For some researchers, the question whether homeopathy works beyond a placebo effect is not as relevant as the question whether it works as well as an established treatment. To answer it, they must conduct RCTs comparing homeopathy with a therapy that has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be effective, i.e better than placebo. Such a drug is, for instance, Ibuprofen.

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of Ibuprofen and homeopathic Belladonna for orthodontic pain. 51 females and 21 males, were included in this study. Cases with non-extraction treatment plan having proper contacts’ mesial and distal to permanent first molar and currently not taking any analgesics or antibiotics were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups; one group was assigned to ibuprofen 400 mg and second group took Belladonna 6C (that’s a dilution of 1: 1000000000000). Patients were given two doses of medication of their respective remedies one hour before placement of elastomeric separators (Ormco Separators, Ormco Corporation, CA, USA) and one dose 6 h after the placement. Pain scores were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 2 h after placement, 6 h after placement, bedtime, day 1 morning, day 2 morning, day 3 morning and day 5 morning.

The comparisons showed that there were no differences between the two groups at any time point.

(Mean visual analogue scale pain score at different time intervals after separator placement in Ibuprofen and Belladonna group)

The authors concluded that Ibuprofen and Belladonna 6C are effective and provide adequate analgesia with no statistically significant difference. Lack of adverse effects with Belladonna 6C makes it an effective and viable alternative.


Not so fast – before we draw any conclusions, let’s have a closer look at this study. Here are a few of its limitations (apart from the fact that it was published in a journal that does not exactly belong to the ‘crème de la crème’ of medical publications):

  • Patients obviously knew which group they were assigned to; thus their expectations would have influenced the outcome.
  • The same applies to the researchers (the study could have been ‘blind’ using a ‘double dummy’ method, but the researchers did not use it).
  • The study was an equivalence trial (it did not test whether homeopathy is superior to placebo, but whether its effects are equivalent to Ibuprofen); such studies need sample sizes that are about one dimension larger than was the case here.

Therefore, all this trial does demonstrate that the sample was too small for an existing group difference in favour of Ibuprofen to show.

So sorry, my homeopathic friends!

74 Responses to HOMEOPATHY WORKS! It is as effective as Ibuprofen for pain control … No, no, no – just joking

  • Fascinating!
    Why was Belladonna 6C used, and not 30C (Hahnemann’s recommended standard potency)?
    Or 200C (even more potent)?
    Or all three potencies (patients blinded as to the potency they received of course, with randomised distribution)?

    We could go on critiquing nonsense for ever (and must do so for reasons of integrity).
    The fact is, homeopathic ‘research’ does not use recognised scientific methods or protocols and in homeopathic circles ‘research’ is nothing more than a method of marketing.
    ‘False research’ and ‘false news’ to have bothered to publish it.
    Sigh squared.

    • Please show us where precisely Hahnemann says that 30C is his “preferred” potency for pain control or anything else. I predict a deafening silence on this one.

      It is always fun to watch people at this site make assertions about homeopathy as though they know what they’re talking about, despite having no evidence of it. You’d think that this thing called “evidence” would be important, but I’m obviously wrong. Oh well…

      • According to Ullmanian Logic, only those with an intimate knowledge of the anatomy and physiology of fairies and unicorns can question their existence.

        Oh and Hahnemann indicated 30C as his preferred potency in the 6th edition of his Organon.

        Try again, Dana.

      • Oooooo! Look at the responses that I get just for asking for a REFERENCE to a statement by a colleague of theirs!

        It looks like I’ve touched a nerve. Obviously, asking for a reference is simply asking too much.

        Like I said, it is FUN to watch these people who insist upon “evidence” wiggle their way around providing it..and instead, do the ad hom attacks or simply try in vain to make fun of the question or questioner. I expect more of this obfuscation.

        • “It looks like I’ve touched a nerve.”
          you always do
          I call it the BS-nerve

        • How many angels on how many pinheads, Dana?

          Which fairies? Which unicorns?

          Your rhetorical flailing doesn’t yet seem to have had any effect on objective reality.

          Carry on yammering.

          A few Indian homeopaths claim to have cures for baldness. Try some. If they work, we might shut up.

