sentence “it is suggested…” it’s mean in respect to the the importance of study of the molecular mechanisms of simila principle. The suggested doesn’t mean lack of facts or “just speculation”. Your respones is unthrue. In paper, Van Wijk shown the experimental set up:

            The question of relevance is now whether a postconditioning effect can be demonstrated at the molecular level of stress protein synthesis and changes in survival capacity. Within this framework, the homologous and heterologous postconditioning effect was studied on the stress-protein response… However, the Similia principle includes more than isopathy. In the homeopathic Similia principle,the main vehicles used to investigate this phenomenon are heterologous rather than homologous agents

            i.e. The Anisur Raman K. experiments using the homologous approach.

          • “By the way, can you think of any scientific law or theory that isn’t contradicted by homeopathy? Only one that comes to mind is General Relativity. No doubt we will soon abouthave an Ullman claiming that nanobolecules travel relativistically to gain mass.”

            If General Relativity contradicts the existence of nanoparticles in high dilutions. Show me the evidence!

            In Argentina, Dr in chemistry and nanotechnology, Alberto Luis D’Andrea writes favorauble review about of Chickramane paper (the text is avaliable only in spanish):

            http://infobiotecnologia.blogspot.com/2015/02/la-nanotecnologia-de-la-homeopatia.html

            In another papers…

          • Egger wibbled:

            “By the way, can you think of any scientific law or theory that isn’t contradicted by homeopathy? Only one that comes to mind is General Relativity. No doubt we will soon abouthave an Ullman claiming that nanobolecules travel relativistically to gain mass.”

            If General Relativity contradicts the existence of nanoparticles in high dilutions. Show me the evidence!

            I’ll be charitable and assume your lack of comprehension of the point is due to English not being your first language.

            Read the comments in this thread. It has been explained multiple times that even if Chikramane et. al. We’re true, which is debatable, it would be entirely irrelevant in demonstrating any plausible framework for homeopathy.

          • Oh really? So, now you’re admitting that the work that confirms the persistence of nanoparticles in homeopathic medicines, no matter how high the potency by Chikramane et. al is “irrelevent”? Because many of our own body’s hormones are known to operate at this nanodose level, you are now suggesting that the body’s hormones are “irrelevant.”

            BUSTED for your insanity. Thanx for confirming it.

            Deniers deny denial…and the plural of lies is NOT truth!

          • care to tell us which hormones act as nano-particles in out body, Dana?

          • … and if they do, what significance would this have to Chikramanes nanoparticles being the result of his sloppy work?

          • Thanx for asking THAT question, Edzard. This question verifies that you don’t seem to know the answer…and therefore, I will soon expect a BIG APOLOGY from you and your ilk. You can now become advocates of and appreciators of nanodoses in the body and the power of nanodoses of the RIGHT substance at the right time…

            Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10510983

            Interleukin-1 for T-cell clone proliferation: 2.5 x 10-18 (that’s to the negative 18th power!)
            Platelet-activing factor for decrease of luteinizing hormone somatostatin: 10-17
            β-endorphin to modulate natural killer cell activity: 10-18
            Tumor necrosis factor for synergistic action with various drugs: 10-14
            Leukotrienes for release of luteinizing hormone: 10-20

          • wonderful [particularly your deduction]
            BUT my question was not about nano-doses; it was about nano-particles.

          • Dana

            As you have been told repeatedly, quacky papers by your fellow quacks do not constitute evidence and only serve to further undermine your position.

          • Dana, I just watched this video of one of your lectures in 2014 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VXtJ6_-3as
            very good fun indeed!!! I recommend it to anyone commenting here.
            just one thing: why do you repeat the things that you have been told are wrong [like “the Swiss government conducted the largest study of homeopathy…” or “Darwin was keen on homeopathy…”]. isn’t that what one would call lying?

          • Just because you repeat lies does not make it true.

            The Swiss government did sponsor the most exhaustive review of basic sciences and clinical research on homeopathy, and I challenge you to cite a more comprehensive review.

            As for Darwin, WHO did he consider to be his favorite physician? Was it James Manby Gully, MD, a homeopath and hydrotherapy expert. Even though Darwin was a skeptic of homeopathy, what RESULTS did he get from Dr. Gully?

            I repeat: WHAT RESULTS DID HE GET FROM DR GULLY?

            Prior to seeing Dr. Gully, Darwin complained that he was unable to work 1 in 3 days, that he had fainting spells, spots before his eyes, body-wide boils, and constant nausea and vomiting, and he wrote to a cousin saying that he expected to die shortly (“going the way of all flesh”)…and how many years after that treatment in 1849 did he live? Would he have even lived long enough to get his book published in 1859? Curious minds want to know.

            Who’s lying now? Or who is spreading mis-informtion?

            Is it any wonder why you fit the name Darth Ernst so well?!

          • to be called a liar by you is truly an honour – it must mean that I am exceedingly honest. thanks!
            funny that you come back to your fantasy of a swiss government report. have you seen this?
            The report “Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs” is not a “Swiss report”

            Counterstatement to Shaw DM. The Swiss Report on homoeopathy: a case study of research misconduct. Swiss Med Wkly. 2012;142:w13594 ?
            will it stop you telling little porkies?
            as for the question of a ” a more comprehensive review” of homeopathy [it is difficult to find one that is less rigorous than your “swiss” document], I recommend the Australian report [http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02], but you will not like it and cite some homeopathic pseudoscientist who disagrees with its conclusions: “Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.”
            I am so glad that you pay me such distinction as to call me a liar. thanks again.

          • Are YOU actually saying that THIS review of homeopathic research was not funded by the Swiss government?

            Apology is due!

            And tell us ALL what was the minimum number of subjects that the Australian govt’s report deemed to be reasonable? And what is the minimum number that the BMJ (a real peer-review journal) deems to be reasonable? TELL US ALL!

            Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment.
            Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF.
            Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. Review.
            PMID: 16883077

          • obviously you are foaming from the mouth again! if not, you would have seen that I challenged you on your statement that the Swiss government CONDUCTED this review. I know no Australian government report; and I have no idea what you mean by minimum numbers; and I don’t know why you give us the name of the fraudulent review again – do you think it gets better, if you quote it a lot?

          • ‘do you think it gets better, if you quote it a lot?’

            Oh, I think that is part of the strategy, no?

          • @Edzard: I think Dana has now (finally) stopped publicly claiming that the “Swiss report” is a government validation of homeopathy, after the falsity of that statement and its authoritative rebuttal here, by Dr. Felix Gurtner.

            He does still claim I think that Darwin was only able to write Origin due to homeopathy. That claim is, of course, bullshit: not only was Darwin contemptuous of homeopathy (as you know), but he discarded the homeopath Gully and changed to another “water cure” doctor called Lane well before Origin was written – and on presenting to Lane his condition was at least as bad as it was when he first went to Gully, so homeopathy clearly did not work for him.

            He’s right, though, that radionics is the epitomy of quackery. Invoking Conan Doyle as a supporter is amusing. Presumably this also means Dana believes in fairies?

          • Who else was an advocate for Albert Abrams, MD? Isn’t it interesting that you neglected to mention that James Barr, MD (former President of the British Medical Association) and Upton Sinclair (highly respected investigative journalist)!

            And please show me where Darwin ever mentioned (after 1849) that he suffered from great fatigue (and inability to work 1 in 3 days), body-wide boils, or fainting spells. And once again, how long did he live after 1849? How long?

            And NO ONE denies that the Swiss funded the review of research on homeopathy. Whether the “government” endorsed homeopathy is not isn’t the point. Who funded this report?

          • Dana, sweaty!
            you said the Swiss government conducted it.

          • Who else was an advocate for Albert Abrams, MD? Isn’t it interesting that you neglected to mention that James Barr, MD (former President of the British Medical Association) and Upton Sinclair (highly respected investigative journalist)!

            Your logical fallacy is: appeal to authority.

            You invoked Conan Doyle as a supporter. Conan Doyle believed in the Cottingley fairies and spiritualism. And actually, the names of any supporters is pretty much irrelevant anyway as all kinds of bullshit was perceived as “science” in Victorian times. The real question is: who, today, seriously believes that radionics machines are anything other than nonsense?

            Obviously, as a homeopath, I would expect you to think that anything once believed to be right, is thus right, in all perpetuity, but that brings us right back to the purpose of science and the absence of any comparable method for self-correction within quasi-religious cults like homeopathy.

            And please show me where Darwin ever mentioned (after 1849) that he suffered from great fatigue (and inability to work 1 in 3 days), body-wide boils, or fainting spells. And once again, how long did he live after 1849? How long?

            Your logical fallacy is: distraction. By quote mining you seek to erect some facet of Darwin’s illness that was, uniquely, “cured” by Gully. In fact, there is no evidence that Gully’s treatment was judged more effective than that of Lane, by Darwin himself or any independent observer. Of course this was all a century and a half ago, back when homeopathy might still have been vaguely plausible to some people (unless they had read the excellent Homoeopath And Its Kindred Delusions), the comparison of water cure plus magic pixie dust with water cure alone is pretty much irrelevant since we now know that both the water cure and the magic pixie dust were medically equivalent, null interventions.

            And NO ONE denies that the Swiss funded the review of research on homeopathy. Whether the “government” endorsed homeopathy is not isn’t the point. Who funded this report?

            The “report” you claimed was a Swiss Government report was not, in fact, a Swiss Government report, as the link I provided makes clear. It was a separate document prepared by homeopathy advocates as part of their advocacy in the referendum which temporarily restored funding. The Swiss Government did not publish it, and it is unclear what part of it was funded by the Swiss Government as opposed to the homeopathy and alternative medicine advocacy bodies whose funding was claimed by the authors somehow not to be a conflict of interest.

            That you still try to pretend to have been in any way correct about this report, speaks volumes. I guess this is why you won’t ‘fess up and say what would change your mind on homeopathy. You are immune to correction, so unable to change your mind. Like homeopathy itself, it appears you are so convinced of your own rightness that you cannot even conceive of why you might need a mechanism for correcting errors.

          • The Swiss may have sponsored it, they may even have paid over money for it but they certainly didn’t get the most comprehensive review of research into homeopathy. They were presented a report where the conclusion was written first and the ‘evidence’ so tortured into compliance that it was roundly rejected by the Swiss.

          • I can show you what Darwin stated about people like you: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”

          • Edzard, Darwin was referring to you in that statement.

          • come on, you can do better than just nicking my little pleasantries.

          • I can show you what Darwin stated about people like you: “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”

            I think it is far to say that Dana has identified himself as a fanatic, and has demonstrated his foolishness time and time again in this discussion.

            In related news: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts — Bertrand Russell.

          • … and the untruth he gives in the first minute of his own preamble:

            “seemed to have autism… profound health improvement with homeopathic medicine”.

          • “or that there is such an entity as biophotons he lost all credibility.”

            Ha, ha. Really? Michael Cifra works is about of biophotons.

          • you seem to think that commenting lots of nonsense eventually makes sense – BUT YOU ARE WRONG!
            Lots of nonsense is just nonsense.

          • Tsk, tsk Dana! I don’t know how many times I’ve had to correct your ‘misunderstandings’ (shall we call them that?) over the ‘Swiss homeopathy report’, but it looks like I’ll need to refer you, once again, to my blog post, replete with links to the original source documents in case you want to check the veracity of what Sven and I say: That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report

          • As for Darwin, WHO did he consider to be his favorite physician? Was it James Manby Gully, MD, a homeopath and hydrotherapy expert. Even though Darwin was a skeptic of homeopathy, what RESULTS did he get from Dr. Gully?

            I repeat: WHAT RESULTS DID HE GET FROM DR GULLY?

            Prior to seeing Dr. Gully, Darwin complained that he was unable to work 1 in 3 days, that he had fainting spells, spots before his eyes, body-wide boils, and constant nausea and vomiting, and he wrote to a cousin saying that he expected to die shortly (“going the way of all flesh”)…and how many years after that treatment in 1849 did he live? Would he have even lived long enough to get his book published in 1859? Curious minds want to know.

            Seriously, Dana? We have to go through this yet again?

            Darwin had an unidentified chronic condition that waxed and waned. He sought treatment when it was particularly bad, and it would then, naturally, tend to improve. He got the same results after seeing Gully as he did nine years earlier when he sought treatment from his father, an orthodox physician: the symptoms receded temporarily, only to return later. Around 15 years after he had been treated by Gully, Darwim reported that he was still suffering the same symptoms as he had for the previous 25 years:

            Age 56-57. – For 25 years extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying, dying sensations or half-faint. & copious very palid urine. Now vomiting & every paroxys[m] of flatulence preceded by singing of ears, rocking, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots – All fatigues, specially reading, brings on these Head symptoms ??” (See The correspondence of Charles Darwin: Volume 13, 1865. Cambridge University Press, 1985, page 482)

            Gully was a hydropath who also dabbled in homoeopathy, mesmerism, clairvoyance and spiritualism. The book he wrote to publicise his practice was about the “water cure”, with homoeopathy only meriting mention in a footnote. He even wrote in the BMJ in 1861 that he had “never much cared for the doctrine of like cures like”. The rigmarole he put Darwin through included a 24-hour hydropathic regime, a change of diet, regular exercise, time out from Darwin’s work, the reduction of Darwin’s snuff intake to six pinches a week, and so on, in addition to a few sugar pills daily. Even if Gully’s treatments caused the improvement in Darwin’s symptoms, you cannot possibly establish that the sugar pills cased the improvement. And you can’t even establish that the treatments did cause the improvement.

            So, no cure, no way of establishing that whet improvement there was was anything more than regression to the mean, and even if you could establish this, no way of knowing which parts of Gully’s regime were responsible. Do you really regard this as good evidence for homoeopathy?

          • Do you really regard this as good evidence for homoeopathy?

            I think I know the answer to that.

            It doesn’t speak well of DU.

          • Mojo…ok, please PROVE your case. Please show us ALL where Darwin mentioned, after 1849, that he was having any of the following symptoms: body-wide boils, fainting spells, or spots before his eyes. Darwin kept a very detailed diary, and if he had THESE symptoms, he would have reported on them. While he did complain of nausea throughout his life, I could not find any reference to these other symptoms…and THESE other symptoms were the ones that led him to say that he was unable to work ONE in THREE days BEFORE he got treatment from Dr. Gully.

            As for Gully’s treatment results, Darwin got such rapid results from Gully that he called himself an “eating and walking machine” within EIGHT DAYS of homeopathic and hydropathic treatment.

            Prove your case OR shut the f… [obscene swear-word deleted by EE] up! You repeat your bullshit everywhere, and now I’m callling on you to prove it…and I’m betting that you can’t! Prove me wrong!

          • @Dana Ullman:

            The Swiss government did sponsor the most exhaustive review of basic sciences and clinical research on homeopathy

            What conclusion did the Swiss government come to about the evidence for homoeopathy when this report was submitted to them?

          • he will, of course, not answer – but if I remember correctly the government decided not to pay for homeopathy, a decision that was later over-turned by a referendum.

          • This report below was sponsored by the Swiss government, and NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DENY IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE A SUMMARY OF THIS SPONSORSHIP IS IN THE ABSTRACT:

            Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. Review.
            PMID: 16883077

            The Health Technology Assessment report on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy was compiled on behalf of the Swiss Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) within the framework of the ‘Program of Evaluation of Complementary Medicine (PEK)’.
            MATERIALS AND METHODS:
            Databases accessible by Internet were systematically searched, complemented by manual search and contacts with experts, and evaluated according to internal and external validity criteria.
            RESULTS:
            Many high-quality investigations of pre-clinical basic research proved homeopathic high-potencies inducing regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms. 20 of 22 systematic reviews detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy. In our estimation 5 studies yielded results indicating clear evidence for homeopathic therapy. The evaluation of 29 studies in the domain ‘Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/Allergic Reactions’ showed a positive overall result in favor of homeopathy. 6 out of 7 controlled studies were at least equivalent to conventional medical interventions. 8 out of 16 placebo-controlled studies were significant in favor of homeopathy. Swiss regulations grant a high degree of safety due to product and training requirements for homeopathic physicians. Applied properly, classical homeopathy has few side-effects and the use of high-potencies is free of toxic effects. A general health-economic statement about homeopathy cannot be made from the available data.
            CONCLUSION:
            Taking internal and external validity criteria into account, effectiveness of homeopathy can be supported by clinical evidence and professional and adequate application be regarded as safe. Reliable statements of cost-effectiveness are not available at the moment. External and model validity will have to be taken more strongly into consideration in future studies

          • why do you then claim it was CONDUCTED BY THE SWISS GOVERNMENT – do you not know the difference? perhaps not even that between a lie and the truth?

          • What is more interesting is your ignoring the truth once it is presented to you. Typical.

            Please tell us which report from a government sponsorship was more comprehensive?

            And it is remarkable that you haven’t seemed to have read (or understood) that report from Australia which asserted that unless a study had at least 150 subjects (!) and was repeated by two other independent parties, it was deemed to be “unreliable.” For the record, the BMJ deems 20 subjects to be the minimum necessary. This Australian report was never published in any peer-review journal, was it!? Nope.

            What do YOU do and say when confronted with the truth. Let’s see…

          • you don’t need to insist – we do believe you! and even a judge has certified it for all of us: “The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted…Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.”
            THE AUSTRALIAN REPORT IS AN OFFICIAL REPORT PAYED FOR BY THE AUSTRALIAN TAX PAYER. WHETHER YOU CALL THAT ‘GOVERNMENT SPONSORSHIP’ OR NOT IS MORE THAN IRRELEVANT.
            ” the BMJ deems 20 subjects to be the minimum necessary” YOU DO MAKE ME LAUGH! where does that come from? it’s either out of context or complete nonsense!

          • I have not yet found a single journalist or skeptic of homeopathy who actually reported on one vitally important fact from the Australian government’s report on homeopathy: this Australian report deemed ANY clinical trial to be “too small” if study was less than 150 subjects, and although there are numerous such trials showing beneficial results from homeopathic treatment, this Australian report also deemed that unless there were three studies of 150 subjects each and that each trial had to be conducted by three separate groups of researchers, the studies were considered to be “unreliable” (1).

            With these minimum requirements, very little conventional treatments would pass such muster.

            In fact, when the BMJ’s “Clinical Evidence” analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence, they reviewed approximately 3,000 treatments and found only 11% were found to be beneficial (2). It should be noted and emphasized that the BMJ deemed 20 subjects to be a more reasonable guideline (3). Therefore, if used the similar guidelines as the Australian government, only between 1% and 5% of medical treatments would be deemed to be “effective,” and virtually every surgical procedure would be consider “unproven.”

            It is embarrassing that you need to be schooled here and that you seem unaware of these facts. Embarrassing.

            (1) Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council Statement on Homeopathy and NHMRC Information Paper – Evidence on the effectiveness of homeopathy for treating health conditions, March 2015, p. 35: “For the purposes of the homeopathy overview, studies were considered to be of sufficient size where N>150 (i.e. those studies categorised as ‘medium’ sized or larger), as the outcomes were generally continuous outcomes.”http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/cam02

            (2) What conclusions have Clinical Evidence drawn about what works, what doesn’t based on randomised controlled trial evidence? BMJ, 2015.http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisation

            (3) Nuts, bolts, and tiny little screws: how Clinical Evidence works. BMJ, 2015http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/nuts-and-bolts.html

          • I always like to learn – but PLEASE not from you!!!
            all you just told me is that you again told a lie – the BMJ never said what you originally claimed.
            does homeopathy not have a cure for compulsive lying?

          • You said that the BMJ didn’t say what I asserted. I provided the reference. Please explain.

            And while you’re there, please show us ALL where the BMJ suggests that 150 subjects is the MINIMUM necessary for reliability, as the Australian report asserts. Where? Please provide a reference OR shut the f… [obscenity erased by EE] up!

            Calling me a liar doesn’t prove that you are telling the truth. It simply suggests that you’re not answering my questions and you’re hiding.

          • YOUR LIE:
            “For the record, the BMJ deems 20 subjects to be the minimum necessary.”
            THE TRUTH [I haven’t checked, but you cited it]:
            ” It should be noted and emphasized that the BMJ deemed 20 subjects to be a more reasonable guideline.”
            CAN YOU SPOT THE DIFFERENCE?
            DO YOU SEE THE MEANING OF THE DIFFERENCE?

          • “please show us ALL where the BMJ suggests that 150 subjects is the MINIMUM necessary for reliability, as the Australian report asserts. Where? Please provide a reference OR shut the f… [obscenity erased by EE] up!”
            you forget that I never made this claim [a tiny detail]

          • you forgot to tell us: WHY DO YOU CLAIM THE ‘SWISS REPORT’ WAS CONDUCTED BY THE SWISS GOVERNMENT?
            homeopathic truth? highly diluted and then shaken until it comes out upside down? serial fibbing instead of serial dilution?
            do let us know!

          • Hey, Dana. We know you have selective powers of observation and reasoning. So read again.

            @Dana Ullman: What conclusion did the Swiss government come to about the evidence for homoeopathy when this report was submitted to them?

            This report below was sponsored by the Swiss government, and NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DENY IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE A SUMMARY OF THIS SPONSORSHIP IS IN THE ABSTRACT:

            Mojo didn’t ask about sponsorship. Mojo asked about conclusions. Since you seem unable to understand this, I’ll find the answer for you:

            “When looking only at large studies with higher methodological quality, the effects compared to placebo remain statistically significant for phytotherapy and most conventional treatments, but not for homeopathy. This supports general efficacy for the first two, whereby the many positive results of smaller homeopathy studies can also be explained through biases, therefore an efficacy for homeopathy cannot be seen as proven.”

            A polite way of telling homeopaths to sod off, one feels.

          • Lenny, you are simply showing your ignorance of “internal validity” vs. “external validity.” Smaller studies allow the researchers to conduct homeopathy in the way it is practiced in real life…with individualization of treatment. Smaller studies commonly show efficacy of homeopathic treatment when conducted in a randomized and double-blind fashion. The larger studies typically don’t utlize individualization of treatment and are therefore biased against homeopathy.

            However, because you and most of the people here STILL don’t understand homeopathy, you commonly mischaracterize and misunderstand research.

            The people here are an embarrassment to good science.

          • ” Smaller studies commonly show efficacy of homeopathic treatment when conducted in a randomized and double-blind fashion.”
            THIS IS ANOTHER LIE!
            Dana, why don’t you claim that I don’t understand homeopathy? if not your argument deflates completely, doesn’t it?

          • Smaller studies show more variability yeah, but they’re still overall negative. You can of course cherry pick more into them though.

            The major question remains though: what would convince you that homeopathy doesn’t work ?

          • Dana said:
            ” … don’t utlize individualization of treatment and are therefore biased against homeopathy”

            Take a look at the recent meta-analysis of Mathie et al. about individualised homeopathy. When you use the link below, scroll down to page 10 and observe figure 1, the forest plot of the study results. This plot gives the OR as found by the reviewers together with the corresponding confidence interval.

            You may find that almost all (20 out of 22) CIs touch or stretch across the vertical line of OR = 1. This indicates, that the result found in the study was NOT found to be statistically significant. Please note carefully: These studies are the ones you prefer: small (n ranging from 3 (!) to 170 per protocol, averaging to somewhere around 65), test individualised homeopathy and were reviewed by someone surely not biased against homeopathy.

            You are wrong here, Mr. Ullman.

            http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/42/art%253A10.1186%252F2046-4053-3-142.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsystematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com%2Farticle%2F10.1186%2F2046-4053-3-142&token2=exp=1452012775~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F42%2Fart%25253A10.1186%25252F2046-4053-3-142.pdf*~hmac=6f8ca4d22002df38c2401d4c0706f4bd76488fce2c8d41f39f739ecf61e120fd

          • we can almost agree on one general point here: as soon as D U comments on his favourite subject, homeopathy, the truth is left very far behind.

          • Dullman said:

            This report below was sponsored by the Swiss government, and NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DENY IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE A SUMMARY OF THIS SPONSORSHIP IS IN THE ABSTRACT:

            Not that this is your original claim about the report (you are no stranger to bait-and-switch), but actually yes, The report “Homeopathy in healthcare: effectiveness, appropriateness, safety, costs” is not a “Swiss report”, according to Dr. Felix Gurtner of the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health.

            The report you bandied about is a revised version by homeopathy proponents and is not and never was a “health technology assessment”, a “Swiss Government report” or any of the other things you’ve claimed about it. What it was, of course, is a case study of research misconduct.

            It never ceases to amaze me the way you respond to categorical refutation of a claim, by doubling down. It is almost as if you care more about promoting homeopathy than you do about truth or accuracy.

          • In fact, when the BMJ’s “Clinical Evidence” analyzed common medical treatments to evaluate which are supported by sufficient reliable evidence, they reviewed approximately 3,000 treatments and found only 11% were found to be beneficial (2).

            Either Dullman has the intelligence of a demented parsnip or this moral monster has the intention to swindle people, with no regard for their safety. Given that he is able to read and write, or pay someone who is, I am concluding that the latter possibility is way beyond the reasonable and unreasonable doubt. How little regard does he have for the safety and well-being of his retarded and/or gullible victims if he just keeps repeating this disproven nonsense over and over and over ad nauseam?

          • demented parsnips don’t lie!

          • Thanx for confirming that is ALL you and your ilk has…and that’s is silly ad hominens…never answering the big and fundamental questions that I continually ask…and for which are never answered…thanx for this verification

          • NOW YOU ARE EXAGGERATING THE COMEDY A BIT: there are at least a dozen questions in this threat that you chose to not answer. and the ONLY obscenity that I had to erase was yours. do you ever question your own behaviour?

          • I find it fascinating to watch DU trying to refight his old battles while never even attempting to answer the most important questions. Guy has listed a load and I want to see him essay an answer to the question of why this robust, reliable and complete system of medicine vanishes into the statistical noise as soon as it is trialled.

            Even the most optimistic reading of the trial data is that the results are evanescent and clinically trivial. This alone is sufficient to damn homeopathy.

          • Reply to Simon Baker

            You ask the impossible. Ullman lives inside that statistical noise. He is unable to understand that anything exists outside it

          • demented parsnips don’t lie!

            It seems we have come to the same conclusion.

          • great minds…etc.

          • Thanx for confirming that is ALL you and your ilk has…and that’s is silly ad hominens…never answering the big and fundamental questions that I continually ask…and for which are never answered…thanx for this verification

            Could you please disclose your definition of ‘ad hominem’?

          • When a leading manufacturer of homeopathic products was asked how they are able to differentiate one product from another, they answered honestly: Only via the labels [we attach].

            Let’s get Dullman (and his ilk) properly into perspective. There are circa 7.4 billion people living on planet Earth. Dullman does not, and cannot, supply any independently verifiable empirical evidence that homeopathy cures any known illness, therefore, his endless diatribes represent only 13.5 nanopercent of the human race. Without this mandatory evidence, he is simply an impotent nanoparticle in the scheme of life.

          • @Dana Ullman:

            This report below was sponsored by the Swiss government, and NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CAN DENY IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE A SUMMARY OF THIS SPONSORSHIP IS IN THE ABSTRACT:

            Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice – summarized health technology assessment. Forsch Komplementmed. 2006;13 Suppl 2:19-29. Epub 2006 Jun 26. Review.

            Dana, last time I asked you this question you didn’t seem to understand it (you certainly didn’t manage to answer it), so try reading it a bit more carefully this time:

            After the report was submitted to the Swiss government, what conclusion did they come to about the evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy?

          • Mojo…ok, please PROVE your case. Please show us ALL where Darwin mentioned, after 1849, that he was having any of the following symptoms: body-wide boils, fainting spells, or spots before his eyes.

            Dana, it seems you have not read the quotation from Darwin I have already posted, in which he wrote, in 1865, that he was still suffering a wide range of symptoms:

            extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying, dying sensations or half-faint. & copious very palid urine. Now vomiting & every paroxys[m] of flatulence preceded by singing of ears, rocking, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots – All fatigues, specially reading, brings on these Head symptoms

            Note in particular the “dying sensations or half-faint” and “focus & black dots”. The only thing missing is the boils, and he is clearly stating that he is still suffering the same symptoms as he has for the last 25 years.

            And, in any case, you cannot establish that any improvement was the result of any particular aspect of Gully’s treatments, or indeed caused by Gully’s treatments at all. It’s a 166 year old N=1 anecdote. You got nothing.

          • Mojo said:

            Dana, last time I asked you this question you didn’t seem to understand it (you certainly didn’t manage to answer it), so try reading it a bit more carefully this time:

            After the report was submitted to the Swiss government, what conclusion did they come to about the evidence for the efficacy of homoeopathy?

            This has all been explained to Dana many times before. I have to assume he just cannot understand it: even though he wrote an article on it (The Swiss Government’s Remarkable Report on Homeopathic Medicine), he got much of it wrong. After his mistakes had been pointed out to him (especially in the blog post by Sven Rudloff and myself, That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report), he tried to correct some of his errors some 18 months later, but even then, got much of that wrong. I think that expecting him to understand anything is wishful thinking.

        • Hurray for homeopathy! Guy Chapman has actually declared that homeopathy works despite his extremely strange assertion that ARNICA 6X (somehow) is not “homeopathic.” Please cite a legitimate source for this assertion that ALL 6X medicines are not homeopathic! I’m waiting and waiting and waiting.

          ANYONE who says that homeopathic medicines are “only” 24X and higher is simply making up facts, though I assume that people here prefer to fabricate their own definitions to suit their own needs and worldview.

          For the record, homeopaths commonly prescribe 6X medicines, despite skeptics’ really stupid statements that they are not “homeopathic.”

          I wonder if skeptics will now finally be honest in saying that homeopathic 6X potencies ARE EFFECTIVE, as even confirmed by one of homeopathy’s leading antagonists (Ernst). However, I predict that everyone here will begin to re-spin their conclusions and (somehow) conclude again that there is “no” evidence that “anyi” homeopathic medicine has ever been found to be effective for any condition.

          Because LARGE numbers of homeopathic medicines sold are 6X, one of the leading skeptics of homeopathy has acknowledged that 6X medicines work effectively.

          • they used a HERBAL CREAM in this trial!!!

          • How truly embarrassing! You (!) conducted or participated in this study…and yet, not only is there no evidence that any l Arnica cream (or any other topical application) was used, you show your ignorance by asserting that an “herbal cream” was used.

            Some of your ilk here have asserted that Arnica 6X is an “herbal” remedy. Please cite one respected source of an HERBAL company that makes “Arnica 6X.” Just ONE!

            And further, it seems that no one here happened to notice the BIG DIFF between those patients given Arnica 6X and placebo for the number of “analgesic medications” given on Day 0 and Day 1. Can anyone tell me the difference here? Would you call this difference minor or significant?

            It is so revealing that Ernst chose to not mention the significant difference in analgesic medication OR swelling between Arnica 6X and placebo…and yet, Ernst showed his poor ethics by asserting that there was “no difference” in pain on DAY 4, even though ALL groups, including the placebo group, had NO pain on DAY 4 (you cannot get better than no pain). What a “convenient” way to compare groups and then claim that homeopathy did not “work”!

            Any objective observer here will see the unscientific attitude that Ernst and his ilk exhibit here…and this is typical and everyday for them.

          • I fail to follow your bizarre arguments – no idea what you are on about!

          • @Dana: You asked for a company that makes arnica and does not call it homeopathic. Here’s one link: http://www.avogel.co.uk/herbal-remedies/arnica-gel-atrogel/?gclid=CKruhK7phcoCFYoBwwodXD0PJw

            “Atrogel® Arnica gel is a herbal remedy used for pain relief in stiff muscles and joints
            Arnica is familiar to many people as a treatment for bruises. However, did you know that Arnica, used as a herbal remedy, can be used to relieve pain? Arnica, together with echinacea, must be amongst the herbal products you should have in your home.”

            How embarrassing for you.

          • “How truly embarrassing! You (!) conducted or participated in this study…and yet, not only is there no evidence that any l Arnica cream (or any other topical application) was used, you show your ignorance by asserting that an “herbal cream” was used. ”
            HOW ABOUT AN APPOLOGY DANA?

