MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

Regular readers of this blog will know the US homeopath, Dana Ullman. He has been the star of several of my posts (for instance here, here, and here). Dana is prolific in his writing but he has published not published much in proper journals. Now he has almost doubled this list by publishing TWO (!) proper papers in real journals within just one month.

Congratulations, Dana!

The first is in CUREUS, a very unusual journal with a most unusual peer-review process. Allow me to show you the abstract of Dana’s article:

Homeopathic medicine is a controversial system of medicine that has been used worldwide for over 200 years. Recently, several governments, in part, owing to government-funded reviews of research on homeopathic medicine, have stopped reimbursements for homeopathic medicines and have discouraged their use by medical professionals. This review critically evaluates four government-funded reviews of clinical research on homeopathic medicine. An analysis of government-sponsored reviews of clinical research on homeopathic medicine was conducted, including two studies from Switzerland, one from England, and one from Australia. Three of the four government-funded reviews were critical of homeopathy, claiming that there was no reliable evidence that homeopathic medicines were effective. Three of these reviews had significant flaws, with potential ethical concerns raised in one of the reviews. The most comprehensive review of homeopathic research, including analysis of clinical and basic science concerns, found the most positive results for homeopathy.

The second paper was published in a journal called DOSE RESPONSE. The editor in chief of this journal is Prof E J Calabrese who has published numerous articles about homeopathy/hormesis. Here is the abstract of Dana’s 2nd article:

Serially diluted succussed solutions of a suitable drug/toxic substance can exhibit physicochemical and biological properties even far beyond Avogadro’s limit defying conventional wisdom. They can show hormesis, and homeopathy uses them as medicines. Many studies confirm that they can have an impact on gene expression different than controls. Water in the exclusion zone phase can have memory but for a short period. However, the nanoparticle as the physical substrate can hold information. Nanoparticle and exclusion zone duo as nanoparticle-exclusion zone shell can provide a prolonged memory. The Nanoparticle-Exclusion Zone Shell Model may be an important step toward explaining the nature and bioactivity of serially diluted succussed solutions used as homeopathic medicines. This model may also provide insight into the workings of hormesis. Hormesis is the primary phenomenon through which homeopathic phenomenon may have evolved exhibiting the principle of similars. Hahnemann exploited it to establish homeopathy. The nanoparticle-exclusion zone shells present in the remedy, selected on the principle of similars, can be patient-specific nanoparticles in a symptom syndrome-specific manner. They can carry the drug-specific information for safer clinical applications in an amplified form for high yielding. It suggests homeopathy is a type of nanopharmacology.

So, are Dana’s two articles significant? Both are reviews. The 1st tries to persuade us that homeopathy has clinical effects beyond placebo and that reports that say otherwise are full of errors and fraud and thus not reliable. The second tells us that these clinical effects of homeopathy can be explained by nano-pharmacology.

Is he right?

Please tell me what you think.

61 Responses to Dana Ullman has just published two papers in real science journals

  • Of course Dana is right because Dana is ALWAYS right and everybody else is wrong. The Worlds of science and medicine will be shaken to the core by his writings and homeopathy will triumphantly take its rightful place at the pinnacle of healthcare provision whilst Dana will be recognised by the Nobel committee for his genius.

    (N.B. Some of the above may not actually be correct)

  • Dana Ullman is a pseudoscientific bluffer, devoid of moral courage, and so must keep digging himself into an ever deepening hole of ignominy.

  • So, nanopharmacology explains the following and similar homeopathic products, does it:
    Electricitas 6C, 9C, 12C, 15C, 30C, 200C, 1M, 10M;
    Magnetis Polus Australis 30C, 200CH [south pole of a magnet];
    Natrum Muriaticum 6C, …, 50M, CM [sodium chloride];
    X-Ray 6C, …, 50M, CM.

    See also:
    https://edzardernst.com/2020/08/heedless-homeopathics-part-1-radiant-remedies/

    • Please re-read the article…and you’ll discover that this is NOT all about nanoparticles.

      • Dana Ullman,

        The lack of a question mark in my comment was not caused by grammatical incompetence, it signified a rhetorical question.