        • Oh dear, Dana! You have been called out for asking a question about what is supposed to be a specialist field of knowledge and also given the answer – which I’m therefore surprised that you didn’t appear to know. Maybe you were hoping that others commenting on this post wouldn’t be as (purportedly) knowledgeable as you about Saint Hahnemann. Looks like you were wrong – again.
          This is why people find it so amusing to see you fail so epically with the claims you make.

          • IF I am wrong, then please show me where in Hahnemann’s case books that he ONLY prescribed the 30th potency. However, I can tell you how this story ends…you will not be able to do so, but that will not provide any apology or correct of your errors. Instead, you will do your regular ad homs and bring up other issues.

            Just because you folks provide a reference and then misinterpret it doesn’t mean shit or shinola. You are still proving yourselves to be ignorant AND arrogant (the two worst features of a scientist).

          • did anyone claim that Hahnemann ONLY used C30

      • Mr Ullman requests a reference for Hahnemann having recommended a 30C remedy.

        Hahnemann’s Organon contains three hundred pages but infinitesimal doses are not mentioned until page 204, and then only in notes. Nevertheless Hahnemann’s followers regarded his ‘discovery’ as being one of the greatest in medicine.

        Hahnemann describes his method of preparing vegetable remedies:

        “To obtain the hundredth degree of potency, mix two drops of alcohol with equal parts of the juice of the plant, and then mix this with one hundred drops of alcohol, by means of two strokes with the arm from above downwards; by mixing in the same way one drop of this dilution with one hundred drops of alcohol, you obtain the ten thousandth degree of potency, and by mixing a drop of this last dilution with another one hundred drops of alcohol you obtain the millionth degree.

        This process of spiritualisation or dynamization is continued through a series of thirty phials up to the thirtieth solution.

        This thirtieth degree should always be used in Homeopathic purposes.”

        Samuel Hahnemann, Materia Medica Pura, vol. i.

        Homeopaths style their initial dilution as 1C – said to be”1 in a 100”.
        Hahnemann diluted 1 in 101 (one drop in 100 drops).
        Fortunately, this makes not the slightest bit of difference.
        Neither does it make the slightest bit of difference if 200C is used.

        200C is ten followed by four hundred zeros – 10^400. There are only about 10^80 atoms
        in the observable universe, at most, 100^100 (one googol).

        Sigh^C !

        • My post on what Hahnemann stated was the “thirtieth degree” which “should always be used” offered a poor explanation.
          He put 1 drop of ‘mother tincture’ in 100 drops of alcohol – so the total was 101 drops.
          1 in 101.

          1C is ‘1 in 100 drops’ (not “into” – subtle difference).
          1 drop of tincture and 99 drops of alcohol.
          Nearly 1% less ‘potent’!

          Fortunately, this makes not the slightest bit of difference.

          • Hahnemann NEVER said that the 30th potency should always be used. You even had the audacity to put quotes on words and yet not provide a link or reference. It seems that you skeptics must love Donald Trump and his universe of “alternative facts.” And you are like the Republican party that band together to avoid denying your ignorance.

            More wiggling from your troups, while avoiding answering the simple question…

        • You call THAT proof?!?

          You have misinterpreted what Hahnemann wrote there…but I’m not surprised. You are true believers who will believe what you want to believe and spin information to fit your worldview.

          Skeptics are true believers. Busted again.

    • Now that you mention research … In my opinion, proving has always been the most hilariously foolish aspect of homeopathy, even more so than the idiotic ‘more dilution increases potency’ principle: a bunch of people taking diluted water, painstakingly recording anything particular they experience while doing so, and then attributing any common ‘symptoms’ to the dilution — after which the water is declared a ‘remedy’ for any ‘symptoms’ found in this way.

      The simple fact that this homeopathic testing procedure involves neither patients nor ailments tells me that homeopaths must be very, very stupid people.

  • Funny … homeopathy most definitely has an effect on me – it always makes my head hurt.
    Then again, I’m using homeopathy in the highest possible ‘potency’ (i.e. I avoid it at all cost), so I guess that in a way, this makes sense.

  • It is so embarrassing that people at this website STILL think that there is “nothing” in homeopathic medicines!