          • I did previously apologize…but I’ll do so again. YOUR study did not include any topicals…and I thank you for that.

            Your study DID verify the efficacy of Arnica 6C. Will YOU admit that? Will you explain why you didn’t acknowledge ANY benefits of Arnica 6C in the abstract. Oh, that’s because you are a hack…and have questionable ethics…as I have shown.

          • “Your study DID verify the efficacy of Arnica 6C. Will YOU admit that?” no, you are wrong!
            “…you are a hack…and have questionable ethics…” you have shown nothing except your profound ignorance.

          • conclude again that there is “no” evidence that “anyi” homeopathic medicine has ever been found to be effective for any condition.

            Because LARGE numbers of homeopathic medicines sold are 6X, one of the leading skeptics of homeopathy has acknowledged that 6X medicines work effectively.

            Exaggerating, misleading, flat-out lying: does that come naturally to you or did you have to go to school for that?

          • they used a HERBAL CREAM in this trial!!!

            My guess is that “homeopathic” isn’t what it used to be and that it has been redefined by His Ullmanship as whatever the homeoquack wishes it to be, on the condition it is not medicine ^_^

          • Bart, I call it “humpty-dumptathy“.

            Humpty-Dumptathy n: A field where all words are defined by the person selling the product, regardless of any obvious conflict with normal usage.

          • I see now where the problem may lie. Might Dana be afflicted with some type of memory disturbance. Every time he reads something, his memory seems to garble it and he writes something in reply that he changes or even makes up to fit his grandiose delusions of being the grand guardian of a wonderful wisdom. He uses many of the same words as he is replying to but turns the sentences and change facts to fit his fantasies.

          • @Dana: Why is it that on the very few occasions you choose to directly reply to a point, you do so by misrepresenting it and then adding your own spin? Oh, wait, we know why: “The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.”

            A 6X dilution contains active ingredient. The base cream also contains active ingredients. This is not homeopathy, it’s herbalism. Homeopathy consists of taking a substance with no objectively established connection to a condition, diluting it until there is none left, diluting it some more, evaporating the result from a sugar pill, and dropping it under the tongue.

            The core conceit of homeopathy is the doctrine of similars: “like cures like”. The symptoms of arnica toxicity include gastroenteritis and internal bleeding. You and I both know that the “law of similars” is bullshit, but at least follow the script, eh?

          • Dana Ullman on Tuesday 29 December 2015 at 18:29:

            A study of 37 patients who were recovering from carpal tunnel release surgery who were treated with either a placebo or Arnica 6X in tablet and Arnica ointment (5%).

            Dana Ullman on Thursday 31 December 2015 at 00:13:

            …and yet, not only is there no evidence that any l Arnica cream (or any other topical application) was used, you show your ignorance by asserting that an “herbal cream” was used.

            You really should try to remember what you have already posted.

          • Mojo, I erred when I wrote that this trial had ANY (!) reference to Arnica ointment (5%). See for yourself. There is NO reference in this article to the use of an Arnica topical treatment, except one reference to a DIFFERENT trial.

            See! I admitted an error in my previous communication.

            Now, who will admit that this study confirms considerable differences between Arnica 6C and placebo in swelling and analgesic medication usage? Who?

          • DU

            You said;

            A study of 37 patients who were recovering from carpal tunnel release surgery who were treated with either a placebo or Arnica 6X in tablet and Arnica ointment (5%). The study found that those patients given this homeopathic medicine had a statistically significant reduction in postoperative pain after two weeks when compared to patients given a placebo (p<.03), though there was no difference between the groups in pain after the first week nor no difference in grip strength or swelling (Jeffrey and Belcher, 2002).

            Then you said;

            Mojo, I erred when I wrote that this trial had ANY (!) reference to Arnica ointment (5%). See for yourself. There is NO reference in this article to the use of an Arnica topical treatment, except one reference to a DIFFERENT trial.

            The abstract says;

            “INTERVENTION: Homeopathic Arnica tablets and herbal Arnica ointment compared to placebos.”

            Please unpick the mangled syntax of your reply to Mojo and try again.

            The reference to herbal Arnica is not a side issue but a main intervention of the trial that you cited. Explain yourself!

            Also, for those of us who are not going to pay to read the article, but do you the favour of assuming you have done so, tell us clearly how many treatment groups there were and what they received. Of what did the placebos consist?

          • To clarify, the Ernst study (which was the study to which the vast majority of this discussion focused) did NOT use any ointment…and the 6C showed benefits in analgesic medication reduction and swelling reduction in the homeopathic group!

            The Arnica ointment was only used in the other study…and while some of you may not like this protocol, this is a very common use of Arnica…and I’m glad that we now all agree that this combination of internal and external application of Arnica is effective. Great.

            Onward.

          • “… the 6C showed benefits in analgesic medication reduction and swelling reduction in the homeopathic group ” THIS IS PURE FANTASY!
            “… we now all agree that this combination of internal and external application of Arnica is effective.” I DON’T THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THIS. WE WOULD NEED A LARGER STUDY, AND WE WOULD NEED A TRIAL TO DEFINE WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE THE HERBAL CREAM OF THE ORAL HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY.

          • And yet, the STANDARD practice of homeopaths (using internal and external applications) has been found to be beneficial according to YOU! Thanx Darth Ernst. You may not be a Jedi, but your Republic forces are helping to verify the efficacy of what homeopaths all over the world are doing. Thanx

          • Dana, you can stop trying to persuade us that you are an imbecil when it comes to reading/interpreting science. we got the point.

          • @Dana: Thank you for this valuable insight into how you find so many positive studies for homeopathy. Rewriting the conclusions based on your own delusional beliefs is not, however, actually scientifically valid. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

          • Hey, Dana, you forgot to tell us what kind of evidence would change your mind. You also forgot to provide any credible objective evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of cure.It would be good if you could arrange to only lose one argument at a time, and these are hanging. Thanks.

          • Dana, the screaming noise you make is totally disproportionate to the importance of what you are saying. I just lost 30 minutes of my life I shall never recover, by looking at the two arnica papers you have made such a song and dance about. For a start I can’t read Jeffrey & Belcher; the paper sits behind a paywall and I’m not going to spend money to read what is effectively a 3-arm trial with total N=37. Any outcome from such a small study is going to lead to a boring ‘further research is needed’ conclusion.
             
            The Stevinson et al paper, with Edzard Ernst as senior author, is freely available. It too is not going to excite any reader: 3 arms with just 20 patients in each arm. The study appears to have been done competently and with rigour. The results show no significant efficacy or adverse event differences between placebo and the two dilutions of arnica. I’d characterize the paper as a tiny addition to the scientifically robust literature investigating effects of homeopathy. It would be included in any rational meta-analysis.
             
            In a comment above you pick up that “patients given Arnica 6C required 45% less post-operative analgesia than those patients given a placebo”. These are median overall scores from 5 days: 10.0 vs. 14.5. But the ranges of analgesic tablets per patient per day were 2–46 (arnica 6C) and 2–44 (placebo). DUH! It’s thumpingly clear to anyone with a grasp of statistics that these are not remotely significant differences. You might just as well pick up that the patients treated with arnica 30C (more succussed therefore more potent, according to homeopathy pseudoscience) required 10% more postoperative analgesia than placebo-treated. Indeed, throughout most of the data there’s a trend in the direction that the arnica 30C group did slightly worse than either placebo or arnica 6C. How do you explain that? One patient on arnica 30C even “withdrew from the study before undergoing surgery because she believed that the tablets were causing her to feel ‘unhappy or low’.” If I were Dana anti-Ullman I’d bang on about that little gem for at least half a dozen comments, even though it’s irrelevant.
             
            By your (re-)definitions of homeopathy, all ‘allopathic’ medicines must in fact be homeopathic because they all involve some level of dilution. Almost all medicines are prepared as ‘mother solutions’ then diluted into formulation as tablets, fluids, ointments and so on. On that redefined basis, I have to accept that homeopathy works, because all effective medicines, diluted appropriately to the dose dispensed, can now be reclassified as homeopathic (Source: Ullman D., this blog). Now we have thus integrated homeopathy and medicine, all that remains is to put the ineffective treatments in the garbage pail. That’s easy: they’re the ones that have come from homeopathic ‘provings’, because such activities are the ultimate hilarity-inducing, dumb-brained pieces of nonsense imaginable.

          • Frank

            Just to be clear here, because I haven’t read the papers. That 45% difference was derived from Mr DU plucking a couple of numbers from the paper and doing his own arithmetic but NO ACTUAL STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTING.

            Oh, FFS. Sometimes I still get surprised.

            I am always struck by the fact that D U stands for Depleted Uranium, an extremely dense and toxic material that lies in pieces on a battlefield after the armies have left.

          • Frank

            One other thing. As you rightly point out, both those studies were low-powered with small n. But sugar retailers insist that homeopathy is so reliable and potent that they can legitimately charge people for it because of the dramatic effects in n=1 clinical situations.

            The absence of those dramatic effects in every trial ever run on homeopathy is the single most important feature of the trial literature and is a point that Mr Uranium Cranium will absolutely never address.

          • Mojo, I erred when I wrote that this trial had ANY (!) reference to Arnica ointment (5%). See for yourself.

            Dana, was the trial you were referring to not Jeffrey, S, and Belcher, H, Use of Arnica to Relieve Pain after Carpal-tunnel Release Surgery, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 2002;8(2):66-68? That’s the reference you provided at the end of the post you brought it up in. The only other Arnica trial that I can see mentioned here is the one in which Professor Ernst was involved, and he clearly wasn’t referring to that in the post to which you were replying.

          • @Frank Odds:

            For a start I can’t read Jeffrey & Belcher; the paper sits behind a paywall and I’m not going to spend money to read what is effectively a 3-arm trial with total N=37.

            Actually, the abstract of the paper refers to only two groups, one of which is described as “the Arnica-treated group”. See the results section.

          • I have seen the paper several years ago when it was first published; if I remember correctly the verum group received both the oral homeopathic and the topical herbal arnica.

          • @Mojo
            Thanks. My bad. I didn’t read the abstract properly. Two groups indeed, one receiving arnica 6X tablets plus arnica 5% ointment (info. Dullman above). Thus making the study seriously daft for the reasons already given by others above.

          • Which means it was a study of Arnica ointment plus pointless sugar pill vs no ointment or pointless sugar pill

            Really?

            The Uranium Cranium must have read it so we really need his input.

          • But ERNST’s own study did NOT use any topical applications, and HIS research confirms the efficacy of Arnica 6C.

            Thanx for confirming that even devout skeptics can no longer acknowledge the efficacy of what homeopaths do…

          • you are wrong – go and learn some basic reading skills of clinical trial reports.

          • Dana

            1. Please say explicitly how Ernst’s study confirms efficacy of homeopathic Arnica. You highlighted it as an example of bad practice.

            2. Are you really co-opting 5% Arnica ointment as being homeopathic?

            3. I have asked you more than once to give specific detail of the Jeffrey and Belcher study for those of us who have not paid to read it. Please answer those specific questions to show that, a. You really have read the paper, b. You understand it and c. Its content matches your claims.

            So far, the best you have come up with is a p=0.03 out of an unspecified, but seemingly large number of multiple comparisons and what looks like a single claim for improvement in one parameter by 45% in data that has been described as being obviously non-significant.

            Your blustering is entertaining, but I’d be far more interested to see you calm down and deal with the issues.

          • I would have long banned DU, if he did not make me laugh so much – comedy gold, perhaps even comedy platinum!

          • Comedy uranium, surely!

          • Darth Ernst’s frequent responses to my summary of HIS research are ALL non-answers…and are simply hand-waving and ad hominen attacks, proving that he KNOWS he is wrong but doesn’t have the balls (or brains or HEART) to admit it.

            Did your research show a difference between ARNICA 6C and placebo in swelling and in analgesic medication usage (especially on day 0 and day 1)?

            I now insist upon an APOLOGY from you! You got one from me when I errored. Will YOU step-up? Prove me wrong…and prove that you don’t have “bad faith” and questionable ethics in reporting on your own research. In the meantime, I will continue to call a spade a space and will assert that a leading antagonist to homeopathy has questionable ethics in his reporting on his own research…and in his simple honesty.

            This time, I hope you will be SPECIFIC in what ways I am wrong about YOUR reporting. Rather than the hand-waving in simply saying “Dana is wrong.” Show me where and how…and show us ALL! I won’t hold my breath…

          • NO, YOU ARE WRONG READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE AND LEARN STATS, THEN COME BACK.

          • Hey Darth…that’s a typical response from you. You say that I’m “wrong” but don’t say how or why. Please tell us all what the difference was between patients taking ARNICA 6C on day 0 and day 1. We are still waiting! And how about the difference between Arnica 6C and placebo for swelling too. Still waiting…

            As for some of the other responders…Ernst’s trial did not use any topical applications, so there was no “herbal” usage of Arnica in Ernst’s trial…and hand-waving and misdirection gets you nowhere.

            Repeating lies does not create truth. Sorry…I know you try hard to cover your lies…but you’ve been called-out for them many times…

          • the differences were not statistically significant which means that, for all intents and purposes, they were due to coincidence and not likely caused by arnica or anything else.

          • Bullshit! Even Elephant-shit…and even worse, brontosaurus-shit (older and more pertrified!).

            You didn’t run the numbers! According to your TABLE 5 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539394/) the difference in medication usage on Day 1 in the Arnica 6C group was 2.5 and the placebo group was at 6.0! Even if you were to compare the two groups up until Day 2, you’d find statistical significance…but you and your team chose to only evaluate results at Day 4, where ALL groups were not using any medication (how convenient).

            For the record, what statistical significance did you and your team get for the first TWO days of medication usage? Tell us all!

            We (the honest ones) are all still waiting for your apology, though you prefer to imitate Donald Trump and prefer to double down on your lies.

            Try a different approach.

          • WRONG AGAIN – the differences look fairly big but, because of the large standard deviations, they are not significant. we did the stats. stop foaming from the mouth – you are more funny that way.

          • What are the numbers then?

            And for the record, I continue to ask you for specifics on how I am wrong, and to date, you’ve not provided any such specifics except just saying I’m wrong…not a scintilla of real evidence. Just as I predicted.

            As for you, you’re not funny at all. Just sad and sick. My sincere condolences.

          • I am not in the habit of learning the ‘numbers’, as you call them, of a trial by heart. the trial was conducted some 15 years ago. get real!
            but I do know that there were NO significant differences of any of the primary outcome measures at any time point.
            I know I am not funny – nobody can compete with you! clown of homeopathy.

          • Thanx for confirming that you do not have the numbers…and that you prefer to speak and write without real knowledge or evidence.

            Your bias is showing (and glaring).

          • all the important ‘numbers’ are in my publication – that’s what we call decent science.
            it is you who has no evidence – but you are excused; you make it up in clownery!
            you have just advanced to the rank of my favourite comedian; please don’t go.

          • Dana

            We seem to have fallen through the Looking Glass here. You are trying to argue with the author of a paper that you introduced as a bad study because it didn’t show what you wanted it to. Now you’re trying to impute statistical significance when you do not have access to the data and when you’ve been told it didn’t exist by the author.

            And you still ignore all the other issues that have been raised.

          • Dullman said:

            Thanx for confirming that you do not have the numbers…and that you prefer to speak and write without real knowledge or evidence.

            Except, as you know perfectly well, that’s not what Edzard said. He said he does not have them to hand.

            You have form when it comes to lying about what people said, don’t you? For example, you lied when you said Florence Nightingale supported homeopathy – actually she held it in the deepest contempt, suitable only for the “reckless physicking of amateur females”. And you lied about Darwin only writing Origin because of homeopathy. He held Gully’s homeopathic beliefs up to ridicule and switched to another water-cure doctor who did not use homeopathy, long before Origin was written. When he first saw Dr. Lane, his condition was as bad as it had ever been. Gully’s homeopathy did bugger all. Actually Gully’s water cure also probably did bugger all, it was a classic case of regression to the mean and natural course of disease, which is of course precisely the mechanism by which fraudulent “cures” like homeopathy so often seem to work.

            As to the numbers, the calculation of standard deviations and P-values is a basic component of a study like Edzard’s, and the figures were peer-reviewed. You are trying to replace a statistically robust figure calculated with standardised metrics used in all comparable situations, with “SURE LOOKS BIG TO ME!”, which is how pseudoscience works. So all you’ve actually done is reveal your ignorance of, and contempt for, accepted scientific methods.

          • btw – I looked up DARTH. for those with a mental age beyond DU’s, he is a STAR WARS character.
            thanks again DU for being such a clown.

          • Thanx for explaining why I call you Darth. I’m sure that everyone here needed your explanation (they are that daft)…but thanx for verifying that anyway…

            Now, everyone, back in line…and obey the leader of the Republic…and arm the Death Star immediately, the Rebel forces are not going away.

          • it seems to me that they made a mistake when they bought you long trousers, DANA.

          • Oh, quit yer bluffing, you shouty deflector.

            Let’s say (for exercise) if your trivial argument over this arnica detail irrelevance were correct – is that all you have? Does that then validate your whole case for the efficacy of homeopathy in totality? Do you not expect anybody here to see through that? Does it obviate your avoidance of backing up your multiple called-out statements here? And your wilful misrepresentation of the multiple articles you regurgitate?

            Thought you were ‘gone’, anyway? It doesn’t work – you’re busted; suggest you stick to your church of the gullible.

          • I think that currently he merely wants to show that he is the ‘honest guy’ and I am the baddy

          • Dana, everybody here probably knows why you used the word “darth” but when you look at the provenance of the Sith lords – religious zealots committed to controlling and remodelling the universe in their own image – there is only one candidate here. And happily a recent meme has provided us with a putative Sith who is nonetheless comically incompetent.

            Step forward Jar Jar Ullman!

          • Dullman said:

            that’s a typical response from you. You say that I’m “wrong” but don’t say how or why

            Dana, the burden of proof lies with you here, since you are claiming that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed paper are incorrect and looking to substitute your own; your comments made it clear that you lack the basic understanding to appreciate why you are wrong and in any case for you to understand the explanation would require you to understand and accept science that says homeopathy is bollocks, which you have consistently shown yourself unwilling and probably unable unable to do.

          • Dullman said:

            Darth Ernst’s frequent responses to my summary of HIS research are ALL non-answers

            No, Dana, your summary was a non-summary. It was pure motivated reasoning – as pretty much everything you say is, because, as the Judge pointed out:

            The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.

            A dispassionate review of the facts around homeopathy leads directly to the scientific consensus view:

            There is no reason to suppose it should work, as like does not cure like. The basis on which this dogma was asserted has been refuted for over a century.
            There is no way it can work, Hahnemann’s belief in the infinite divisibility of matter has also been refuted for over a century and the various explanations offered from time to time to excuse the obvious incorrectness of the doctrine of infinitesimals do not even scratch the surface of the long chain of objectively testable steps that would have to be established in order to make homeopathy even remotely plausible.
            There is no proof it does work as not one single authenticated case has been presented which is objectively proven to be incompatible with the null hypothesis.

            Science is not threatened by homeopathy. It has no dog in the fight. On the other hand, science does not accept articles of faith as if they were fact.

            If you want to claim that like cures like, you have to prove it. You have to identify the property of matter that confers cure by symptomatic similarity, and demonstrate that it is sufficiently common as to cover all the materials used in homeopathy (noting in passing that not one has ever been discarded (and I’m also not aware of any proving that has failed to yield a symptom picture). You have to show that it persists through serial dilution, that it is transferrable to a sugar pill by evaporation, that it survives the enzymes of the mouth, that it crosses the cellular barrier into the bloodstream, and that it is bioavailable at the affected organ. You have to show all those things because those are the minimum required to establish there is even something worth looking at.

            I might claim that coloured light cures cancer, and do so by manipulating the body’s energy fields. The inevitable response would be: Oh yeah? How? And the crucial bit you keep missing is that the how has to be a complete, coherent explanation that is consistent with other known facts. It has to be, in short, not bullshit.

            The scientific explanation of homeopathy is complete, coherent, consistent with other science, and accounts for all known observations. You want to replace that with your own explanation, it has to meet the same standards.

            Or, you could do what I have been telling you for a while now. Give up the pretence to be medicine, which puts you in the field of science, where not only do you not understand the rules, you can’t even read the language in which they are written, and re-cast it as religion.

            Homeopathy is a perfect fit as a religion. It has its sacred texts, which are considered ineffably true, it has its gurus, it has its self-referential world view.

            It worked for scientology, it can work for homeopathy. But pretend it’s medicine or science, and you will not only lose the argument, you will get laughed out of the room.

          • To clarify, the Ernst study (which was the study to which the vast majority of this discussion focused) did NOT use any ointment…and the 6C showed benefits in analgesic medication reduction and swelling reduction in the homeopathic group!

            The Arnica ointment was only used in the other study…

            Dana, Professor Ernst wrote:

            they used a HERBAL CREAM in this trial!!!

            A little grammar lesson: the word “they” is the third person. This means that Professor Ernst was referring to a paper written by a person or persons other than himself. If he had been referring to his own paper he would have used the first person, i.e. “I” or “we”. You then claimed that Professor Ernst had “conducted or participated in this study”, and claimed that no Arnica cream was used. When I pointed out that you yourself had written that it had used “Arnica ointment (5%)”, quoting what you had actually written so that there could be no doubt which paper had been referred to, you claimed that “there is NO reference in this article to the use of an Arnica topical treatment”, despite the fact that even the abstract clearly states that it used “herbal Arnica ointment”.

            Given the above, which includes your gross misunderstanding of a clearly written 8 word sentence, why should we trust your highly idiosyncratic “interpretation” of Professor Ernst’s paper?

            The Arnica ointment was only used in the other study…and while some of you may not like this protocol, this is a very common use of Arnica…and I’m glad that we now all agree that this combination of internal and external application of Arnica is effective. Great.

            Dana, the fact that a herbal ointment was used in addition to the magic sugar pills means that the study cannot be used to make any conclusion about the efficacy of homoeopathy (note the “conclusions” section of the abstract, which merely notes that “The role of homeopathic and herbal agents for recovery after surgery merits further investigation” – no conclusion of efficacy there).

          • Guy Chapman said:

            @Dana: … Rewriting the conclusions based on your own delusional beliefs is not, however, actually scientifically valid. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

            Don’t be too hard on him, Guy. I suspect Dana’s just been mimicking what the Swiss homeopathy supporters did when they looked at some of the evidence for homeopathy: That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report

          • As homeopathy is to medicine, so Dana is to logic. Shaking down small-scale studies to wheedle something out of the noise and claiming significance when statistics state otherwise does not prove the efficacy of homeopathy. It only proves that you are an idiot. And demonstrates so to all who witness it. Dana. Every time you stand proudly atop one of the houses of cards that are your arguments, you just make yourself look foolish.

            As ever, the soldiers parade past and it is Private Ullman who knows he’s the only one marching in time.

          • @Simon Baker:

            Dana

            We seem to have fallen through the Looking Glass here. You are trying to argue with the author of a paper that you introduced as a bad study because it didn’t show what you wanted it to. Now you’re trying to impute statistical significance when you do not have access to the data and when you’ve been told it didn’t exist by the author.

            See also Lessons in quote-mining #1

          • See also Lessons in quote-mining #1

            In George Orwell’s 1984 he described the epitome of Newspeak as being the attainment of duckspeaking where language is stripped of meaning and persists only as a reflexive noise created by mere reflex in the larynx. “Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all.”

            By a happy coincidence of language I think we witness the use of quackspeak in the Internet outpourings of Dana Ullman. One infers that the coordination of his typing occurs within his brachial plexus or somewhere similarly far-removed from the centres of cognition. His posts merely react and he keeps no track of the holes and ruts into which he has driven his ideas.

          • I would have long banned DU, if he did not make me laugh so much – comedy gold, perhaps even comedy platinum!

            I would certainly not ban him. He is an idiot, a patented liar or both, but even if he is spouting utter nonsense with no discernible basis in any form of non-fiction, however creative, I think the reading public has or at least should have the right and opportunity to see with its own eyes that Dana Ullman is remarkable only because of the stellar level of idiocy he achieves in the nonsense he spouts.

          • ““Atrogel® Arnica gel is a herbal remedy used for pain relief in stiff muscles and joints”

            Well, Mr. Guy Chapman. The product is serially diluted? No. The product is handmade based on the Oficial Pharmacopea? No. The product is not low potency homeopathy. 6X is technically homeopathic, the Darth Ernst (great Ullman, this nick is appropiate). In the letter of editor in Int J Cl Prac, 2013, 67, Dr. Ernst and Posadzki publish:

            “As well-known proponents of homeopathy, Walach et al. know, of course, that not all homeopathic remedies are highly dilute.

            On 2010, the U.K. lobby campaign 10:23 sponsored by Sense About Science (reminds the logotype in this blog “Kee libel… bla, bla”) “putting” the next slogan: “Homeopathy: there’s nothing in it”. In the section “What is homeopathy?”:

            “One drop of this centesimal added to another ninety-nine drops of water produces a two-centesimal, written as 2C.”

            In the principle the UK lobby group uses the 2C dilution as an example, but in the rest of the marketing:

            ” Homeopathic remedies are commonly sold at 6C”

            6C is equal to 12X.

            Dr. Ernst, I remember: If in homeopathy “there’s nothing in it” vis a vis “remedies are commonly sold at 6C”? How does explain the evident contradiction? The Tracey cartel of Tobbaco, GMO’s and Coca Cola know´s this detail? Please, only ask me with yes or no.

            This is a non-sense. Diamond comedy supported by pseudoskeptiks.

          • The Guy Chapman theocrazzzy:

            “A 6X dilution contains active ingredient. The base cream also contains active ingredients. This is not homeopathy, it’s herbalism.”

            Wow, wow, wow. In 10:23 campaign:
            http://www.1023.org.uk/what-is-homeopathy.php

            “Homeopathic remedies are commonly sold at 6C”

            Compare the contradictions of pseudoskeptiks. Full quality diamond comedy. I need save in image some comments of this web site. I need for a posts. Thank you!

          • are you alright? do you need medical help? you sate one stupidity after the next, and I wonder whether you are quite sane.
            just to clarify one issue: as prof of complementary medicine, I felt I had to publish also in alt med journals – but the vast majority of my > 1000 articles were published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals like bmj, lancet, jama, annals int med, etc.

          • The 10^23 calculations are based on one mole of starting material. As homeopaths don’t start with anything near that amount and already dilute it with sugar before water gets anywhere near it then the amount of material as a concentration is already very small. The Cnn or Xnn nonsense then relies on homeopaths making accurate dilutions. The Korsakovian process just removes all of the liquid and assumes that 1% is left, in a biochemistry laboratory we call this washing. In the vast majority of commercially prepared product, the homeopaths then add one drop of their final dilution to one pill in a vial of sugar pills. All the pills bar one will literally have no starting material. The remaining pill will have such a minimal amount that saying it contains nothing is pretty accurate.

            So regardless of what is said, we can safely conclude there is nothing in homeopathy. Trying to claim that any serial dilution equates to homeopathy is just nonsense.

            There is no need to even look at the silly process, the product shows no reliable, robust, reproducible evidence it does anything. Cherry picking and torturing the data is all that any homeopath can do. Wake up, science has moved on from such chicanery.

          • Mr. Egger said:

            On [sic] 2010, the U.K. lobby campaign 10:23 sponsored by Sense About Science

            LOL! Can you provide even a jot of evidence for that?

          • he will have to make some up, I suppose.

          • LOOOOOL! Mr. Acleron, really?

            If the 10E23 are based on one mole of starting material. In general, homeopaths start with mother tinctures. In centesimal and decimal dilutions the mother tincuture is used as solute. Let’s my explain to the Nightingale lobby friend of Alan Henness!

            Na = 6.02214… E23

            Ok?

            Sixth centesimal dilution is equal to 1 x 12^12 or 1 E12. Correct?

            Well, if product is sold in solution if possible detect the solute via HPLC or Raman Spectroscopy or Dielectric Dispersion

            “In the vast majority of commercially prepared product, the homeopaths then add one drop of their final dilution to one pill in a vial of sugar pills. “

            In alll around of the world? Well, please feel free to share the name of paper or informe with support your sentence. Facts, not smoke. Ok?

            “All the pills bar one will literally have no starting material. The remaining pill will have such a minimal amount that saying it contains nothing is pretty accurate.”

            Well, in this case…
            http://www.eurekaselect.com/128776/article

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23872840

            “So regardless of what is said, we can safely conclude there is nothing in homeopathy. Trying to claim that any serial dilution equates to homeopathy is just nonsense.”

            Meec! Error 404 by Acleron. In some paper of Ernst, he reports studies using low potency homeopathy. Poikvein. In Complementary treatment of varicose veins – a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, the paper cleary study a homeopathic product. In the paper:

            The latter consisted of 20 drops t.i.d. of Poikivenv (100 ml contain: Meliotus offic. D1 20ml, Aesculus D1 20ml, Hamamelis D1 20ml, Carduus marianus 01 10ml, Arnica MT 5ml, Lycopodium 04 10ml, Lachesis D4 10ml, Rutin D1 5ml). This medication was continued for 24 d

            In conclusion, our results suggest that this randomized, double-blind, controlled trial demonstrates that a combined homoeopathic medication is effective in treating the symptoms and signs of primary varicose veins

            I’m sorry Acleron. Mr. Acleron: Which is the concentration of each drop in Poikvein?

          • Second round. Fight!

            “the product shows no reliable, robust, reproducible evidence it does anything. Cherry picking and torturing the data is all that any homeopath can do.”

            Wow. Your minsunderstanding of basic facts it’s incredible. The “torturing data” sentence needs proofs not opinions. Well,

            http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1561-31942015000500005

            Sedation with medication and homeopathy for electroencephalographic study in children

            In this work, the researchers used 6C potency made with plant.

            Conclusion: passionflower is an effective and safe homeopathic medication to sedate young children; it is a therapeutic alternative to perform EEG to diagnose central nervous system diseases.

            Comparative.

            In this trial the researchers includes 100 little patients, 50 with homeopathy vs 50 with “allopathic” medication. In the Ernst trial of varicose veins, he includes 61 patients.

          • LOL! Can you provide even a jot of evidence for that?

            Round three. Fight!

            First: Feel free to response my basic question.

            The Guy Chapman theocrazzzy:

            “A 6X dilution contains active ingredient. The base cream also contains active ingredients. This is not homeopathy, it’s herbalism.”

            In 10:23 campaign:
            http://www.1023.org.uk/what-is-homeopathy.php

            “Homeopathic remedies are commonly sold at 6C”

            Compare the contradictions of pseudoskeptiks.

            Ultra combo! Egger wins. Acleron lose. Perfect!

        • “are you alright? do you need medical help? you sate one stupidity after the next, and I wonder whether you are quite sane.

          Great! The “attacked man by Woo”, now attack’s me without response my clear question. Why Mr. Ernst? Maybe, needs read some Michael Foucault books and the power of some charismatics figures as you.

          • in your delusional ramblings, I cannot see a question that I have not answered. what is it?

          • “in your delusional ramblings, I cannot see a question that I have not answered. what is it?”

            Really? What a level of response! Again:

            If in homeopathy campaign 10:23 they says “there’s nothing in it” and “remedies are commonly sold at 6C”? How does explain this contradiction? Please, only ask me with yes or no.

          • there is nothing in it, is true for any potency beyond C12…and in the UK, most otc remedies are C30.

          • “there is nothing in it, is true for any potency beyond C12…and in the UK, most otc remedies are C30.”

            If this is true, in homeopathy campaign 10:23 slogan is “there’s nothing in it”. How does explain this contradiction with your sentences?

            If most OTC remedies are sold in 30C, what happend with low potencies? Dr. Ernst, response my question about of 10:23 movement.

          • If most OTC remedies are sold in 30C, what happend with low potencies?

            Consult a dictionary. MOST is not the same as ALL.

