AI
How accurate are Dana Ullman’s articles? To answer this amusing question, I asked the AI platform ‘Gemini’ to find all the false statements in one of Dana’s articles (yes, I do admit that I am reluctant to read though an entire nonsensical paper – it would give me a headache or worse). This is the precise task I asked for:
Give me a bullet point list of all false statements in this text: Lessons from the Flu Epidemic of 1918: The Dangers of Using Fever Suppressing Drugs for Viral Infections.
[In case you want to read this lengthy paper yourself, here is the link]And here is the response I got from Gemini (bold emphasis by AI):
The text you provided is a well-known article by Dana Ullman that blends historical events with controversial medical theories. While some of the historical context (like the 1917 aspirin patent expiration) is accurate, the medical conclusions and the data regarding homeopathy are widely considered false or highly misleading by the scientific and medical communities.
Here is a bulleted list of the primary inaccuracies and misleading statements in the text:
1. Misrepresentation of the 1918 Pandemic Deaths
- The “Aspirin Theory”: The text suggests that a “large number” of the 50 million deaths in 1918 were due to aspirin overdose. This is based on a hypothesis by Dr. Karen Starko. While high doses of aspirin likely contributed to some deaths, the scientific consensus remains that the vast majority of deaths were caused by secondary bacterial pneumonia and the extreme virulence of the H1N1 virus itself, not aspirin poisoning.
- Aspirin and Bleeding Lungs: The text claims bleeding in the lungs is a “known side effect of aspirin overdose.” While salicylates can cause pulmonary edema, the “hemorrhagic” (bloody) lungs seen in 1918 victims are a hallmark of the severe viral pneumonia caused by that specific strain of influenza, not a specific marker for aspirin toxicity.
2. Inaccuracies Regarding COVID-19 and NSAIDs
- NSAIDs and Blood Clots: The text states that ibuprofen and naproxen are “known to lead to blood clots.” This is a significant mischaracterization. While chronic, long-term use of certain NSAIDs is linked to a slight increase in cardiovascular risk, they are not a primary cause of the acute “clotting storms” seen in COVID-19 patients. In fact, many COVID-19 protocols involve using blood-thinning agents (like aspirin) to prevent clots.
- The 80% Risk Claim: The claim that NSAID users have an 80% greater risk of venous thromboembolism is taken from observational studies that show correlation, not causation. People taking NSAIDs often have underlying inflammatory conditions that already increase their risk of clots.
3. False Claims About Homeopathy’s Success
- 1918 Mortality Rates: The text claims a 1.2% death rate in homeopathic hospitals vs. 29% in conventional hospitals. These figures are widely considered unreliable and anecdotal. They were self-reported by homeopathic practitioners at the time, lacked standardized diagnostic criteria, and did not account for “selection bias”.
- WHO Recognition: The WHO does not recognize homeopathy as the “second largest system of medicine” in terms of efficacy or official endorsement. It only recognizes it as a widely used traditional practice.
4. Scientific Misconceptions About Fever
- Fever Suppression Spreading Virus: The text claims that suppressing a fever “can enable the virus to spread throughout the body.” Clinical studies have generally shown that taking antipyretics does not significantly worsen disease outcomes or increase viral shedding.
- The “Cytokine Storm” Claim: The article suggests that when a fever-suppressing drug wears off, a person may experience a “cytokine storm.” This is medically incorrect.
5. Out-of-Context Quotes
- Paul Offit and Jane Brody: The text quotes them in a misleading way. They are vocal supporters of conventional medicine and vaccines, and the usage here is considered cherry-picking.
Summary Note: The FDA and the CDC have both clarified that there is no scientific evidence that taking ibuprofen or other NSAIDs worsens COVID-19.
_________________________
I know, this is just one of his many nonsensical papers. But it nevertheless suggests that Dana puts in quite a lot of effort into misleading the public.
Here’s a data-based comparison specifically focused on scientific papers on homeopathy by Dana Ullman and Edzard Ernst — including quantity and scientific respect/impact.
🧾 1. Quantity of Scientific Publications on Homeopathy
📌 Dana Ullman
From PubMed and scholarly databases:
-
Dana Ullman has authored scientific papers that mention or discuss homeopathy, including:
-
An analysis of four government-funded reviews of research on homeopathic medicine (2021) — a review about homeopathy evidence.
-
Exploring possible mechanisms of hormesis and homeopathy (2021) — a review proposing mechanisms for homeopathy.
-
Controlled clinical trials evaluating homeopathic treatment in people with HIV (2003) — review of trials.
