Homeopathy’s most prolific shill, Dana “Mr Uncredible” Ullman, seems to think that being called “the Leading Proselytizer of Homeopathy” is a good thing. As we already know, his principal tactic in promoting homeopathy is to cherry-pick and misrepresent the relevant science. But when one of the Homeopathy Rabid Reactionary Farce tweets his “undeniable” evidence, well, what can I do but deny it?
With facts. Of course.
Starting with this: the article by Ullman first appears in the web archive on Dec 26, 2010. It may have been published before then, and new published evidence after December 2010 could not have been taken into account. That would excuse the original article, but not subsequent promotion once the refuted nature of any claims was known.
Of course Ullman is engaging in the usual pseudoscience tactic known as the Gish Gallop, after creationist Duane Gish who originated it. The idea is to throw out a huge list of supportive material, secure in the knowledge that even though each individual item can be (and usually has been) refuted, time and the patience of the audience will mean that refutations are drowned out by the appearance of “referenciness”.
The problem for Ullman is that the Gish Gallop only works in debate. When you publish a web page accusing people of not understanding something, especially when you’ve spammed the same list in dozens of comment threads, you will get the refutations rubbed in your face.
What Skeptics Should Know about Homeopathy
Undeniable Evidence for Homeopathic Medicine
By Dana Ullman, MPH
See how he’s already gone for the fallacy of begging the question? Homeopathy is not medicine. The only detectable ingredient in virtually all remedies is sugar.
It is amazing that so many skeptics are so misinformed about homeopathy, and it is ironic (to be diplomatic) that these skeptics hold themselves out as “defenders of science,” while being embarrassingly ignorant of the “body of evidence” that verifies the efficacy of homeopathic medicines and the biological activity of its doses.
Again with begging the question. What if I told you that actually we understand homeopathy and you don’t? Sure, you’d deny it, but it would remain, you know, true.
But we know why Dana says this: in his mind, it is simply inconceivable that anybody could look at the facts and not agree with him. That’s what belief does for you. Creationists are the same: they cannot understand how anybody can look at the world and not see that it was created in six literal days a few thousand years ago. The technical term for this worldview is: wrong.
And Dana’s biggets problem, by far, is that far form being “embarrassingly ignorant” about the body of evidence, homeopathy skeptics are actually extremely well informed. We just don’t see what he sees, because we don’t filter everything through the lens of pathological belief.
First, some skeptics are so daft about homeopathy that they mix it up with other treatment modalities. Some skeptics mis-assume that homeopathy is a type of herbal medicine or a type of nutritional supplement. It isn’t.
Actually it is not skeptics who do this but the marks. And the occasional homeoquack. Check Twitter for numerous examples of skeptics correcting this misapprehension. And as Andy Lewis pointed out, some homeoquacks knowingly collude in the delusion that homeopathy and herbalism are one.
I don’t know any skeptic who fails to understand the essential difference: herbal “remedies” contain measurable doses of pharmacologically active compounds, sometimes even the ones they claim in the label, whereas homeopathy usually contains no active ingredient at all.
We are not confused about this at all.
Second, it is important to emphasize that homeopathic doses range from the tincture of an herb to “low potencies” of a plant/mineral/animal/chemical medicinal substance (1X to 12X or 1C to 6C) to “medium potencies (13X to 30X or 7C to 15C) to high potencies (200X or 200C and higher). The scientific field of low-dose effects (called hormesis) has literally thousands of studies from a wide variety of scientists that have evaluated the biological effects of low and medium potencies.
It is true that some homeopathic remedies actually do contain active ingredient, though most do not. Zicam definitely did contain active ingredient, leading to cases of anosmia and an FDA-mandated product recall. One of the few “homeopathic” products for which there is credible evidence of affect is arnica cream, and guess what? It turns out that this contains an active ingredient.
Again, I don’t know of any skeptic who is remotely confused about what homeopathic dilutions mean. It’s only homeopathy shills and other apologists who try to blur the distinction by claiming that evidence from a single product with active ingredient, validates an entire class products generally without any active ingredient.
Because a large percentage of homeopathic medicines sold in health food stores and pharmacies today contain doses of low and medium potencies, the skeptics of homeopathy who assert that there is “nothing” in homeopathic medicines are embarrassingly uninformed and misinformed.