          • Foucault, you say? Relative to your post-modern-esque, pseudo-esoteric ramblings here, Foucault makes a lot more sense. And your jumping-up-and-down-‘fight’-win braying thing. If you expect to be taken seriously, perhaps re-consider your approach, because you come across as an immature fanatic. (Err… ) Because, you see, aside from you, and the deflecting ‘repeat-ignore’ bluffer Dana Ullman, no-one here is deceived by attempts to paste over the unanswered primary problem – whether it works – with examples of time-wasters purporting to address the secondary (non-)problem of how it works. What’s your point here?

      • ” Just to further verify how much bias Edzard Ernst has, how much of an embarrassment he is to science and medicine, and to prove that he regularly shows evidence of “bad faith” ethically, here’s a summary of two studies on using homeopathic Arnica after carpal tunnel syndrome, one on which Ernst didn’t participate and one in which he did.”
        I WANT AN APPOLOGY DANA!

      • Wait wait Dana, that day 1 you’re referring to is a median and you’re completely ignoring the deviation of the data.
        Why ? How can you scream for any significance with that ?

  • Mind you she did win Eurovision 1970, so not all bad.

  • It is hard to think of any greater exponent of the abuse of science by homeopathists, than Dana “Mr. Uncredible” Ullman. It is as if he only sees phrases or interpretations that match his beliefs. Refutation of a claim he makes is no barrier to its repetition, and only when he can be confident that the refutation will be repeated wherever he makes the claim, will he drop it (sometimes even then only temporarily) in favour of another, equally easily refuted.

    His rant at HuffPo against Wikipedia was a veritable Gish Gallop through his then-current set of misrepresented studies. I went through it line by line, and found that not one single statement was an honest representation of the facts: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2014/10/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-on-homeopathic-medicine-not/

    He still appears to state that Darwin wrote the Origin only because of homeopathy, despite the concrete evidence from Darwin’s own papers that this is not so. He claims Florence Nightingale as an advocate, though her statement that it was fit for the “reckless physicking of amateur females” shows that she knew full well the “remedies” were inert.

    But the thing I find simultaneously hilarious and maddening is his attempt to assert the validity of homeopathy based on papers written by a small group of homeopathy believers in India, which have somehow come to be published in journals which rise above what I refer to as the “Andrex threshold”, a limit few if any homeopathy-friendly journals manage to meet.

    For example, he asserts that the finding of silicates in solutions prepared in glass vessels is conclusive proof that homeopathy is not, after all, implausible. Now, any half competent chemist will know that any solution prepared in glass vessels is likely to contain traces of silicates. For very sensitive experiments it’s necessary to wash glassware in hydrofluoric acid to remove the surface coating of oxidised glass, to prevent precisely this. Nonetheless, Dana asserts “nanoparticles” as a magic talisman to ward off implausibility, much as he used to use the memory of water.

    He asserts that science showing the importance of nanodoses, validates homeopathy, as if nanodoses and non-doses are equivalent. He has never once produced any convincing evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle, so his attempts to prove that something remains after delusion and twerking is in any case pure fallacious distraction.

    Dana is an evangelist for nonsense and non-science and it’s time to stop treating him as anything else.

    Also, has anyone ever seen him and The Hood from Thunderbirds in the same room? Eh? EH?

  • It is of course fascinating to try to understand someone like Dana Ullman. For me, I base my mental model of him on Harry G. Frankfurt philosophical essay “On Bullshit”.

    The bullshiter, Frankfurt states, is different from liars and truth tellers in that they are completely unconcerned with the truth. Their only concern is to further their aims and will say anything that does so. For Ullman, his aim appears to be to appear to be a ‘champion of homeopathy’ in front of his homeopathy acolytes.

    This most commonly manifests in his utter refusal to engage in any debate about the assertions he makes. His response is either a (quite literal) ‘Ya Boo’ or to remain completely silent and ignore any question posed to him that might expose the absurdity of his positions.

    Recently on twitter, Ullman has been touting around a recent Mathie paper on “Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis”

    http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/3/1/142

    The paper was only able to find 3 papers that passed the quality criteria the authors set. From those three, the authors concluded that homeopathy “may have small, specific treatment effects.” But that “The overall quality of the evidence was low or unclear, preventing decisive conclusions.”

    Naturally, Dana touts this paper around saying “The HIGHEST quality research on homeopathy shows the strongest results FOR homeopathy! Only hacks assert otherwise”

    I have asked him repeatedly if he agrees with all the conclusions of the authors and he refuses to say so. To engage with the question would undermine his position. One can only conclude he knows this and so pretends the question has not been asked.

    I have also asked him if it is reasonable to draw conclusions from only 3 trials when he has criticised Shang for ‘only’ relying on 8. Deathly silence on that one too.

    Anyway, we have now undertaken the incantation of repeating his name at least three times, so we can expect him to appear genie-like pretty soon. Here we go…

    • Mathie’s evaluation of “individualized homeopathic treatment” did indeed reference three extremely high-quality trials, that is, trials that do not have even mnor methodological flaws…and these trials had clinically relevant and statistically significant results.

      Mathie’s evaluation did not include the famous study published in the high impact journal, CHEST, on the homeopathic treatment of COPD: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with parallel assignment was performed to assess the influence of sublingually administered Kali bichromicum (potassium dichromate) 30C on the amount of tenacious, stringy tracheal secretions in critically ill patients with a history of tobacco use and COPD (Frass, Dielacher, Linkesch, et al, 2005). In this study, 50 patients received either Kali bichromicum 30C globules (group 1) or placebo (group 2). Five globules were administered twice daily at intervals of 12 hours. The amount of tracheal secretions on day 2 after the start of the study as well as the time for successful extubation and length of stay in the ICU were recorded. The amount of tracheal secretions was reduced significantly in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Extubation (the removal of obstructive mucus from the lung with a tube) could be performed significantly earlier in group 1 (p < 0.0001). Similarly, length of stay was significantly shorter in group 1 (4.20 +/- 1.61 days vs 7.68 +/- 3.60 days, p < 0.0001 [mean +/- SD]).

      Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941

      Mathie's review also didn't include the FOUR high-quality randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trials by David Reilly. This trial, published in the BMJ, was their 4th and provides a summary of all 4 trials, one other in which was published in the LANCET and another one published in the BMJ.
      Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476.

      They found a substantial effect as compared with placebo (p = 0.0004)!!!

      The researchers concluded, “either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of homoeopathic immunotherapy different from those of placebo.

      After these researchers completed their FOURTH trial testing homeopathic medicines in the treatment of people with respiratory allergies, an editorial in the British Medical Journal which published the study asserted, “It may be time to confront the conclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ…. This may be more plausible than the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positive results.” (Ref: This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321.)

      And I could continue…

      It is "convenient" that Mr. Duck has not yet commented on the high-quality studies that have had both internal and external validity and that have shown efficacy of homeopathy. The problem with most studies that have had a negative result is that most of these trials do not have external validity, which is akin to using antibiotics for fungal infections and then concluding that antibiotics are ineffective in treating all infections. It is this type of sloppy scientific thinking that prevents the pseudo-skeptics at this website from understanding and respecting homeopathy.

      • Dana, you “forgot” to mention that Mathie’s results were weak and equivocal, as acknowledged in the paper. You also “forgot” that there is no good evidence that like cures like and no objective evidence that homeopathic remedies at normal potencies result in any bioavailability whatsoever, thus raising the bar required of any clinical trial to well above the level Mathie acknowledges his results provide.

        And you “forgot” that these issues have been pointed out to you before. “How convenient”, as you so often say.

      • DU said:
        “Mathie’s evaluation of “individualized homeopathic treatment” did indeed reference three extremely high-quality trials, that is, trials that do not have even mnor methodological flaws…and these trials had clinically relevant and statistically significant results.”

        Sorry, this statement is completely wrong.

        Mathie could not identify any ‘trials that do not have even minor methodological flaws’. This would be classified as low risk of bias, wouldn’t it? However Mathie found:

        “Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed ‘uncertain risk of bias’, three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed ‘high risk of bias’.”

        (See Mathie’s Review, Summary, header ‘Results’)

        The three studies yielded following results, namely OR and confidence interval:
        Jacobs 1994: 2.22 (1.00 – 4.54)
        Jacobs 2001: 1.84 (0.63 – 5.36)
        Bell 2004: 1.77 (0.66 – 4.72)
        (see Mathie’s Figure 3).

        BTW: Jacobs 2001 and Bell 2004 were pilot studies only which makes them a little irrelevant, doesn’t it?.

        Dana – you better should read the papers you defend before doing so.

        • Dana’s motto seems to be: NEVER GET THE FACTS IN THE WAY OF MY DELUSION!

        • Norbert Aust said:

          Dana – you better should read the papers you defend before doing so.

          Why change the habit of a lifetime?

        • Aust’s above acknowledgement in the effect size between those patients who were prescribed a homeopathic medicine versus those being given a placebo show on average that the homeopathic patients were TWICE as likely to experience benefit of treatment. You may consider such benefits to be inconsequential, but when you consider that there is virtually no “downside” (or side effects) to homeopathic medicines, it seems that skeptics should consider homeopathy as a useful alternative and/or complement to conventional treatments.

          Thanx!

          • Dana, you “forgot” to provide any credible evidence that anybody on the trial got anything other than placebo. Just to remind you:

            1. You need to provide proof that like cures like, by symptomatic similarity, as a common principle. The basis on which Hahnemann based this doctrine has been refuted for over a century.
            2. You need to provide proof that homeopathic “remedies” at normal potencies result in any objectively testable bioavailability as usually administered.

            After all, there is not one single published result of homeopathy that is provably inconsistent with the null hypothesis. P=0.05 is still consistent with the null hypothesis, especially for totally implausible treatments (see Ioannidis).

      • Dana, according to your logic, people who misspell words are idiots. I see that you misspelled a word.

    • Yes, if I recall correctly even his three “highest quality papers” were still flawed. None were free of incomplete reporting, bias, or vested interest, and two of the three included negative result in the 95% confidence interval. Of course DU’s response to that was true to his modus operandi – engage in the most overbearing and arrogant way possible until the errors are explicitly called, then vanish.

  • Dana Ullman seems not only to ignore evidence, he does not refrain from twisting the sources, or better, downright lying. Example:

    Dana Ullman citing an interview with Luc Montagnier published in Science in December 2010:
    “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

    (http://www.w.milieuziektes.nl/Rapporten/Montagnier.pdf)

    What Montagnier did say:
    ” I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10-18 dilution, or we lose the signal.”

    (https://www.alternative-training.com/docs/Blog/LUC_MONTAGNIER.pdf which leads to an article in SCIENCE magazine).

    We may regard Montagnier’s work not just a little strange off late, but clearly he did not imply what DU made from his statement by adding the brackets and omitting the next sentence.

    • He goes further, in that anybody who states an interpretation of the evidence which differs from his is immediately said to be “ignoring” the evidence. Quite how you can simultaneously address and ignore the evidence is never explained, though he will usually drop a “how convenient” in there somewhere.

      • For an author, he has an unusually small vocabulary. When he has been roundly defeated in argument, he often starts using the words of his opponent as if it was the letters in the word that were powerful and not the way the words are used.

    • Aust…Luc Montagnier clearly asserted in that interview in SCIENCE that homeopathic “high dilutions” work. Whether high dilutions worked in his experiment or not, he is speaking like a good scientist. He has obviously seen, witnessed, and/or personally experienced the benefits of homeopathic high dilutions…and/or he has simply read the variety of basic sciences and clinical research…and in total, he stands with homeopathy and its various potencies.

      If Montagnier didn’t believe that homeopathic high dilutions had an effect, he would have asserted so…and he didn’t!

      Deniers deny denial.

      • A fallacious appeal to authority, especially since Montagnier’s work on this is self-published without peer review.

        Since like does not cure like and the properties in which Montagnier apparently are at levels that have not been shown to survive the enzymes of the mouth and digestive system, he is conducting a sideshow anyway.

      • Dana, so evidence is not in what the author of an article writes down (‘we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy’) but rather in the frame of mind you believe him to be in? Even if this is contradicting what is written down?

        How convenient!

        And everybody who did not expressis verbis deny it, is a believer in homeopathic high delusions (pun intended)?

        How very convenient!

        • And when the CBC Marketplace programme asked Montagnier if his work validated homeopathy, his statement was that his work *cannot* be extrapolated to the products used in homeopathy. And this has been pointed out to Dana before. He “forgot”. Again.

          • The FACT of the matter is that Luc Montagnier said that homeopathic HIGH DILUTIONS are “right.” That does NOT mean that they don’t work, does it? Not in my book…but obviously, skeptics cannot handle the truth. Deniers deny denial, again.

          • @Dana
            However you wish to interpret the Luc Montaigner stuff, you’re just arguing from authority. The weakness of this particular fallacy becomes hilariously transparent when people can’t even agree what the authority said or wrote. This feels the same as people trying to interpret ‘God’s message’ in the bible and qu’ran.

          • Tell you what, Dana, why not let people check for themselves? http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1743358947 – start around 16:45.

            As usual, your statement is not an honest representation of the facts. That is precisely why the Judge dismissed your testimony as “not credible”. You are not an honest commentator, you are a shill.

          • I’m glad to hear that you draw your conclusions from TELEVISION, as compared with Montagnier’s interview in SCIENCE magazine. Montagnier is a basic scientist. He has confirmed that homeopathic “high dilutions are right” but he cannot comment on whether they work or not (BIG DEAL!).

            Are you actually listening to yourself?

          • Let us not forget at this important point that Luc Montagnier believes he has a magic box that can detect radio waves from DNA. And that somehow these magic rays only come from bad bacteria.

            This magic box has appeared in several places, not least by Benveniste who thought it could send homeopathic signals by email.

            It could only be more strange if they were wearing their underpants on their heads, shoving pencils up their noses and shouting ‘Wooble’.

            Dana uncritically puts forward the supposed support of people who have the most strangest of ideas without actually engaging with the obvious that these ideas are entirely batshit.

          • Dana, what YOU make from the interview in Science is not in there. Maybe it would be easier for YOU, if YOU would refer to the TV….

            As far as my English goes, Montagnier did not say a single word, at least not in that interview, that homeopaths are right with the high dilutions. He said they were not allways right – what he excluded might well be the high delutions. Remenber: he found no signal upwards of D18 / C9.

          • Dana, I draw my conclusions from TELEVISION because it was a TELEVISION programme that asked Luc Montagnier if his findings validated homeopathy as you and other homeopathy shills claim, so it was on TELEVISION that Montagnier was quoted as saying that his findings cannot be extrapolated ot the products used in homeopathy.

            And while we’re about it, as pointed out numerous times before, even if Montagnier’s findings *were* applicable (which he says that are not), it would mean precisely nothing because:
            {a} there is no credible evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle;
            (b) there is no credible evidence that most homeopathic remedies have anything whatsoever to do with the diseases the purportedly treat;
            (c) there is no credible evidence that effects this weak have any bioavailability when administered as they usually are;
            (d) there is no credible evidence that homeopathic “remedies” as usually used result in any repeatable, objectively testable effects in the human body;
            (e) there is no credible evidence that the weak, equivocal and nonspecific effects normally achieved by true believers in their half-assed tests are of any clinical importance at all.

            In other words, there is no reason to think homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work.

          • You are simply proving that you don’t understand good science.

            Let me repeat the words that Luc Montagnier gave in his interview in SCIENCE:

            “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

            Because HIS experiments were not testing CLINICAL issues, he cannot respond to CLINICAL questions. However, he is answering the BIGGER question…and that is that homeopathic high potencies have BIOLOGICAL effects. Deal with it!

            It is like when dumb-ass reporters and pseudo-scientists ask: Do vaccines CAUSE autism? Because CAUSATION assumes a very high level of association, it is more accurate to ask: Are vaccines associated with autism and neurological problems?

          • Did you see the bit where he stated this is a general property of matter/ No you did not, because as he told CBC’s Marketplace, this “cannot be extrapolated to the products used in homeopathy”.

            Which, just to remind you of the facts you so diligently ignore, is largely a sideshow because like does not cure like, so there’s no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, and the remedies would violate fundamental principles such as the Law of Mass action, so there’s no way it can work, and every single result of every single homeopathy trial is consistent with the null hypothesis, so there’s no proof it does work.

            Your attempts to somehow excuse away the utter implausibility of homeopathic dilutions is just flapdoodle, because even if this was shown to e a general property of matter, in contradiction to Montagnier’s own claims, and even if it was published in a peer-reviewed journal rather than self-published, as Montagnier’s work was, and even if there was some remotely plausible mechanism by which this property could be transferred to a human, which there is not, and even if there were some objective test that showed bioavailability, which there isn’t,and even if that was specific to the “remedy”, it would still be irrelevant because there is absolutely no credible evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle.

            Its like arguing whether a carpet does or does not contain aluminium threads, when the person arguing it does is labouring under the delusional misapprehension that because aircraft are made of aluminium, so the presence of aluminium threads (which nobody can detect, as it turns out) means the carpet can fly.

          • ‘You are simply proving that you don’t understand good science.’

            How would you know Dana?

            Montagnier’s latest work is so good he had to vanity publish it. His evidence is on a par with those who claim they have found something of interest in homeopathic dilutions. It is a shame that someone who has previously performed good work has debased themselves to the point of ridicule but his final ignominy is being allied with quacks.

          • Back to zero:

            Dana Ullman quotes:
            “I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions (used in homeopathy) are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules.”

            THIS IS WRONG!. HE DID NOT REFER TO THE HIGH DILUTIONS AS USED IN HOMEOPATHY!
            IN THE NEXT SENTENCE MONTAGNIER STATES THAT HE COULD NOT GAIN A SIGNAL FROM DILUTIONS HIGHER THAN 10^18.

            I guess, I will hear the same argument again as before?
            Then consider my response to be the same as before.

          • Wow…what a VERY serious case of DENIAL!

            Are you ACTUALLY say that “high dilutions” have NOTHING TO DO WITH HOMEOPATHY?

            If so, you are totally bonkers, though I already knew that. Now, everyone else does too! Thanx.

          • Dana, you are a very strange person. Your claims have been refuted by reference to the primary and authoritative sources, and you claim that this is “denial”?

            I am reminded again of the Judge’s statement, quoting your own words: “The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.”

            http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/blahg/2014/12/court-finds-dana-ullman-not-credible/

            You have acknowledged on oath that you are not an impartial expert. In short, you are a shill. Your rhetoric pretends to a neutrality which, when pressed on oath, you acknowledge to be absent.

            And this dishonest and revisionist approach of yours is entirely characteristic. Hence the Dull-Man Law. https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-dull-man-law/

          • You are wrong again dear Dana. This time in very simple principles of chemistry – Simple mathematics really.
            I guess, since you somehow managed to get into a public health masters program somewhere, that you must have been able to finish some kind of college education at least. You must however either have forgotten again or managed to ignore some very important parts of basic chemistry?
            I’ll try to explain, in simple words for you:
            The dilutions of homeopathy are not HIGH dilutions, they aren’t even dilutions as I will explain. One in 10^3 (this is a way of writing large numbers. The strange symbol means “to the power of” and this is the same as 1000 or “1” followed by three zero’s) for example. This can be called a HIGH dilution because there is still some left of the original material. Or even One in 10^10 (=10000000000), which is still a dilution as, at least theoretically, there may be some left of the molecules from the original stuff. There is a reason the so called Avogadro’s number was defined (tip: look it up on Wikipedia Dana). Above Avogadro’s number, nothing of substance can possibly be left in the dilution. Therefore it CAN NO LONGER BE CALLED A DILUTION.
            As I guess you know, most sugar pill remedies sold in stores are called 30C. This means that the dilution is supposed to be one in 10^60 (sixty zero’s) or as in the case of Oscillococcinium 200C, one in 10^400 (That’s a “1” followed by four hundred zero’s). This is definitely NOT a HIGH dilution. It isn’t even a dilution. It is nothing but the pure diluent, which is usually water, right?
            At about 10^23, which is near enough Avogadro’s constant, it stops being a dilution as there is nothing left of the original matter in the jar and whatever comes after that is nothing but more diluent, i.e. water (and of course the unavoidable impurities that your make-believe scientist friends are looking at when they get to play with electron microscopes and other fancy instruments, and fantasize about the “memory of water”)
            Or, if you still want to talk about dilutions, then these are not HIGH dilutions, they are ULTRA-RIDICULOUS, IMPOSSIBLY STUPID dilutions.
            If you want to be able to discuss this rather simple principles of dilution Dana, I am sure there are college courses for grownups who missed out on basic education. You need to learn these things if you want to be taken seriously.

          • Sorry to say, Dana, but your style of discussion sucks.

            You do not even bother to respond to the statements of any of us. Instead you pick a word or two from the most recent post, strip them of any sensible context, implant them into your own crude understanding of what we might have meant and hurl the result of this into our faces.

            This is not discussion, which would be an exchange and appraisal of arguments in order to come to a mutually shared understanding or decision. What you do, Dana, is usually called trolling. And, to be honest, I have better and more important things to do, than to feed a troll.

            Fare well in your perception of the world – which in the matters discussed here hardly has anything in common with mine.

    • I am a humble researcher doing research in the field of cytogenetics and molecular biology, pharmacology, cancer biology, etc including molecular mechanism of potentized homeopathic drugs. My publications can be seen in Pubmed, Google scholar and researchgate.
      We have addressed the question of drug bioavailability in our own modest way. We produced nanparticles of homeopathic mother tinctures and their biologically active ingredient with a non-toxic, biodegradable nanopolymer called PLGA. We characterized them physicochemically, measured their size, surface property, entrapment efficiency, etc by deploying various modern techniques such as Dynamic Light Scattering, electron microscopies (SEM,TEM, AFM, Confocal microscopy) etc to determine their actual size, if they are inside the nanocapsules, their Zeta Potential, their effective time of entry, whether they can cross blood-brain-barrier, their tissue distribution in vivo etc and have been able to publish them in quite respectable mainstream impact journals. We also showed that homeopathic mother tinctures can precipitate nanoparticles from irorganic salts like silver nitrate. One nanometer is equal to one billionth of a meter and our drug nanocapsules measured around 100 nm, containing inside the smaller nnoparticles of the homeopathic crude extract (dried). Then what we found is that the microdoses of the nano-capsules containing nanoparticles of the original drug had varying degree of enhanced bioavailability and effects, starting from one and a half to ten timesgreater at much lesser doses. Subsequently, researchers like Dr. Iris Bell, Dr. Joyeshh Bellre’s group, Dr. TC Rajendran made discoveries showing the presence of nanoparticles of the original drug substance even in the ultra-highly diluted remedies, 200C or even 1000C. While critics simply blow them away who claim that there are nanoparticles in the ultra-diluted drugs, saying that “nothing” can exist, my humble request to them is to see the results of our studies where we have actually produced nanoparticles of the homepathic orginial drugs and their biologically active ingredients perfectly in the nano-scale which we have been able to show through the use of modern technologies, and have shown that they interacted with the DNA (by circular dichroism spectroscopy), change in conformations of DNA and their entry into cells (Nucleus) with their suitable zeta potential.These are not imaginary, but we have staisfied the learned peer-reviewers of the rigorously reviewed journals. I would request you to please read these papers which would suggest that it is possible that the UHD homeopathic remedies do really possess nanoparticles, and we have also shown how and how much of these nanoparticles can effectively produce visible and repeatable results. So I believe that if nanoparticles of homeopathic drugs produced by us by Solvent Displacement Technique, and if they can have quite strong anticancer effects, why these drugs can not be termed as “nanomedicines” by one and all? I hope our papers will be found interesting by the pro-group as well as the anti-group, because debates can now be channelized into scientific direction. I’ll welcome constructive suggestions, but as I am now 68 years old, I’ll request my colleagues only to be moderate in their protests and antagonism! My heart is not as strong as Dana’s!!

      I give only reference of a few of our papers, you can find a few others as well in the Pubmed/Google scholar

      1. Efficacy of PLGA-loaded apigenin nanoparticles in Benzo[a]pyrene and ultraviolet-B induced skin cancer of mice: mitochondria mediated apoptotic signalling cascades.Das S, Das J, Samadder A, Paul A, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.Food Chem Toxicol. 2013 Dec;62:670-80. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2013.09.037. Epub 2013 Oct 9.
      2. Strategic formulation of apigenin-loaded PLGA nanoparticles for intracellular trafficking, DNA targeting and improved therapeutic effects in skin melanoma in vitro.
      Das S, Das J, Samadder A, Paul A, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
      Toxicol Lett. 2013 Nov 25;223(2):124-38. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2013.09.012. Epub 2013 Sep 23
      3. Poly (lactide-co-glycolide) nano-encapsulation of chelidonine, an active bioingredient of greater celandine (Chelidonium majus), enhances its ameliorative potential against cadmium induced oxidative stress and hepatic injury in mice.
      Paul A, Das J, Das S, Samadder A, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
      Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2013 Nov;36(3):937-47. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2013.08.008. Epub 2013 Aug 28.

      4.
      Biosynthesized silver nanoparticles by ethanolic extracts of Phytolacca decandra, Gelsemium sempervirens, Hydrastis canadensis and Thuja occidentalis induce differential cytotoxicity through G2/M arrest in A375 cells.
      Das S, Das J, Samadder A, Bhattacharyya SS, Das D, Khuda-Bukhsh AR.
      Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2013 Jan 1;101:325-36. doi: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.07.008. Epub 2012 Jul 17.

      • @ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH
         
        “…researchers like Dr. Iris Bell, Dr. Joyeshh Bellre’s group, Dr. TC Rajendran made discoveries showing the presence of nanoparticles of the original drug substance even in the ultra-highly diluted remedies, 200C or even 1000C.”
         
        Then obviously the researchers are doing something wrong! Perhaps the nanoparticles are sticking to the walls of containers and other devices used to make the dilutions. You seem to be obsessively amazed by the tiny size of your nanocapsules and nanoparticles: one billionth of a meter. Wow! Yep, that’s what ‘nano-‘ means. 100 nm is the average diameter of an influenza virus; its capsids are much smaller, and so are many other whole viruses, so what’s the big deal?! Did you not know that? Anybody who made 200 successive 100-fold dilutions of a flu virus and still had detectable virus particles in the product would fail an elementary microbiology practical course.
         
        Sorry, but your efforts to convince readers of this blog of the marvels of your research are not going to impress any real scientist reading them.

  • This has a reference to the statement made by Paul Morgan that says…”The article itself reported on a study which should never have been conducted, as the experimenters failed to understand the basic facts that they didn’t treat the “control” cell line with anything, let alone the 70% ethanol/30% water mix used to dilute the plant extracts out of existence in the “treatment”. With respect to the personal views of one and all, to make the record straight, I have to say that this statement is grossly incorrect. Placebo-30 (succussed ethyl alcohol”) was indeed used as “control” against which the microarray profiles (specific gene-interaction based) of the two ultra-high diluted plant extracts used as homeopathic remedies” were compared. The experiment protocols used were prohibitively expensive for us. The “Journal of Integrative Medicine” is one among the many rigorously peer-reviewed Elsevier journals and this article passed through the scientific scrutiny of a group of experts with specialized knowledge in this area of research. May I request some of the apparently learned and knowledgeable critics of homeopathy to try to replicate such critically important experiments themselves (they must be having the required resources and expertise) and then vociforously criticise homeopathy after getting and seeing their own results to convince other lay people about their own negative attitude and views towards homeopathy that they presently hold about this largely misunderstood science.
    Nature India is a respectable scientific outlet in India which is published by and under management of the same Nature Group of Publishers , which so long avoided publishing any paper/news related to research with pro-homeopathy results after 1988.

    I give below the actual abstract of the paper and since it is an open-access journal, all interested can download and read it.

    Journal homepage:
    http://www.jcimjournal.com/jim
    http://www.elsevier.com/locate/issn/20954964
    Available also online at http://www.sciencedirect.com.
    Copyright © 2015, Journal of Integrative Medicine Editorial Office.
    E-edition published by Elsevier (Singapore) Pte Ltd. All rights reserved.
    ● Research Article
    Ultra-highly diluted plant extracts of Hydrastis
    canadensis and Marsdenia condurango induce
    epigenetic modifications and alter gene
    expression profiles in HeLa cells in vitro
    Santu Kumar Saha1, Sourav Roy2, Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh1
    1. Cytogenetics and Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Zoology, University of Kalyani,
    Kalyani-741235, West Bengal, India
    2. Department of Entomology and Institute for Integrative Genome Biology, University of California
    Riverside, CA 92521, USA
    ABSTRACT
    OBJECTIVE: Methylation-specific epigenetic process and gene expression profiles of HeLa cells treated
    with ultra-high dilutions (HDs) of two plant extracts, Hydrastis canadensis (HC-30) and Marsdenia
    condurango (Condu-30), diluted 1060 times, were analyzed against placebo 30C (Pl-30) for alterations in
    gene profiles linked to epigenetic modifications.
    METHODS: Separate groups of cells were subjected to treatment of Condu-30, HC-30, and Pl-
    30 prepared by serial dilutions and succussions. Global microarray data recorded on Affymetrix
    platform, using 25-mer probes were provided by iLifeDiscoveries, India. Slides were scanned with
    3000 7G microarray scanner and raw data sets were extracted from Cel (raw intensity) files. Analyses
    of global microarray data profile, differential gene expression, fold change and clusters were made
    using GeneSpring GX12.5 software and standard normalization procedure. Before microarray study,
    concentration of RNA (ng/μL), RIN value and rRNA ratio for all the samples were analysed by Agilant
    Bioanalyzer 2100. Reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and quantitative RTPCR
    were done for analyzing SMAD-4 expression. Fluorescence-activated cell sorting study was further
    made to elucidate fate of cells at divisional stages. Methylation-specific restriction enzyme assay was
    conducted for ascertaining methylation status of DNA at specific sites.
    RESULTS: HDs of HC-30 and Condu-30 differentially altered methylation in specific regions of DNA
    and expression profiles of certain genes linked to carcinogenesis, as compared to Pl-30. Two separate
    cut sites were found in genomic DNA of untreated and placebo-treated HeLa cells when digested with
    McrBC, compared to a single cut observed in Condu-30-treated genomic DNA. SMAD-4 gene expression
    validated the expression pattern observed in microarray profile. Methylation-specific restriction enzyme
    assay elucidated differential epigenetic modifications in drug-treated and control cells.
    CONCLUSION: HDs triggered epigenetic modifications and alterations in microarray gene expression
    profiles of many genes associated with carcinogenesis in HeLa cells in vitro.
    Keywords: plant extracts; homeopathy; reactive oxygen species; apoptosis; gene expression; epigenesis,
    genetic; Smad4 protein
    Citation: Saha SK, Roy S, Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Ultra-highly diluted plant extracts of Hydrastis canadensis
    and Marsdenia condurango induce epigenetic modifications and alter gene expression profiles in HeLa
    cells in vitro. J Integr Med. 2015 September; Epub ahead of print.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2095-4964(15)60201-1
    Received February 17, 2015; accepted July 9, 2015.
    Correspondence: Prof. Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh; Tel: +91-33-25828750 extn. 315; E-mail: prof_arkb@yahoo.co.in,
    khudabukhsh_48@rediffmail.com

    Prof. Anisur R. Khuda-Bukhsh, Ph.D.
    Emeritus Professor, University Grants Commission, Govt. of India,
    at University of Kalyani,
    Kalyani-741235, India.

    • “succussed ethyl alcohol”

      You mean “ethyl alcohol”.

    • The issue with peer review of publications like the “Journal of Integrative Medicine” is that they are dealing with peers in a field which is defined by acceptance of low-to-zero standards of evidence.

      There is a principle known as Minchin’s Law: By definition, alternative medicine either hasn’t been proven to work, or has been proven not to work.The name for alternative medicine that has been proven to work, is “medicine”.

      The field of so-called integrative medicine is defined by the integration of faith-based practice with evidence-based practice. All studies in this field either beg the question of the fundamental validity of the thing under test, or set out to prove (rather than test or disprove) it.