-
-
Overall, Ullman has a handful (~a few) peer-reviewed homeopathy-related papers indexed in PubMed. A precise total would require a database search, but it’s clearly in the low dozens or fewer in mainstream medical/biomedical indexes.
Many of Ullman’s writings on homeopathy are books, commentaries, or advocacy pieces outside conventional scientific journals. These don’t necessarily count as original peer-reviewed scientific research in standard scientific metrics.
📌 Edzard Ernst
Edzard Ernst has a long research career in complementary and alternative medicine, including homeopathy. Examples from PubMed:
-
Multiple original research and review papers focusing on the evidence base of homeopathy and clinical evidence — e.g. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy (2002).
-
Clinical and methodological pieces about homeopathy in high-impact journals (e.g., Homeopathy: What Does the “Best” Evidence Tell Us?).
-
Other papers addressing clinical and methodological aspects of homeopathy (e.g., Is homeopathy a clinically valuable approach?).
-
Editorials and commentaries examining the evidence base and plausibility of homeopathy.
Ernst has numerous peer-reviewed publications on homeopathy, spanning systematic reviews, meta-analyses, clinical evaluations, and broader evidence surveys — likely dozens or more. For perspective, Ernst’s total scientific output exceeds 1,000 peer-reviewed articles overall, many addressing homeopathy during his complementary medicine research career.
📊 Summary — Quantity
| Researcher | Approx. PubMed-indexed homeopathy papers |
|---|---|
| Dana Ullman | A small number (a few to ~10-20) of indexed homeopathy-related papers |
| Edzard Ernst | Many more (likely dozens+) indexed papers addressing homeopathy or its evidence base |
➡️ Edzard Ernst has published more scientific papers on homeopathy than Dana Ullman.
🧠 2. Scientific Respect & Impact in the Scientific Community
📌 Edzard Ernst
🔹 Widely recognized in evidence-based medicine for applying rigorous methods to evaluate complementary therapies, including homeopathy.
🔹 His homeopathy research is published in mainstream, indexed journals and is often cited in systematic reviews/meta-analyses.
🔹 His work is cited by other researchers and included in high-visibility evidence syntheses (e.g., Cochrane and independent systematic reviews).
Scientific consensus views his homeopathy publications as critical evaluations based on best-available evidence, contributing to the mainstream understanding that homeopathy lacks reproducible efficacy beyond placebo.
📌 Dana Ullman
⚠️ Many of Ullman’s papers on homeopathy tend to be advocacy-oriented or speculative (e.g., proposing mechanisms like nanoscale effects) rather than clinical evidence showing efficacy.
⚠️ His work is less frequently cited in mainstream medical research and less influential in systematic evidence evaluations compared to work by critics like Ernst or independent reviews.
⚠️ The broader scientific community does not generally regard homeopathy as effective, and Ullman’s conclusions supporting homeopathy are not embraced by most evidence-based researchers.
⭐ Final Comparison — Scientific Respect
| Criterion | Dana Ullman | Edzard Ernst |
|---|---|---|
| Number of homeopathy papers (indexed, peer-reviewed) | Limited | Substantially more |
| Published in mainstream scientific journals | Some, but fewer and often niche | Many — mainstream medical and evidence-based journals |
| Influence on scientific consensus | Low (largely advocacy) | High (critical, evidence-based evaluation) |
| Citation impact in evidence syntheses | Low | High |
____________________
PS
Again, I ask my readers to forgive me for doing another childish hoax.
But please understand: what would I not do to please my friend Dana!?!
In his recent comment, Dana Ullman asked AI to analyse my critique of a yoga study. I thought this was good fun and therefore decided to do a similar exercise. I asked AI:
Dana Ullman, please summarize his his life-time achievement in medical sciences.
Here is the reply I got:
Dana Ullman — Lifetime Achievements in Relation to the Medical Sciences
Dana Ullman is not a medical scientist and has not contributed original research, clinical trials, or theoretical advances to the medical sciences. His lifetime achievements instead lie in public advocacy, education, and popularization of homeopathy, a system of alternative medicine that remains outside the scientific consensus.
1. Popularization of Homeopathy
-
Ullman has been one of the most prominent American communicators of homeopathy to lay audiences.
-
Through books, lectures, and media appearances, he helped sustain public awareness of homeopathy during a period when evidence-based medicine increasingly dominated medical science.
2. Educational Infrastructure (Non-Scientific)
-
He co-founded Homeopathic Educational Services, which provides training and informational materials about homeopathy.
-
These programs focus on belief-based and historical frameworks, not on experimentally validated biomedical science.