        “A rhetorical question is one for which the questioner does not expect a direct answer: in many cases it may be intended to start a discourse, or as a means of displaying or emphasize the speaker’s or author’s opinion on a topic.”
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

        Obviously, the four examples I gave cannot be explained by:
        “However, the nanoparticle as the physical substrate can hold information. Nanoparticle and exclusion zone duo as nanoparticle-exclusion zone shell can provide a prolonged memory.” — Dana Ullman.

        • Peter…I too did not have a question mark in my comment…and you still didn’t seem to get what I wrote, but I assume that is intentional.

          • Dana Ullman,

            What you wrote in your article was partly pseudoscientific, partly antiscientific: I assume that was intentional because I’m sure you cannot be daft enough to actually believe what you wrote.

            You wrote “Nature at nanoscale seems to be more mysterious than thought.”: It certainly is to you, Dana.

            Homeopathy ‘works’ [is effective] as a business model; it does not work as a medical model. Conflating and/or confusing the two is a frequently committed ontological error.

  • I actually feel sorry for Mr Ullman. The abstracts quite obviously are rubbish, from a scientific point of view. But following his comments on this blog, I don’t think he’s a bad person (eg. I agree on his comments reg the ex US President) , but unfortunately he is too caught up in his homeopathy belief system to be affected by any rational comments. I just hope that he is not an antivaxxer as well, and takes nosodes instead of effective vaccines. Discussing homeopathy with him seems being a waste of time.

  • I can’t help wondering about the irony of a paper about the effectiveness of homeopathy being published in a journal called Dose Response.

  • Of course our good friend and promoter of improbable potions is right in one detail. It is very difficult to find water, shaken or stirred, that does not contain gazillions of various nanoparticles. The problem is how the body avoids the random, perhaps bad, particles and only heeds the good one. Then comes the all-important problem of how these exert their miraculous effect.
    I guess mr. Ullmann will have to wait until this small matter is solved before approaching someone qualified to nominate him for the Nobel prize. Self nominations are not accepted 😉

    • The problem is how the body avoids the random, perhaps bad, particles and only heeds the good one.

      This is an even bigger problem when creating homeopathic preparations through diluting and shaking: how can a homeopath make certain that only the desired substances are ‘potentized’? And not e.g. all those molecular traces of other substances that leach from the glassware or metalware used, or all those countless contaminants that are present in air?
      I can think of only one explanation – an explanation that will upset our complete body of scientific knowledge even further than homeopathy does already:
      Water not only has a memory, it also has intelligence!
      Water knows exactly which substances a homeopath wants to potentize, and makes sure that it leaves all the countless other ingredients present untouched.

      • “how can a homeopath make certain that only the desired substances are ‘potentized’? And not e.g. all those molecular traces of other substances that leach from the glassware or metalware used, or all those countless contaminants that are present in air?”

        I asked that question of Dr Peter Fischer at a National Eczema Society event years ago, and he was honest enough to answer “We don’t know”.

    • Hmmmm…you do know that homeopathic pharmacies use a DOUBLE-DISTILLED water in the making of homeopathic medicines, don’t you? Well, I guess you didn’t…and I guess you didn’t even read the article. No irony here…

      • Good grief, did not you have chemistry in school? Even double-distilled water still contains numerous impurities. There is no such thing as “absolutely pure 100 % water” without any traces of contaminants. For example, water leaches those substances from the vessels in which it is stored.

        • Yes…I know about these impurities…even the 6ppm silica fragments that fall off the walls of the glass, thereby providing a vehicle for the original medicine.

          Thanx for confirming your knowledge of this.

          In any case, no one, except liars and fools, can now say that homeopathic water is “the same” as “water.”

          • Which laboratory in the world can distinguish between double-distilled water with the 30C remedy and without, with the labels off?

          • Thank you for the confirmation, that you have no idea about chemistry or physics or any other natural science.

            I laughed heartily that you invented a “homeopathic water”.

          • ‘homeopathic water’ ?! Would that be water which has had all the original molecules of water diluted out of it? What’s that a remedy for – drowning?!

            So, liar or fool – which are you?

          • Oh you, who are ignorant of the true homeopathic widom! Of course homeopathic water exsts!