      That was the entire problem the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry had with Prof. Ernst’s appointment at Exeter. They expected another mill turning out positive results they could use to promote their business, and what they got instead was actual science. And when you apply actual science to faith-based practices, the result tends to be unflattering to those practices.

      As to the results of your trial, I have no opinion on whether it’s a false positive, some confounder or whatever – the question you were addressing with this test is simply irrelevant, as like does not cure like and there is no objectively testable difference between most homeopathic remedies anyway.

      Whether it is possible at some stage in the preparation process to show some difference between homeopathic nostrums and pure water or alcohol is a sideshow seemingly designed to distract attention away from the fact that there is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work.

      • Your implied claim is that water/alcohol containing plant extract can be washed away by successive dilutions and then exhibit different effects to water/alcohol similarly washed away.

        If proven the above would be astonishing and require some adjustment to major scientific theories of mass and energy. It would certainly deserve more than publishing in an alt med magazine such as J I Med.

        It would also merit great attention to the materials tested, their sources and exactly how they are prepared in considerably more detail than you present either above or in your reference.

        If you are serious in asking others to repeat your work, such information should be freely available.

      • I love it when Guy and other pseudo-skeptics say that alternative medicine that works is called “medicine” because homeopathy IS medicine throughout Europe. When a new survey, published in FAMILY MEDICINE (!), using government data on the prescription of drugs, it was discovered that 95% of French pediatricians, dermatologists, and general practitioners prescribe homeopathic medicines.

        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25921648

        Homeopathy is also extremely popularly used by physicians throughout Europe where 30% of European population have used homeopathy…and such people consider homeopathy to be their medicine.

        Thanx Guy for making the case for homeopathy as MEDICINE.

          • Personal attacks against ME does NOTHING to change the fact that homeopathy is recognized MEDICINE all over the world…and that it is used by MEDICAL DOCTORS in virtually every country.

            Deniers deny denial…it is THAT simple.

            Keep those ad homs coming because they simply show YOUR character and the emptiness of your argument.

          • Dana, by that argument a medicine ball can cure disease. Every country I have looked at where homeopathy is “recognised” as medicine, the recognition is the result of grandfathering when regulation was first introduced, or is the result of industry lobbying.

            Once upon a time, British Rail had a patent for a flying saucer powered by nuclear bombs. That was officially recognised. It was still insane and extremely unlikely to work.

            The fact that a number of countries call homeopathy medicine, does not make it medicine any more than spinning derivatives from sub prime mortgages made them an investment grade security. Semantic games may work in rhetoric, but they don’t work in the real world. Like does not cure like, dilution does not increase potency, no test of homeopathy as normally used has ever refuted the null hypothesis.

        • Dana, your misuse of the term peudoskeptic is of course fallacious, as is your appeal to popularity and authority.

          Pseudoskepticism is exemplified by climate change “skeptics”, vaccine “skeptics”, HIV-AIDS “skeptics” and so on. I have no ideological dog in the fight. As soon as there is credible evidence that like cures like, and that this is due to a property which persists through serial dilution, and that it’s transferrable via an intermediary by the process of evaporation, and that it’s transferrable through the normal mechanism of dosing, and that it results in an objectively testable, repeatable and specific physiological effect, then I will change my mind.

          You do have a bit of work to do before we get there, of course, starting with the whole business of like cures like, which is not actually supported by any credible evidence at all.

          But, as I say, provide the proof, the whole chain of it, and I will change my mind.

          In fact, I’ll go further: if you can provide a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy alone can be objectively proven to have cured anybody of any reliably established physical disease, I will acknowledge that there is in deed something worth investigating.

          There’s a hostage to fortune for you. I’ve told you the kinds of things that would cause me to think again. Unlike most homeopaths, I am not religious about this. What would cause you to change your mind? I don’t recall ever having a satisfactory answer from you on that.

          • I call you a pseudo-skeptic because you always ask the same questions…and you’ve received good responses, but you pretend that you haven’t. I’ve quoted one of the “fathers of immunology,” the scientist who who the first Nobel Prize in Medicine, von Behring, who acknowledged when he developed the tetanus and diptheria vaccines, he was inspired to do so from Hahnemann and homeopathy. Even Feynman asserts that “like likes like.” Anyone with a scintilla of education or experience in music KNOWS that a “C” note is hypersensitive to other “C” notes. Homeopathy is simply the medical application of using nanodoses of a medicine that has the capacity to cause if given in overdose the similar symptoms that the sick person is experiencing. According to the conventional pharmacological literature, review by Iris Bell, MD, PhD, nanodoses are able to sift through cell membranes and blood-brain barriers with greater ease than larger crude doses of the same substance.

            Once again, I encourage you to do some actual reading, rather than pontificating and spewing. Until you show more thoughtful analysis, you will remain being a pseudo-skeptic (a wannabe skeptic who simply is too clap-trap cemented in your own worldview to have a healthy scientific attitude):

            Bell IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012 Oct 22;12(1):191.
            http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-12-191.pdf (this is an exceptional review of the basic sciences literature that explains how homeopathic medicines may work)

            Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, et al. Integrative Nanomedicine: Treating Cancer with Nanoscale Natural Products. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, January 2014. 36-53.
            http://tinyurl.com/mqe5p88

            Iris R. Bell, John A. Ives, and Wayne B. Jonas. Nonlinear Effects of Nanoparticles: Biological Variability From Hormetic Doses, Small Particle Sizes, and Dynamic Adaptive Interactions. Dose Response. May 2014; 12(2): 202–232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036395/

            Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, Koithan M, Brooks AJ. Advances in Integrative Nanomedicine for Improving Infectious Disease Treatment in Public Health. European journal of integrative medicine 2013;5(2):126-140. doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2012.11.002.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685499/

          • Vaccines are designed so that they do not induce symptoms in anybody as far as possible, so no parallel there.

            Resonance in sound waves? Again nothing to do with homeopathic principles or practice.

            I’d be fascinated to know how you have quote mined Feynman, it will be comedy gold.

            It has obviously escaped your attention that doses of something bear no relationship to water/sugar that contain nothing.

            Perhaps you should read or at least educate yourself on some basic science and maths, a course on English wouldn’t go amiss either.

          • You call me a pseudo skeptic because it is part of your armoury for waving away dissent and trying to excuse yourself from having to modify your statement s in response to refutation.

            I have already read your litany of papers by True Believers. All four you quote here are by Iris Bell, a True Believer who hops from journal to journal as her shenanigans are rumbled. That word “nanodoses” that you use so glibly? Nano means ten to the minus nine. One part per billion. Homeopathy is non-doses, not nano-doses. I’ve pointed this out before, you “forgot” obviously.

            If you read the reality-based literature you will find that nanodoses can be detected, measured. There are objectively testable, repeatable and specific effects. The materials used have a known connection with the effect. None of those things apply to homeopathy. The link between “remedies” and conditions is not established. The fallacy of quoting Behring was pointed out to you just this week, you “forgot”. Or, as noted above, you simply read three words and spin an attack based on them. The latter seems more likely.

            It doesn’t matter what Behring believed, you see, because we know how vaccines work. A detectable amount of a protein similar (or more often identical) tot he pathogen, is introduced into the body, which then mounts an immune response. Unless you can prove that homeopathic remedies contain proteins, in detectable amounts, that cause the body to create T and B cells matching those proteins, and that these cells can be tested for and their existence verified, as they can be for vaccines, and that they have an effect in the specific disease under treatment, then you are just blowing smoke. And frankly I think you know it. You know well and good that a vaccine causes a specific and testable response in the body, whereas homeopathic remedies at normal “potencies” have not been shown to do any such thing.

            I challenged you to provide actual credible evidence that like cures like – your inability to understand terms like credible and evidence is pretty clear, and your arm-waving fools nobody but you. So while we’re quoting Feynman I offer you one of his most famous: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool”.

            I told you what would change my mind. I have shown you how to prove to me that I have fooled myself (and just to reiterate, the crap you have posted to date falls short, for reasons I think you actually understand, unless you are genuinely extremely stupid, which I doubt).

            You “forgot” to say what would change your mind. You “forgot” to show how we can test if you’ve fooled yourself, as I think we all believe you have.

        • Oh my, not again – flagging some paper as verifying your argumentum ad populum, when under examination it doesn’t really, does it? A paper which also states that ‘43.5% of the overall population of healthcare professionals… prescribed at least one homeopathic drug or preparation’. The same paper which states that homeopathy, though popular in France, only accounts ‘for 5% of the total number of drug units prescribed by HCPs…. representing… a small percentage of reimbursements compared to allopathic [sic] medicines.’ So, the ‘95%’ with which you like to impress the gullible is not quite so powerful upon examination, is it?

          You misrepresent data, then have the gall to label your critics ‘pseudo-‘.

          • I know, that literally never happens every time, does it?

          • Deniers deny denial AGAIN.

            It is so much fun to see how the pseudo-skeptics at the site make lame excuses for the HIGH number of medical doctors who use homeopathic medicines. Whether the TOTAL amount of prescriptions is small or not, the FACT remains that LARGE numbers of medical doctors use them! You can rationalize and spin the numbers any which way you want but facts are still facts. Spin on…and bury your head in the sand while you are there.

          • Mr Ullman, be assured I am not denying anything. Rejecting unfounded statements is not denialism. You here (and elsewhere) cite a paper as justifying your argumentum ad populum. I’ve read the paper and put it to you that it is not quite the powerful case you make it out to be. I’m not rationalising or spinning the numbers: I’ve here (and elsewhere) merely pointed out the numbers which you prefer not to draw attention to, as they detract from the illusory picture you try to paint with your clinging to the out-of-context ‘95%’, because it looks better. (Something about denialism? Oh, and you’ve been corrected as to your resort to that term, also, yet you continue to bastardise it.)

            And who is denying that homeopathy is popular in France? You repeatedly resort to the fallacy that, because it is popular, then that is evidence it works. But it isn’t. It is merely evidence that it is popular. (I understand Catholicism is pretty common there, also; should we therefore take it as true that Jesus rose from the dead, merely because a lot of people believe it to be so?) You are applying a deception.

            Oh, and your ‘Oscillo is a type of “duck soup”…in the 200C… ‘ You wonder why you just don’t convince? At 200C there is no duck in it, so, how can it be “duck soup”? Ah, but then comes your favoured obfuscate-with-pseudoscience term: ‘nanodoses’; and your lambasting of those who ‘deny’ your application of it. Nanodoses of what? You see, I don’t think you know what the term means. And your ‘They bring integrity to immune response… ‘?!?! ‘integrity’ – What the feck are you talking about?! The immune system is incredibly complex; such a statement requires robust evidence. Rather, you play loose with such scientific-seeming terminology. It apparently works for you in some fora. Here….

            Now, go on and yell “pseudo-skeptic” all you like. But while you’re at it, please do enlighten us with your immunological nous.

          • Lee, because YOU demand “proof.” I request your “proof” that Oscillococcinum has “no” molecules of duck in it.

            I’ve provided evidence in LANGMUIR that nanoparticles remain in homeopathic potencies, even 200C, but you haven’t shown evidence of even KNOWING about this research, let alone reading it…nor have you seemingly even read much of the dialogue HERE.

            And HERE is what I mean by pseudo-skeptics. You and others here give a bad name to skepticism. You simply show that it is being ignorant AND arrogant, a really bad combination of qualities for being a good scientist.

          • Dana

            Oh the absurdity when we talk about homeopathy.

            What does it even mean for something to have “molecules of duck” in it? There are no molecules that are unique to ducks and ducks are probably about 70% water molecules anyway. The question is just absurd.

            Even more absurd is that fact that the homeopathic remedy Oscillococcinum is named after a misidentified bacterium. What does it even mean to have nanoparticles of misidentified, non-existent bacteria in a remedy?

            Perhaps when you answer that Dana, you can also tell us what it means to have nanoparticles of homeopathic dolphin sonar too? Or is your nanoparticle idea just one of many arbitrary ideas you would have to come up with to explain the nonsense of homeopathy?

          • So, we’re skipping the immune ‘integrity’ thing, then? Instead you’re asking me for proof that 200C Oscillococcinum has no molecules of duck in it? (Odd that, because I thought it was the flu virus carried by the duck that was the causative agent. Or are you telling me that an influenza virus-free duck actually causes symptoms of the flu? – Golly, my ignorance, eh?) The proof is simple mathematics – I’m sure you’ve seen it. So, are you claiming that a 200C preparation of Oscillococcinum flouts logic and mathematics by actually having duck molecules in it? (If so, I would then say, “So what?”) Or is this where you veer to the modern science-y-sounding ‘nano’? Enabling you to deflect from addressing the primary problem of homeopathy – ie whether it works – to the secondary (non-)problem, ‘how?’. And (unlike you) I happily admit to becoming confused: are you now saying that your ‘nanoparticles’ thing obviates the ‘memory of water’ mechanism? Or that ‘nanoparticles’ are the mechanism?

            You see, nothing you’ve written here (and yes, I have read much of it) convinces me that you actually know what it is you are talking about; or that you are truthfully representing it. Rather, you are repeatedly exposed as having apparently failed to properly read and comprehend the references you wave; or for misrepresenting them. You are an illusionist, employing a form of sleight of hand in order to deceive those pre-disposed to be taken in – ie, those who believe homeopathy works regardless of the lack of proof that it ever has.

            So, again, do your worst and label me ‘ignorant’, ‘arrogant’, and ‘pseudo-‘. What you think of me is irrelevant. Meanwhile, could you explain how homeopathy brings ‘integrity’ to the immune response (and perhaps demonstrate some integrity of your own)?

    • Please explain to me why “methylation-specific epigenetic process and gene expression profiles of HeLa cells” were exposed to ethyl rather than methyl alcohol in that study; then further explain the decision to use a 70% ethanol / 30% water preparation (which is absurd because all animals die at cell ethanol and/or methanol levels that are orders of magnitude below that level).

  • This has a refrence to the queries made by Pete Attkins. I need to tell you that although the stock of alcohol used may be 70%, that is 70 parts alcohol and 30 parts water, but if we take only a micodose, say in microleter of it and put it to 100 ml of the medium, you can easily get your answer from the final dilution it would have. Next, since we use equal amount of the placebo 30, and the homeopathic remedies, it would mean that we are perefectly equating the quantity and the quality of alcohol in both. So in other words, the alcohol effect is the same in both control and drug treated ones. May I most humbly submit that I have had a long (more than 45 years ) research experience and I also know how much of alcohol quantity can produce toxicity that may have its own cytotoxic effect on cell, either in vitro or in vivo (Pl. see Pubmed, google scholar or researchgate to have an idea of it).
    Epigenetic modification refers to change in DNA sequences only because of blocking or unblocking of one/more gene sequence, mostly at some specific DNA sites, e.g. at or nearCpG islands, which may cause a drastic change in genetic codes specified for a particular protein. DNA methylation /demethylation and histone acetylation/deacetylation are the two hallmarks of epigenetic modification. There are some other ways as well, presently less understood, by which also epigenetic modification is possible. But these two events are two characteristic features associated typically with epigenetic modification.
    I hope, with my kind of Indian English, I could clarify your points! It is difficut to deal with any person if he/she is in a “denial mode” refusing to accept even established scientific facts on the plea that any and every researcher who has conviction and respect for his/her research, particularly on homeopathy, is cheating! On the other hand, a researcher has to toil hard to even publish a single authentic research paper in the mainstream peer-reviewed impact journals against the tide, after satisfying fellow peers, knowing fully well that his/her sincere effort may be ridiculed by many not themselves actually doing research in the actual field, or has no or little knowledge about the effort required to muster certain difficult techniques, nevertheless instead of encouraging such researchers, prefer to catch them on their wrong foot. They quite often ask why you have not done this, why you should have done this piece of research at all in the first place! And so on. I believe that criticism should always be constructive and researchers are also human beings, and they also can commit a mistake or two. Only those who do research know this, but those who mostly don’t have the experience of doing the actual first hand practical lab research, sometimes fail to understand many practical difficulties and show their eagerness not to learn from the research, but always are in a challenging mood. trying to prove one upmansip, which can not help progress research in the right direction always! After all, the researchers are those who can discover newer things, not the critics.

    • OK, so let’s have respect for the science. First up, homeopathy relies on the doctrine that like cures like – that there si some principle of matter which can cure disease based on symptomatic similarity. No homeopathy believer has ever been able to show me any evidence whatsoever to back this fundamental tenet.

      It’s important because many papers on homeopathy, written by believers, start by stating this doctrine as a fact, with some statement of the form that homeopathy is a system of medicine some two centuries old which is based on the principle that like cures like. This is very clearly begging the question. Even the so-called fundamental research in homeopathy is largely focused on whether there is some property of some kinds of matter that might have some kind of effect at normal homeopathic dilutions – this is completely missing the point since there is no reason to suppose that any such property would necessarily be the same property that supposedly cures, and the most basic question – whether there is some property of matter which cures by symptomatic similarity – can at present only have one answer: probably not. The example used in support of this doctrine y Hahnemann, has been refuted for over a century. The various examples offered up in its place, such as Dana’s proposal of vaccines above, very clearly fail to establish the principle, for reasons already explained.

      You need to start by satisfying the scientific community that like cures like as a general, or even common, principle. You need to do this *first*, before you start looking at the implausibility of dilutions, because in the end persistence of a property is entirely irrelevant if that property is itself irrelevant.

      A secondary problem is this: medicine is what it is because it has discarded things that do not work. The category of things that do not work includes pretty much all of medical practice in Hahnemann’s day. Virtually everything that doctors “knew” for over two thousand years, was simply wrong.

      And yet I can trace no example where homeopathy has discarded a remedy or indication because it was found to be incorrect. I have asked, many times, for examples. None has been provided.

      That seems to me to leave only two possibilities: either homeopathy, alone among human endeavours, is infallible, or, homeopathy has no effective method for telling truth from delusion. The possibility that all provings and such conducted by homeopaths since 1796 are correct, is incredibly improbable. I would go so far as to say that it is pretty much impossible that they are all right. It is, however, entirely possible that they are all wrong, because when the same method is used for everything, if the method is wrong then all the results are wrong too.

      All the ways doctors used to try to balance humours, are wrong. They are all wrong for the same reason: humours do not exist. It is entirely possible that all findings of homeopaths are also wrong, and again for the same reason: they are based on an incorrect notion of disease, an incorrect notion of cure, incorrect beliefs about the nature of matter and so on. This possibility, of everything being wrong, is fully compatible with all observed results, including yours, because if the homeopathic doctrine of like cures like is wrong, as essentially everything else we “knew” about medicine at the time was also wrong, then the property you find – if it is real – would be simply coincidence.

      • Indeed, there were several centuries during which those physicians who disbelieved in humors were considered QUACKS because the dominant worldview in “mainstream medicine” of that era was so doggedly dogmatic.

        Some people may say that “science” tests itself…and yet, scientists tend to forget that there are only a literal handful of drugs that have survived 50 years. The problem is not just the drugs themselves, but the very paradigm that you call “conventional medicine.” Once you begin to assume that symptoms are illness should be suppressed, inhhibited, or controlled, you fall into a deep misunderstanding of nature and health. And further, you show dis-respect for evolution itself because evolution assumes that our body’s symptoms are its efforts to SURVIVE. Instead of suppressing this effort, real physicians and healers work most effectively by mimicking the body’s symptoms, rather than prescribing drugs that work by counter-acting the body’s wisdom. Here, Guy Chapman, is the LOGIC for mimicking the body’s wisdom and using the “like cures like” methodology.

        Is anyone out there beginning to GET it now?

        • Dana, there is no real doubt that for two and a half thousand years people expected doctors to make them better, and for about 2,400 years of that time they were wrong. Your fundamental error is in failing to understand that homeopathy belongs to that older and much longer period.

          Yes, science does test itself. Some drugs are still used almost as they were discovered (aspirin, for example), others are discarded as new and better ones are developed. Broad spectrum antibiotics may be replaced by targeted ones with fewer side effects. Sometimes something is discovered which radically changes practice, such as the discovery of the role of helicobacter pylori in stomach ulcers.

          In fact, you can tell a field is based on science precisely because it tests ideas and either refines or discards them. One of the giant red flags that reveals homeopathy to be religion not science is the absence of any objective mechanism for testing ideas and discarding those which are wrong.

          There is no “LOGIC” in the body’s “wisdom”, that is pure chopralalia (as recently and spectacularly busted here: http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html). In the days before scientific medicine the body’s “wisdom” gave a life expectancy roughly half what we have now. Virtually all of that change has been in the last 50 years, as we gain successively more profound understanding of the real causes of disease.

          That’s not “disrespecting” evolution. Evolution is not some sentient thing that demands respect or otherwise. It’s a fact of nature, but it does not give a flying fuck about what we think – as far as evolution is concerned any human past peak breeding age is essentially done with. That’s why primitive humans died young, and this did not really change until last century when science started being used as the main way of testing hypotheses. You could argue that all forms of medicine inherently “disrespect” evolution because they seek to stop the natural world from killing the weak. And that applies to fake medicines pulled out of someone’s arsenicum album in 1796 just as much as it applies to modern drugs and surgical interventions. About the only field of medical science properly “respectful” to evolution is genetics.

        • And further, you show dis-respect for evolution itself because evolution assumes that our body’s symptoms are its efforts to SURVIVE.

          Can you explain what gave you the impression that any theory of evolution assumes that?

          • Evolution teaches us that living organisms do ALL they can to survive. Our symptoms represent that effort.

          • From Dana
            ‘Evolution teaches us that living organisms do ALL they can to survive. Our symptoms represent that effort.’

            Shows why evolutionary biologists, biochemists, microbiologists and research doctors have increased our knowledge of ourselves and our environment and homeopaths are still trying to cherry pick signals out of noise.

            Evolution doesn’t care about the individual surviving or even being disease free providing the genes are transmitted. Evolution depends on the individual not surviving.

          • Dana, it is not obvious what point you are trying to make. Any intervention that halts or reverses disease processes is inherently unnatural. The evolutionary response to disease is basically death – nature red in tooth and claw, survival of the fittest and the weak go to the wall.

            Are you alluding to the fatuous claim that homeopathy manipulates the immune system? As someone with an autoimmune disorder, I know from personal experience why boosting the immune system would be a terrible idea.

          • Homeopathic medicines do not simply stimulate the immune system. They bring integrity to immune response, resulting in benefits to people with auto-immune disorders. And it is more than a tad ironic that YOU avoid a treatment that might benefit YOU. Instant karma, eh?

          • Dana, you say: “Homeopathic medicines do not simply stimulate the immune system. They bring integrity to immune response, resulting in benefits to people with auto-immune disorders. And it is more than a tad ironic that YOU avoid a treatment that might benefit YOU. Instant karma, eh?”

            To quote Wolfgang Pauli, “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!”

            The immune system is not a single thing. It is a complex set of overlapping biological processes. It does not have any “integrity” to be maintained, and there is precisely zero objective evidence that homeopathy can do this anyway. You seem to be basing your world view on the refuted notions of vitalism, on which homeopathy is based.

            There is also no credible evidence that homeopathy can benefit people with auto-immune disorders. Someone with coeliac disease can take as many homeopathic nostrums as they like, if they eat gluten they will still get sick. I have seen cases where homeopaths claim to successfully treat coeliac, these fall into exactly two classes: people who are still on a GF diet, but credit is claimed for homeopathy anyway; and people who were not diagnosed coeliac through TTGA and jejeunal biopsy but were instead declared to be “gluten sensitive” by some quack based on one of the many fraudulent tests they use. In fact I would go so far as to state that if you can provide independently authenticated cases where legitimately diagnosed coeliacs have been able to resume a normal diet based on treatment with homeopathy alone, then this would qualify as a major medical breakthrough. The literature shows no credible evidence of any such occurrence.

            I don’t “avoid a treatment that might benefit me”, I avoid *all* treatments that are not *proven* to be likely to benefit me. As soon as there is reliable evidence to support homeopathy, I will use it. And do bear in mind that I first became skeptical of homeopathy after I tried it and it did nothing at all. You seem to think that everybody who tries it will become a believer (a typical view among cultists, I grant), but it is not the case.

      • @Guy Chapman
        Great post. Says it all in words of one syllable. Are there psychological studies published (not my field) to examine why people think that ‘ancient wisdom’ is inherently superior to what we know in the 21st century?

        • Is there some type of psychological diagnosis for people who readily admit to problems in the past but who NEVER admit to PRESENT problems?

          Is there some type of psychological diagnosis for people who believe in evolution but who refuse to accept the obvious implications of it, such as having a real respect for wisdom of the body and mind? Oh, it is called ARROGANCE.

          • Dana: Your self-diagnosis is probably only partially correct. Although you are undoubtedly exceptionally arrogant, it seems to me that your main problem is that your devotion to the cult of homeopathy is so strong that cognitive dissonance seriously impairs your ability to even comprehend the arguments that are put to you.

            I am sure this is one of the leading causes of your continual reiteration of refuted claims. Your mind is so busy mentally shouting “LAA LAA LAA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” that you fail to comprehend when your arguments have been utterly destroyed.

      • Again in our most humble way we tried to test if this doctrine has any scientific merit. We have published results to demonstrate that Arsenicum album 30C can combat arsenic poisoning not only in human being, but also in the bacteria, and yeast (Ref: 1. Mallick P….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2003 Oct 22;3:7.
        2. Khuda-Bukhsh AR…..et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2005 Dec;2(4):537-48. Epub 2005 Oct 19.
        3. Belon P….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar;3(1):99-107. Epub 2006 Jan 23
        4. Belon P….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Sci Total Environ. 2007 Oct 1;384(1-3):141-50. Epub 2007 Jul 12.
        5. Banerjee P…Khua-Bukhsh AR. J Vet Med A Physiol Pathol Clin Med. 2007 Sep;54(7):370-6.
        6. Banerjee P….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Pathobiology. 2008;75(3):156-70. doi: 10.1159/000124976
        7. Banerjee P., ….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:391752. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nen090. Epub 2011 Feb 14.
        8. Khuda-Bukhsh AR et al., Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:129214. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nep122. Epub 2011 Mar 9.
        9. De A….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2012 Feb;10(2):210-27.
        10. Das D,….Khuda-Bukhsh AR. Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao. 2011 Jul;9(7):752-60.
        AND A few more in Comp.Ther.in Med.
        Similarly we also have demonstrated the ameliorative effects of Merc sol 30 C against Mercuric chloride intoxication.
        May I request you to go through these papers, some of which have been published in quite respectable mainstream research journals.

        • But you didn’t test your doctrine. The doctrine is that a thing that causes a symptom in one dose, cures it at another, as a universal (sole, according to Hahnemann) principle of cure. Even if arsenic did cure arsenic poisoning, that would not address the fundamental question because it’s not like curing like, it’s same curing same.

          Unless you can show that, for example, influenza is the result of toxic levels of duck entrails in the body, thus making Oscillo a valid “remedy”, you have shown nothing: you must also prove that remedies do indeed cause the symptoms they are supposed to cause. And not just for one, but for a sufficiently large random sample as to make it plausible that this is a general property of matter. The process by which this is normally decided, the homeopathic proving, is farcical, and yet we’re supposed to believe it is infallible since no remedy has ever, as far as I can tell, been removed from a repertory or materia medica after having found to be incorrect.

          • Guy, you have AGAIN PROVEN your ignorance about epidemiology! No surprise.

            Have you ever heard of the “bird flu”? And I hope that you know that ducks are birds. For the record, epidemiologists have deemed ducks to be vectors of various flu epidemics because they are known to carry various flu viruses in their digestive tracts…

            And now, what is Oscillococcinum made with? Hmmm, what a coincidence, it’s the liver and heart of a duck.

            Ever heard of chicken soup having health benefits? Oscillo is a type of “duck soup”…in the 200C…and for the record, there are FOUR double-blind and placebo controlled trials showing efficacy…so, there is both epidemiology and clinical trials to support the use of Oscillococcinum…but heck, let’s not let rationale and logic or evidence come between you and your vile antagonism to science.

          • @Dana Ullman ‘… there are FOUR double-blind and placebo controlled trials showing efficacy… of Oscillococcinum… ‘.

            Do you actually read the references you cite? Or just actively misrepresent them?

          • Comedy gold, Dana, pure comedy gold!

          • @Dana

            Mathie, Frye and Fisher have reported their metastudy on Oscillococinum earlier this year.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25629583
            ‘There is insufficient good evidence to enable robust conclusions to be made about Oscillococcinum® in the prevention or treatment of influenza and influenza-like illness. Our findings do not rule out the possibility that Oscillococcinum® could have a clinically useful treatment effect but, given the low quality of the eligible studies, the evidence is not compelling. ‘

            These authors are not exactly antagonistic to water/sugar but that conclusion is the best they could come up with.

            Considering that this is Boiron’s highest selling product, perhaps you might explain why they don’t fund any properly powered studies.

    • Good grief! I asked two simple questions, one of which you’ve failed to answer. Instead, you’ve written a rant based on false assumptions.

      “It is difficut to deal with any person if he/she is in a ‘denial mode’ refusing to accept even established scientific facts…” I fully agree. Such as the refusal to accept the scientific fact that homeopathy neither prevents nor cures any known illness.

      • If it is your personal belief, I must respect it , but if it is not based on your own research, sorry, I cannot accept your view. But if it is based on your research, please show us your own research paper where you can really establish this hearsay, and please do not cite anybody else’s reference or research to claim validity of your own personal view. I am giving refrences of our works, whereever I am making any comment. If you fail to answer me, and satisfy me with your own research findings, naturally you would prove yourself to be one among those who talk on borrowed research!!

        • Feel free to provide a single independently authenticated case where homeopathy alone has been objectively proven to cure any reliably diagnosed physical disease.

          • Show me ANY review of any group of patients with pancreatic cancer (!) where 39% of patients were found to have survived FIVE years, as was demonstrated here:

            Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee A, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/724743.html An abstract of the above study was published in the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, one of the most respected cancer journals in the world (impact factor = 17.793) http://tinyurl.com/4q4n4jx

          • Show me ANY review of any group of patients with pancreatic cancer (!) where 39% of patients were found to have survived FIVE years, as was demonstrated here:

            Chatterjee A, Biswas J, Chatterjee A, Bhattacharya S, Mukhopadhyay B, Mandal S. Psorinum therapy in treating stomach, gall bladder, pancreatic, and liver cancers: a prospective clinical study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:724743. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/724743.html An abstract of the above study was published in the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, one of the most respected cancer journals in the world (impact factor = 17.793) http://tinyurl.com/4q4n4jx

          • Dana, what you infer from the results of that paper, as usual, aren’t what you think they are. From the author’s own words in the conclusion:

            The limitation of this study is that it did not have any placebo or treatment control arm; therefore, it cannot be concluded that Psorinum Therapy is effective in improving the survival and the quality of life of the participants due to the academic rigours of the scientific clinical trials. This study also cannot rule out the effects of the implemented allopathic and homeopathic supportive measures in the observed results. However, the results of the study showed a fair number of complete and partial tumor responses along with impressive survival outcomes in difficult to treat cancer types. Therefore, randomized double-blind clinical trial, detailed molecular, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics studies should be conducted for further scientific exploration of this alternative cancer treatment to determine if it can be integrated into the mainstream oncology.

            So as usual, Dana Ullman proves he can’t read.

          • Just as it is unethical to provide placebo controlled SURGICAL treatment, it is unethical to provide a placebo control for certain types of cancer. Instead, the ENTIRE world is a control group. Please anyone cite any observational study in which 39% of more patients with pancreatic cancer survived FIVE years. Just cite a single study. ONE!

            Anyone who accepts surgery as a viable medical treatment realizes the LIMITATIONS to double-blind and placebo control trials.

          • Dana, nice use of bait and switch. The paper was published in a terrible journal, so you reference another journal that is not terrible which carried the abstract. Why did the non-terrible journal not carry the paper? Chemist shows why: the design is hopeless.