    There are now dozens of studies that verify that nanodoses of medicinal agents persist in water solutions at 30C and 200C…but you folks embarrass yourself completely and thoroughly by not recognizing that the 6C has “nothing” in it. Don’t you fools know that many of our bodys’ hormones and cell-signaling systems operate at this dosage level…unless you are FOOLISH enough to think that our horrmones work as a placebo (you folks may be THAT daft!).

    Thanx for the laughter…

    • It is so embarrassing that people in homeopathic circles STILL think that ‘nanodoses’ of simple and ubiquitous substances such as table salt (sodium chloride, or ‘natrum muriaticum’ in homeopathic pig Latin) or any other mineral ions have a profound effect, given that every single one of us already has several hundred grams of the stuff in their body.

      It is so embarrassing that people in homeopathic circles STILL think that the water used for ‘potentizing’ substances retains the properties of said substances EXCLUSIVELY, with complete disregard of any other completely arbitrary ‘nanodoses’ already present, and/or dissolving from the air, and/or leaching from containers (mineral ions, iron, lead, arsenic, carbon dioxide, viruses, dust, bacterial spores – all these things may end up in there, even in the purest water).

      It is so embarrassing that people in homeopathic circles STILL think that one can ‘dilute’ plant extracts or any other highly complex mixture of organic or mineral origin, and still end up with a consistent (let alone medicinal) end result, given that the mother tincture literally contains thousands of salts, compounds, cells, cell structures, microbes, proteins, enzymes and whatnot, things that by definition CANNOT be simply ‘diluted’ while preserving the overall nature of the whole. Even if after a 30C ‘potentization’ nanodoses persist, it is completely arbitrary exactly WHAT that would be.

      It is so embarrassing that people in homeopathic circles STILL think that pounding a dilution ‘exactly ten times on a resilient surface’ imbues this dilution with very special magical properties that diluting alone does not achieve – especially after science has shown that this kind of shaking has no effect whatsoever on the dilution or any ingredients therein.

      It is so embarrassing that people in homeopathic circles STILL think that personal observation (usually heavily biased by prior beliefs) somehow trumps systematic scientific research – research that has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a single homeopathic ‘remedy’ that has any efficacy for any condition whatsoever. Let me repeat this in all caps: THERE IS NOT A SINGLE HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY THAT HAS RELIABLY SHOWN ANY OBJECTIVELY MEASURABLE EFFECT ON ANY CONDITION. NONE.

      It is so embarrassing that … Ah well, let’s just leave it at this.

      Summarized: the fact that there are still people who STILL think that there’s ‘something’ in homeopathy is rather embarrassing; frankly, I find it an insult to human intelligence, as homeopaths really should know better these days. If they have any sense of dignity and honor whatsoever, they should concede that they were wrong, and leave the practising of medicine to those who actually know things about it and actually heal people, i.e. real doctors and real medical scientists. Even without homeopaths, there already are enough charlatans and con artists out there as it is.

    • “It is so embarrassing that people at this website STILL think that there is “nothing” in homeopathic medicines!”

      No, Dana. It is embarrassing that people like you persist in imagining that shaken water has magical properties. It is amusing to watch your trying to claim that exercises in data-mangling and the torturing of statistical noise prove your nonsense. It is fun to see you being proven wrong time after time and watching you disappear from these threads when this happens. It is curious to watch you return to other threads with the same hapless arguments, somehow imagining that we’ve forgotten how we proved you wrong previously.

      And the body’s endocrine system works by long-established methods, the understanding of which has enabled the development of medicines which work. Unlike homeopathy which has no mode of efficacy which has been explained or demonstrated. You, Dana, are the fool. But you’ll never see it.

      The orchestra plays on with Dana on his violin, knowing that he’s the only person playing the correct tune.

    • “There are now dozens of studies that verify that nanodoses of medicinal agents persist in water solutions at 30C and 200C”

      A few bits of grit at the bottom of a vial of homeopathic remedy isn’t nano-technology, it’s contamination and poor quality control. There is no evidence as to the significance of these microscopic blobs and they are billions of times larger than even the biggest hormone molecules. Suggesting they work by influencing “our bodys’ (sic) hormones and cell signalling systems” is like saying it’s possible to adjust the mechanism of a pocket watch by driving an articulated truck over it!