            Provings.info lists (if I did not miscount) no less than 42 different kinds of water as homeopathic remedies: Amongst others (Link: https://www.provings.info/liste.html?letter=A – in German):

            Aqua destillata – destilled water
            Aqua gravis – heavy water
            Aqua knock – water blessed at Knock shrine
            Aqua mikrowelle – water irradiated by microwave
            Aqua nova – newly formed water
            Aqua popularis – tap water
            Aqua tepida – tepid water

            … and a lot more.

            Seems Ainsworth and Helios have many of these praparations in their program.

      • @Dana Ullman

        you do know that homeopathic pharmacies use a DOUBLE-DISTILLED water in the making of homeopathic medicines shaken water

        Yes, I know – so what? I know that some of those dumb quacks sometimes even claim to use ultrapure water and clean-room facilities like those in the semiconductor industry – which only goes to show that they really have no idea what they are doing and how the real world works in terms of chemistry.

        What I specifically refer to, are contaminants that leach from the equipment that is used. If you put even the purest H2O in a glass container, then ions and molecules will inevitably migrate from that glass into the water.

        With high-quality glass, those contaminants usually reach concentrations of a few parts per million at most, which is completely harmless from a health perspective. However, 1 ppm equates to just 3C in homeospeak, so after three homeopathic dilute ‘n shake steps, the contaminants are present at the same concentration as the actual target substance.
        Yet in spite of this, homeopaths maintain that ONLY the target substance gets ‘potentized’ during subsequent diluting and shaking, not the contaminants.
        Which means that the water must have some way of knowing what the homeopath wants, and potentize this ingredient exclusively, ignoring all the rest. Which means that water must have intelligence as well as a memory. Which of course is nonsense, just like the rest of homeopathy.

        • Thanx for verifying that you didn’t read (or understand) the article.

          And for the record, ALL leading homeopathic manufacturers use clean rooms.

          • have you heard of the saying: when in a hole, stop digging?

          • @Dana Ullman

            ALL leading homeopathic manufacturers use clean rooms.

            Yes, and they’re ALL idiots who don’t understand even the most basic things about everyday chemistry(*).

            You too don’t seem to understand: my little exposé about inevitable contaminants is one of several things that prove the whole of homeopathy wrong.
            It doesn’t matter what you write about homeopathy – as long as it claims that homeopathy somehow works, it’s not worth wasting my time reading it. I already read thousands of similar fairy tales, and they all boil down to variations on “We see it work, so it works”, occasionally with proposed mechanisms that prove just one thing: that humans can just about dream up anything to avoid having to admit that they are Very Wrong.

            Only if new, solid scientific evidence for what you claim arises, I may start showing a renewed interest. But that solid scientific evidence will most likely not be coming from you or your water-shaking brethren – homeopaths have failed to deliver such evidence for well over 200 years already, during which time they only demonstrated extreme scientific incompetence. So excuse me if I won’t be holding my breath.

            *: Hahnemann and his followers of course didn’t use cleanrooms either, or, to my knowledge, even distilled water – IIRC, he recommended using meltwater from mountain snow. Which can be pretty clean if you’re far away from industrial centres (which emitted lots of soot in those days), but are all the same contaminated with anything from dust to bird poo. So this is one more rather dumb homeopathic argument falling flat on its face.

          • A sweeping statement that ignores various manufacturer cGMP violations that the US FDA has detected. I would point to bacterial contamination of King Bio products for starters.

            There are serious concerns about “compounding pharmacies” as well, particularly regarding novel nosodes.

    • Bjorn,

      I think it is a question of intent. If the person preparing (or using) a remedy intends it to be an ultradilution of something specific, then that is what it will be, regardless of what other compounds might be present in trace amounts.

      It is similar to the process whereby people become convinced of the effectiveness of remedies of all kinds. If they take a remedy with the intention of curing their illness, and then notice an improvement, then the remedy must be the reason, as opposed to all of the other things that they ingested or did on the same day. Chance doesn’t come into it as most people are not very satisfied with any narrative whereby their lives are affected by random events.

      I once asked a Jewish colleague of mine how kosher wine differed from any other sort. He explained that it was the state of mind of the winemaker. In other words the wine was kosher if the right amount of piety went into making it. The preparation of homeopathic remedies seems to follow similar principles.