            Even if the trial design was rigorous, it would not validate homeopathy. A 6X dilution contains, as you know, active ingredient, not the arm-wavey magical imprint of something. And psorinum is not a substance that causes cancer, it’s the serum from skin infected with scabies, so it is unclear what part of “like cures like” is notionally in play here.

            In fact what the paper shows is that a substance used by homeopaths might, at non-homeopathic doses, have a clinical effect entirely unrelated to the claims of homeopathy. Is this your best shot? If so I think we’re done here.

          • Away from ALL your friggin’ THEORIES, let’s simply talk RESULTS. PLease cite a single observational study where 39% of people with pancreatic cancer survived. Even 30%. Even 20%. Waiting! Just one observational study!

          • Sure, let’s talk results. Name a well-conducted clinical trial that delivers a result provably inconsistent wiht the null hypothesis, taking into account the documented effect of prior plausibility on false positive outcomes. Or, name an independently authenticated case where homeopathy alone has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of a reliably diagnosed physical disease.

        • For your information, I spent my career working in the scientific arena: theoretical science; research; and applied science (engineering). I rely on empirical evidence and the scientific method, not on any personal beliefs.

          It is idiotic [as in: bizarrely illogical, anti-scientific, and insulting] to suggest or imply that I need to have published my own research on homeopathy in order for me to know whether or not it is efficacious for any known illness. Just as idiotic as if I was to claim that the Moon is made of cheese then ask to see your own research that shows it is not made of cheese; and if you think that the Moon is not made of cheese then that is your personal belief, sorry, I cannot accept your view. Hopefully, you can now begin to understand the logical error that you have made.

          When you have successfully demonstrated, using the due processes of 21st Century science and medicine, that homeopathy *is* able to cure known diseases, then you will be eligible for a Nobel Prize. Until such time, I shall accept the overwhelming scientific consensus and medical advice that homeopathy “is rubbish”; for exactly the same sound reasons that I know the Moon is not made of cheese without having to visit the Moon myself.
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9822744/Homeopathy-is-rubbish-says-chief-medical-officer.html

          All I originally asked you were two very simple scientific questions. Instead of providing two easy-to-understand answers in a polite and professional manner, you’ve replied with general rants plus personal insults. I shall refrain from stating what I think; I shall instead leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions.

          Thank you for taking the time to write your comments, they’ve been revealing. I think the most appropriate idiom is “flogging a dead horse”:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flogging_a_dead_horse

          • Thanks for your learned comment. It is quite befitting for someone who is an expert researcher in some other unrelated/unfamiliar scientific field(s) and it is quite natural to draw such an analogy of moon made of cheese claim while critiising some paper basically on molecular biology!! I am not challenging his wisdom in his area of study/research, nor showing him any disrespect. But he readily jumped into the fray to challenge a pretty senior researcher (a cytogeneticist/molecular biologist and NOT a homeopath) who has done quite extensive and in-depth research in an area where so-called angels dreaded to venture in for fear of losing all earthly gains and playing safe by going with the “majority” bandwagon of skeptics! What I meant is to be prudent about analyzing one’s own capability/expertise, if he/she really has adequate scientific knowledge in the specific field that can qualify him/her to sit on the “judgement” chair. It is not desirable that without appreciating merits of any study, just to throw some unjustifiable remarks on a study for which he does not simply qualify to pass his well thought out judgement. I don’t claim to be a scholar in my field, but I am only a serious hardworking researcher, whose contribution to science can only be judged by those who are competent enough or in the first place feel it necessary to go through some of our papers, at least those published in respected peer-reviewed journals before throwing any comment in the dark. I think one also has to qualify adequately to express aspersions on the wisdom and expertise of the learned peer-reviewers who critically examined statements and facts before clearing these publications. Do they think that they are better than the actual experts who were entrusted to review these papers. One also has to have the experience of publishing at least a single paper in journals of such standard as Colloids and Surface, European Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, Science of the Total Environment, Experimental Biology and Medicine, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, Miolecular and Cellular Biochemistry, European Journal of Pharmacology, Food andChemicalToxicology etc, etc. just to understand the effort and pains required to get them published withoiut having any “friend” in the management of those journals, and purely based on merit without any hidden push from any corner! Those who work, can also commit mistake, and I for one, is game to accept any true mistake/shortcomings in our research but those who do not do anything worthwhile can only teach others and/or criticize others to establish them as good fault finders! Go ahead friends, cheers!

          • I do not have to be an expert piano player to hear and recognise, when someone plays it wrong …

          • So far, not a SINGLE person here seems to have read the body of work of the serious scientist, ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH. Instead, we get vague personal attacks…and what I refer to as a placebo response.

            Here’s a scientist who has published repeatedly in mainstream journals…and is obviously a good and humble scientist, unlike people here.

          • ‘So far, not a SINGLE person here seems to have read the body of work of the serious scientist, ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH… More blah’

            It appears to have escaped your attention that not only has it been read but that several questions have been asked that are still unanswered. Nobody would expect a mere quack such as yourself to understand his results or the questions but if you want to gather any shreds of credibility you might ask him to respond to those points.

            FYI by implying that because you are a quack you are pretty ignorant can be construed as an ad hominem, correct though it is.

          • You wrote: “I don’t claim to be a scholar in my field”. You really didn’t need to make that statement because your increasingly idiotic rants make this fact blindingly obvious to everyone who looks at your comments. No scholar, in any scientific field of endeavour, would write such a lengthy mono-block diatribe.

            Thank you for making it abundantly clear to us, and for admitting the fact, that you are wholly incapable of adequately answering my two very simple scientific questions.

          • Thanx Pete for making it obvious that there is BIG diff between a good humble scientist and an arrogant and ignorant one.

          • No, Dana! Don’t be modest; that achievement is yours!

          • Dana’s definition of a good scientist is somebody he can use to flog more sugar pills.

          • Dana, the heart of good science is being open to the possibility that you are wrong. I do note that most papers by homeopaths begin by stating, as an assumption, that homeopathy is valid and based on valid principles. This is especially true of so-called “basic research”, most of which amounts to trying to work out what colour unicorns are.

            I have said what would persuade me I am wrong, I suspect Prof. Ernst would share not dissimilar criteria. You have not answered the simple question: what would persuade you that you are wrong?

          • It is increasingly obvious that not a SINGLE person here has commented in any substantative way on the body of evidence published in mainstream scientific journals by Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh.

            It is certainly “convenient” that no one has commented on this work…and I wonder if it is because most of you haven’t read any of this work OR that you have read it and acknowledge that it shows that homeopahtic nanodoses have biological effects…and you CANNOT admit that! You’ve been GOT!

            And Guy, to answer your question, after using homeopathic medicines since 1973 and after seeing thousands (!) of people respond in positive ways to these medicines, even when MANY of them were previously skeptical, there is NOTHING that you or any of your ilk can say that would change reality.

            Now, in comparison, how many people have you given an individually prescribed homeopathic medicine, according to homeopathic principles, and observed the results? Big diff, eh? Who is more knowledgeable and more experienced on this subject?

          • @dana

            Second time you said that and second time you’ve been wrong. An average record for you.

          • oh, I am sure he can [and will] do better than that!

          • Dana, this is a mistake you make all the time. We have considered the research. In considering the research, we take account not only of the spin that a True Believer might put on it, but also prior plausibility, and, most importantly, what other more plausible alternatives exist – and let’s be clear here, there is unlikely to be a *less* plausible explanation than homeopathy.

            Science looks at the totality of evidence on homeopathy and finds no reason to suppose it should work, no remotely plausible way it could work, and no proof it does work, because every single trial purporting to show it *does* work is also compatible with the null hypothesis. P-0.05 means a one in twenty chance of a false positive for a plausible treatment. For an implausible treatment, the P value is a bad model (see Ioannidis).

            You have been told this before. Looking at the research and coming to a different conclusion from you, is not “failing” to look at the research. It’s also been pointed out that basic questions have been asked about this work in particular, and not answered.

            In other words, once again, you see something in a paper, and consider that it is valid and incontrovertible simply because it supports your cherished beliefs. Anything inconsistent with your beliefs is ignored, any weakness is excused, and any more plausible alternative explanation is discounted on principle.

            SOP for homeopathy shills.

          • Guy, your responses are more than placebo responses than not. You provide a “word salad” but say NOTHING specific about the body of work of Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh. You are not fooling anyone.

          • yes, I can see that!
            for someone who does not have the faintest idea about science, it must seem like a ‘word salad’ [is that your new favourite term, Dana?].

          • Dana, if you were a bot you would fail the Turing test – parroting terms others have used without understanding them does not advance your case at all.

            You made an assertion: that we have not looked at the research. This assertion has been shown to be unambiguously false. Your response is to repeat the assertion.

            Of course you, a true believer who openly admits to not being an impartial authority, consider the work of DR ALLCAPS to be compelling. But it dopes appear that you find everything compelling if it even /appears/ to support your beliefs, and you show no sign of any functional method for telling good research form bad.

            Despite your assertion, specific questions have been asked of DR. ALLCAPS. They have not been answered. Specific issues have been pointed out, which indicate the usual problem of a True Believer not even looking for plausible explanations and going instead straight for magical ones. Again, these have not been addressed.

            As I said before, there is a massive difference between not looking at something and not coming to the same conclusions as you. Especially since you have admitted, in court, your own “vile antipathy to science”.

          • Not only has not a single skeptic published a critique of the work of Dr. Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh, NO ONE (!) has provided a non-peer review critique of his work. And please don’t cherry-pick studies, I’m expecting a review of his BODY of work…and I bet I’ll be waiting for a long long time especially for such a critique to be published in a peer review journal.

            You ask for studies…and they are provided to you…and the only critique you provide is that you can’t remember the name of the scientist. “How convenient” indeed (again).

          • come off it – learn some basics about science instead.

          • Mr. Grand Wizard HIMSELF refuses to respond to the body of scientific work published in peer-review scientific journals and which show various homeopathic medicines having specific gene expression…and ALL HE CAN SAY IS THAT I HAVE TO: “learn some basics about science.” I LOVE THAT DODGE…AND I LOVE THAT CLEAR EXPRESSION OF AN “unscientific attitude.” A classic! Thanx for proving my case.

          • I do not refuse to respond…I am just trying to stop laughing about your ignorance.
            And thanks for the title you gave me!!! Most generous.

          • Dana, you should read Jay W. Shelton’s “Homeopathy: How It Really Works”. You might learn something – unless you spend your whole time SHOUTING at it, as you seem to do with anyone else who fails to accept your True Believer interpretation of everything.

            Just a small reminder why the action of hoemopathic dilutions on gene expression, even if it were not an experimental error, would be irrelevant:

            1. There is no evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle.
            2. There is no demonstrated property of matter which could confer the power of cure by symptomatic similarity in the way homeopathists claim.
            3. There is no evidence that any such property of matter might be involved in the gene expression experiments.
            4. There is no evidence that this would be transferrable to a sugar pill after the solute was left to evaporate.
            5. There is on evidence it would survive the enzymes of the mouth and pass to the bloodstream.
            6. There is no evidence it would be able, even if it did make it to the blood, to target the specific organs involved.
            7. There is no evidence, even if it could do all these things, that it could deliver a clinically relevant effect, what with the law of mass action and everything.

            I am sure I have missed many other missing links in the chain of (im)plausibility.

            Your problem is that you cherry-pick every factoid, and then loudly demand that others prove to your satisfaction that this factoid does not, on its own and in isolation from everything else, validate your beliefs.

            My advice to you is to listen to your critics, understand their arguments, and SHOUT less.

          • Dana, what you lack in understanding you make up for in rhetorical exuberance.

            A basic point about science: the person making a claim, has to back it up. DR. ALLCAPS is making the claims here, so this is an appropriate venue to challenge them. The challenges have not been met. Basic questions are not answered. We don’t have to go out and publish a refutation in Nature.

            It’s over twelve years since DR. ALLCAPS published his purported cure for arsenic poisoning. Where’s the independent replication? What about his “nano-insulin”? How’s that getting on?

            Of course we know the answer: it’s going nowhere, because it’s almost certainly the result of misunderstandings. Just like every bit of “research” that purports to support homeopathy. Would you like me to tell you again why electrochemists wash their glassware in hydrofluoric acid, and what that means for the purported nanobollockules of Chikramane and co?

          • Mr. Chapman. Now, your points:

            “1. There is no evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle.”

            You lose:

            http://het.sagepub.com/content/29/7/561.abstract

            “2. There is no demonstrated property of matter which could confer the power of cure by symptomatic similarity in the way homeopathists claim.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23343410

            “3. There is no evidence that any such property of matter might be involved in the gene expression experiments.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13237-014-0105-0

            “4. There is no evidence that this would be transferrable to a sugar pill after the solute was left to evaporate.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714383

            “5. There is on evidence it would survive the enzymes of the mouth and pass to the bloodstream.”
            “6. There is no evidence it would be able, even if it did make it to the blood, to target the specific organs involved.”

            That’s good question. Maybe…

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452213007094

            Bioavailability and biological activity of nano-forms of any material in general and specifically of cocc 30c, suggest its therapeutic potential intriguing, as CNS access across the blood–brain barrier is readily possible for the small sized nanoparticles that were already shown present in homeopathic medicines (Chikramane et al., 2010).

            “7. There is no evidence, even if it could do all these things, that it could deliver a clinically relevant effect, what with the law of mass action and everything.”

            Oh, dear…. Sure? Meta-analysis

            http://i.imgur.com/qKQyX4w.png

          • @Egger, you have fallen into the trap of so many homeopathists of believing that robustness is conferred by the simple alchemy of being published, anywhere, in any journal.

            Robust evidence is not single papers by true believers in random low-impact journals, especially when those true believers normally publish in the true-believer press (SCAM-specific journals like Homeopathy and the Journal of Acupuncture And Meridian Studies).

            Overall you seem to have fallen into Dullman’s trap of believing that any paper even remotely supportive of homeopathy, represents final clinching proof of its validity. Have you seen how many papers were published discussing, challenging, testing and finally confirming general relativity before it became accepted? You do not appear to have any idea of the concept of scientific rigour.

            “1. There is no evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle.”

            You lose:

            http://het.sagepub.com/content/29/7/561.abstract

            A single paper by an True Believer most of whose work is published in homeopathy and other SCAM-specific journals, in a journal with an impact factor of 1.7.

            This does not constitute robust or compelling (or even vaguely decent) evidence that like cures like, not least because it appears to base its case on (a) a statement of faith and (b) hormesis, which actually refutes homeopathy because it does not apply to most materials and the dose-response returns to exponential decay below the narrow band of inflexion.

            Whoever told you that this paper constitutes evidence that like cures like, is an idiot, and you should stop listening to them as a matter of urgency.

            “2. There is no demonstrated property of matter which could confer the power of cure by symptomatic similarity in the way homeopathists claim.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23343410

            Remember that you need to find a property of matter that is universal, or close to, that persists in dilution, that is transferrable to a sugar pill by evaporation, that survives the enzymes of the mouth, that crosses the barrier into the bloodstream, that is bioavailable at the affected organs, and you need to prove that it is this property, specifically, that is related to the symptomatic relationship of cure that you haven’t proved even exists.

            This paper is a bit like saying magic carpets fly because some magic carpet believers can find evidence of aluminium in magic carpets, and aircraft are made of aluminium, hence magic carpets fly. A speculative “neuroimmunological model based on electromagnetic resonance”, published in a journal with an impact factor of 1.194, falls a very long way short of the standard of evidence required.

            3. There is no evidence that any such property of matter might be involved in the gene expression experiments.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13237-014-0105-0

            The paper by DR. ALLCAPS has already been demolished above. And actually the first sentence says it all: “In homeopathy, ultra-low doses of drugs at ultra-high dilutions are often used with great benefits to patients”. This is a statement of faith, not fact, and clearly establishes that the work is designed to confirm a belief, not test a hypothesis.

            That’s pseudoscience, by the way.

            4. There is no evidence that this would be transferrable to a sugar pill after the solute was left to evaporate.”

            Again. You lose:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25714383

            Ah, I love papers like this. They sneak under the radar by carefully avoiding mention of the h-word, then they disguise speculation as a conclusion and leaven with quantum flapdoodle. Incidentally, do you know what the solid phase of water is called? Hint: it’s not sugar.

            “5. There is on evidence it would survive the enzymes of the mouth and pass to the bloodstream.”
            “6. There is no evidence it would be able, even if it did make it to the blood, to target the specific organs involved.”

            That’s good question. Maybe…

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452213007094

            Bioavailability and biological activity of nano-forms of any material in general and specifically of cocc 30c, suggest its therapeutic potential intriguing, as CNS access across the blood–brain barrier is readily possible for the small sized nanoparticles that were already shown present in homeopathic medicines (Chikramane et al., 2010).

            Speculative nonsense, and Chikramane’s methods are fundamentally inconsistent with homeopathy, as discussed elsewhere in this thread.

            You need to provide objectively testable and repeatable evidence of bioavailability in multiple substances. To date, no objective evidence of bioavailability has been produced for any substance at normal homeopathic potencies.

            7. There is no evidence, even if it could do all these things, that it could deliver a clinically relevant effect, what with the law of mass action and everything.”

            Oh, dear…. Sure? Meta-analysis

            Yes, sure. P=0.05 means that there is a 5% chance that the result is false. In other words, P=0.05 is still compatible with the null hypothesis.

            Read http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18611956. Basically, if the prior plausibility of something is low (and for homeopathy it is actually zero), the chances of any positive outcome being a false positive, are very high indeed. What meta analysis shows beyond doubt is that with homeopathy, the more robustly designed a trial, the more effectively it eliminates bias and confounding, the less likely it is to produce a positive outcome.

            P=0.05 is valid only for plausible treatments, and even then it does not (and cannot, by its very nature) rule out false positives.

  • Not content on doubling down on the stupid, Dana keeps on doubling down over and over again, even when shown in great detail with ovewhelming and undeniable evidence that he’s wrong.
    Dana, I have some straightforward advice for you – when you are in a hole, it’s best to stop digging. The hole you’re in at the moment is as deep as the Mariana Trench.

  • Dana follows the same trajectory as every pseudoscience nutcase I have come across (he’s just more motivated in projecting his ideological thinking in support of his marketing.) Most rational people would retreat when their argument(s) is(are) proven wrong. Honest proponents of a position can recognize facts in support of their thinking and facts that refute what they postulate. This is never the case with Homeopathic Dana.

    Normally, the fact that one cannot dissuade Dana of his twisted ideology would be irrelevant. But in the case of Dana (and many of his ilk) he is a morally corrupt and ethical degenerate who knowingly and consciously benefits from the gullible and leverages the lack of understanding of science by the general public to his maximum enrichment. His time spent digging deeper holes in exchanges with people who see him for the charlatan that he is, allows him to hone his skills in twisting the words of science for his marketing effort.

    No one will convince the morally corrupt and intellectually dishonest Dana Ullman of the errors of his way. We certainly cannot provide evidence that proves him wrong as he has demonstrated that the truths is irrelevant to his being. Dana only looks to science literature for snippets of what he can twist for use in his marketing campaigns. One only has to look at his sale of Double Helix Water to understand the extent of his ability to latch onto the most absurd notions (and twist legitimate research into perverse nonsense) and sell it as part of an expensive alternative therapy.

    Our attempt to prove he is wrong is exactly the same as trying to convince a snake oil salesmen that his miracle elixir is useless (a fact of which the snake oil salesmen is fully aware, but admitting the same ends his gravy train.)

    The most frustrating part of all of this is when I come across highly intelligent and highly educated people who forgo logic and critical thinking to buy into his nonsense (and that of other snake oil peddlers.) If trained and educated individuals are swayed by his brand of nonsense how can we expect the lay public to resist his messaging? In the broader scheme of things Dana represents a depressing figure. When one examines the current state of the world, the likes of Dana Ullman and his fellow sociopaths spring into view. They represent the moral and ethical wasteland of human greed and whom knowingly contribute to background noise that consumes energy that is better consumed in eliminating preventable misery.

    Dana doesn’t deserve anyone’s time and effort, but sadly his widely visible psychopathy draws disproportionate effort in order to counter its harm (even one person harmed by following his nonsense is one too many.) How he sleeps at night is beyond me.

    • The main point of arguing with Dana is to ensure that wherever he pops up, you can evidence that you have refuted his bullshit many times before. In any open venue – i.e. any where homeopathists do not control the debate – Dana will always end up looking like a delusional shill, as long as we keep pointing to past refutations of his bogus arguments.

      And every now and then he comes up with a new one. Look up there at his claim that oscillo “works” because ducks are a vector for flu. Do Boiron test for flu virus befor mincing the poor duck? No, of course they don’t. And it would not matter if they did because (a) flu virus antigens are pretty specific, so an H1N1 antigen won’t tackle an H5N9 virus, and (b) there is no evidence whatsoever that any proteins related to flu remain in the finished product anyway. Yet Dana asserts that based on this we are somehow ignorant of epidemiology and have a “vile” antipathy to “science” (ironic, given that Dana himself has called scientific medicine “witchcraft”).

      The function of arguing with him, then, is to ensure that Dana “Mr Uncredible” Ullman (http://is.gd/MrUncredible) is not mistaken for a credible source of information. His cherry-picking, distortion, quote mining and fact-blindness have been busted, and continue to be busted wherever he encounters members of the reality-based community. And that’s a public service. Plus, it’s fun to troll the shill 🙂

      • @Guy
        I can see why Dana Ullman is referred to as ‘the spokesperson for homeopathy’. His posts are like a (bad) politician’s verbal flailing. He combines complete ignorance even of basic biology with an ability to dissemble in a manner that avoids directly answering any question he’s asked. His responses on the two threads that currently fill up with comments demonstrate the rectal source of his arguments. Apparently homeopathy is whatever Dana defines it as today. Ditto biomedical science. That makes genuine discussion impossible, but provides belly-laughs for the scientifically literate. Surely there has to be a better spokesman for witchcraft somewhere?

        • You forgot that Dana also accuses others of his own worst faults. Antagonism to science, for example, or ignorance of basic concepts like evolution or epidemiology.

          Homeopathy has no explanatory power. Dana hates this. Tough.

    • First, you’ve created a “word salad” and the typical ad hom attack (and such ad homs are common when you don’t have any real legs on which to stand), but did not provide a single example of a wrong statement.

      Further, it is so typical that most of the pseudo-skeptics here use fake names, probably because they are Big Pharma shills or simply are duplicate names. You are not fooling anyone.

      • ‘Word salad’, Dana has spotted a new phrase, watch as it gets worn out.

        Still hasn’t learned that ad hominem is not just an insult.

        Fake names? Do you have any examples of these being used for any other purpose than anonymity. For example, is anyone creating a fake name to praise themselves as you did on the Randi forum?

      • DU has contributed to the advancement of science in one quite important way.
        He has repeatedly provided proof of the theory put forth by David Dunning and Justin Kruger which came to be called “The Dunning–Kruger effect”:

        The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their own ineptitude and evaluate their own ability accurately.

        Wikipedia was forced to ban DU from discussing anything related to homeopathy in there.
        Another enlightening read on the subject is the Rational Wiki

        And more interesting stuff…

        • There’s an enormous amount of irony and chutzpah in you saying that I am not an expert on homeopathy, and your reference to Wikipedia is simply a further example of your sheer ignorance and confusion. I am not allowed to edit articles on homeopathy on Wikipedia because I write books on that subject…and they have deemed that I have a “conflict of interest,” despite the fact that NO medical doctor is deemed to have a similar conflict of interest if they have written books on medical subjects…and despite the fact that Wikipedia is FULL of anti-homeopathy editors that make certain that ANYONE who tries to provide objectivity to Wiki’s article on homeopathy is barred from editing or is prohibited from providing factual information drawn from high-impact medical and scientific journals.

          Evidence of this bias against homeopathy is an article I’ve written here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html

          Gad, the amount of ignorance and arrogance at this site is unbounding…. People here seem to think that the plural for lies is “the truth.”

          • You were banned from Wikipedia for being a tendentious, argumentative fellow who would not follow the rules. On one occasion you were called for using your usual technique of quote mining and misquoting to win an argument, the quote came from the person you were arguing with, an epic fail.

          • You never fail to elicit mirth and merriment, Dana. You have a jester’s ability to misinterpret and misquote what you read and wade into ever deeper quagmires of thoughtless retorts.
            Your rhetoric is so thin it almost feels like beating on a lying adversary, exchanging words with you. Note that I use the word ‘lying’ in the meaning ‘reclining’. The alternate meaning might apply too if it weren’t for the fact that you are probably not able to consciously distinguish between reality and fabrication.

            It seems you are addressing me in your last retort, right?
            Again an example of your misinterpretations. I never said you weren’t an expert in Homeopathy. On the contrary I would, if anyone asked, say you were one of the leading experts in the field. That is to say an expert in being a homeopath. To be such an expert, you need to be absolutely ignorant of many aspects of reality, science and logic. Most of the other homeopathic ‘experts’ are content with preaching to the congregation and performing their remedy shaking and silly provings in the company of adoring ignorami.
            You, Dana, are one of the ‘leading’ grand experts because you stand on a box and shout your expertise in public, even globally – an expertise in ignorant absurdity.

            I would say your latest rimshot is quite telling of your Don Quixote-esque campaign.
            You boisterously refer to your own writing as evidence[sic] of someone else’s bias against yourself. How dense can a man get?

          • Well, Dana, I guess we have to listen tot he Judge again:

            “Mr. Ullman’s testimony was unhelpful in understanding the purported efficacy of the ingredients of SnoreStop to reduce the symptoms of snoring. Although he is familiar with the theory of homeopathic treatment, his opinions regarding its effectiveness was unsupported and biased. The Court gave no weight to his testimony.”

            I fully acknowledge that you are familiar with at least some of the competing theories of homeopathy. You are, however, not familiar with reality and the many reasons why those theories are wrong. And that’s unsurprising:

            “The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. […] He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy.”

            Doctors don’t have a conflict of interest on Wikipedia because there is no informed dissent from the view that measurable quantities of pharmacologically active compounds can have objectively testable results. And no, you weren’t banned for simply having a conflict of interest, you were banned for engaging in advocacy – and of course exhibiting a vile antipathy to science.

            Wikipedia has both pro- and anti-homeopathy editors. We also have people on both sides of the fence on climate change and creationism. In every case Wikipedia’s content follows the reality-based consensus of independent experts. If you want Wikipedia to support homeopathy, first get robust proof that like cures like by symptomatic similarity, then show that this property is persistent though the types of processes used by homeopathists, then show objectively testable and repeatable results.

          • To be fair… If anyone in the audience feels we are being harsh on homeopathy and dear Dana.
            Then here’s a very good explanation why I recommend also watching the whole series of ten lectures on different CAM subjects.

          • @Dana Ullman That accuracy, relevance and coherence do not concern you is exemplified in this tweet you posted yesterday: https://twitter.com/HomeopathicDana/status/673717207872835584
            You tie yourself in a Gordian knot and continue digging yourself deeper into a pit of ignominy, with your ‘repeat-ignore’ tactics (very common among homeopathy propagandists, I find). You keep making charges, and repeating onus-deflecting demands, yet ignore requests that you back up your assertions, such as explanation and objective evidence for the effect of homeopathy on the ‘integrity’ of the immune system? As you are a ‘big cheese’ and revered in the homeopathy world, I guess you feel the need to persist here, as the post has your name in the title, and is thus potentially embarrassing for you – correct? So, even though you (surely know you) are scrambling, you continue with the mantra, reaching to maintain the illusion of an equally-weighted debate in order to confirm the bias of your acolytes, and to dupe the unfamiliar reader. But there is no debate. So you resort to the ‘intelligent design’-style tactic of ‘teach the controversy’ in the media. You are akin to a creationist.

          • Hey Lee Turnpenny…PUT up or shut up! You and other ar$e-holes here assert that homeopathy is implausible, but when a scientist cites a dozen or so articles in mainstream scientific journals show gene expression, NO BODY here reads these studies or responds to them, not just HERE but in the peer-review literature.

            It must be very embarrassing for you all to instead resort to ad homs against me. How very embarrassing for you all!

            And the best news is that there is a record here of your obstinency and the poor scientific attitudes present in the supposed critique of homeopathy! And that’s why people here seem to be pseudo-skeptics not real ones.

          • What I find somewhat amusing is that, the more a person believes in homeopathy, the more they become similar to Dullman. Hence sociologically-speaking confirming the homeopathic law of similars; while at the same time, and idiotically, confirming that like most definitely does NOT cure like!

            Dullman has a very long way to go before he can persuade hundreds of millions of people to tithe circa 10% of their income to his church, which its core tenets are: arrogance; science denialism; wilful ignorance; and most of all, the wilful obscurantism that is so necessary in order to maximally milk both the gullible and the vulnerable members of society. These core tenets of his modus operandi represent the complete antitheses of amusement, happiness, and well-being.

          • Dana, I already pointed out to you several times in various places why any possible effect of one substance in gene expression at some level of dilution goes nowhere towards filling the enormous plausibility gap.

            Once again, there’s no evidence like cures like, no evidence that any property of matter would confer this basis of cure, no evidence that whatever is going on in the gene expression experiments is related to this purported property of matter, no evidence that it is general, no evidence that it is persistent through application to a sugar pill and evaporation of the water, no evidence that it can survive the enzymes of the mouth, no evidence that it can pass from the mouth to the bloodstream, no evidence that it is transported tot he relevant organs, no evidence that it still has the purported effect once it gets there, no evidence that the effect is large enough to be clinically significant.

            You might just as well claim that weaving an aluminum thread into a carpet makes it fly because aircraft are also made of aluminium and then SHOUT LOUDLY at everybody who REFUSES to accept the SCIENCE of flying carpets.

          • “…when a scientist cites a dozen or so articles in mainstream scientific journals show gene expression, NO BODY here reads these studies or responds to them, not just HERE but in the peer-review literature.”
             
            Have you ever run a gene expression micro-array, Dana? I have, and I know how easy it is to get unreliable results from the procedure. I also already read and commented on the paper that seems to get you so excited. Cells in tissue culture were treated with a low but detectable concentration of a substance with known pharmacological activity, and their gene expression was found to be altered. When the substance was succussed to homeopathically ‘active’ dilutions there was no effect. Whatever you think that shows as you redefine homeopathy is your business, but don’t whine about nobody looking at this stuff.

          • @ Dana Ullman – I’ll not shut up as long you (and others) continue with such fallaciously deceptive tactics, which I consider need exposing in the public interest. ad hominem? Of course, you never resort to those, do you? I take it your insertion of ‘$’ into ar$e-holes is intended to paint me (and others here) of being paid to criticise homeopathy and, by extension, you? Do you have any evidence for that? I would certainly be interested to learn just who you think is paying me, because the cheques are not arriving. Please, do reveal. (And quit playing the victim.)

            What is it you require me to ‘PUT up’ about? That homeopathy has an effect on gene expression? I hadn’t mentioned that before, had I? I keep asking you to back up your statement re the effect of homeopathy on the ‘integrity’ of the immune system, but as you haven’t, I take it you cannot. Am I inclined to consider that homeopathy has an effect on gene expression? Hardly. Have you ever worked in laboratory research? Have you ever conducted experiments on cells in culture? I have: I spent ten years doing it, and I can tell you that you can pretty much throw anything at cells and if you want to see an effect, you’ll likely see it. Whether it’s a real effect is another matter. And then whether that translates into efficacy in human patients is another matter; particularly as you are still diverting from the primary problem. Now, I’ve noted here and elsewhere that you have been caught out for misrepresenting and/or failing to read the papers you wave about. So, before you claim these gene expression papers validate homeopathy, how can we be sure you’re not being disingenuous? Again?

          • Dana,

            You misrepresent the reasons for your banning from Wikipedia. I watched the whole saga unfold. Your use of a particularly useless study of homeopathic arsenic was a crucial factor. It was not to your authorship of books, per se.