      • A few bits of grit at the bottom of a vial of homeopathic remedy isn’t nano-technology, it’s contamination and poor quality control.

        Quite apart from the fact that these few nanograms of remaining crud still constitute a dosage that is several orders of magnitude smaller than normal hormonal dosages (~0.1 – 0.5 mg).
        And quite apart from the fact that ailments that purportedly benefit from homeopathic invention do not appear to be hormone-related in any way.
        And quite apart from the fact that it must be a truly staggering coincidence that virtually every single substance that homeopaths ‘proved’ (and approved) seemingly has hormonal effects, whereas we know from pharmacology and toxicology that there are actually only very few natural substances that mimic our hormones (which of course is logical, otherwise simply ingesting food would have all sorts of undesirable effects on human health and development).
        And quite apart from the fact that by an even more staggering coincidence, ALL those ‘hormone-like effects’ are ALWAYS beneficial. There appear to be no homeopathic remedies with an outspoken negative effect (OK, apart from this one, but let’s just be generous and chalk this up to gross incompetence of the manufacturer, not to homeopathy being actively harmful in general).
        And quite apart from the fact that our bodies have evolved self-healing by means of an extremely complex system of homeostasis, signalling chemicals and a very elaborate immune system, without any ‘help’ from homeopathy – the latter only having been made up two centuries ago. It would be very strange indeed if our physiology would sport a special self-healing mechanism that is especially receptive to magical ( and therefore unnatural) shaken water with ‘nanodoses’.

        There are so many reasons why homeopathy is utterly implausible at so many levels, that it is indeed embarrassing that there are still people who believe in it.

        • “There appear to be no homeopathic remedies with an outspoken negative effect”

          Not so. A couple of homeopaths on Twitter (Venky and the highly unpleasant Way Wong) claimed one remedy to be extremely dangerous. Wong even claimed to have tried to use it to poison a colleague. Someone took them up on their offer and posted videos of him taking said remedy for two weeks wit, obviously, no ill-effects.

          This was explained, apparently, by his having touched the pillules with ungloved hands or having been looking in the wrong direction or standing too close to the television or something.

    • you folks embarrass yourself completely and thoroughly by not recognizing that the 6C has “nothing” in it.

      [I guess you mean ‘… that the 6C doesn’t have “nothing” in it’ – double negatives are always tricky, even for homeopaths …]
      Oh, 6C usually has some of the original substance left – perhaps 1 or 2 picograms per dose. So I’m afraid that it’s still you severely embarrassing yourself by suggesting that picograms of an active substance can have any effect at all.
      Even botulin toxin, the most powerful active substance known, takes a 1,000 times higher dose before any noticeable effects occur.

    • I wonder where on the cell membrane the “Berlin Wall” or “Dolphin sonar” receptors are? Are these receptors unique to humans? Do bacteria have them? And so on.

      Those “dozens of studies” are less than compelling and they certainly do not provide any evidence of efficacy for homeopathy.

  • @Edzard Not surprised at the responses.

    When can your readers expect a blog about how you feel your legacy of opinions on this blog will impact future generations of research scientists?

  • ALL of this piss and bile just because I asked for a reference to a statement by one colleagues who made a totally unfounded and fabricated statement! And needless to say, I’m not at all surprised. When you got nothing, you switch subjects, attack me, make fun of me, or just do anything to avoid providing evidence to a wrong assertion (that simply PROVES that you folks know nothing about homeopathy).

    The complicity of ignorance here is that no one else has provided this reference (because you all support your colleagues who simply speak out of their backside).

    BUSTED! (again)

    • “piss and bile”
      BUSTED! (again) – indeed!

    • @Dana Your analysis is spot on. You and I don’t get ‘banned’ from commenting because it gives the Professor and his small group of followers an opportunity to insult instead of providing evidence of their claims. His and their replies are amusing.

      • in this thread, dear Sandra, I merely defended myself against insults from others.

        • On Sunday 09 December 2018 at 17:26 Edzard said: Dr Ullman, are you drunk?

          Is that a defense or an insult Professor Ernst?

          Your penchant for degrading personal insults on this blog are legendary. Speaking of legendary. What do you hope your legacy to the practice of health care will be?