      • Yes Julian.
        Reminds me of the homeopaths who didn’t have any lava at hand to make a Hekla lava remedy. So they produced it “by meditation”. I guess they thought hard of lava while performing the shaking ritual.
        Paper homeopathy is another curious variation on this theme. Write the name of the mother tincture on a piece of paper and place the vial on the “recipe” for a while to let it suck in. You can’t fail if you just wish hard enough.

        I like to refer to homeopathy etc. as ‘make-believe medicine’.

        • I like to refer to homeopathy etc. as ‘make-believe medicine’.

          I think it is better to leave ‘medicine’ out, and simply call it what it is: a cult, based on outlandish beliefs that have no connection with reality whatsoever.

          • Hehe. Yes Richard. But a child playing doctor or pilot or carpenter is still playing doctor, pilot or carpenter. Homeopathy is just one of many varieties of naive doctor-cosplay for grownups.

        • My take: Homeopathy is a religion. Hahnmann is its prophet and the Organon is its holy book.

  • Well, maybe Dana can answer these questions:

    (1) What is the difference between
    “Form a certain potency onward there is no particle of the mothertincture left, so this preparation cannot work”
    and
    “”Form a certain potency onward there is no particle of the mothertincture left to build nanoparticles so this preparation cannot work” ?
    Especially if the mother tincture is of a material, that does not build nanoparticles in aquatic or alcoholic solutions? Like most salts, liquids, organic substances?

    (2) What is the difference between
    “There is no solid evidence of any effect of homeopathy exceeding placebo” if found in a government-funded trial, e.g. NHMRC
    and
    “There is no solid evidence of any effect of homeopathy exceeding placebo” if found by homeopathic Researcher e.g. Robert T. Mathie?

    • Robert T. Mathie, you say? Isn’t he the one quoted here in his article that reviewed clinical research on homeopathy and previous metaanalyses saying,

      “Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.”

      Thanx for bringing him up…

      • Maybe you should refer to Mathie’s results and conclusions, not to a chapter headed “Background information”.

        Here are Mathie’s conclusions AFTER he evaluated the available evidence in four reviews:

        “The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings.” (2014)

        “Reliable evidence is lacking in condition-specific meta-analyses, precluding relevant conclusions.” (2017)

        “Due to the low quality, the small number and the heterogeneity of studies, the current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of IHT” (2018)

        “The current data preclude a decisive conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of NIHT.” (2019)

        No need to thank me.

        • Norbert…you make this way too easy.

          Robert T. Mathie? From the article you reference, here’s what he said:

          “Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats, the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo.”

          And as for the “First Report” from Australia, quoting from my article,
          “FOI requests demonstrated that Prof. Fred Mendelsohn, a member of the NHMRC’s oversight committee, confirmed the first report to be of high quality. Mendelsohn provided expert feedback to the NHMRC saying, “I am impressed by the rigor, thoroughness and systematic approach given to this evaluation […] Overall, a lot of excellent work has gone into this review and the results are presented in a systematic, unbiased and convincing manner” [33].”

          Further, I find it very interesting that to date no one here (!) has sought to defend the Australian Report’s usage of 150 subjects as the MINIMUM necessary to evaluate research or then to TOTALLY ignored. And even further, no one here has sought to defend the “Swiss Report” or the UK Report. Good for you (because they are indefensible!).

          • Whining and special pleading, Dana. Same as ever. And inconsequential as ever as you continue to howl your inanities at an utterly contemptuous World. The verdict has been returned. Repeatedly. Homeopathy is bunk. Utter bunk. That you refuse to accept it is your problem, not science’s.

            Continue to flog your dead horse, Dana. Continue to claim that you’ve seen signs of life. Your claims will remain irrelevant as ever,

            You remain a figure worthy only of pitiful contempt.

          • Dana, if it is easy, why don’t you answer the question I asked?

            I did NOT ask about Mathie’s background information, I asked about his results. You know: results are the things you find when you do your research, not the things that might get you motivated to get started with it. Whereby even with this piece you seem to have missed some vital points: I put it in Caps for you:

            ” … four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, WITH IMPORTANT CAVEATS, (my guess: the lamentable quality of the single studies) the homeopathic intervention PROBABLY differs from placebo.” “Reliable evidence” sounds different, don’t you think?