      • Dana, word salad aside, pointing out your promotion of Double Helix Water isn’t an ad hominen attack, it legitimately challenges the absurdity of what you promote as health therapies. It straight out calls you a fraud for promoting nonsense (exactly how Double Helix Water fits into homeopathy other than as a very expensive diluent defies logic; which, in this context, involves a perfect irony.)

        Specifically fraudulent: how does one distinguish Double Helix Water from any other packaged water? Dropping a snowflake into water immediately destroys its crystal state, leaving liquid H2O (and any impurity that initiated the crystal.) A representative lay summary of the quackery of magic water can be found at:

        http://skeptvet.com/Blog/2010/07/double-helix-water-more-magic-water-quackery/

        and a more detailed review of the scientific idiocy of “structured water” (it also includes some “facts” on the Physics Letters A you include as a link supporting the science of Double Helix Water) are found here:

        http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html

        All of the above demonstrates why Dana Ullman has such an in depth (& warranted) entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons, as pointed out by Björn Geir previously.

        With respect to this specific thread, Dana, your own written comments have proven i) points about your inability to read, ii) your failure to understand science, iii) my point that you ignore facts to say whatever you want in support of nonsense, & iv) you will never acknowledge the errors of your ways. Simply go to your reference provided in Comment #72369:

        http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2011/724743.html in which the authors very own writing refutes the claim you attribute to it. This is almost as bad as when you quote articles you have written as evidence that homeopathy works.

      • Ah, the “pharma shill gambit”, beloved of crackpots, conspiracy nutters, antivaxers, quacks and other pond life.

        Only one of us has a financial stake in the outcome of debates on homeopathy: you. If homeopathy is banned as the fraud it so obviously is, you have to go and get a proper job.

        • “you have to go and get a proper job”

          How will that ever happen as he “has such an in depth (& warranted) entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons”? Maybe he might have to eke out the rest of his life on the fraudulently obtained money scammed from his victims, and, possibly (read; hopefully) end up in a gutter somewhere despairing for all of the pain he has inflicted on the optimistic souls given false hope by a conman.

          (Sorry. I was fantasising that Ullman would get some comeuppance for all of his dishonest activities.)

          • more likely he will continue to make a profitable career amongst homeopaths who are far too uncritical to realise his ignorance, arrogance and incompetence.

  • Dear Friends,
    Thank you for being so generous in making all kinds of wild/silly/illogical comments, some in qujite unacceptable language in our culture, touching close to what we take it here as abusive. I accept whatever you may say of my wisdom and scientific integrety/abilty because I have come to know about some of your’s!!. I feel really sorry to have put you all in an embarassing position, so much so that it gives me a feeling that I possibly have shaken the Hornet’s nest. Actually I do not care about the comments of those who do not really have any self-assessment about their depth and logic of understanding!! Many of you go on making arguments without fully knowing what you are speaking about and of whom you are speaking about! In comparison with your achievements and glory, I know I can be easily belittled because most of you do not have the intellect and courage to see science in its proper perspectives, but you prefer to thrust your points (very knowledgeable indeed!!) on your kind of understanding of science. Be happy and go on doing this, but just any of you show me one print in any of the journals I published my so-called research findings! I quite understand your point that you do not have to be a singer to understand music, which you claim to do, but I dare say that you will possibly fail to understand or identify some critical nuansces of Indian music, because that needs specialized training/knowledge about the specific “raga”. You may be a good Engineer or a Commerce graduate, but how come you understand everything of molecular biology research? If you had the minimum of intellectual faculty of anallytical mind, you would have appreciated that we produced nano-capsules of homeopathic mother tinctures to avoid any arguement that the dilution factor does not remove all nanoparticles and we were able to demonstrate the presence of nanoparticles of the drug with accepted advanced protocols, so much so that quite respected mainstream journals could not deny their publications. Therefore, I have no desire left to get involved in unnecessary illogical mud throwing by some biased/motivated with some ulterior self-interest to behave as guardians of science! Quite sensible indeed! So my friends, forgive this stupid Emeritus Professor (In India, among millions of people only 100 from ALL disciplines of Science, Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Medicine, etc etc ) are selected by a stringent committee comprising very renowned scientists/researchers of all disciplines (but without, of course, some very wise people like you!) absolutely based on unanimous assessment of merit). So I do not like to be ridiculed by some self-imposed wise people, and leave you to stay in peace! Bye.

    • you say you find some of the comments abusive. let me tell you: I find your comment abusive and evasive.

      • Ahhh…poor Darth Edzard…someone has hurt his feelings…and he does have a heart under there (somewhere!). As for evasive…well, despite many requests, you and your ilk here have provided no evidence that you’ve read any of the studies published in mainstream journals by the work of Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh.

        I will now predict that someone here will finally get around to reading this research and will begin nit-picking and will then blow-up whatever minor issues there may be that gives you the excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. And yet, many of us are still waiting for someone from this site will finally be honest and will start to give your hyper-critique to the truly awful science behind the Shang review and the shit-poor Australian government report. As yet, I have not read a single word (!) of thoughtful criticism of these junk science studies.

        But then again, I really don’t expect real or good science from this site…just a lot of hand-waving and even more ad homs against me or anyone who stands up to the ignorance and arrogance here.

        • I really don’t expect real or good science from this site… YOU WOULD NOT RECOGNISE IT IF YIU FELL OVER IT!

          • It has come to the point that if Dana agreed with a piece of good science I would have to start reviewing the evidence for it again.

        • ‘I will now predict that someone here will finally get around to reading this research and will begin nit-picking ‘

          Yeah yeah Dana, we know all about poisoning the well rhetoric. It would at least be a new sensation to see you produce a novel argument rather than all these tired old clichés you have been touting since the time you were warned not to pretend to be a doctor.

          As the hopes of you producing anything original is approximately one in 10^23 and receding is there any hope you can understand that to ask questions of Dr Capitals you have to have read his article?

        • As yet, I have not read a single word (!) of thoughtful criticism of these junk science studies.

          Me neither. Do you think you’ll ever get around to writing any?

      • Hanlon’s razor is highly applicable to the diatribes issued by Dr ALL CAPS and by Dullman — Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

    • Dear Dr. Khuda-Bukhsh,

      Thank you for taking time out of your busy day to patronise us but the time might have been better spent remedying the absence of any evidence that like cures like, and the multiple other missing links in the homeopathic chain of belief.

      You might also want to devote a few minutes to answering the entirely pertinent questions asked of you in this discussion.

    • ‘If you had the minimum of intellectual faculty of anallytical mind, you would have appreciated that we produced nano-capsules of homeopathic mother tinctures to avoid any arguement that the dilution factor does not remove all nanoparticles and we were able to demonstrate the presence of nanoparticles of the drug with accepted advanced protocols’

      Unfortunately you haven’t shown any ability to produce nano-capsules or even defined what the heck they could be. That you are convinced that have proven anything at all yet have deliberately refused to answer fairly simple questions is very telling. It shows that the Integrative Journal of Medicine does not have an adequate peer review system, that you have a tenuous grasp of how science works, that you are not particularly knowledgeable about this topic and you provide an excellent example of why the argument from authority is fallacious. Indian Science Technology and Mathematics are among the best in the world, you provide evidence that the scientific establishment still needs to root out believers in woo.

      • No one (!) here has explained why NATURE INDIA considered the research good enough to report on it at their own website: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

        Ironically, the only thing that the people at Darth Edzard’s website can say is ad populam, as though NATURE INDIA determines what it publishes based primarily on its “popularity.”

        Are you guys even reading your own drivel?…and still believing in it? That may explain why most of the people here don’t even use their real names.

        • stop foaming from the mouth, Dana – you give homeopathy a bad name!

          • Hey Darth Edzard, no foaming here, though you seem quite delusional in seeing what is not there. And speaking of what is “not there,” you haven’t yet explained why Nature India published a summary of this research (oh, I’m wrong…you wrote that they did so for the “publicity”…and of course, ALL good scientific journals only publish for “publicity”)…is your delusional state obvious to you yet? If not, you’ve got a career as a professional denialist in you.

          • I got it! you want to demonstrate that homeopathy does not help against madness.

        • Dana, if NATURE INDIA thought it was so great, how come NATURE INDIA didn’t publish the study? Did the authors not submit it, possibly because they thought a zero-impact quackery journal would be more likely to be read?

        • ‘No one (!) here has explained why NATURE INDIA considered the research good enough to report on it at their own website: http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2015.154

          No one has to although we can speculate while we laugh at your squirming efforts to avoid Dr allcaps problem in having had to publish in an alt med magazine and not a proper journal.

          I choose to remain anonymous so that I am not bombarded by the hordes of deluded people who deny reality, like you. However, you are the one who registered a false name on the Randi forum and used that false name to praise a certain Dana Ullman. By whining about anybody else you are re-exposing your own dishonesty and clearly demonstrating that you are a hypocrite.

          So no science, no maths, no medicine and a lying little toad. Hardly surprising you went in for a career in fiction, its just that are not very good at it, thus the niche market of water/sugar tradesmen.

    • From ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH we get this supreme irony: “Actually I do not care about the comments of those who do not really have any self-assessment about their depth and logic of understanding!!” Here’s why:

      Taken from above (comment 72249), the “Stupid Emeritus Professor” (his own words) puts forward a ground-breaking, extraordinary incredulous notion as the objective for his paper.

      OBJECTIVE: Methylation-specific epigenetic process and gene expression profiles of HeLa cells treated
      with ultra-high dilutions (HDs) of two plant extracts, Hydrastis canadensis (HC-30) and Marsdenia
      condurango (Condu-30), diluted 10^60 times, were analyzed against placebo 30C (Pl-30) for alterations in
      gene profiles linked to epigenetic modifications.

      Oh my, Professor Appeal To Authority, as a trained chemist, I am perplexed as to how you can be surprised that your paper draws critique and ridicule.

      Consider what outcomes would derive from your listed Objective. Fundamental aspects of chemistry and physics would have to be over turned (the work of many generations of scientist discarded.) Billions and billions of dollars spent furthering this knowledge will be judged to have been wasted. Governments, Universities, investors, students and graduates would demand the return of their wasted money. Awards of prior Noble prizes in Chemistry and Physics would have to be rescinded, lives of so many ruined. Incredibly, all engineering works and technological advances developed from the principles of Chemistry and Physics would cease to functions because the underlying science would be false…..

      The ridiculous scenario above is as likely as your notion that highly dilute solutions (10^60 times, no less) retain memory or have increasing potency derived from diluting the original substance. Even assuming a person can come to consider this as plausible (i.e. isn’t influence by their own biases) they would understand the extraordinary nature of this hypothesis and provide references supporting evidence that refutes the current body of chemistry and physics knowledge. You seem oblivious to these facts. As such, save us your passive aggressive diatribe and sanctimony. Your time would be better spent communicating with the renowned scientists/researchers you mention who might educate you on the workings of Chemistry and Physics you seem to have overlooked.

      • Did I miss something? Where is the “appeal to authority?” Actually, Anisur conducted placebo-controlled research and got it published in a peer-review journal.

        In comparison, you didn’t conduct any research or seemingly didn’t even read it beyond the abstract. You use a false name. And you gave a totally lame reference to “appeal to authority” because you couldn’t actually admit that it was an “appeal to RESEARCH.”

        It is obvious why you don’t use your real name. Obvious.

        • Dana, the main route by which homeopathy apologia gets published is via “Appear Reviewed” journals, i.e. those which specialise in SCAM and whose review goes no further than “does this flatter out beliefs”.

          The second most common method, and one used by the likes of Iris Bell, is to studiously avoid mention of homeopathy and sneak it past peer reviewers who are simply not expecting scientists to be trying to hoodwink them.

          Those two routes, plus a smattering of outright frauds (e.g. Benveniste) and serendipitous false positives, is what has been sustaining your industry for nearly three decades. It won’t last. That’s why you keep banging on about Nature when the actual paper was published in a bottom-feeding SCAM-specific journal and Nature merely reported the abstract – almost certainly directly from a press release, and apparently only on the website (though it might have made the print edition, the cite doesn’t make that clear). Bait and switch. Nature India *did not publish this*. The research you attribute to Nature, was actually in what appears to be A Chinese-published journal with no impact factor. Chinese journals have a massive problem: they almost never report negative results.

          Every time you repeat the false claim that this is from Nature, you look less like a mere bullshitter and more like a liar.

        • Dana, yes you did miss something (is following along so difficult for you…. never mind.) Since the comments are so nested, I will lay it out for you. The relevance of my reference to Appeal to Authority was about Anisur’s recent “Dear Friends” comment, wherein he touts his perceived esteem apparently bestowed on him: “In India, among millions of people only 100 from ALL disciplines of Science, Arts, Commerce, Engineering, Medicine, etc etc.” If you don’t see that as an Appeal to Authority, then fallacies allude you as much as science.

          With respect to whether I read the paper or not, that has zero bearing on the FACT that the paper’s Objective is readily refuted (which I did, in clear language even you should be able to understand). Certainly, there is no requirement to do research to understand how the paper’s Objective abrogate the principles of Chemistry and Physics. In wishing away the principles of Chemistry and Physics, as Anisur so dismissively attempts, he only succeeds in demonstrating the his focus should remain within the field of Zoology. His lack of understanding of Chemistry and Physics is in full display throughout the paper, not just the Objective. This fundamental flaw disqualifies the paper from relevancy in science and moves it into realm of magical thinking.

          One final retort Dana. You seem fixated on my use of Chemist. The thing about science, that you continually miss, is that principles of Chemistry and Physics apply whether my identity is revealed or not. The principles also apply whether you understand them or not. And they most certainly apply when a Professor of Zoology puts forward a supposed “scientific” paper about a nonsensical homeopathy idea. Your beliefs, and my name, matter not one iota. Facts and evidence, on the other hand, are critical, so try sticking to what counts.

        • “Actually, Anisur conducted placebo-controlled research and got it published in a peer-review journal.”

          Actually, he conducted a flawed experiment based on faulty premises. I’m not a researcher, however, the basic problem (putting aside all of the other problems of homoeopathy which violate all of the laws of nature and logic) is that the nature of the solutions tested is not known. While it says they are 30C dilutions (10 to the minus 60 to make it clear), the rest of the solution is not known or disclosed. Even if it was 100% pure water (unlikely) with some 100% dissolved alcohol (possible but unlikely), the effect of that solution only was not tested.

          RTCs must be conducted properly, not used to shore up wishful thinking.

    • “If you had the minimum of intellectual faculty of anallytical mind, you would have appreciated that we produced nano-capsules of homeopathic mother tinctures to avoid any arguement that the dilution factor does not remove all nanoparticles and we were able to demonstrate the presence of nanoparticles of the drug with accepted advanced protocols, so much so that quite respected mainstream journals could not deny their publications.”

      As homoeopathy is premised on successive dilutions to increase the potency, isn’t the use of “nano-capsules of homeopathic mother tinctures” counter to the very action to create the desired effect?

      Also, why are “nano-capsules of homeopathic mother tinctures” not susceptible to the successive dilutions? What properties do they have to avoid being reduced in number by dilution?

  • So here’s a paper from DR. ALLCAPS: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25298670

    What symptom of hemlock poisoning is like the symptoms of cervical cancer, so suggesting its use in homeopathy?

  • I just looked up DR. ALLCAPS in PubMed. Some comedy gold: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Anisur%20Rahman%20Khuda-Bukhsh%5BAuthor%5D

    Korean Journal of Pharmacopuncture. Seriously?

    • Hurra, Mr Guy Chapman laughing of the the Korean Journal of Pharmacopuncture. Is your agree with comic sans argument, in the analog mode the Ernst papers is laughly:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212088

      British Homoeopathic Journal. Seriously?

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21359919

      Chin. Integrative Journal. Seriously?

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20876268

      CMAC. Seriosuly?

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658121

      Althernative Therapies Health Medicine. Seriosuly?

      The Fallacy of DOUBLE STANDARDS.

      • Oh good. Another barely-literate halfwit has crawled out of the woodwork.

        “Hurra, Mr Guy Chapman laughing of the the Korean Journal of Pharmacopuncture. Is your agree with comic sans argument, in the analog mode the Ernst papers is laughly:”

        Someone’s Google Translate button appears to be misfiring.

        • “Someone’s Google Translate button appears to be misfiring.”

          Oh, dear. Someone’s missed the original point. Again:

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11212088

          British Homoeopathic Journal. <b<Seriously?

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21359919

          Chin. Integrative Journal. Seriously?

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20876268

          CMAC. Seriosuly?

          http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17658121

          Althernative Therapies Health Medicine.

          The Fallacy of DOUBLE STANDARDS.

          • why don’t you explain your point then?

          • “why don’t you explain your point then?”

            The hypocresy of Guy Chapman.

            Thanks!

            Ultra!

            Ernst and Chapman lose.

            Egger wins!

          • Egger, you are becoming less coherent with each post, no mean feat given the starting position.

            You are throwing out the usual litany of crap studies in crap journals as if they somehow have not already been taken into account. They have. Many times.

            Just a reminder of the state of play:

            1. There is no reason to suppose homeopathy should work, as like does not cure like.
            2. There is no way it can work, as no demonstrable property of matter has been demonstrated which behaves as homeopathists claim.
            3. There is no proof it does work, as all known outcomes are fully compatible with the null hypothesis.

            In order to change this, you would need to address all three of these fundamental issues. Yet more studies compatible with the null hypothesis won’t cut it (and if you need someone to explain why P=0.05 is still compatible with the null hypothesis, then do ask, there are plenty of people here who can do that). Individual findings about properties of individual materials prepared in ways not entirely unlike homeopathy won’t cut it, because there’s no evidence that the property of matter being investigated is in any way related to curative potential, and no evidence of generality, persistence, transferability or bioavailability. And all the bloviation in the world is in any case completely pointless unless and until you have robust evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid and general basis of cure. The sole example on which this claim was based, has been refuted for over a century.

          • Guy, you seem to assume that “science” is unchanging, especially if something has been practiced or “known” for a century or longer. WRONG!

            First, how many drugs have even been around for a century? Second, please stop your ignorance of the history of medicine or science. There are PLENTY of examples of medicine and science being bull-headed and refused to admit errors in fact for decades and centuries.

          • homeopaths come to my mind…

          • He didn’t assume that at all – quite the opposite. You’re misrepresenting – again. As for lectures from you on the history of medicine or science – again, you’ve been exposed as either erroneous or a bullshitter. This from a man who has demonstrated complete unwillingness to modify – or to answer the question as to what would cause him to modify – his ‘beliefs’. ‘Cos you do believe, don’t you, Mr Ullman?

            Thought you were ‘gone’, anyway?

          • Dullman said:

            Guy, you seem to assume that “science” is unchanging, especially if something has been practiced or “known” for a century or longer. WRONG!

            First, how many drugs have even been around for a century? Second, please stop your ignorance of the history of medicine or science. There are PLENTY of examples of medicine and science being bull-headed and refused to admit errors in fact for decades and centuries.

            Dana, you’re very good at arguing with straw men. With real people, not so much. Not agreeing with you doesn’t make somebody “ignorant”, especially in a context where you have clearly failed to comprehend the point being made.

            I never said or implied that science is unchanging. In fact, I said pretty much the exact opposite: the reason no real medical practices of Hahnemann’s day remain in use, is because medical science found them to be false. The entire point of science is that it’s a system of rational inquiry (hence the hatred and contempt levelled at it by devotees of irrational nonsense like homeopathy). As Dara O’Briain said,

            :“Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

            And he was talking specifically about homeopathy.

            Yes, there are plenty of examples of medicine and science being bull-headed. Some people cite Marshall and Warren, but Barry Marshall actually says they were right to be skeptical because the evidence was not solid enough at the time.

            So, perhaps now you can detail some of the things that have been universally dropped from homeopathy after rigorous objective testing found them to be wrong? A list of symptom pictures deleted from the various repertories, for example? A list of provings discarded after they could not be replicated? A list of remedies no longer used because they were found not to work? After all, it would be ludicrous to believe or claim that homeopathy, a human endeavour, is immune to error.

            You might also like to take the time to finally answer the question: what evidence would cause you to change your mind and stop believing in homeopathy.

          • Egger wins!

            … the Nobel prize for free-style self-demonstrated stupidity.

  • Dear Friends,
    Before leaving this forum, I would like to answer the pertinent questions asked by Dr. Chemist and Dr. Collins.

    1. Some recent workers have persistently discovered the presence of nanoparticles of the original drug substance in the ultra-high dilutions beyond Avogadro’s limit. These nanoparticles are suggested to be produced during succussions/dynamization/potentization of the homeopathic remedies, but they could not explain how these nano-particles could trigger biological activities or definitely link them to biological action. We repeatedly demonstrated that succussions without original drug substance do not show the biological activities shown by the potentized homeopathic remedies made with successive dilutions/agitations of the original drug substance, nor do the solvents of the drug alone. We have also shown and published the results that simple dilution of the original drug substance without succussion produce biological activity much much lesser in degree than what the succussed dilutions do. Now since there was no conclusive proof that these nanoparticles actually had definite role in triggering biological action we were exploring about their possible role, while the non-believers/challengers did not at all believe there could be existence of nanoparticles or any roles played by these nanoparticles.
    2. While it is generally believed that it is quite possible to generate nanoparticles of the original drug substance by way of homeopathic dynamization process (many others may not believe this) the point that tempted us to design our experiment was to see if we could produce by nano-encapsulation procedure nanopartocles of the actual drug substance from homeopathic mother tincture (and subsequently their principal bioactive component) and characterized them with some advanced techniques and provided concrete evidence that we really produced the nanoparticles of the original drug substance. Then we studied their biological acitivities, mainly on their apoptosis inducing ability in cancer cells vis-a-vis normal cells, or any anti-bacterial, or anti-fungal activities also. We obtained results that clearly showed that these nanoparticles of drugs in known amounts elicited repeatable results to prove that they can trigger biological responses and alter suitable gene expressions in that process. We also provided concrete evidence that the blank nanoparticles made up only of polymer shells were not capable of eliciting these gene responses. So, our objective was to show if nanoparticles had any biological role to play and if they do, how? I hope finding of nanoparticles generated by succussions in homeopathic remedies and our production of actual nanoparticles by another accepted scientific process and examining their roles in biological system can easily be linked and understood now.
    3, In science no hypothesis is invincible or unbreakable. Many scientific (read unscientific) beliefs for centuries have been broken by subsequent evidences. There are many examples of that. Many great scientists had to bear the attacks of so-called guardians of science in the past who believed in the opposite but right view. Everybody knows what Socrates and many other great scientists had to bear for their own conviction in science. And the Kreb’s cycle! There were many debates, the proteins first or DNA first or RNA first? Is protein the genetic material or DNA? And Golgi complex to mention a few ? Scientific works and evidences only solved the mysteries of science, that may apparently be constriued as pseudo-science at one point of time!
    4. If you are suddenly attacked quite unprovoked with poisonous arrows , two ways can be adopted, protect yourself with a solid shield or shot them back with a modern gun to stop the false mights of the arrow-throwers , or if you believe in non-violence, go away from the place where people believe only in throwing poisionous arrows at you because that is what where they excel! So friends, bye… but if anybody has any scientific question to ask about our research in homeopathy, I would personally welcome him or her to write a mail to me. I’ll try to explain our point at that and answer them individually. But sorry, no irrelevent queries or comments please….

    • @ ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH

      I had a look at the full text of ten recent publications of yours via Pubmed. I chose them as the title indicated that they involved testing of an herbal extract, presumably so called “mother tinctures”. I stopped after ten because I do not have time at the moment to go through more. I did not enumerate the papers I opened but anyone can follow this link to the PubMed search and check for themselves in the text of recent open access papers (co-)authored by you.

      In nine of the ten papers you declare that the work was at least partially supported by grants/financial aid from Boiron Ltd. in Lyon France. This company also provided the material for testing.
      As is well known, Boiron is one of the largest manufacturer of homeopathic products in the world with a tremendous financial interest in the production and marketing of homeopathic products.
      In all ten papers the authors declare no conflict of interest.

      1. In the light of the evidently extensive financial support of your research activities from a single part with unmistakable financial interest in the (positive) outcome of your research, do you consider the declarations of “no conflict of interest” in these papers to be correct?

      2. To what extent has the homeopathic industry including Boiron Ltd. and perhaps other companies with a considerable financial interest in the field, supported your laboratory, your academic chair and/or you personally?

      • Björn… The keep and libel bla, bla, slogan is the watermark of Sense pro(Tobbaco + GMO) about Science lobby. In the all papers (2010 – 2015) of Dr. Ernst, he never declared ANY conflict of interest by support of Comitte for Skeptikal Inquirer lobby and the SAS lobby or Coca Cola or Monsanto or Tommaco simpson’s industry. Did your understand me? If this is true, the editors of journals need withdrawn some papers of Ernst. Why not?

        • “…support of Comitte for Skeptikal Inquirer lobby and the SAS lobby or Coca Cola or Monsanto or Tommaco simpson’s industry. Did your understand me? …”
          YES, I DID UNDERSTAND YOU!
          can you read? if you can, you should have seen that we did declare support for the study: “Funding was provided by the Dr Susil Kumar and Jamila Mitra Charitable Trust (UK); homeopathic and placebo tablets were supplied by A Nelson & Co Ltd.”
          in case you insist I had support from the institutions you name, you better supply the evidence. if you cannot do that, I suggest you withdraw your stupid allegations.

          • “I suggest you withdraw your stupid allegations.”

            Wow, more insults. This is the very poor and honest man marketed in the mass media?
            Dr. Ernst. Can you understand my comment? My question is about of your papers published in the period of time: 2010 to 2015. NOT the paper published in 2003. I remember: [Mr. Ernst] never declared ANY conflict of interest [in papers published in 2010 to 2015] by support of Comitte for Skeptikal Inquirer lobby and the SAS larskin lobby or Coca Cola or Monsanto or Tommaco simpson’s industry. Did your understand me? If this is true, the editors of journals need withdrawn some papers of Ernst. That’s a good idea!

          • “…[Mr. Ernst] never declared ANY conflict of interest [in papers published in 2010 to 2015] by support of Comitte for Skeptikal Inquirer lobby and the SAS larskin lobby or Coca Cola or Monsanto or Tommaco simpson’s industry. Did your understand me? If this is true, the editors of journals need withdrawn some papers of Ernst…”
            if I did not declare conflicts, this means I had none.
            I have never received support from any of the organisations you list here, some of which I have not even heard of.
            but why am I even stating this? it seems to me that you are too delusional to be receptive for information of this type.

          • @Edzard

            Mr. Egger does seem a tad confused.

          • understatement of the year!

        • Mr. Egger wibbled:

          In the all papers (2010 – 2015) of Dr. Ernst, he never declared ANY conflict of interest by support of Comitte for Skeptikal Inquirer lobby and the SAS lobby or Coca Cola or Monsanto or Tommaco simpson’s industry

          I wonder why Prof. Ernst would fail to declare a conflict of interest due to funding from these people? Oh yes: because there was none.

          The crowning irony here is that virtually every pro-homeopathy paper is written by homeopaths, yet they declare no conflict of interest, even though in most cases their livelihood depends on there eventually being some kind of plausible evidence for homeopathy.

          There’s no serious dissent from the view that giving people measurable amounts of pharmacologically active substances can have objective effects. It’s only the giving of sugar pills with none of the magic water that doesn’t contain any of something with no connection to the disease that’s a problem.

          • Your point it amazing!
            Nope. CISCOP and Sense About Science ir related to BigPharma, BigBeverage and BigGMO.

            “is that virtually every pro-homeopathy paper is written by homeopaths”

            Really? Show me evidence of the all papers. Im waiting. Be carefull, no tricks. Only facts, OK?

            “There’s no serious dissent from the view that giving people measurable amounts of pharmacologically active substances can have objective effects. “

            Wow. Who is Guy Chapman? An enginner without background in nanotechnology.

            Who is Alberto Luis D’Andrea ? He is a nanotechnologist.

            http://infobiotecnologia.blogspot.com/2015/02/la-nanotecnologia-de-la-homeopatia.html

    • ANisur,

      As much as you may believe you have answered the questions I raised, you haven’t come close. You simply further tout your homeopathic beliefs. Specifically;

      1) Please cite this amazing research that discovers the presence of nanoparticles of original drug substances. No quibbles, no tirade, just a simple citation to allow for analysis of such a ground-breaking paper.

      2) There is NO “general belief that it is quite possible to generate nanoparticles …by way of homeopathic dynamization process”. This is believed only within the limited realm of the magical land that is homeopathy. Your paper offers not a single stitch of evidence that you produce what you think you produce (certainly it is incredulous to conclude that the process of succussion increases potency, let alone high dilution & succussion does anything.)

      3) Socrates is probably an appropriate figure to reference when defending ancient nonsense, but he isn’t much help with respect to current science. Please spare us playing the oppressed crusader against the “guardians of science”, that is simply egotistical nonsense. You most certainly are no “great scientist”, as reflected in your publishing history. This paper in discussion doesn’t add to your “greatness”. My points about your science failing, wasn’t simply that a hypothesis would be overturned. It was that the whole body of knowledge contained within Chemistry and Physics would have to be found to be wrong in order for your Objective to have any validity. I am sure there are more than a few Chemists and Physicist that could demonstrate the laughability of your proposal. For your Objective to be true there is an incredible level of proof required. You haven’t come close to cracking that one iota.

      4) Blah, blah, blah….. Proof is all we need, your musings are what are irrelevant.

      Bye

      • Chemist, are you really serious? It seems that you have carefully avoided reading ANY of the posts that Anisur and I have provided, including numerous postings of this reference from a journal published by the American Chemistry Society:
        Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation.
        Langmuir. 2012 Nov 1.
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226

        I bet Ernst will now declare THIS post to be “too offensive” (because it demolishes your and his worldview of homeopathy).

        Next time, I suggest you do some homework because you embarrass with your ignorance and arrogance!

        • Oh, Dana, you’ve done it again. You keep asserting that the attempts by the True Believers Chikramane et. al. to gloss over the implausibility of homeopathy constitutes a demolition of the scientific consensus. As I have pointed out to you many times before, this work does not, and indeed cannot, validate homeopathy, and it manifestly has not changed the weight of scientific opinion, because it is cargo cult science and has more holes than a Swiss Report Cheese.

          There is so much missing between this work – even in the unlikely event that it’s valid – and any remotely plausible mechanism of homeopathy. Some of the more obvious omissions include:

          1. There is no evidence that like cures like anyway;
          2. There is no evidence that any speculative property of matter tied to this speculative effect is preserved in the experiments as reported;
          3. There is no evidence that the purported effect is generalisable (e.g. to crushed insoluble solids, let alone so-called “imponderables”);
          4. There is no evidence that it would persist through the process of deposition onto a sugar pill followed by evaporation;
          5. There is no evidence it could survive the enzymes of the mouth;
          6. There is no evidence it could cross the barriers into the bloodstream from the mouth or gut;
          7. There is no evidence it would be transported to any affected organ;
          8. There is no evidence of any objectively testable bioavailability;
          9. There is no evidence of any objectively testable physiological effect.

          These are the same problems as last time you made the same ridiculous claim. And yet you continually assert that the reality-based community have not read, understood or taken account of this kind of guff, even when the problems are pointed out to you in varying levels of detail. You have failed to respond to a single substantive point made to you in *any* comment here, yet you continue to assert that we are somehow ignoring the nonsense you post even when we demolish it time after time.

          The core problem here is that you come across as suffering from such an advanced case of arrogance and hubris that you are incapable of even considering the possibility that any interpretation other than yours might be correct. And the more strongly it’s demonstrated that you are at the very least massively over-stating the significance of something, if not outright misrepresenting it, the more strongly you assert that you, and only you, are right.

          The Ullman family motto: “Dieu Et Mon Droit”, meaning: God and me are right – but not necessarily in that order. Unless, of course, you’d like to surprise us all by finally answering the question: what evidence would cause you to change your mind?

        • @Dullman
          I can’t read the full original paper as it nestles behind a paywall, but I notice that on the link you provide there are already criticisms of the paper by others (with, inevitably, a purely political defence by yourself, confirming YOUR ignorance and arrogance).
           