Wrong again. What’s on sale in most shops is the inert “high potency” remedies. See for example the Helios Basic 18 kit.
Or this pic from a point of sale display:
Or this Boiron point of sale display:
But again we’re not confused about this. We’re aware that a few homeopathic remedies may contain active ingredient, though most do not. We know about the limits of dilution and the point at which dilution becomes farcical, and we (unlike hoemopaths) can draw a distinction between the effects of remedies with versus without active ingredient.
Skeptics tend to “lump” all homeopathic medicines together, but this effort is simply sloppy thinking and analysis. As for the homeopaths’ use of “high potency” homeopathic medicines, they (and anyone) will benefit from reviewing of the body of evidence (clinical evidence and basic science trials) that are referenced below.
No, we don’t. We point out that arnica cream often contains arnica so cannot be used to validate homeopathy generally, and we point out that the documented harm caused by Zicam nullifies the claim that homeopathic remedies are always free of side effects. Ironically it is homeopaths not skeptics who insist that Zicam was not “proper homeopathy“.
Further, when skeptics say that the high potency homeopathic medicines make no sense or “break present laws of physics,” such assertions simply show their ignorance of present laws of nature. The website of Professor Martin Chaplin, mentioned below, provide references to 1,000+ (!) studies of water and its mysteries and phenomena that help us to understand how and why homeopathic medicines may maintain biological activity even in high potency solutions.
Martin Chaplin’s web page contains a defence of Jacques Benveniste’s refuted claims. It contains a mish-mash of decent science freely mixed with irrelevant findings and a credulous presentation of claims which are questionable at best. In this it follows closely the standard homeopathic model of research assessment, as exemplified by Dullman. Chaplin cites the journal Homeopathy, impact factor 1.018 (i.e. about as low as you can get and still have an impact factor), a journal ideologically committed to homeopathy.
That doesn’t mean that Chaplin is wrong about everything, or indeed about anything specifically, but it’s a giant red flag indivating need for caution.
Or, in Dullman’s mind, it’s a green flag indicating a safe source of commentary that won’t raise nasty reality-based objections.
It is amazing how un-informed and ill-informed the vast majority of skeptics are to the 200+ clinical trials that have been published in peer-review medical journals. One of the leading resources to learn about these studies is an ebook that I wrote (and that I continually update…thus, here’s the real benefit of writing an ebook!): Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Nanopharmacology.
Nope. We know all about them, and the meta-analysis that shows no convincing evidence of effect, and the systematic review of systematic reviews which finds no condition for which there is convincing evidence of effect, and the evidence of bias affecting study outcome, and the systematic review by a homeopaths and apologists that found not one study at provably low risk of bias but nonetheless concluded homeopathy works.
And here’s the really important bit: skeptics have pointed out to Dullman on many, many occasions that we are familiar with the evidence base, and he still asserts the opposite. Because, you see, Dullman is a shill, first and foremost. He is not interested in intellectually honest discussion, his sole aim is to promote homeopathy. His reaction to conclusive proof that he is wrong, is defiance and denial. Specific examples include: Darwin’s health, Nightingale’s view of homeopathy as suitable for the “reckless physicking of amateur females“, which Dullman interprets as advocacy, and the notorious Swizz report, which Dullman still asserts is a neutral review of the field.
But in what passes for Dullman’s mind, failure to see something as he sees it is identical to not understanding it. Even it’s pretty clear that the opposite is true, and when there is a gulf of understanding, it’s he who does not understand (the Nightingale example, in particular, nails it here).
In addition to the clinical research and basic science studies, there is much historical evidence that show the efficacy of homeopathic medicines. For instance, homeopathy gained widespread popularity in the 19th century due to its impressive results in treating infectious epidemic diseases that raged during this time, including epidemics of cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, scarlet fever, and influenza.
This “success” in treating epidemics is the foundation of the quacktacular stupidity of “homeopathy for Ebola” and, once again, Dullman has been told many times how this delusion came about. In the 19th Century, medicine was still in the dark ages (though clawing its way out, by degrees). Semmelweiss and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr, both began to see that infection was and promoted cleanliness, but the orthodoxy was against them.
Homeopathy’s “success” is down to one very simple fact: for a patient with a deadly infectious disease, doing nothing in a clean hospital is better than bleeding and purging in a dirty one.