            Second: I did not ask abou the opinion of some Mendelson, I asked you about the difference between “no reliable Evidence” and “only ecouraging evidence”.

            And this 150 participants threshhold: I remember pretty well we discussed this matter before. Mabe GRADE rings a bell.

            But: Please indicate the indications where the result would show some reliable evidence if the threshhold of 150 Patients was not applied.

          • Mr Ullman, I wonder if you could spare the time to mention by name the laboratory, as I have asked?

            “Dear Mr Ullman, regarding your comment:

            “In any case, no one, except liars and fools, can now say that homeopathic water is “the same” as “water.” ”

            To prevent me from being inclined to say that homeopathic water is the same as water, and being thought a liar and/or fool, please name the laboratory that can distinguish between:

            1) double-distilled serially diluted and succussed 30C water which has had no remedy added at the start of the process, and
            2) double-distilled serially diluted and succussed Nat Mur 30C water

            with the labels removed.

            Thank you”.

  • That second abstract reads just like a Star Trek script full of technobabble.

  • Dear Mr Ullman, regarding your comment:

    “In any case, no one, except liars and fools, can now say that homeopathic water is “the same” as “water.” ”

    To prevent me from being inclined to say that homeopathic water is the same as water, and being thought a liar and/or fool, please name the laboratory that can distinguish between:

    1) double-distilled serially diluted and succussed 30C water which has had no remedy added at the start of the process, and
    2) double-distilled serially diluted and succussed Nat Mur 30C water

    with the labels removed.

    Thank you.

  • I could not help but notice that no one yet has sought to defend the “science” behind the three governmental studies (sponsored by Switzerland, Great Britain, and Australia) that claimed that there was “no evidence” of clinical efficacy from homeopathic medicines.

    This silence is understandable because the people here supposedly seek high standards for evaluating clinical research. And yet, it is common for skeptics of homeopathy to ignore and literally NEVER criticize the junk science that contends that there is no evidence of clinical efficacy from homeopathy. If you were REAL scientists, you would provide the same high levels of critique no matter what the outcome of the study was.

    Well, so much for expecting real scientists here or real objectivity…

    So, does anyone want to defend these junk science reviews. I can’t wait to hear your creative justifications.

    • … And I thought in REAL science we want positive proof that a therapy works!
      (I hope your red herring is tasty despite being a bit off)

      • in REAL science we want positive proof that a therapy works!

        We may want it, but that is not what science is able to provide.

        The scientific method can disprove a hypothesis, but never prove one.

        When it comes to therapies we have to rely on statistical methods that tells us whether a treatment probably works or not, with various degrees of certainty, but strong supportive evidence is not the same as positive proof.

        • yes, thanks for correcting my sloppy language:
          in REAL science we want positive proof that a therapy works and insist on strong supportive evidence.

    • Mr Ullman, are you not going to answer my question and give the name of the laboratory?

    • No need for defence, I think. Yes I know, homeopaths have recited over and over again the multiple “flaws” of this Australian report for instance. But I never heard them name any indication where the evidence would have been the opposite if any of these alleged issues was not present.

      Or if this is easier: What is the difference between the NHMRC’s findings (“there is no reliable evidence”) and those of Robert Mathie (“decisive conclusion precluded”)?

      • there is a big difference: Mathie is employed by a lobby group for homeopathy, and the NHMRC is independent.

      • REALLY? You’re asking WHICH conditions would be different? I guess this proves that you did not read my article. It is as plain as day for THOSE who read the article.

        There were at least five condidtions that the “First Report” acknowledged that there was a body of efficacy from high-quality trials. READ the article and you’ll discovered which one they are…

        • Before we continue lets nail down what we have as yet:

          Dana Ullman is unable or unwilling to identify the difference between the findings of the NHMRC and Robert T. Mathie. Which is about the same, because if you were able to respond, why would you be unwilling to do so?

          So with this established we can continue:
          First off, I do not know of any “First Report”. What I am familiar with is a draft of a report of a consultant commissioned to identify and review the evidence for homeopathy. This draft was refuted by NHRMC due to serious methidical flaws. Maybe this is the thing you refer to.