3. Authorship and Public Discourse
-
Ullman authored several widely circulated books, including:
-
Everybody’s Guide to Homeopathic Medicines
-
Discovering Homeopathy
-
-
His writing emphasizes anecdotal evidence, traditional doctrine, and patient testimonials rather than reproducible scientific data.
4. Engagement With Scientific and Regulatory Institutions
-
Ullman has actively participated in public debates involving organizations such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, primarily to argue against stricter regulation of homeopathic products.
-
His role has been adversarial rather than contributory to medical science, often disputing mainstream scientific standards of evidence.
5. Standing Within Medical Science
-
Homeopathy, the field Ullman represents, is widely regarded by the scientific community as biologically implausible and unsupported by high-quality clinical evidence.
-
Consequently, Ullman’s work is considered outside the domain of medical science, even though it interacts with scientific institutions and public health policy.
Overall Assessment
Dana Ullman’s lifetime achievement is not in advancing medical science, but in:
-
Sustaining a major alternative-medicine movement
-
Influencing public perception and policy discussions
-
Acting as a long-term ideological counterpoint to evidence-based medicine
His historical significance lies in science communication and cultural influence, not in scientific discovery or medical innovation.
___________________________________________________
Yes, you are correct!
This is unfair!!!
We need a comparison to see how critical AI evaluates.
So, I asked AI another question:
Edzard Ernst, please summarize his his life-time achievement in medical sciences.
Here is the reply:
Edzard Ernst — Lifetime Achievements in Medical Sciences
Edzard Ernst is a physician-scientist whose career fundamentally reshaped how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is evaluated within evidence-based medicine. His lifetime contribution lies in applying rigorous scientific methods to an area that had long lacked systematic scrutiny.
1. Pioneer of Evidence-Based Evaluation of CAM
-
Ernst was the first professor worldwide dedicated to complementary medicine at a conventional medical school, holding a chair at the University of Exeter.
-
He transformed CAM research by insisting on randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, applying the same standards used in pharmacology and clinical medicine.
2. Foundational Research Output
-
Authored or co-authored over 1,000 scientific papers in peer-reviewed medical journals.
-
His work systematically evaluated treatments such as homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, and herbal medicine, often demonstrating lack of efficacy or unacceptable risk.
-
His research is widely cited and has influenced clinical guidelines, regulatory discussions, and public health policy.
3. Establishment of a Research Discipline
-
Ernst helped establish CAM evaluation as a legitimate academic field, even while concluding that many CAM therapies fail scientific testing.
-
He trained researchers and clinicians in critical appraisal, leaving a lasting methodological legacy beyond his own publications.
4. Influential Books and Science Communication
-
Authored influential books bridging academia and the public, including:
-
Trick or Treatment?
-
Edzard Ernst’s Desk Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine
-
-
These works are noted for translating complex medical evidence into accessible language without compromising scientific rigor.
5. Defense of Scientific Integrity in Medicine
-
Ernst became a prominent defender of scientific standards, patient safety, and medical ethics, often in the face of political and institutional pressure.
-
His willingness to publish unfavorable results about popular therapies strengthened norms against publication bias and conflict-driven research.
6. Global Impact and Recognition
-
His conclusions have been cited by organizations such as the World Health Organization and national health bodies.
-
Ernst is widely regarded as the most influential critic-scientist of alternative medicine in modern medical history.
Overall Assessment
Edzard Ernst’s lifetime achievement in medical sciences is defined by:
-
Introducing scientific accountability to alternative medicine
-
Protecting patients from ineffective or harmful treatments
-
Strengthening the principles of evidence-based medicine across disciplines
His legacy is not tied to a single discovery, but to a systematic correction of how medicine evaluates claims, making his contribution both enduring and foundational.
_______________________________________
I hope you forgive me this little bit of childish fun.
Perhaps you even enjoyed it as much as I did?
Happy holidays and a healthy new year [avoiding all charlatanism].
Frohes Fest und ein gesundes Neues Jahr [unter Meidung von Scharlatanerie].
节日快乐，祝新年健康 [远离虚假欺骗].
छुट्टियों की शुभकामनाएँ और एक स्वस्थ नया साल [पाखंड से बचते हुए].
Felices fiestas y un saludable año nuevo [evitando toda charlatanería].
عطلة سعيدة وسنة جديدة صحية [مع تجنب كل أشكال الدجل]
Joyeuses fêtes et une nouvelle année saine [en évitant toute charlatanerie].
শুভ ছুটির দিন এবং একটি সুস্থ নতুন বছর [সব ধরণের ভণ্ডামি এড়িয়ে]।
Boas festas e um ano novo saudável [evitando toda charlatanice].
