On this blog, many of us have been frightfully critical of Dana Ullman; some were even harsh and demeaning. Meanwhile, I have spent some time on-line to study the man more closely. And yes, I have changed my mind (despite all the insults he has hurled at me).

Guys, we (and the US judge who made that nasty comment about Dana) have done him wrong!

So wrong!

For instance, did you know he has written a thesis at UC Berkeley? Here is its summary:

In the Approach of this paper, this writer introduced his own Approach to the world. His subjective goals, needs, attitudes, and beliefs were presented. The subjective attitude was considered the source of his understanding himself and the universe. Then, the goals of this paper, the definitions of terms (beliefs), and the questions to be answered were discussed. To understand as much of oneself and the universe as possible was our goal, need, and scientific endeavor. Within this infinite realm, we specifically sought to understand the learning process and, in particular, to investigate why a person learns some things and not others. To help put our question into a workable framework, we introduced the concepts Approach, Method, and Content as sub-processes of the learning process.           

In our Method we chose the Behavior Psychologist as an example to help understand a person’s use of the Approach, Method, and Content in the learning process and in the way they affect what a person learns and doesn’t learn.

The Approach and Method led us into the Content – the answers to our questions.* Our answers emphasized the subjective nature of all things. We discovered a symbiotic relationship between the three sub-processes. The Approach was recognized as particularly important because it manifested into a question that predisposed limits upon the Method to study it and the Content it could find. From this disposition, we found that a person’s Approach plays a large role in determining what a person learns and doesn’t learn. Finally, we introduced some methods to better understand one’s Approach in order to help a person lead chimself to a deeper awareness of chimself and a greater comprehension of worldly phenomena. In this way, we hope we have helped chim expand the bounds of what che can learn and also helped chim understand why che doesn’t learn.

If I am not mistaken, this piece of research is not just brilliant, it also earned Dana the master’s degree in public health that he likes to mention so often.

Amongst the many informative sources that I found, his own website tells it best, I think. Here is an excerpt:

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, (MPH = Masters in Public Health, U.C. Berkeley;  CCH = Certified in Classical Homeopathy) has authored 10 books on homeopathy and is one of America’s leading advocates for homeopathy, and he has authored chapters on homeopathic medicine in three medical textbooks. He has served on advisory boards of alternative medicine institutes at Harvard and Columbia (you can learn more about him at this link; see About Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH).

Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH, provides phone and email consultation OR he can provide a personalized referral to leading homeopaths in North America (and often in many other countries in the world). There is a $45 fee for a 10-minute conversation, and there is a $40 additional fee for each 10 minute. Call or email to make an appointment for this conversation, or if you want, everything can be done online. You will need to provide us with a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover cards for payment….or payment can be made via PayPal to [email protected].  Dana is also able to accept “Wellness Cards” and from “Health Savings Accounts” (credit cards sometimes given to employees for “health services”).

Generally, a homeopath seeks to prescribe a “homeopathic constitutional medicine” that will strengthen a person’s overall level of health.  This consultation delves into a person’s family history, his/her own health history, and the totality of physical and psychological symptoms and characteristics.  In most cases, this first consultation takes one-hour, costing $245.00, though people with a complex health condition may require more time.  Follow-ups are usually 10 minutes to 40 minutes (or $45 to $165), with follow-ups vary depending upon the complexity of a person’s health…and some follow-ups will require more than 40 minutes.

Dana Ullman provides personalized and individualized homeopathic treatment for people with a wide variety of acute and chronic health problems.  He regularly treats infants and children with either physical or psychological challenges, from chronic ear infections to various ADD/ADHD or autistic spectrum problems (Dana’s book on Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants was published in 1991).  Dana also treats people with a wide variety of pain syndromes, including people with fibromyalgia and arthritic disorders, shingles or sciatica, and headaches (Dana co-authored a chapter in a leading conventional medical textbook on pain management, called “Weiner’s Pain Management”).  Dana also treats people in various stages of cancer (Dana was the lead author written with three medical doctor a chapter on homeopathy and cancer care in a textbook published by Oxford University Press called “Integrative Oncology”).  Dana provide “adjunctive health care” that is in addition to whatever other health or medical care the person is receiving (many of his patients use an integration of conventional and homeopathic medicines).

Dana Ullman provides homeopathic treatment via phone, Skype, and in our Berkeley office! You will need to phone or email us ([email protected]) to set-up an appointment. Please clarify if you prefer an in-office or on-telephone or Skype appointment.