          • it a well-reasoned question, if someone is posting a series of nonsensical comments.

          • Sandra,
            Admittedly, Mr. Ullman is on the receiving end of quite a bit of flak(*) here, but you should view this in a broader historical context. Mr. Ullman is a tireless homeopathy evangelist with an almost trollish fanaticism and behaviour: continuously pushing his own points (usually some sort of obscure, cherry-picked ‘proof’ in favour of homeopathy), and never engaging in rational discussions with people who offer criticism and rebuttals – but instead latching on to any personal remarks with a bulldog-like tenacity. And then either claiming victory if he provoked some sort of ad hominem, or assuming the role of a pitiful victim of bullying.
            To put it succinctly: he simply will never admit that he is wrong.

            *: Which somehow evokes with me the image of him on a flying carpet full of holes in a steep nosedive, yet still maintaining that “She’s flying just fine!”

      • You seem to be incapable of grasping the pattern here, even after tirelessly frequenting this blog.. focus for a second:

        If you isolate Dana’s string of comments from this thread, it is pretty much identical to any other that he posted at any other thread on this blog. The intermediate comments are just people trying to make sense of his ramblings, now they are merely white noise, of course, because noone takes him seriously. It’s Dana coming here, starting an imaginary argumentation with imaginary correspondents, claims victory over and over without ever making any sense.

        Your role in this pattern is just to make “two of you”. Now don’t you ever question yourself about what you know? Did it ever occur to you that homeopathy just might be (spoiler: it is) wrong? Proper scientists doubt their findings and theories all the time and try to invalidate them. Only bulletproof theories make it through this critical environment, so that when we use them for production, we minimize our chances to fail. Now look at you.. accepted a theory (among many others, of course), which sounds odd to begon with, never doubted it for a split second, and systematically ignore counterarguments, doing your best to cherish it as if it were a holy relic, as if it were the one sole truth. This is the exact opposite of science.

        When you believe in one sole truth, Sandra and Dana, having even only 10 theories around to choose from (we easily have a lot more than 10 alternative medicine treatments claiming to be the only correct methods to cure), you start out wih a 90% failure rate already.

        Got it? We already have dozens of cults telling us their methods are the only ones to cure and to know the true cause of all diseases. Your chance of being correct is by definition one in…well, dozens. Not a very much of a head start, is it?

        Now, I don’t really see in you both the due modesty, that of one who knows they have such a slim chance of being right at all. You sound as if you know it all and you are correct.

        Remember, count all alternative methods of knowing and treating that claim to have exclusive access to the “wisdom”. Now take a pocket calculator, divide 1 by this amount, multiply by 100 and that’s your “raw” a-priori chance (percentage) of being right… now subtract this from 100.. this is the raw a-priori probability of you being wrong. You definitely have a big mouth for someone with such a low plausibility… you are a cult among cults, and as long as you keep it that way, there will always be something new to believe in, day in, day out!

        Knowledge begins with doubt and ends in self-doubt. The sole observation, that you are so certain about your positions makes it painfully obvious that you never considered you might be wrong..and if you don’t, you’ll never know! So others have to do your due dilligence, wasting money and time to see if you are right, until they miserably fail, time and again… and when chances are overwhelming that you are wrong, you won’t even listen.

        Now, what kind of treatment were you expecting from others, when you behave like that?

    • Richard responded and provided a direct quote from Mad Sam’s Book Of Imagination, Dana. Proving you to be wrong.

      Our responses were to your histrionics.

      You and reality really are very distantly separated.

    • Mr Ullman, do you actually read what people write?