          I fail to understand the hype homeopaths have for this document from the waste paper basket. They did not find any reliable evidence either, otherwise they would have named it “reliable evidence” and not “encouraging evidence”.

          But what apparently has slipped your attention when you read this paper – you did read it, didn’t you? – is the fact that there are quite a number of conditions where even this consultant with his flawed methods could not spot any evidence, amongst them conditions where homeopathy is claimed to reign supreme, for instance:

          Asthma
          Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
          Chronic fatigue
          Hay fever, allergic rhinitis, pollinosis
          Headache
          Low back pain
          Vertigo

          And quite a few others.

          Which leads to my question:

          What is the difference between the outcome of this refuted consultant’s draft (“There is only ‘encouraging’ evidence”) on one hand and the conclusions of the NHMRC and Robert T. Mathie (“There is no reliablöe evidence”) on the other?

    • I searched for your name hoping you would have a comment on working with Covid. Reading these comments makes me realize why you do not.
      My 35-year use of homeopathy is because I have seen results, again and again and again. I don’t need other people’s studies to verify that. But my favorite story is one that I witnessed myself.

      I had a friend who thought homeopathy was ridiculous. She was working on a building project, and a heavy beam fell on her forearm, raising a bump at least an inch high. I gave her Arnica 200C (which I often have with me) and the bump disappeared. We all forgot. She drank a cup of coffee, and we literally watched the bump return as the antidoting took effect. I gave her another dose and the bump went away. She became a believer. Unfortunately, constitutional prescribing didn’t work for her, for a series of reasons including aggravations and her refusal to give up coffee.

      I wonder what your ridiculers will say about this story.

  • Dear Dana,

    would you happen to know anyone who can distinguish Cofea C30 from Baldrian C30 under controlled double-blind conditions?

    According to the rewritten Organon, it should be possible to feel a difference (“Arzneimittelprufung”).

    If you can introduce someone, a test will be made under fair conditions, the laws of physics will be rewritten and all critics will apologize.

  • How interesting that someone came forward to take the challenge!

    What was their proposed method for making the identifications? Spectroscopy? Dowsing?

    Mr Ullman still hasn’t named the laboratory that can distinguish homeopathic water, despite my polite three-times request to do so. Yet he says ‘only liars and fools’ claim that homeopathic water isn’t different from water.

    • @ DavidB

      No, the candidate was free to deploy any method he deemed appropriate. We only excluded chemical analysis of the surrogate material to maybe sort the bottles for production batches and thus improving the chance for a random hit. We had the remedies procured from all over Germany to get a good mix of batches, but still, you do not know.

      If you can read German: You may find a report in our magazine “Skeptiker” 1/2020.
      https://www.gwup.org/zeitschrift-skeptiker/archiv/147-wurzel/archiv-zeitschrift-skeptiker/2159-zeitschrift-skeptiker-1-2020

      • Thank you for this. I can’t read German (though I learned to pronounce it reasonably for singing Schubert, Schumann, Bach etc), but I can use Google Translate!

      • The article in question is Die Homöopathie-Challenger der GWUP: Erste Ergebnisse (The GWUP’s Homeopathy Challenger: First Results) by Norbert Aust, but the article doesn’t seem to be available online (at least, not from that link).

        GWUP translates as Society for the Scientific Investigation of Parascience.

  • Okay, now it seems to calm down in this thread, let us sum up what we have right now:

    – Dana Ullman is unable to point out any difference between the results of NHMRC, that he criticises, and those of RT Mathie, member of the Homeopathy Research Institute, which seem to meet his expectations.
    – Dana Ullman is anable to name any indication in the NMHMRC review where the result would be different, when what he considers “faults” were not in place.
    – Dana Ullman is unable to specify the difference between the result of NHMRC and this rejected draft of a consultant with regard to solid evidence.

    And of course, Dana Ullman is unable to identify any lab that would be able to distinguish between what he calls “homeopathic water” and “water”.

    So, Dana, if you are reading this: Keep it in mind because whenever we meet again in some discussion I am going to remind you that you could not add any wee bit of substance to your rumblings.

    • Nicely summed up.

      It might also be suggested that calling people “fools or liars” is not the language of scientific discussion. Readers will draw their own conclusions from the use of such language.

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.

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.

Archives
Categories