Also, if you have questions about homeopathy, specific homeopathic medicines, the care that you have received from a homeopath, how to best learn homeopathy, what homeopathic research exists, or many other subjects in this field, you may benefit from a personal consultation with Dana Ullman, MPH, CCH. Call or email us to set up a phone appointment. An email conversation is also possible, but this tends to require more time than an interactive discussion.

You might frown upon telephone consultations. But stop being so sceptical, Dana is sacrificing his precious time to help as many patients as he can – even those with AIDS, autism or cancer. Does that not deserve some respect?

And look at his many achievements: 10 own books! 3 chapters is medical textbooks! What, you ask which textbooks? Here they are:

  1. Homeopathic Medicine: Principles and Research, in Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine: Principles and Practice, edited by Allen M. Schoen, DVM, and Susan G. Wynn, DVM, PhD, New York: Mosby, 1998.
  2. Homeopathy (co-authored with Michael Loes, MD), in Weiner’s Pain Management: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, edited by M. V. Boswell and B. E. Cole, 7th edition, New York: Taylor and Francis, 2006.
  3. Homeopathy for Primary and Adjunctive Cancer Therapy (co-authored with Menacham Oberbaum, MD, Iris Bell, MD, PhD, and Shepherd Roee Singer, MD), in Integrative Oncology, edited by Andrew Weil, MD and Donald Abrams, MD, published in March, 2009, by Oxford University Press.

Not impressed?

In this case, you suffer from closed-mindedness and denialism.

You might need help!

Phone Dana, he will prescribe a cure (and ameliorate his income).



[*I have noticed that, in the past, some of my readers seem to have difficulties in detecting satire; for them I should disclose: THIS POST IS PURE SATIRE!]

29 Responses to Why I changed my mind about Dana Ullman*

  • *Hello, Dana? Shut up and take my money!!! (Every 10 minutes please)

  • Shame on UC Berkeley!

    • Timothy Leary was at Berkeley. Do you think that Ullman stumbled over a forgotten Leary stash before he wrote that Summary?

      Ullmann may not be one of their graduates the School of Public Health point to with pride.

  • For the record, that thesis was for my undergraduate degree, not my Masters in Public Health. UC Berkeley allows undergraduates who are “honor students” to not choose to have generic majors and instead to have an “individualized” major. I chose to an individual major in “Human Learning” where I selected courses in psychology, physiology, anthropology, biology, and ecology. Each honor student must then write a thesis.

    Perhaps you didn’t notice that I also chose to use a gender neutral pronoun instead of “he” or “she.” I used “che” (pronounced CHEE). Not bad for a 1975 undergraduate student.

    Later, I followed-up my interest in human learning with a MPH degree from UC Berkeley majoring in Health Education.

    And finally, thanx for reminding me, I left out one more chapter that I coauthored for a textbook published by Oxford University Press: Barbara Bartlik, Geovanni Espinosa, Janet Mindes. Integrative Sexual Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

    • thanks – we are impressed

    • Dear Mr. Ullman,
      Did YOU write the thesis summary?! I hope not. If something like this would have been handed in by one of my undergraduate students, “CHE” would be in some trouble.

      I have to say: For a person who quite arrogantly questions the scientific qualifications of others posting on this blog, your overall publication record is not very impressive. Perhaps you should consider showing greater restraint and moderation in this regard in the future.

    • for your MPH degree from UC Berkeley majoring in Health Education, did you do a thesis?
      if so, please post a link, or send it to me via email.

      • No…there’s no thesis required for an MPH at UC Berkeley. Instead, I was required to do a 3-month internship, which I completed at the famed San Francisco Foundation, where they asked me to continue for another 3 months in order to write their “Health Report,” which was an analysis of health and public health issues facing the people of the San Francisco Bay Area along with recommendation on what the Foundation should fun in the coming years. The San Francisco Foundation not only changed their guidelines to my recommendation, they published this Report and sent it to every community foundation in the United States (1979).

        Thanx for asking…

    • Yes, they also gave out an individualized degree in magic (to Isaac Bonewitz)

  • Ullman said:

    Perhaps you didn’t notice that I also chose to use a gender neutral pronoun instead of “he” or “she.” I used “che” (pronounced CHEE).

    LOL! Pomo nonsense.

  • I’d ask a more difficult political question. It used to be that CAM in the US was associated with more left wing “progressive” interests. These days, it’s pretty clear that it’s often about companies and their lawyers who want free reign to sell you any old crap and screw consumer protection.

    Single issue politics can make for unholy alliances. In the UK, I’ve seen the Alliance for Natural Health lobby for Brexit because they think that post Brexit, regulations on supplements might be eased. I don’t think they understand economics.