      Richard Rawlins provided a perfectly good reference for Hahnemann’s preference for 30C dilutions. Let me repeat the details. From Hahneman’s ‘Materia Medica Pura’ vol. 1 (p. 96 in Engliah translation): “This process of spiritualization or dynamization, is continued through a series of thirty vials up to the thirtieth solution. This thirtieth degree should always be used for homoeopathic purposes.” [my italics]

      If you want to argue that this quotation applies only to Belladonna, you might also consider Hahnemann’s Organon Aphorism 128: “…the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potentized dilution of such a substance, moistened with a little water, and let him continue this for several days.” [fifth edition], or “the plan we adopt is to give to the experimenter, on an empty stomach, daily from four to six very small globules of the thirtieth potency of such a substance, moistened with a little water or dissolved in more or less water and thoroughly mixed, and let him continue this for several days.” (sixth edition)

      In case you don’t understand what Hahnemann means by “thirtieth potency”, it’s 30C. In case you want to argue that this reference (you now have two) to aphorism 128 refers only to homeopathic ‘provings’ (pause for hilarious laughter), you need to face the fact that Hahnemann’s publications twice mentioned only 30C specifically as a chosen dilution. That, surely, makes it his “preferred” dilution, and all the companies that manufacture homeopathic products seem to have picked up on 30C as a preferred dilution.

      Mr Ullman, Sandra, and anyone else who defends homeopathy, please try to read the essence of what people are writing on this blog, regardless of any personal remarks. Homeopathy is — for anyone with even the smallest modicum of education — a risible travesty of current medical knowledge (ditto chemistry, physics and biology). It’s had over 200 years to produce serious evidence of clinical efficacy and has failed. It fails any rational examination of its basic precepts. Please try to understand that what you’re promoting is a quasi-religious belief, not a realistic system of medicine.

      • Please STOP embarrassing yourself with your mis-interpretation of what Hahnemann wrote! He meant that the 30th potency, like ALL homeopathic potencies, should be used based on the pirincple of similars. We KNOW that this true because Hahnemann’s case books are available…and we see the VARIETY of homeopathic potencies he used THROUGHOUT his life.

        Are you REALLY telling me that Hahnemann recommended that homeopaths use ONLY the 30th potency??? Get friggin’ real.

        The degree of ignorance AND arrogance of people at THIS webite is remarkable…and that is why you remind me of our really embarrassing President Trump by NEVER admitting error, by REPEATING the error, by doubling-down on the error, and still being ARROGANT.

        Slam dunk…you’re done here…

        As for using nanodoses, here’s a great reference to a major medical journal that shows the amazing small doses of hormones and cell-signaling symptoms, even way beyond 6C:
        Eskinazi, D., Homeopathy Re-revisited: Is Homeopathy Compatible with Biomedical Observations? Archives in Internal Medicine, 159, Sept 27, 1999:1981-7.

        • Dana.

          That’s from almost thirty years ago.

          If that study was that ground-breaking, don’t you think that others would have replicated it and won Nobel prizes by now for redefining how science works?

          Oh. They haven’t, have they. At all.

          Almost as if it’s a load of specious nonsense.

          Almost like SOMEONE posting random WORDS in capitals and imagining it MAKES a difference to what THEY have SAID.

          And you’re now claiming to be the earthly spokesperson for Mad Sam? Who’s the arrogant person now?

          How about backing up your argument with some evidence from the Organon, then?

        • Please Dana, stop insulting our intelligence, and come up with one, JUST ONE homeopathic ‘remedy’ that has repeatedly and independently shown to be effective in proper scientific trials, even if for just one condition.

          All this nonsense about ‘nanodoses’ is, well, nonsense, if only for the fact that for most homeopathic dilutions, the composition of such nanodoses is completely arbitrary – something that I explained at length earlier on in this thread. When diluting anything more complex than a single chemical compound to 30C, it is already totally uncertain if anything from the original ingredients persists, and if so, exactly what that would be.
          And even with 6C, you end up with mere picograms of the original ingredients. Such a dose is several orders of magnitude too low for any biological or physiological effect. Just think about it: if dosages like this would have any effect, then why are virtually all pharmaceutical substances prescribed in the milligram or even the gram range? Why are natural blood concentrations of hormones and signalling proteins in the range of picograms to micrograms per millilitre? And how can it be that ALL pharmaceutical companies overlooked these ‘nanodose’ (or actually: picodose) effects IN EVERY SINGLE STAGE OF EVERY SINGLE TRIAL, already starting in vitro? And how can it be that homeopaths believe the exact opposite, i.e. that ‘nanodoses’ have a noticeable effect ALMOST EVERY SINGLE TIME – and that WITHOUT PROPER TESTING?

          One of these two sides is fooling themselves and their customers, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t the pharmaceutical side.