Веселых праздников и здорового Нового года [избегая всякого шарлатанства].
Selamat berlibur dan selamat tahun baru yang sehat [hindari segala bentuk klenik].
Buone feste e un anno nuovo in salute (evitando ogni ciarlataneria).
Καλές γιορτές και ένας υγιής νέος χρόνος (αποφεύγοντας κάθε τσαρλατανισμό).
Kellemes ünnepeket és egészséges új évet (mindenféle sarlatánságot elkerülve).
Wesołych świąt i zdrowego nowego roku (unikając wszelkiego szarlataństwa).
Glædelig jul og et sundt nytår (uden nogen form for charlataneri).
Hyvää joulua ja tervettä uutta vuotta (välttäen kaikkea puoskarointia).
Gleðilega hátíð og heilbrigðis á nýju ári (og laust við alla skottulækningar).
PS
I’ll be back soon
“Med beds” (short for “medical beds”) are a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that are claimed to cure every ailment and even regenerte amputated limbs. Med beds are said to be secret — held by military, powerful elites, or even using alien technology. Only the rich or well-connected have them.
The med bed conspiracy theory spread through QAnon associated internet conspiracy communities and social media. Soon the inevitable snake-oil salesmen started ripping off consumers by selling med beds or similar devices or “experiences” based on pseudoscientific ideas — often with vague concepts of “energy healing,” “bio-frequencies,” “quantum,” “frequency,” “vibrations,” “bio energy,” “alien tech,” etc.
Of course, the charlatan-in-chief, Donald Trump, had to join in; he shared an AI-generated video on his Truth Social account that appeared to show a Fox News-style segment hosted by Lara Trump, former co-chair of the Republican National Committee who is married to Eric Trump, announcing a rollout of “Med Bed Hospitals”. “Every American will soon receive their own medbed card”, the video proclaimed. After being up for ~12 hourhe, the clip was deleted, but the damage was done: thousands of MAGA fans – not known for their acute intellect – were looking forward to soon be cured of their disabilities.
Needless to say that there is no evidence that med beds or similar panacea exist nor will ever become available. Some US regulators have flagged vendors who make medical claims about “ealing beds who promote energy healing devices or services in ways that could mislead consumers.
In conclusion, “Med Beds” are a conspiracy theory and a pseudoscientific nonsense about miraculous healing devices devoid of any basis in scientific evidence. Trump’s AI video has given this stupid quackery more visibility but, rest assured, it is as credible as all the other lies the orange felon likes to issue on a daily basis.
PS
Just found this on social media:
According to adherents of the QAnon conspiracy theory, the government possesses “medbeds” — short for “medical beds” or “meditation beds” — that supposedly contain hidden technology capable of curing nearly any disease or ailment. However, according to the theory, those devices are reserved for elites …
The assassination of Charlie Kirk must be unreservedly condemned, and I would like to do this herewith. What followed this terrible event is, however, pathetic, to put it mildly.
I am sure that, before the fatal shooting, most people – I included – did not know much about Charlie. I had to look up what he stood for and what his agenda and opinions were. I was not impressed. Specifically on health related matters, I asked AI to provide me with a list of some of his key quotes. Here it is:
| Quote | Date / Event | Full Text / Context | Notes / Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| “Children are being treated like ‘lab rats’ for the COVID-19 vaccine.” | Oct. 27, 2021, The Charlie Kirk Show | “This is a guy who’s voting to approve the vaccine to be used on your children. ‘We’re never going to be able to learn about how safe the vaccine is until we start giving it. That’s the way it goes.’ So this is the equivalent … to treating your children like lab rats … Your children are going to be experimented on.” | Kirk argues that vaccine safety is unproven for children and implies children are being used in experiments. Media Matters |
| “Take the red pill on the vaccine.” | June 24, 2021, The Charlie Kirk Show | “We have gone right into the fray about whether or not vaccines should be mandatory. The answer is no. But why is it that our leaders are so intent on pushing vaccines towards young people … If you go down the rabbit hole and you take the red pill on the vaccine, you will have your eyes opened.” | He uses “red pill” metaphor to suggest uncovering truth, often conspiratorial framing. Media Matters |
| Against vaccine mandates / passports / medical apartheid | mid-2021 | “At Turning Point USA we are going to give everything we have to make sure that students are not going to have to live in a medical apartheid because they don’t want to get the vaccine.” Also: “It’s almost this apartheid-style open-air hostage situation, like oh you can have your freedom back if you get the jab.” | He equates mandates / requiring vaccination with segregation or coercion. Media Matters |
| On masking and vaccine mandates leading to loss of other freedoms | July 16, 2021, The Charlie Kirk Show | “If they can make you put a mask on, they’ll take your guns. They can make you take a vaccine, they control your children.” | This links mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and perceived overreach in authority. Media Matters |