    • In due respect, CAM in the USA has NEVER been primarily from people involved with Left-leaning advocates (though this is MY personal preferences). There have always been a seemingly equal number of Right-leaning advocates of CAM.

      To me, it seems that there are important “civil liberty” issues that attract the LEFT involved in CAM practices as well as “individual freedoms” that attract people on the RIGHT.

      I personally don’t see how you can over-simplify these issues, though there are always people who get creative in trying to do so…

      • in Germany and Austria, alt med has often had right-wing undertones. in the UK, this is not a prominent feature. generalisations are, however, highly problematic.

      • Agreed, Dana. Predominantly Left-leaning US CAM aficionados? I don’t think so either. Mike Adams alone probably tilts the balance to the right.

    • I would say chances are that ANH will not be worse off in case of Brexit in terms of supplements regulations. I doubt they will be any better. But then again the world does seem to be getting madder and madder faster and faster.

  • perhaps at Berkly, degrees like homeopathy itself are so individualized that one simply cannot confer any “generic” sheepskin….

  • The complete nonsense back and forth uttered by ‘little’ men with inflated egos only confirms the presence of greedy and deluded practitioners that are making millions of dollars out of gullible members of the public. They know very well that us mere mortals have been conditioned to regard any ‘Doctor’ that possesses a degree to be second only to God. Quite obscene.

    • do I detect a chip on your shoulder?
      ‘back and forth’ is called a ‘debate’ in civilised circles.
      ‘little men with inflated egos’ is quite funny really – but it is also an ad hominem.
      so … what exactly did you want to say?

    • “The complete nonsense back and forth uttered by ‘little’ men with inflated egos only confirms the presence of greedy and deluded practitioners that are making millions of dollars out of gullible members of the public”

      You are talking about Dana aren’t you, Helen? That’s a pretty-much textbook description.

  • In all historic times progress and innovations have been attacked by rigid conservative minds who are so married to contemporary academic knowledge they could never imagine there is more to the world than what their eye can see. But do not worry, eventually Galileo, Copernicus, Huxley, and Darwins win. Keep arttacking Dr Ullman, he doesn’t care.
    Keep looking for mistakes in his life to discredit his entire career- you are all without sin, I am sure of it! And keep paying your conventional doctors/hospitals/labs astronomical fees but lets raise hell over Dr Ullman charging money for his time- $45!!!!! oh robbery! oh crime!!!!! lets run to see neurosurgeon/endocrinologist/psychiatrist who would charge $500 for 8 min consult and – sorry! – offer no help….
    History is not on your side, Dr Ernst and your disciples, and your “satire” that some of your genius readers are not even able to detect because of their exceptional intellectual acuity- is , I am sorry, primitive and not funny…..

    • so sorry that you did not like this post!
      may I suggest that you read up about the Galileo Fallacy?
      on 2nd thought, better not!
      you might not like this either.

    • Anya

      The difference between Ullman and the names you mention is that they were all shown to be correct. Homeopathy has had 200 years to prove itself and remains nonsense now as it was back then. Ullman is a buffoon.

      You mention Darwin. What did he have to say about homeopathy?

      “You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one’s ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever.”

      Tough luck, Anya.

      • Anya, You’ve got good instincts, and these responders would have HUNG all of these contributors to science.

        The fact that Darwin was skeptical of homeopathy PROVES the real value of homeopathy because his doctor used it along with hydrotherapy to provide a SIGNIFICANT health benefit to Darwin. Before homeopathic treatment, Darwin says he was DYING, that he was not able to work at all one in every three days…and within 8 days of treatment, he became VITAL and HEALTHY. Only real fools would assume that hydrotherapy could do this, but those of us involved in homeopathy see such miracles virtually EVERY day of our lives.

        Don’t be fooled by these fools, even though they are good at being so foolish.

        • you do make me laugh, Dana – thank you so much!

        • Remind us, Dana, how successful Gully and homeopathy was at treating Darwin’s daughter.

          “those of us involved in homeopathy see such miracles virtually EVERY day of our lives.”

          Do you, now. Should be easy for homeopathy to clearly demonstrate how wonderful it is in controlled trials, then. Any reason why it hasn’t, Dana? It’s had 200 years to do so.

          Meanwhile, we keep pointing and laughing at it, and at you for believing in such nonsense.

          “Remember that for every Galileo, there are millions of cranks, quacks, and wackos, and statistically speaking, those who use the Galileo defense are the latter.”

  • It is rather funny to see how Mr. [sic] Ullman gets all proud and pompous when called “Dr.” 😀
    The only doctorate our Ullman will ever obtain will be a toy diploma from a packet of morning cereal.

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.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

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.