          And oh, your link:
          “Homeopathy re-revisited: is homeopathy compatible with biomedical observations?”
          Well, this would be a perfect example of Betteridge’s law of headlines.
          When I click the PubMed link, the page only shows the title, no further content. Is this some lame attempt at a joke? Some sort of highly diluted and therefore ‘potentized’ information – so it must be true?

          • RichardR…I’m laughing that you cannot seem to find an article published in Archives in Internal Medicine (!), and yet, you have the audacity to blame ME for this bit of lameness!? Really.

            I suggest that you try to use this thing called a LIBRARY! I know that’s foreign to you…and you may even have an allergy to going to a library…and you have this aversion to learning anything new. Oh well. You’re incurable!

            And then, you change the subject. Rather than admitting you don’t know shit or shinola about homeopathy or Hahnemann or rather than admit that you provided misinformation that actually claimed that Hahnemann asserted that ONLY the 30th potency should be used, you instead chose to dig yourself a deeper grave.

            Once again, ignorance AND arrogance is the rule of the day here! And there’s a good written record of this ongoing stupidity…

            And this is not an ad hom; this isn’t an adjective; it is a pattern of behavior.

          • ignorance AND arrogance is the rule of the day here! And there’s a good written record of this ongoing stupidity…
            And this is not an ad hom; this isn’t an adjective; it is a pattern of Dana Ullman’s behavior.

          • THIS statement by Herr Ernst is all because I asked one of his colleagues for a reference to an incorrect statement that he made. Then, when he provided a reference, but he misinterpreted it, I proved this misinterpretation because Hahnemann NEVER used just one homeopathic potency (the 30th). In fact, such an assertion is beyond preposterous…and it is easily verified and proven wrong. But these skeptics seem to mimic Donald Trump and prefer instead to double-down and avoid acknowledging errors of fact and prefer “alternative facts.”

            Now, Herr Ernst prefers to be an adolescent and say, “No, you hit me first. You’re the bad guy.” How cute and quaint…but how embarrassing!

          • oh dear, oh dear

          • Burden of proof, Dana. You’re the one claiming magic shaken water works as a curative as Richard has asked. Show us your proof. Show us your fabulous evidence. Don’t buff and bluster as always and tell us to go looking for ourselves.

            Oh. You can’t, can you. It’ll just be the usual load of p-hacked underpowered Texas sharpshooting you wave around.

            You’ve had a long time to show unarguable proof, Dana. You and all your deluded quacks of friends. You’ve come up with nothing beyond laughable garbage which is rightly ignored. And you will continue to do so. Because shaken water has no therapeutic properties beyond rehydration. We know it. Everyone knows it. Apart from your little band of self-deluding reality deniers.

          • Here’s a study with many replications of different potencies that show that a specific homeopathic medicine was SUBSTANTIALLY better than a placebo and as EFFECTIVE as gabapentin in the treatment of neuropathy.

            And for the record, it was published at NATURE.COM


          • on animals!
            no independent replication

          • @Dana
            You’re perseverance is certainly admirable, or would be if you used it to check your arguments.
            We already had a good laugh over this reference of yours before, if I recall right?
            Did you have a look at the comments to this comedy Dana?
            They are, to put it mildly, unflattering.
            Just scroll down and click “comments”
            Tell us what you think?

          • looks like Dr Ullman is paid by Big Pharma for rubbishing homeopathy

          • Oh dear, Dana. Are you trying to imply that was published in Nature? It’s in Scientific Reports. An open-access journal run by the Nature publishing group. Not the same thing.

            And that’s the paper which now carries this warning at the bottom. “Readers are alerted that the conclusions of this paper are subject to criticisms that are being considered by the editors. Appropriate editorial action will be taken once this matter is resolved.” Did you read that far?

            Not very encouraging, is it? Because it’s riddled with errors and fraud and is on the verge of being withdrawn by the editors because of this. It’s utter nonsense. All of it.


            And that’s the best you’ve got? Laughable. What a sad little man you are. Another piece of specious rubbish you’ve waved around triumphantly. You’ll no doubt conveniently forget this and try to wave it around again in the future. With similar hilarious result. Carry on, Dana. All you’re doing is demonstrating once again your inability to think.