          I already responded to the suggestion that the ‘nanoparticles’ are still present in extreme dilutions. If true, it merely indicates incompetent dilution. The explanation from the abstract reads as follows. “We show that once the bulk concentration is below a threshold level of a few nanograms/milliliter (ng/mL), at the end of each dilution step, all of the nanoparticles levitate to the surface and are accommodated as a monolayer at the top. This dominant population at the air-liquid interface is preserved and carried to the subsequent step, thereby forming an asymptotic concentration. Thus, all dilutions are only apparent and not real in terms of the concentrations of the starting raw materials.”
           
          [Facepalm][ROTFL]. Insoluble materials, presumably including the wonderful nanoparticles, seldom remain in planktonic suspension. If left alone they sink to the container bottom or float to the top, depending on their density and charge distribution. Nothing ‘levitates’ magically to an air-liquid interface. If particles rise to the top they may form a monolayer; a Langmuir monolayer is a well studied example of the phenomenon, and gives its name to the journal in which the nanoparticle tosh was published.
           
          The speed at which a surface monolayer forms depends on a number of factors, but the explanation given in the abstract is, as I already suggested, that the dilutions are not being made competently. Even a first-year science undergraduate would recognize that, if you are making serial ‘dilutions’ of something that doesn’t dissolve in water, you need to pipette very fast after shaking everything up, or you won’t come even close to making the ‘dilution’ competently. I thought you homeoprats held the shaking part in great reverence. It now seems that an essential part of the process is to wait after shaking for the stuff to accumulate at the surface and selectively remove that layer for the next mixing step.
           
          But now, Dana, in the name of the Holy Cow of Hyderabad, if the dilutions “are only apparent and not real” why on earth do you bother making all those ‘dilutions’ at all if the objective is to treat the patient with the mother substance sitting as a monolayer on the surface of the product?! How can you ensure the patient gets a consistent repeat dose from a single bottle?
           
          It is self-evident that your own comprehension of the fundamentals of science are as substantial as a fly’s fart in a force 8 gale, but I hope that some of those who read this blog with a genuine interest to discover how much of homepathy just might be true can see from this post the level of ludicrous stupidity that permeates this long-superannuated nonsense. First it’s water memory that is passed to the patient (by water that has miraculously forgotten all its previous exposures to other materials). Now it’s monolayers of ‘nanoparticles’ that remain after dilution even by factors of 10^400, according to the paper you cite.
           
          You don’t really need to make up your mind which explanation you favour. Just provide one robustly designed piece of evidence to show convincingly a clinical response to your magic water. I recognize this is all a waste of time as you are unlikely either to read or comprehend any of the above.

          • Frank, You have FINALLY asked a real question, rather than simply showing your ignorance about homeopathy and your arrogance about everything else. You asked:

            “How can you ensure the patient gets a consistent repeat dose from a single bottle?”

            200 years of clinical practice has shown and taught homeopaths that just one or two doses per month or every several months are ALL that is commonly necessary when using a “high potency” homeopathic medicine, that is, a homeopathic medicine that is potentized 200 or more times. Like a vaccine, homeopathic medicine catalyze the body’s own self-repair processes.

            IF homeopathy was really just a placebo system, then homeopaths would have to encourage multiple doses every day for prolonged periods…but homeopathy is NOT a system of prescribing placeboes, and so we find non-obsession with treatment is quite effective.

          • @Dana: I asked some real questions, too, can I have an answer? Just to remind you:

            When will you provide robust evidence that like cures like as a general or even common principle?

            What would cause you to change your mind and accept that homeopathy is indeed nonsense?

            Or do you define a “real” question as one which gives you an opportunity to proselytise?

            By the way, 200 years of “clinical experience” of homeopaths is as nothing compared with the two millennia when doctors firmly believed they observed patients being cured by bloodletting and purging. Nowadays we know that false impressions like yours are due to confirmation bias and other cognitive errors, and that the appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

          • Dana,

            Typical response from you to Frank. He asks multiple questions of you (implied and actual) and you chose the easiest for your retort. Even in responding to the simplest of his questions, you go to the extremes of nonsensical logic in your answer with “200 year of clinical practice..” to assert your beliefs.

            1st, as pointed out by others, clinical practice doesn’t prove anything (other than perhaps the effect of delusional transference);

            2nd, there is no mechanism has ever been proposed explaining its mode of operation nor does any objective evidence exist for “high potency” of homeopathy. This is important because without it there can be no testing of the hypothesis behind homeopathy, independent of belief or bias. This lack of mechanism also precludes one of the most critical aspect of science, the ability to test the predictive power of a theory. Without it you simply have an idea (and in this case, a really magical idea.)

            3rd, without a sound mechanism and no proof that water molecules undergo a transformation into a new state of matter when subjected to succussion, assertions that body develops a response to “nothing” is a ludicrous and magical belief.

            In a twisted irony, and one very likely that homeopaths believers will miss, were the work outlined in the Langmuir paper true it would be devastating to homeopathy. Were it true, the whole of the process to produce the homeopathic remedies is called into question. It certainly upends the central tenet of the dilution process and “potency” that results. It would also raise serious questions on the claim of safety for homeopathic remedies. However, since this all relates to a paper that only demonstrates poor lab techniques, contains invalid conclusions on questionable hypotheses and derives from magical thinking that is the foundation of homeopathy these shortcomings are moot.

            Dana, when you use science terms to make a point you might actually want to understand their real definitions. Vaccines do not “catalyze” anything. They simply induce an immune response, whereby the inducing agent is eliminated. That isn’t a catalyst. While you can choose to use science words incorrectly (as you constantly do) in your lame attempts to convey credibility, all you succeed in doing is highlighting the fact that you just make shit up. The incorrect use of words is no different than pulling incorrect meaning from works of science to put forward as support of homeopathy. Prattle all you want, but your underlying premise is still wrong.

          • The thing about Dana is that he views his perceptual filters as more valid than empirical reality. This stands in stark contrast to someone like Dr. Peter Fisher, who, although he (possibly unknowingly) states falsehood as truth, at least acknowledges that trying to use homeopathy on real disease is dangerous. Everything Fisher says about how homeopathy should be used, shows an underlying tacit acknowledgement that it is a placebo treatment. Dana does not see this, because he simply refuses to accept anything that conflicts even slightly with his beliefs, especially when it comes to challenging his pro-homeopathy spin on some study or other.

            When the error in the Mathie et. al. paper has been explained to Dr. Fisher, I am reasonably confident he will stop citing it. There’s no evidence refutation has *never* stopped Dana believing something. He almost certainly still believes in the “Swiss report”.

          • Perhaps your perception of Dana is correct. I tend to look at him as a tired old Jesuit priest. Once filled with belief and the weapons of rhetoric to win any argument. Now, the belief has faded and the weapons have been blunted but incapable of admitting, even to himself, that the belief was wrong.

          • Acleron, like the other pseudo-skeptics here, is wrong again. They have all carefully avoided providing any valid or articulate critique of the dozen+ studies of Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh referenced in NATURE INDIA (except personal attacks), or any of the high quality research by Iris Bell, MD, PhD (though Guy did provide some humor here, thanx Guy), or any real or substantative critique of the Langmuir article (other than to say that homeopathic medicines are “contaminated” with the ingredients named on the bottle!).

            I’ve challenged you all many times to provide real critique of the Shang review or the Australian government report, and yet, there has not been a peep about these “junk science” reviews. Not a peep. And this is because the pseudo-skeptics at this site are hacks who are an embarrassment to real skeptics who have a good and healthy scientific attitude.

            Instead, you use pseudonyms because you are too embarrassed to use your real names. And because you all are simply repeated your ad homs and your worthless criticisms, I’m done here unless someone finally provides some REAL thoughts.

          • of course, you are done here; you have always been done here because you are incapable of understanding or learning or even listening.

          • For somebody who has failed to answer every substantive question of either of his main topics then it is a wonder to behold him arguing that nobody has made any. Perhaps I should have added that the tired old Jesuit may hold his own with the faithful but just looks foolish in other company.

            It is interesting that Dana needs to exaggerate the pathetic experimentation of Bell to high quality, this could only be true to a homeopath who cannot understand the concept of quality and can only cherry pick the conclusion.

            Are you suggesting I should behave as you do with my real name? You use your name as an advertisement to sell your dodgy products and you created a fake name to praise the real one. The name you chose was James Gully, whether you thought you were being clever or were cynically trying to get traction for the rather stupid idea that water/sugar cured Darwin will remain your secret. I have no use for such devious devices.

            Your obsession with real life identities stems in part from your fallacious belief in authority leading you to the ultimate in celebratory endorsement. I have to ask, is this just a smokescreen to avoid answering any of the pertinent questions?

          • It is SO typical and so meaningless to repeatedly refer to Iris Bell, MD, PhD, as “pathetic” and yet not provide a single substantive and non-ad hom assertion. Ever hear of “projection”? It is right in front of you.

            And it is so typical of your ilk here to ask what does it take for me to change my mind about homeopathy when the majority of clinical research and laboratory research (especially HIGH QUALITY trials that have both internal AND external validity!) and epidemiological research and observational studies in addition to my personal EXPERIENCE over 40 years with nanomedicines are such that no meaningless assertions from the people at THIS blog can re-write history or re-write good science or re-write intelligence can change my perception of homeopathy.

            The question that you all need to ask yourself is what did it take for you to stop using rotary phones and typewriters and 99% of conventional drugs from the 20th century…because in the NEAR future, you will look in the mirror and finally realize how unscientiific your thinking and attitude was.

          • Dana, once again you are making assertions and failing to acknowledge or answer criticisms of your assertions.

            And it doesn’t matter how many times you mis-spell non-medicine as nanomedicine, there’s fuck all evidence that homeopathic nostrums are medicine at all, nano or otherwise.

            None of the work by the people you idolise, however many letters they have after their name, can or does validate homeopathy – for all the reasons I keep pointing out and you keep ignoring:
            * No evidence like cures like,
            * No evidence the research is generalisable to all the substances used in homeopathy,
            * No evidence it persists when the magic water is evaporated from the sugar pill,
            * No evidence it can or does survive the enzymes in the body,
            * No evidence it can or does cross the barrier into the bloodstream,
            * No evidence it can or does target the specific affected organs,
            * No evidence it can or does have any clinically meaningful effect when it reaches there.

            Instead of endlessly shouting how your cargo-cult science does too validate the entire house of cards, even though most of the cards are missing, you could try answering the simple question you keep being asked:

            What evidence would cause you to change your mind?

            This is quite a significant question because although homeopathy as a religion lacks any mechanism for self-correction, at least some homeopaths – including Dr. Fisher – have by now accepted that a substantial proportion of the claims made by their fellows are indefensible.

          • Yes, Dana, we demand proof, especially when the claims are extraordinary. That is the canonical definition of skepticism. Do you know the motto of the Royal Society? “Nullius In Verba”, or not on the word of any man.

            It doesn’t seem to matter how many times we point out the problems in your claims or the reasons we don’t accept your interpretation of things, you have nothing more to bring. No insight, no understanding.

            No substantive questions are ever answered. At best you treat questions as a rhetorical device to allow you to state your beliefs again, but usually you simply ignore them as if they never happened (just like you ignore the refutation of similia and infinitesimals a century ago).

            You post a study, we ask questions about it, you accuse of ignoring it.

            No wonder the Judge said you were not credible. You’re really not. You have no answers, only repeated statements of your beliefs about things. Regardless of how obvious it becomes that your beliefs are, to use a technical term, wrong.

          • Notice AGAIN…not a single response to a single concern I raised!…and what’s also classic is that I reference RESEARCH, and Guy and others simply show no evidence of reading or analyzing this research or when they do, they provide no real substantive analysis, though they do like calling anyone (!) who conducts research on homeopathy or who reports on it as “pathetic.”

            And virtually every one of their comments proves my point. Thanx Guy (you’re at the best at evasion and ad homs), now, start getting real.

          • please note:
            a ‘real substantive analysis’ = an evaluation that agrees with the lunatic interpretation of DU !!!

          • Dana, people *keep* responding with substantive points, which you then ignore and accuse them of not responding to you. It’s beginning to look like you refuse to even acknowledge the existence of responses you do not find ideologically consonant.

            Meanwhile, you “forgot” to say what evidence would cause you to change your mind, and you “forgot” to address the massive amount of missing evidence which means that the studies you tout as final clinching proof are not, and cannot possibly be, such proof.

            I’m running out of charitable interpretations for your evasion.

          • Liars lie…and you prove it virtually every time you write. Show me evidence that you (or anyone) has provided specific critique of Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh’s study that was highlighted by NATURE INDIA. You and others have attacked him personally and have made fun of his name…but that is the only substantive “critique” that has been provided.

            Further, show me one previous response that provided a specific substantive critique of other studies published by Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh in the various conventional scientiic journals…and I previously cited around a dozen of such studies. I’ve been waiting AND waiting AND waiting!

            As for how homeopathic medicines work, I previously cited several articles including the work of Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh that has shown gene expression. One way that homeopathic nanodoses have been shown to work is via this mechanism…and not a single critique has been published in a peer-review journal that disproves this evidence that has been published in peer-review journals. It seems that the pseudo-skeptics provide only PLACEBO responses, not real ones!

            Iris Bell, MD, PhD, has published numerous articles that summarize research in conventional pharmacology journals…and to date, NOT A SINGLE substantive critique has been made. Lots of hand-waving and word salad and ad homs, but not a single (!) valid critique. NOT ONE!

            You folks are consistently FOS, and you verify that all of the time. Thanx for helping to prove my case…and this dialogue is an ongoing record of your obfuscation.

          • I am not aware of any evidence from Bell which I find compelling. moreover, she is a consultant of Hylands [the US’s largest manufacturer of homeopathic remedies]. are you seriously trying to say that she can be seen to be impartial? as to Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh’s work, you only have to read the comments above. can you read?

          • Edzard, Edzard, Edzard, You have again not even shown evidence that you’ve read any (!) of Iris Bell’s works that I have previously referenced…and you certainly haven’t provided ANY critique of them. And your new effort to pretend that there is nothing there is simply DENIAL. “How convenient.”

            The fact that you and others consistently ignore this body of work is simply evidence of the lack of scientiifc rigor and vigor of you and the unscientiifc attitude that you embody.

            Just ad homs and pitiful excuses.

          • wrong again; I criticised her probably best trial here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20099019
            and what about the totality of all trials?
            and what about Bell being on the payroll of a homeopathic manufacturer?
            grow up!

          • Edzard, first, my previous list of Iris Bell’s articles were not to her high-quality clinical trials (as numerous other reviewers have determined!), but to her work on explaining how and why homeopathic medicines work:

            Bell IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2012 Oct 22;12(1):191.
            http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-12-191.pdf (this is an exceptional review of the basic sciences literature that explains how homeopathic medicines may work)

            Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, et al. Integrative Nanomedicine: Treating Cancer with Nanoscale Natural Products. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, January 2014. 36-53.
            http://tinyurl.com/mqe5p88

            Iris R. Bell, John A. Ives, and Wayne B. JonasNonlinear Effects of Nanoparticles: Biological Variability From Hormetic Doses, Small Particle Sizes, and Dynamic Adaptive Interactions. Dose Response. May 2014; 12(2): 202–232. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036395/

            Bell IR, Schwartz GE, Boyer NN, Koithan M, Brooks AJ. Advances in Integrative Nanomedicine for Improving Infectious Disease Treatment in Public Health. European journal of integrative medicine 2013;5(2):126-140. doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2012.11.002.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685499/

            And once again, I assert that NOT A SINGLE PERSON on this e-list have provided ANY substantive critique of this body of work, most of which is drawn from conventional pharmacology journals.

            Real skeptics who read this work by Bell will realize that there IS a compelling body of work that now makes it inaccurate to say or suggest that homeopathy is “implausible.” Anyone who now says that homeopathy is implausible is simply showing that their ignorance and their lack of intellectual rigor (or both).

          • wrong again!
            as you seem to be too daft to look any further than your own nonsensical comments, I copy part of the assessment published elsewhere on this blog about Bell et al’s work on the basic science that you think supports homeopathy:
            “Ignore settled issues in science: We know a great deal about the behavior of water (and evolution, and other contentious topics), but there are many efforts to introduce new science without ever addressing the existing body of knowledge. As such, many of the basic tenets of topics such as homeopathy appear to be ungrounded in reality as we understand it.
            Misapplication of real science: Quantum mechanics is an undeniably successful description of parts of the natural world, but the limitations of its applicability are widely recognized by the scientific community, if not the general public. Pseudoscientists such as homeopaths appear to cynically target this sort of ignorance by applying scientific principles to inappropriate topics.
            Rejection of scientific standards: Over the centuries, science has established standards of evidence and experiment to ensure that data remains consistent and reproducible. But these strengths are presented as weaknesses that make science impervious to new ideas, a stance that is often accompanied by…
            Claims of suppression: Pseudoscience is rejected because it does not conform to the standards held by the scientific community. That community is depicted as a dangerous hegemony that rejects new ideas in order to perpetuate a stifling orthodoxy. This happens in spite of many examples of radical ideas that have rapidly gained not only acceptance, but major prizes, when they were properly supported by scientific evidence.
            A conclusion/evidence gap: Many areas of pseudoscience do not set out to examine a phenomenon but rather have the stated goal of supporting a preordained conclusion. As such, they often engage in excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the desired conclusion.
            Focusing on the fringes: All areas of science have anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the existing understanding. But those anomalies should not obscure the fact that the vast majority of current data does support the predominant theories. In the hands of a pseudoscientist, these unconnected edge cases are presented as a coherent body of knowledge that supports the replacement of existing understandings.

            Perhaps the clearest theme running through many areas of pseudoscience, however, is the attempt to make a whole that is far, far greater than the sum of its parts. Enlarging a collection of terminally-flawed trivia does not somehow strengthen its scientific significance. This is especially true when many of the components of the argument don’t form a coherent whole. For example, quantum entanglement, structured water, and silica are essentially unrelated explanations, and any support for one of them makes no difference to the others. Yet, somehow, presenting them all at once is supposed to make the case for water’s memory harder to dismiss.”

            the original is linked here: http://edzardernst.com/2015/09/the-techniques-of-pseudoscience/
            if Bell’s articles were serious, she would have been able to publish in a serious journal, don’t you think?
            and
            what about my other 2 questions?

          • I’m done here because everyone (!) here purposefully ignores reference to and critique of the work of Iris Bell in the four references that I’ve provided or Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh’s research any of the mainstream journals.

            Instead, you provide word salad without any specific statement or any specific critique of the work of the above two-named authors.

            Thanx…you’ve proven my point. I’m done here.

          • you are done here because you cannot answer our questions

          • Is this to be one of those embarrassingly protracted flounces?

            Actually, you were done long before you made your first post. Andy Lewis has posted the future strategy of a UK quack group with admonishments to be more aggressive and not engage with critics, I presume this is available elsewhere. If your performance here is anything to go by, it appears to be a failed system, but that is what naturally happens when you defend fiction which counters fact.

          • Dana, you are a hypocrite. You have refused to answer any point or question put to you, and now you flounce off because you know that we’re not going to give you an opportunity for the unopposed grandstanding which is the only kind of “debate” you can tolerate.

            Critiques of both Anisur (here) and Bell (elsewhere) have been provided many times. You ignore them, and then you accuse us of mendacity in not changing our minds in response to them. You refuse to say what would change your mind, and you refuse to accept that the evidence you provide does not meet the criteria we state would change ours.

            The only people who behave like this are religious zealots. There is no substantive difference between you and the average creationist or Scientologist. And you know that we understand this, and you know that the longer you stay here the more evident it will be that you will not (cannot) answer our points.

            The Dull-Man Law: In any online discussion of homeopathy, being Dana Ullman loses you the argument and gets you laughed out of the room. That law was formulated based on long observation of your behaviour in debates. You just provided another data point.

            Rest assured: we are laughing at you, not with you.

          • ‘Anyone who now says that homeopathy is implausible is simply showing that their ignorance and their lack of intellectual rigor (or both).’ [sic]

            Here! “Homeopathy is implausible.”

            Does everyone notice (again!) that Mr Ullman has repeatedly been provided with critique/comment of/on the work of Anisur and Iris Bell – and that he chooses to be blind? (In other words, wilful ignorance.) Does everyone notice – again – that Mr Ullman has repeatedly evaded the questions asked of him, re his own statements here? Nevermind ‘integrity’ of the immune system, Mr Ullman; your integrity is the issue here.

          • DU’s integrity is no longer an issue – it is non-existent.

          • Dana, just to reiterate yet again the painfully obvious and often repeated rebuttal to your arguments:

            Clinical trials *cannot* provide absolute proof of efficacy. All they provide, as acknowledged in the statistical tests used, is an estimate of how likely that treatment is to be effective or inert. As Ioannidis has pointed out, the test of P=0.05 may be relevant to a plausible treatment but a very high proportion of published results are false positives, and the chances of a positive result being false increase dramatically when the treatment concerned has no remotely plausible mechanism, as is the case with homeopathy.

            It is a striking but well established fact that the best way to produce a positive trial for homeopathy is to use a lax study design that permits bias, and the highest quality and most rigorous tests show the least positive results. You know this. It has been pointed out many times in studies to which you have referred.

            Your comments speak of deep-rooted intellectual dishonesty.

          • the undeniable demonstration of this fact is the true value of this post, I think.

          • Dana, since you seem immune to the meaning of science terms and unwilling to accept basic aspects of lab techniques used in chemistry, let me try a straight forward approach:

            Please enunciate what evidence you would need that would overturn your belief in homeopathy. This is a simple aspect of science – a hypothesis must be falsifiable. What would prove to you that the hypothesis of homeopathy is falsifiable?

            If you are serious about having a reasoned debate about homeopathy, this should be a simple question to answer. If you ignore it then that is an answer in and of itself.

          • Nice deflection Dana. However, I didn’t ask why you wouldn’t change your mind about homeopathy. I ask what evidence would overturn your belief? A simple question and one you appear not to want to answer (perhaps your business operation cannot withstand honesty and transparency, that is one aspect of your behavior I can understand.) If there is no evidence that could refute your homeopathy belief or you aren’t willing to consider that evidence could overturn your belief that can only logically mean homeopathy is irrefutable in your mind.

            You can continue to moan about how others attack you and ignore your evidence in support of homeopathy. But your failure to address what evidence is needed to overturn homeopathy shows you to be a charlatan by your own words and actions.

          • ‘Like a vaccine, homeopathic medicine catalyze the body’s own self-repair processes.’

            I’m sorry, but you cannot make statements like that when you have no evidence to substantiate them. Is this connected with your immune system ‘integrity’? You don’t even understand vaccination, do you? You’re talking absolute shite – moreover, I think you know it.

            ‘Notice AGAIN…not a single response to a single concern I raised!’

            Your points have been addressed – repeatedly. Who are you trying to kid? Quit bluffing.

            ‘Instead, you use pseudonyms because you are too embarrassed to use your real names.’

            ‘Scuse me?!

          • Dana is alternating between tossolalia and dullulation.

            On the plus side, that’s two new entries in the Quackford English Ducktionary.

          • Dana Ullman, I asked two substantive scientific questions, using my real name rather than a pseudonym. Dr ALL CAPS answered them with only passive-aggressive rants and special pleadings. Either properly answer them yourself, using entirely your own words, or continue to make an ass of yourself by dishonouring your statement: “I’m done here unless someone finally provides some REAL thoughts.”

          • “when the majority of clinical research and laboratory research (especially HIGH QUALITY trials that have both internal AND external validity!) ….. ”

            I do not know about the other fields but for clinical research your statement, Dana, is proven wrong, even by homeopaths themselves.

            The website of the Faculty of Homeopathy states that there are 104 PCTs published up to 2014. Out of these in only 43 papers the authors claim to have found the homeopathic therapy superior to placebo. These are 41 % only, less then half, and thus no majority. in 56 studies the authors could not distinguish the effect of the remedy from placebo – I guess, that is what ‘non conclusive’ really means – and in 5 cases placebo proved even more effective than the drug.

            They gave somewhat different figures in the past, but bearing the same implications.

            http://facultyofhomeopathy.org/research/

            And we have not yet started to discuss the quality of the positive studies yet, e.g. how many of them are mere pilot studies or fail to achieve a low risk of bias. A little of this can be found in the recent Meta-analysis of Mathie et al, for sure not a skeptic of homeopathy.

            BTW: Please notice, I am using my real name …

          • Aust, THANX for finally VERIFYING that 43 trials (!) have shown that homeopathic treatment is superior to placebo!

            Great. My job is done. You have now confirmed that a significant number of trials show that homeopathic medicines are effective in treatment. Thanx! Slam dunk.

            You and your ilk can now finally stop your mis-information that there is “no” evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy.

          • now DU has lost it completely!
            we all know that there are some positive trials.
            do you not know that, in responsible health care, we have to go by the totality of the evidence?
            the latest and most thorough assessment of the totality concluded: “Homeopathy should not be used to treat health conditions that are chronic, serious, or could become serious. People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good evidence for safety and effectiveness. People who are considering whether to use homeopathy should first get advice from a registered health practitioner. Those who use homeopathy should tell their health practitioner and should keep taking any prescribed treatments.” http://edzardernst.com/2015/03/the-final-verdict-on-homeopathy-its-a-placebo/

          • Guy, I don’t think “tossolalia” applies to Dana, a better word is “testicluating”: Waving your arms around while talking bollocks.

          • Dana, please do not stop reading after you have found words that might be shaped into something that supports your claim. You claimed majority in number and I pointed out there is none. And then I continued about quality what you chose to ignore

            Maybe we should put our arguments the other way round? With some instruction that the ordinary reader, able to follow somebody else’s advice, should read backwards from the end to the beginning?

            So for all you readers, besides Dana Ullman, this post may sound strange, please read it backwards form the end up to this point here:

            – I am using my real name.
            – In his recent Meta-analysis Mathie et al found that many of the published RCTs are mere pilot-studies, you know, the things hopelessly underpowered and by design not valid as evidence for they are done to find out how to look for evidence.
            – Faculty of homeopathy indicates 5 studies, where the outcome for homeopathy was even worse than placebo
            – In 56 studies the authors could not distinguisch Homeopathy from placebo.
            – Faculty of Homeopathy says, there are 104 PCTs that have been puiblished up to 2014.

            And now, Dana, that you have read up to this point, there is this one sentence for you: There have been some studies, including pilot studies and studies of poor quality, where the authors, many of them not free of conflicts of interest, totalling less than half of the total number of studies – that means minority instead of majority, which is the opposite of what you said – think they have found that the homeopathic drug was superior to placebo.

            I cannot do better than this, can I, to make you at least read my point.

        • Chikramane et al is a speculative piece of froth on a phenomenon which has not been proven to exist. That it is a ridiculous piece of nonsense is easy to demonstrate. Froths occur because of molecules with both charged and hydrophobic regions such as detergents and proteins. Therefore many of the substances used in homeopathy will not form froth. The froth is a monolayer between the aqueous and the air interface, the rest is held in the aqueous phase, if you pour off 99% of water, down the drain goes the froth. The other silly idea is that somehow the molecules float, again, most don’t, that’s why most things sink in water.
          So a ridiculous paper with ridiculous ideas which is of course why you would never argue the science.

          Incidentally, even if the froth was carefully preserved from one dilution to the next then two things are apparent. One, obviously nanobollicks cannot form, remember these molecules are soluble in aqueous phase and two, the final dilution will contain all the active material in the froth and the distribution to the sugar pills will be erratic to say the least.

          Needless to say really, we have plenty of experience in adding detergents to glassware. It doesn’t take many rinses to clean them of anything froth making.

          And before you bleat about it being in some capitalised journal you may note that some of the points I have made have already been made in that journal.

        • Dana, here is my homework, but it might not be to your liking. So I anticipate, you will ignore it again.

          I allready pointed out to you – was it in this thread or in the one concerning Frass’ research, I do not know – that the Chikramane paper is somewhat short of striking evidence.

          So here it is again, also for Dr. Allcaps sake:

          First, Chikramane and his team did not rule out, that the observed nanostructures might have been present in the solvent and may not have their origin in the mother tincture. Being of the same nature as the mother tincture does not prove they originate from there. The solvent they checked as control was independently purchased from the market, so does not have any connection to the tested drugs and especially was not the one used to produce the potencies from.

          Second, they did not check for nanoparticles of other matter than what has been in the mother tincture.

          So it is not convincingly evident that these nanoparticles were generated by succussing the solution – and it is absolutely unclear if this nanostructure found in the final solution is a unique characteristic connecting the final product to the mother tincture alone.

          And third, prey tell me, if the full set of nanoparticles from the C30 potency can be found in the final C200 potency, they either must have increased in number or a vast number of (potentially) produced C200 potencies would have been devoid of any nanoparticles.

          Okay, I am not a big deal scientist, just thinking logically ….

        • Dana, you cannot offend me; I am merely concerned that your comments lower the standards of the discussion too low to be acceptable.

          • @Edzard: Please don’t ban Dana until he’s had a chance to tell us how his opinion of the Chikramane paper has been revised in response to the excellent points made above.

            I am sure his opinion must now have changed, since failing to revise your views when they are shown to be wrong would exhibit a vile antipathy to science.

          • I am not holding my breath!
            [I have NOT banned him]

          • Guy, your delusions of grandeur are just more serious than my dilutions of grandeur…because ours have been tested and found to be effective in clinical trials, laboratory trials, epidemiological evidence, and in hundreds of millions of successful clinical cases every year for the past century or so. Just because someone has a critique doesn’t mean it is a meaningful one…and certainly, the plural of bullshit is not truth.

          • And please do not ban Dana until he has told us how you can have nanobollockules of homeopathic dolphin sonar.

          • @Dana, you are wrong, of course, because clinical trials cannot *prove* efficacy, as you’ve been told many times: they can only give a statistical estimate of how likely the treatment is to actually work. That’s why real medicines don’t go to clinical trial until there is compelling evidence of actual biological effect.

            Remember the three core problems with homeopathy:

            1. There is no reason to suppose it should work because like does not cure like.
            2. There is no way it can work because there is no property of matter which behaves as homeopaths claim, and their claims conflict with what we know about the nature of matter and human physiology.
            3. There is no proof it does work because the accumulated clinical evidence is fully compatible with the null hypothesis.

            P=0.05 is still compatible with the null hypothesis. It’s enough with a real drug because there is already evidence to suggest it can and should work, it’s not enough for magical thinking because, as Ioannidis points out, the chances of a positive result being false increase dramatically when the treatment is implausible. And it doesn’t come any more implausible than homeopathy.

            Now, several people pointed out why the paper you touted as clinching proof of the validity of homeopathy, does no such thing. How have you changed your views in response to these new facts? I know I am begging the question, because normally your response to inconvenient facts is to ignore them, but humour me here by taking the knowledge on board, however much you dislike it.

          • Andy Lewis, Dana doesn’t understand how it works so I shall explain it to the readers… Dolphin sonar consists of phonons [the acoustic equivalent of photons]. Now, invoke quantum mechanics: Wave-particle duality convolved with homeobollocks causes the essence of the dolphin phonons to manifest as nanobollockules.

            Many ignorant scientists claim that this theory is absurd due to the huge mismatch between the long wavelength of sonar phonons and the nanometre wavelength of nanobollockules. They fail to realize that the serial dilution and succussion cycles cause the long wavelengths to be broken into nanometre-scale pieces, which can pass through cell membranes.

            I’ve never understood why homeobollocks apologists refuse to reveal the secret of how the nanobollockules produce physiological changes in the body. IKEA uses the macro-scale equivalent: Break down a large-scale object, e.g. an item of furniture, into multiple small and simple parts; anybody can assemble the parts into their original form — even without reading the assembly instructions.

            Hope that helps.