| “You will never live in a society … and you won’t have a single gun death … it’s worth it.” | April 2023, after a mass shooting (Christian Covenant School in Nashville) | “You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death,” … “I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment … That is a prudent deal.” | Although this is more about gun violence / rights than vaccines, it’s often grouped in health-related because of mortality implications. Firstpost+3mint+3Newsweek+3 |
| On being unvaccinated as the “natural state.” | Sept. 13, 2021, TPUSA Live Now | “By the way, you know you’re born unvaccinated. It’s kind of like the natural state.” | He frames unvaccinated status as a baseline or normative condition. Media Matters |
| On immune health / supplements etc. | In a transcript of “My Conversation with Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Chris Martenson” | “…the way you get past an infectious disease is you get plenty of rest. You make sure you’re not stressed out … your vitamin D levels are adequate. … Also want to make sure you have appropriate levels of serum, zinc and selenium … What we now know … these work really, really well.” | He’s endorsing non-vaccine measures (nutrition, immune health) as important. Charlie Kirk |
| Questioning booster pushes / vaccine pushes “despite data” | 2023, interview with Florida’s Surgeon General (Ladapo) | Kirk: “What is driving them to push the boosters despite data and shows that they can actually be harmful?” | Here he’s giving voice to concerns about booster vaccine safety/effectiveness. Human Events |
[From what I can see, his opinions on many other issues that are outside my area of expertise were even worse.]
To turn Charlie Kirk into a hero, icon, visionary etc. is just ridiculous, in my view. Yes, for a range of reasons, I am sorry that he got shot – just as sorry as for the numerous further violent death in the US. Gun violence has to stop; but so should the absurd theatre around this man’s death.
There has never been a proof that Trump takes Adderall or other illicit drugs. Yet, it is impossible to overlook his current physical and mental decline. This, I think, begs the question whether long-term Adderall misuse might be involved. To find out more, we should ask: what does long-term Adderall use do to you?
As this particular issue is a bit outside my expertise, I asked Gemini. Here is the answer:
The long-term effects of taking Adderall for decades, whether as prescribed or misused, can be significant and multifaceted, impacting both the body and the brain. While some research indicates that when taken as prescribed and monitored by a doctor, it can be relatively safe for many people, chronic use, especially at high doses or without a prescription, carries serious risks.
Effects on the Brain and Mental Health
- Neurochemical Changes: Adderall works by increasing the levels of dopamine and norepinephrine in the brain. Over decades, chronic use can lead to the depletion of the brain’s natural reserves of these neurotransmitters. This can result in dependence, where the brain relies on the drug to function normally, and a need for higher and higher doses to achieve the same effect (tolerance).
- Cognitive Impairment: While Adderall is prescribed to improve focus, long-term use, particularly misuse, can paradoxically lead to cognitive issues. This can include “brain fog,” difficulty with memory, and problems with learning and recall, especially when not taking the medication.
- Psychiatric Issues: Long-term use can increase the risk of developing or worsening mental health conditions. Some users may experience:
- Depression, anxiety, and mood swings.
- Psychosis, which can include hallucinations, paranoia, and delusions, even in individuals without a pre-existing history of mental illness.
- Aggression and irritability.
- Addiction and Dependence: A significant long-term risk is the development of a stimulant use disorder. This involves both psychological and physical dependence, where an individual may experience intense cravings and withdrawal symptoms (e.g., severe fatigue, lethargy, and an inability to experience pleasure) if they stop or reduce their use.
Effects on the Body
- Cardiovascular System: This is one of the most serious and well-documented long-term risks. Adderall is a stimulant that raises heart rate and blood pressure. Over many years, this can strain the cardiovascular system and increase the risk of serious conditions, even at therapeutic doses. These can include:
- Hypertension (high blood pressure).
- Arrhythmias (irregular heartbeat).
- Heart attack and stroke.
- In rare cases, cardiomyopathy (damage to the heart muscle).
- Physical Side Effects: Many of the common short-term side effects can persist or worsen over time. These include:
- Insomnia and other sleep disturbances.
- Loss of appetite and significant weight loss, which can lead to malnutrition.
- Gastrointestinal problems like nausea and constipation.
- Dry mouth, which can lead to dental problems.
- Raynaud’s phenomenon, a condition that causes numbness and coldness in the fingers and toes.
___________________________
Does that ring a bell?
If so, we should be worried!