          • @Dana Ullman

            … that you cannot seem to find an article published in Archives in Internal Medicine …

            Even if it is there, I should not be the one who has to go on this wild goose chase, spending time and effort on tracking down the actual article.
            You claim that homeopathy in general works, and I asked for one clear-cut example, with proper scientific proof. So far, you failed at delivering such an example.

            Let me put it like this: I ask you to show me a duck. So far, all you have come up with are quacky noises and an occasional feather, telling me “There’s your duck!” This is not good enough.

          • Here’s a link to a series of 3 studies showing efficacy in replication, even when DIFFERENT homeopaths prescribed medicines in each trial:

            Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).

            Every review of clinical studies on homeopathy has deemed Jacobs’ research to be a “high quality” study.

          • sound like you do not understand what INDEPENDENT REPLICATION means

          • @ Mr. Ullman,
            we have discussed the Shital Magar et al. paper before (yes, this is really the first name of the first author).

            • as Lenny pointed out, this paper was NOT published in the very well-known journal “Nature” (Impact Factor 41.6), but in a journal called “Scientific Reports” (Impact Factor 4.1). Might be difficult for you to understand, but this is a difference, because the “quality control” is better in “Nature”.
            Still, quite embarrassing that a paper with obvious errors/fraud slipped through the peer-review and made it into “Scientific Reports”, which is per se not a bad journal.

            • Since things like false-positive results, human mistakes and fraud sometimes occur in scientific literature, it is not wise to rely on results of individual papers that have not been replicated independently. Even the group leader of this work, Chandragouda Patil, has admitted that this work contains serious “mistakes”.
            This is why we should trust the scientific CONSENSUS.
            I recommend reading the reaction to the Magar et al. paper in Nature Journal:

          • I tried to put in the effort to locate the paper in Arch. Intern. Med.: it’s behind a paywall and even my institutional library doesn’t have a subscription.

          • I read it at the time it was published – nothing to write home about.

          • Good for you…and therefore, you now know that our body is known to have powerful physiological responses to certain hormones and cell-signaling agents at 10 to minus 18…though you do a REALLY GOOD JOB at pretending to forget this fact.

          • @Dana

            The Jacobs study is from fifteen years ago, Dana. And says that further research needs to be done with larger sample sizes. So presumably in the intervening fifteen years that research has been done, confirming the findings and meaning that individualized homeopathy is now the treatment of choice for childhood diarrhea?

            Oh. No. Hasn’t happened, has it?

            As you were, everyone.

            Keep trying Dana.This is fun.

          • … and did you see the size of the ‘effect’?

        • Mr. Ullman,
          • Before you compare skeptical persons like us with your president, you should take a long look in the mirror. Like Mr. Trump, you ignore the consensus of the scientific community (as long as this suits you), you both appear to have no understanding of logical reasoning and behave short-tempered & irrational.
          • Why don´t you put your money where your mouth is and accept the ongoing GWUP challenge?

          As you probably will prefer blathering on about how great old Hahnemann was, instead of accepting the challenge, could you please at least comment why not even ONE of the thousands of your fellow homeopathy believers has even seriously TRIED to take the challenge? If the benefits of homeopathy are as obvious as you claim, why not? Nobody wants that 50.000€… pretty much for free?!
          Or could it be true that deep down inside, you and your colleagues feel that you can´t win because homeopathy is simply an outdated, unjustified belief with no basis in reality?

  • Of course nobody misses a chance to laugh at Mr. Ullman’s tiresome childish argumentation, but I find it very sad that after some thousands of years, the human kind has yet to eradicate superstition and short-circuited thinking.

    People like Dana may be a small part of a cult following of past things gone wrong, but the implications of such pathological information processing of the human mind are rather scary, even at low incidences, especially when there are no effective measures to bring someone back to reality.

    It’s quite intriguing that the critical thinking trait may not necessarily outweigh the superstition trait in the evolutionary soup of this world.

  • A few days have passed since Dana’s repeated exercises in targeting his right foot with his rhetorical bullets. Every one of his arguments has been trashed, every reference shown to be nonsense and once again he has slunk off with only Sandra’s emetic sychophantic fellations to offer him succour.

    Ullman’s Law has once again been shown to hold true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.