          • It’s actually worse than Guy Chapman says below. Even if we have a magic Benveniste experiment that reproducibly demonstrates that a homeopathic remedy is different than a sugar pill, we still have big problems. The process of proving – central to prescribing – leaves the formularies a mess. Even homeopathy texts admit this. There is no consensus I’ve seen among homeopaths about how frequently to dose and at what potencies. We still would be in the dark if homeopathy stands up for more standard therapeutics. So, when we debate homeopathy, we should not let the goalposts get moved to the demonstration of plausibility. This is only a small part of the evidence requirement for a treatment modality, and only one of many places where homeopathy fails.

        • Dana,

          The only embarrassment here is that you cannot recognize that all the paper validates is that bad lab technique generate meaningless results. ANY first year chemistry student would recognize the low quality of work that so impresses you. Your fixation with this idiotic failure of rudimentary lab techniques has been dismantled multiple times. In fact, the first 2 comment responses appropriately redress the abstract’s failed assertions, as well as your idiotic tweet about how aliquots are drawn from each dilution.

          Continued reference to that paper reinforces the fact that any understanding you believe you have of chemistry and its techniques are a figment of your imagination. When even the simplest of basic lab techniques aren’t followed, there can be no doubt that any work that results is questionable. It certainly doesn’t dismantle the body of work that is currently accepted as chemistry and physics.

          I stand by my request to Anisur for his extraordinary proof of his refutation of all that exists in Chemistry and Physics and await his answer. Given Anisur is such an esteem Professor, this challenge from a less recognized Chemist should be readily dealt with in a factual, evidenced-based and repeatable fashion. I’m sure your colleagues in the Chemistry and Physics departments will enthusiastically support your effort (as the glow of a Noble Prize in Chemistry and Physics will add their University’s status.) Failing to hear from him with specific details, I will accept that he has no such proof (remember, extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence – even Dana can understand that simple concept) and move on.

        • Hey guys, what’s going on here?
          Where is Dana? What happened to him? Giving up after only 200 comments?

          I am beginning to miss my regular evening dose of Danaism.

    • So, what would qualify as relevant queries or comments?

    • Dear ANISUR RAHMAN KHUDA-BUKHSH

      I might entice you to come back for the following reason.

      Please explain how lanes in the Zymograms of the following papers appear identical:

      Homeopathic drugs Natrum sulphuricum and Carcinosin prevent azo dye-induced hepatocarcinogenesis in mice; Bhattacharjee, Banerjee, Khuda-Bukhsh: Indian journal of biochemistry & biophysics 08/2009; 46(4):307-18.
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26854924_Homeopathic_drugs_Natrum_sulphuricum_and_Carcinosin_prevent_azo_dye-induced_hepatocarcinogenesis_in_mice

      Figure 14a – compare to lanes 1-4 in Figure 3A of this paper

      Two Homeopathic Remedies Used Intermittently Provide Additional Protective Effects Against Hepatotoxicity Induced by Carcinogens in Mice; Bhattacharjee, Nandini et al. Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , 166 – 175 (2012)
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2005290112000775

      While you’re at it you might also want to have a closer look at lanes 1-4 in the respective “B” panels of these two figures.
      I’d welcome your comment.

      For your viewing convenience, here’s a link to a direct comparison
      http://postimg.org/image/gl8pmuv8f/

      • INTERESTING!!!

        • I have very clearly explained to the Editor about the misconception from which you might have made this wild allegation and the editor is quite satisfied and convinced that this was really not a case of self-plagiarism (sorry your effort to malign me failed this time!) I give you the answer below which will probably encourage you to further read our papers between lines!!
          “Dear Editor,
          I am sending you the full pdf reprints of both the papers for your verification and satisfaction.
          The two papers in question are published with parts of a Ph.D. program. In both the papers, the protective effect of one homeopathic drug Natrum sulph 30 against p-DAB + PB induced carciogenesis has been compared with the effect of one additional drug, namely Carciinosin-200 in one paper IJBB) , and in another paper the effect of Natrum sulph 30 (and also Natrum sulph 200) has been compared with that of the combined effect of additional drug Cholesterinum 200 (JAMS). In both these experiments, some animals served as common controls. Because of ethical issues, we have to use minimum required number of animals. So the same samples of same set of controls which were necessary common requirements of both the experimental designs had to be run in the same slot to make the comaprison more distinguishable. Further since one set was common with the single drug treated, that is, Natrum sulph 30, when the comparison was between Natrum sulph 30 and Natrum sulph 30 plus Carcinosin 200, and when between Natrum suph 30 and Cholesterinum 200, natrum sulph 30 served as the common set for comparison between additional effects of either Carcinosin 200 or Cholesterinum 200. So because of ethical issue and least numer of animal killing permitted by ethical committe, we logically used data of Natrum sulph 30 from the same animals in different slots of run. Thus the bands looked similar in control animals. Even the molecular markers used were the same for obvious reasons.

          But again, please compare these two original published figures. There are different number of lanes in the two figures from lane one to 5, not the same as has been claimed.
          These are part of experimental protocols and I believe that I have given you enough clarification to defend myself from the alleged self-plagiarism claim made out of misunderstanding on part of the claimant.
          Thanking you for bringing this issue to my knowledge, so that I could clarify the issue. I hope you are satisfied that it is actually not self-plagiarism, use of data from samples of the common set of animals. Please do write to me about your view now.”
          Thanks. nevertheless, for reading our published papers so critically! Read more of our papers! Cheers. Bye!

          • @ Khuda-Bukhsh
            Did you use the same animals for two different but possibly related experiments. Very strange, seeing as you are financed by one of the wealthiest companies in alternative medicine and should have been able to use as many resources as necessary. I find your explanation about ethical aspects implausible. Perhaps you could provide a copy of the ethical committees’ ruling? Others with more experience in molecular biology will surely comment on this worrisome matter as well.

            However, we are still waiting for your response to the question of your financial backing.
            Please see this comment: http://edzardernst.com/2015/11/dana-ullman-the-spokesperson-for-homeopathy/#comment-72714

          • Excellent response Dr. Anisur.
            Best.

      • This observation should be devastating, real scientists have lost their positions and even their careers for this situation. One would hope that Dr allcaps is temporarily absent while he is holding an investigation into his own data before returning with an explanation. Withdrawal of both papers will be appropriate at the very least. Unfortunately, we have seen homeopaths with totally bogus data that just continue on making claims with no penalty at all. However, as Dr allcaps has so strenuously tried to convince that he is a senior authority figure, he should understand the seriousness of this ‘mistake’.

      • Dana is an expert on these papers. I’m sure he can give a complete explanation.

      • Dana: I am certain you understand the impact of publishing two separate papers using manipulated images to support a research conclusion. Simple question: do you recognize this as academic fraud?

        Anisur: Irrespective of your feelings about your treatment in this blog comments, Avogadro has identified an significant question about the data set in a couple of your papers. This is not an issue to be avoided. The esteem you so clearly desire is slipping from your grasp. The damage builds the longer you fail to address this question. Fraud is a serious charge for any publishing journal and ruined many careers, Is yours being flushed as we speak?

      • Re: scientific journals, editors, referees and authors.
         
        Avogadro’s discovery of suspiciously identical gel lanes prompted me to look through the several papers recommended by Dr ALLCAPS, both to get a handle on the wonders of his work (it’s barrel-bottom quality) and in case there are more examples of data duplication.
         
        This comment is about two papers: (1) Paul et al., Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 36 (2013) 937–947 and (2) Paul et al., Toxicology Letters 222 (2013) 10– 22. Both appeared in 2013 and the likelihood is high that both were submitted around the same time. For that reason it is not exceptional to find the same base data presented on the magic nanoparticles, with similar accompanying figures. What took my breath away was the complete identity of the descriptions in two (presumably) unrelated journals, right down to the duplication of the same spelling error.
         
        From ref. 1…
        “PLGA encapsulated chelidonine loaded nanoparticles were successfully prepared with 86.34±1.91% yield in the nanometre(nm) range and had 82.6±0.574% encapsulation efficiency. AFM and DLS data showed that the mean diameter of NC was 123±1.15 nm with 0.217±0.016 ploydispersity [sic] index (PDI) and −19.6±2.48 mV zeta potential. AFM study displayed a spherical shape of the nanoparticles with smooth surface without any pinholes or cracks (Fig.2A–D).”
         
        From ref. 2…
        “Chelidonine loaded PLGA nanoparticles were successfully prepared with 86.34±1.91% yield in the nanometer range and had 82.6±0.574% encapsulation efficiency. AFM (Fig. 1A and B) and DLS data showed that the mean diameter of NC was 123±1.15 nm with 0.217±0.016 ploydispersity [sic] index (PDI) and –19.6±2.48 mV zeta potential. AFM study displayed a spherical shape of nanoparticles with smooth surface without any pinholes or cracks.”
         
        I am aware of plenty of good authors who might be tempted to copy and paste such tedious but required material in more than one publication when, say, a PhD student’s work has been written up for submission in two separate papers. It’s lazy but forgiveable. What amazes me is that neither of the two journals picked up the misspelling of polydispersity. For me, this confirms that many (most?) journals nowadays are managed by editors who don’t edit anything, nor do they use copy editors who can read and write scientific English. Papers are submitted electronically, skimmed through superficially by overworked referees, accepted if nothing glaring stands out and transmitted for publication at the click of a mouse button.
         
        The dangers of this slack, slapdash approach to scientific publication have been rehearsed many times before: it makes dodgy studies, fraud, duplicate publication and plagiarism much more likely, sometimes with serious consequences (e.g. the Andrew Wakefield affair: the original paper should never have appeared in print). But the current pressures on scientists to publish prolifically and on publishers to keep starting up new journals do nothing to improve the situation.

        • By now it may be pertinent to ask:
          May (large?) parts of Khuda-Bukhsh et al.’s published material not be the result of genuine research but of a pressing need to deliver on the multiple and possibly extensive grants from Boiron Ltd?

  • A COMMENT FOR ALL READERS ABOUT DISCUSSIONS ON THIS BLOG
    why do I post comments that are insulting and contribute nothing relevant? why do I allow DU to make such a fool of himself? I do this mainly because 1) it reveals the type of mind set behind those who promote anti-science/pseudo-science and untruths and 2) I don’t like censorship.
    I am keenly aware that such childish comments and name-calling significantly lower the intellectual standards of the discussion, but I think this is a price worth paying for the insight that is gained. in a way this is not dissimilar to Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims: if someone insists to ruin his reputation for some apparent short-term gains, I am in favour of letting him do it.
    however, my tolerance of such nonsense has limits. once my personal pain threshold has been breached, I will ban even DU – not to protect DU from himself nor to save homeopathy from its ‘spokesperson’ but to re-establish a more desirable intellectual standard on my blog.

  • Oh dear!!! I’ve long considered Dana to be incapable of understanding the scientific process and critical appraisal, but all he does with his many comments on this blog and elsewhere is confirm my conclusions. The fundamental failure to grasp the simple fact that it matters not how many trials of homeopathy have positive results if all those trials are of poor methodological quality thereby rendering their findings meaningless. For someone who apparently has a Masters qualification in Public Health from U.C. Berkeley, his unwillingness and/or inability to understand basic critical appraisal makes me wonder how he ever got a Bachelor’s degree, let alone a Masters in a health topic. I was taught literature appraisal as part of my epidemiology classes when I was a medical undergraduate. Maybe I’m just being naive to expect someone with a Masters in Public Health to be able to critically appraise the scientific and medical literature? I’ve given him (and others similarly lacking in appraisal skills) the link to the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine on several occasions. That he still hasn’t learnt even the basics shows that he is the one with a closed mind. Pitiful.

    • Do EVERYONE notice (again!) that Paul has not yet to provide a scintilla of critique of the work of Anisur or Iris Bell!

      This obfuscation is obvious…and it makes me feel that I’m done here. There is no milk coming from these rocks!

      Bye

      • The progress of science starts with questions. If those questions go unanswered then the work is rightly viewed with suspicion. If the response is posturing complete with the liberal administration of logical fallacies the work can be discarded. This happens regardless of the views of Mr Gully, sorry Ullman.

        Bell is third rate whether Mr Ullman thinks so or not. It probably comes as a complete surprise to Mr Ullman that having your work praised by a homeopath is not the career enhancer that he thinks.

        So, either encourage the authors of the papers to whom questions have been asked or answer them yourself. Your (pl.) continual failure to engage on these points shows that the papers cannot be defended and may be dismissed as the usual nonsense from quacks.

        These comments will be a useful goto whenever a homeopath references this rubbish.

        If you wish to flounce, please do so, you have served your purpose.

      • Dana you do have an endless ability to apply incorrect meaning and wrong minded interpretations to the written word of others. You continually ignore simple questions posed to you, while complaining that your points of profound insights are ridiculed or attacked.

        So, one last time, please respond with what evidence you would require to falsify the hypothesis of homeopathy. If you chose not an answer to the question, at least indicate which of these analyses explains your failure to respond:

        http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.html

        or is it that you have decided to apply the tactics from the anti-vaxxer movement to buttress support for homeopathy (certainly logic isn’t the source of your staying power):

        https://www.facebook.com/download/910518265708394/How-to-debate-a-pro-vaxer-9.docx

        Or is it as simple as nothing will dissuade you from your belief.

        The position only lends further credence to the legal judgment that found you “to be not credible”. Being legally found to be not credible is a heavy burden to carry, consider responding to the question on falsifying the hypothesis of homeopathy as a first step on a long road back to credibility you may wish to travel.

  • Dana – where did I bring Iris Bell into this discussion? Once again, you show yourself to be incapable of even the most basic understanding of science while repeatedly embarrassing yourself with displays of your ignorance. Now, let’s have a look at Anisur, shall we? Until now I hadn’t even seen that either you or he had commented about me on this blog. At least he confirms in his comment that the article you claimed was published in “Nature India” was actually published elsewhere but makes the same mistake as you in somehow thinking that the news report on the paper that it did publish somehow lends legitimacy to his paper. It doesn’t. Even if the paper had been published in “Nature India” it would still have to bear up to critical appraisal. As we have seen on numerous occasions (and saw in the case of “Nature” itself in regard to the discredited claims of Jacques Benveniste) even quality journals are not immune to publishing work which, on being subjected to proper critical appraisal, turns out to be pretty worthless. That’s the beauty of science – it opens itself to, and indeed welcomes, critical appraisal in order that the truth is sought rather than blindly accepting claims made.
    Now, a reading of the titles of papers published in the “Journal of Integrative Medicine” starts the red flags of quackery waving. The journal may indeed be “peer reviewed” but when those “peers” are themselves quacks then it becomes meaningless. The names on the Editorial Board are hardly ones that fill you with confidence! Likewise the Advisory Board.
    Strangely enough, one of the members of the Editorial Board is a certain Anisur Rahman Khuda-Bukhsh. Colour me suspicious! That the journal is published by Elsevier is also meaningless as their interest in publishing anything is purely commercial.
    Now, to the study itself. My main criticism was that the CONTROL group got nothing while the “treatment” arm cells were treated with solutions of 70% ethanol in water. At the dilution of 30C there would be none of the alleged “active” ingredient in the “treatment” solutions, just 70% ethanol in water. Now, if – as has been claimed by many homeopaths – water has a memory, why is the 70% ethanol required and how does this affect the memory properties of the water in the “treatment” solutions? The evidence that water has a memory is, of course, utter nonsense with “structures” in water having life spans measurable at most in a picosecond scale.
    It’s not in the least bit surprising that a 70% ethanol solution has an effect on gene expression on cells in vitro. Similarly the “placebo” solution has an effect on gene expression. The article is totally devoid of any statistical analysis, so whether the differences seen between the “treatment” solutions, the placebo and the control is impossible to judge as to whether they are meaningful. All we can go on are the various graphs. Not being a cancer researcher, I cannot comment on the validity of the various experiments performed, but I do have to question why the paper is published in this journal rather than a decent cancer journal. However, examining Figure 1 shows no meaningful differences between the various “treatment” and placebo groups (of course, they all differ from the untreated control cells). The plots do not support a conclusion of meaningful differences. Nor is it possible to draw any other conclusions from the information presented but if there are any bona fide cancer researchers following this comment thread I would ask for their opinion. I see that several other people have commented on the methodology and are not impressed. I’m not au faix with many of the people commenting so they may be right, but it’s possible they are wrong. If so, please show how they are wrong. If you make a claim, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support it. Please also remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We have yet to see even ordinary proof for claims of efficacy for homeopathy!
    Finally, we should never lose sight of the fundamental issue that just because (or in this case, even if) something works in vitro (I presume you understand the meaning of that term?) there’s no guarantee that it works in vivo. Therefore to make any claims that Anisur’s paper in any way somehow “proves” that homeopathy works is a leap of faith on an intergalactic scale. On the other hand, what we have seen is that, when subjected to rigorous, appropriate critical appraisal, homeopathy has not been shown to have any perceivable benefit beyond a placebo effect. That you, Dana, seem to be incapable of such a basic, fundamental grasp of medicine and science is why your reputation amongst real scientists and doctors is so poor. It also explains why the judge in this case referred to you as “not a credible witness”.

    http://www.consumerproductslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/393/2014/12/Prop-Stat-of-Dec-11-25-14.pdf

    You will find the relevant statement at the bottom of Page 5.
    As for your claims to have somehow embarrassed me on Twitter, I think you’ve lost the plot! You repeatedly asserted that the article was published in Nature India even when shown repeatedly that it was no more than a brief news report. It wasn’t even a copy of the article abstract. To keep making such a fundamental error even when shown the correct situation is truly embarrassing.

    • Hmmm..I see Paul puts together a reasoned critique of Dana’s current pet paper and Dana disappears. That’s magic!

      I think one of the things I have been struck by in looking at the various in vitro studies around homeopathy is just how amateurish they often are and yet still find some bottom-feeding journal to publish them. Sometimes the errors are so glaring that I struggle to credit that they were not spotted. But still the photos of the naked emperor’s wardrobe get published.

      I lose track of Dana’s pets over the years. A while ago it was some piece of thermoluminescence nonsense. With no statistics. Then there was another spectroscopic study where it was clear there was something funny with the stock solvent used as a control.http://www.badscience.net/2000/01/journal-club-the-defining-role-of-structure-including-epitaxy-in-the-plausibility-of-homeopathy/

      Homeopathy is a sad way to waste a career

      • Of course, Iris Bell is a long-time hero for Dana. Hardly surprising.

      • Just having a critique doesn’t mean that it is a valid critique. All of those “pet” studies were published and/or reported on in leading high-impact scientific journals, including LEADING journals in material sciences (Langmuir), physics (Physica A), and Nature India. To think that these studies would pass muster in getting published in these leading journals even though they all dealt with the highly controversial subject of homeopathy, how can anyone take seriously the flimsy critique that is provided in this blog. If anyone writing those critiques were really serious, they would submit them to the journals and get them pubilshed. Wake me up when that happens.

        The plural of lies is not “truth,” nor is the plural of misdirection “truth.”

        • …and I had hoped you had stopped making a fool of yourself!

        • Dana, I don’t think your mechanism for telling valid from invalid stands up to scrutiny, but you could always test that by describing to us the evidence that would cause you to change your mind and adopt the scientific consensus view on homeopathy.

        • Dana

          Anyone who is interested in your definition of a leading journal can look at thiose Wikipedia talk pages to read your frenzied defence of that study by someone called Cazin in an obscure toxicology journal.

          For a self-proclaimed expert in a field that fancies itself as being able to deal in subtlety you have s bizarrely binary view of the scientific world. If you can dredge up some questionable positive result from a few trials in shoddy journals, suddenly the authors are 100% unassailable scientific heroes and every journal is ‘leading’ and ‘high-impact’. It’s all rather reflective of a pathetic wannabe strand that runs through all of alt.med. Clever people with a talent for medicine become doctors and nurses. The altie world is full of clueless amateurs, some well-meaning but many merely self-serving.

          I notice in your currently repeated challenges to other people to read those papers in that obscure Indian journal that you merely assert that their methods are flawless and their results are dramatic in support of homeopathy. But I note that despite multiple attempts to get you to respond to ctiocisms of the work all you do is repeat those same assertions. You do not argue in detail from the work itself. I find that interesting.

          You’re very keen on notions of internal and external validity. How are those papers relevant to the clinical philosophy of homeopathy? Explain with examples how robust is the statistical analysis.

          Tell us what a nanoparticle of ‘black hole’ or ‘light of Venus’ or ‘positronium’ would look like in their experimental model.

          • It’s also worth bearing in mind Dana’s idiosyncratic use of terminology.

            * Credentialled expert: Author who writes a paper which does not overtly contradict homeopathy.
            * Double-blind and placebo-controlled trial: Trial that flatters homeopathy. May or may not be adequately blinded or controlled.
            * Extremely high quality trial: Trial that flatters homeopathy outrageously.
            * Flawed evidence: Anything that contradicts homeopathy.
            * Fraudulent: Robust evidence that contradicts homeopathy.
            * Gold-standard evidence: Meta-analysis that flatters homeopathy.
            * High quality trial: Trial that flatters homeopathy.
            * Independent study: Study where at least one author is not actually a practising homeopath.
            * Incontrovertible proof: Finding in a paper which shows any effect of any substance at any dilution.
            * Ignorance: Any knowledge that conflicts with homeopathy.
            * Ignore: The process by which a skeptic reads a paper and comes to a conclusion different from Dana’s.
            * Immune system: No reality-based equivalent.
            * Major study: A paper that does not overtly contradict homeopathy.
            * Nanodose: May mean
            (a) a reality-based study investigating nanodoses, or
            (b) a homeopathic study with any dose from mother tincture to nothing at all.
            * Peer-reviewed: Any journal that publishes a paper flattering to homeopathy.
            * Proof: Finding in a paper which does not overtly contradict homeopathy.
            * Pseudoskeptic: Skeptic.
            * Published in: Mentioned on the website of.
            * Respected journal: Journal that publishes a finding which does not overtly contradict homeopathy.
            * Specific: Discussing the facts in a way that agrees with Dana.
            Not forgetting the MAGIC WORDS:
            * BIOLOGICAL effects: Things that happen in petri dishes, regardless of actual relevance.
            * CLINICAL evidence: Anything allowing confirmation bias and other confounders to flatter homeopathy.
            * DENIAL: Failure to accept homeopathy.
            * FACT: Assertion supporting homeopathy.
            * LARGE numbers: The number of any category that support homeopathy (e.g. LARGE numbers of MEDICAL doctors).
            * LIES: Actual facts contradicting homeopathy.
            * MEDICINE: Homeopathy, in the context of any country where it’s not actually banned.
            * NOT a SINGLE person: Multiple people.
            * RESULTS: Anything favourable reported by any homeopath, ever.
            * SCIENCE: The process of generating findings flattering to homeopathy.
            * THEORIES: Actual facts that contradict homeopathy.
            And let’s not forget the top trump card:
            * “How convenient!”: I have absolutely no rebuttal to your comments and will choose instead to pretend that through the medium of some trite, trivially disproven and many-times-debunked assertion, I have somehow nailed your ass to the wall.

            Maybe I will add this to a dictionary of Dullmanisms…

        • You still don’t understand it, do you Dana? While it is more probable that a paper published in a high-quality “leading” journal will have more vailidity than one published in those of lower quality ones, that does not mean that papers published in high quality journals are immune to criticism. If anything, it is even more likely that a paper published in a high-quality journal will be subjected to greater scrutiny than one published in a low-quality one. As has already been seen, high-quality journals are also not immune to publishing papers that turn out to be worthless, even dangerous, junk. We have seen this in Andrew Wakefield’s discredited paper on the MMR vaccine in “The Lancet” and Benveniste’s work on basophils and homeopathy published in “Nature”. A visit to http://retractionwatch.com/ brings up multiple examples of papers published in journals across the spectrum of science and medicine that have had corrections issued or been withdrawn.
          It matters not that you keep claiming that just because an article is published in “Langmuir” that it somehow renders it immune to criticism. That’s simply not true and you repeatedly making the claim doesn’t alter that fact.
          You also still don’t seem to understand the difference between a report in “Nature India” of an article published in another, unrelated journal and an article that is actually published in Nature India. They are chalk and cheese. Do you really want me to embarrass you once again by publishing links to the publications of the article in the “Journal of Integrative Medicine” and the report (in Nature India) of the publication of that article in the “Journal of Integrative Medicine”?
          Dana – a paper published in ANY journal will still be subjected to critical appraisal. No-one, no matter how famous (or insignificant) in science and medicine, gets a free pass and immunity from critical appraisal. Stephen Hawking has never escaped critical appraisal. Albert Einstein never escaped critical appraisal.
          As for “flimsy critique” for homeopathy – oh dear!!!! The only thing flimsy I can see is your ability to cope with criticism of the claims you make when they are so readily debunked.

  • I ask this rhetorically, because I do not expect DU to respond coherently, but isn’t it striking that Mathie and Co, wearing their best beer goggles could come up with so little evidence in their most recent meta-analysis.

    Homeopaths claim to be able to cure rabies and Ebola. The haziness of the evidence flat out busts any claim for homeopathy to be a useful medical therapy. We really are discussing ‘nothing’ here, where that adequately describes the totality of the evidence, the content of the remedies and the capacity for critical self-appraisal of their proponents.

    • What a lame reply! Please note that Mathie’s research separated out what are deemed to be the HIGHEST quality studies, and he found positive results are with the highest quality studies…

      As for bragging rights, conventional medicine claims to be “proven” but according to the BMJ, only around 11% of treatments have any degree of proven benefits…and that doesn’t account for the proven dangers of these same treatments…and further, if or when anyone chooses to use the same criteria used in the Australian government’s junk science review of homeopathy, where they deemed that studies were not deemed to be reliable unless they had at least 150 studies…and had to have THREE separate replications by independent researchers! If such criteria were used by the BMJ, probably only 0-3% would be deemed to be proven as “beneficial.”

      The degree of BIAS and MISINFORMATION at this site is rampant…and the people here subsist only on it. No objectivity and real science here.

      • And Mathie’s ‘top of the manure-heap’ studies showed trivial effects, which is something you carefully ignore.

        Jacobs’ childhood diarrhoea studies. Trivial outcome, and they’re the best you can ever come up with because they’re all that exist.

        I think you’re done here.

      • Which Mathie metastudy are you on about this time? The one with only three trials that didn’t actually meet his own standards? Lol.

        By the way, someone has looked at a couple of your Dr allcaps papers, the results are not exactly as flawless as you want people to believe. It is amazing how often fraud is found among homeopaths, isn’t it?

        • Please show me PRECISELY when I referred to the research by Anisur as “flawless.”

          In the meantime, I’m leaving now. You all have simply proven how you misquote, misinform, and primarily use ad hominem attacks as though you KNOW how biased you are.

          • no need…just referring to research that is suspect is enough.

          • Dana does a LANCB again. Don’t let the door hit you on the arse on the way out.

          • Dana

            I see you’ve got those mobile goalposts working for you again, though, rather confusingly, you’ve used them to construct a strawman.

            Even if you haven’t said that DrALLCAP’S work was literally perfect you have used a range of hyperbolic flattery to describe his papers and their provenance.

            But, what has been shown to you is potentially a huge problem even if the studies in question had not been described as literally flawless. It fundamentally calls into question the honesty of the whole enterprise.

            I would like to see you specifically address the problem that has been pointed out to you in this set of your current pet articles. You kept bleating that no one seemed to have read them. It rather looks like you hadn’t read them very closely, if at all. But now, instead of dealing with the criticism you are running away.

            You do know that this will be brought to your attention next time tu pop up, so it would be better if you honestly addressed the issues now.

          • Dana “Mr. Uncredible” Ullman said:

            In the meantime, I’m leaving now. You all have simply proven how you misquote, misinform, and primarily use ad hominem attacks as though you KNOW how biased you are

            Flouncing again, Dana? Don’t let the door bang you on the arse on the way out.

            I’m amused that you think readers would not have noticed is that your flounce is the result of our having shown you to be guilty of precisely what you accuse us of. I think I’m noted before your tendency to accuse others of your own worst faults, this type of projection is endemic among SCAM peddlers.

            I think you’ll find all of us acknowledge our bias: we are very biased towards empirically established fact and the honest use of the scientific method. And you are biased against reality-based medicine, science, and anything else that contradicts your beliefs. One of these biases is objectively good, the other objectively bad.

        • “By the way, someone has looked at a couple of your Dr allcaps papers”

          I did and commented. I am not a researcher and if I can see flaws, they must be gaping.

      • Dana, the degree of BIAS and MISINFORMATION is rampant only because you continually add more of it in lieu of substantive responses to genuine questions and critique.

        As pointed out above, simply adding Ernst’s paper, excluded for no satisfactory reason, turns the result resoundingly negative, and without Ernst, Mathie is forced to admit that the overall standard of evidence is poor. So the Mathie result is fully compatible with the null hypothesis.

        Now we have to return to the three core problems of homeopathy:
        1. There is no reason to suppose it should work, because there is no evidence that like cures like;
        2. There is no way it can work, because the core doctrines around dilution and dosing fly in the face of multiple well-established and rigorously tested principles of physics, chemistry and biology;
        3. There is no proof it does work, because all results are consistent with the null hypothesis.

        The good news is that you can change a skeptic’s mind overnight by providing robust proof that like cures like and a plausible mechanism based on the property of matter that confers cure by symptomatic similarity. With those things in place, we would acknowledge homeopathy as at least plausible.

        Now, don’t be shy, tell us what would change *your* mind and cause you to accept the scientific consensus view on homeopathy?

        Incidentally, your claim that “according to the BMJ” only 11% of treatments have good evidence, is difficult to cross-check (you’ll understand why I would not simply take your word for an anti-medicine statement given that you regard medicine as “witchcraft”). An opinion piece in the BMJ in Dec. 2012 did mention this fact, and the 11% of 3,000 figures you have cited when making the same claim elsewhere, it was made by (and, in the BMJ piece, correctly attributed to) Domenighetti. The source is elusive. I can find one slide that attributes it to Domenighetti, BMJ, 15 Feb 2012, but there’s no issue of the BMJ on that date – the nearest is vol 344, issue 7844, for 18 Feb. A search oft he BMJ finds no papers published in the BMJ by Domenighetti in 2012. PubMed finds only one publication by Domenighetti in 2012, and it’s not relevant. What we *do* know is that claims of this sort have been made before, and have turned out to be misrepresentations: normally the technique is to take the figure for treatments supported by large multi-centre RCTs and represent this as the total of all evidence-based treatments, whereas actually a lot of the treatments are backed by other compelling evidence. You can’t do an RCT of surgery, in most cases, and not for vaccination either. So there are always problems with these “only x%” claims – no doubt you can cite the actual study to which you refer and then we can look at it in more detail.

        • Guy, I have referred to this link at the BMJ’s website for years…and now, all of a sudden, you become deaf, dumb, and blind as though you’ve never heard of this body of evidence…how convenient!

          http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/x/set/static/cms/efficacy-categorisations.html

          I’m done here. BYE!

          • and you probably know quite well that these data do not show what you imply.

          • Oh yes, it’s the one where the BMJ specifically state it cannot be interpreted in the way you interpret it. I remember now.

            * 11% definitely beneficial according to RCTs,
            * 24% likely to be beneficial,
            * 7% trade-off between benefits and harms,
            * 5% unlikely to be beneficial
            * 3% likely to be harmful,
            * 50% unknown which, as the paper says, “may also simply reflect difficulties in conducting RCTs of an intervention, or be applied to treatments for which the evidence base is still evolving”.

            And as it says, this is the list of treatments, it is not weighted by number of treatment interventions. There’s no evidence the treatments now known to be harmful are in active use. So, of the treatments available for which good quality evidence exists, the great majority are effective, albeit some bringing a balance of risk and harm (that would include things like adjuvant chemotherapy, I guess).

            The 5% “unlikely to be beneficial” includes acupuncture and other “complementary” treatments, presumably including homeopathy, it’s a bit naughty complaining about “only” 11% when the collection of worthless treatments also includes the category that includes the thing you promote as an alternative. What was that about BIAS and MISINFORMATION?

            Now, what about my other points? The ones above that footnote? Are you going to continue ignoring them forever?