Florence Nightingale’s great achievement was in medical epidemiology.
Nightingale and John Snow were among the founders of the field of epidemiology, which is the starting point for the systematic analysis of disease and cure that eventually became [W:evidence-based medicine].
Now here’s a list of the transformative changes in homeopathic understanding of disease and cure since it was dreamed up by Hahnemann.
In fact, some homeopaths still deny germ theory.
Also, many of the most respected physicians and scientists, past and present, have been known to use and/or advocate for homeopathy. The amazing story of Charles Darwin is significant because there is surprising evidence to suggest that it would have been unlikely for him to have lived long enough to have written his seminal work, The Origin of Species, if he had not sought the care of a homeopathic doctor, Dr. James Manby Gully. To read a summary of this history and to have direct links to Darwin’s own letters,go here.
Open goal, really. Remember how I noted above that Dullman lies about Darwin? Here’s Darwin’s opinion on homeopathy:
I grieve to say that Dr Gully gives me homoœopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith.
You were quite right to send me sneers versus Mr Scott— I have amused them here with Homœopathetic stories.— My Father observes that as long as he can remember, there has always been something wonderful, more or less of the same kind, going on & there has always been people weak enough to believe & he says, slapping both knees, he supposes there always will be—so that he thinks Mr Scott no greater a fool than the other past & future fools; a more charitable belief, than I can indulge in
So Darwin was openly contemptuous of homeopathy, and ascribed his symptomatic improvement to the water cure, not magic water.
In fact Wikipedia has rather a good article on Charles Darwin’s health, which is well referenced and shows (surprise surprise!) that it is extremely unlikely that homeopathy played any part in his being well enough to write Origin. The physician who gave him sufficient symptomatic relief to complete Origin was Dr. Edward Wickstead Lane, who did “not believe in all the rubbish which Dr G. does“, specifically homeopathy and clairvoyance.
Some of the other famous physicians and scientists who were known to use and/or advocate for homeopathy include Sir William Osler (the “father of modern medicine”), Emil Adolf von Behring (the “father of immunology”), Charles Frederick Menninger (founder of the Menninger Clinic), August Bier (the “father of spinal anesthesia”), Royal S. Copeland (physician, homeopath, and U.S. Senator who wrote legislation that empowered the FDA), William J. Mayo and Charles H. Mayo (founders of the Mayo Clinic), C. Everett Koop (former Surgeon General of the US), Brian Josephson (Nobel Prize winner).
This is, of course, irrelevant on two separate grounds. First, the appeal to authority (or in this case celebrity endorsement); and second, the fact that most of those who used homeopathy will have begun to use it before it was definitively refuted by the discovery of the atomic nature of matter.
Osler, for example, lived from 1849 to 1919, and while it’s certainly true that by the mid 19th Century many prominent authorities (including Darwin and Holmes) had identified that homeopathic dilutions were ludicrous, it was only in the latter years of the 19th Century that it became generally known that matter is not, and cannot be, infinitely divisible, and it was only really the discovery of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in the late 1920s that showed homeopathy to be impossible rather than just highly implausible.
For more details about Charles Darwin, any of the above physicians and scientists, as well as many other “cultural heroes” of the past 200 years who were known to advocate and/or use homeopathic medicines, see Dana Ullman’s Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2007).
Do read Andy Lewis’ review first though. I do like the idea of the “homeopathic revolution”, it conceptually mirrors the communist revolution in Russia, which was also driven by ideological opposition to a harmful status quo, and was also corrupted by venal individuals and ultimately shown to be a fundamental denial of reality. And, just like homeopathy, it continued through inertia and vested interest long past the time when it should have stopped.
Meta-analyses and Reviews of Clinical Research
K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., “Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials,” Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Even critics have called this meta-analysis “completely state of the art.” It reviews 186 studies, 89 of which fit pre-defined criteria for its meta-analysis. Homeopathic medicines had a 2.45 times greater effect than placebo. J.
And Linde’s own 1999 re-analysis showed this conclusion to be unsafe due to the influence of poor study design. Linde himself has told Dullman that the 1997 paper should not be cited in this way.
There is a special irony in Dullman castigating skeptics for being intellectually dishonest, while himself engaging in precisely the intellectual dishonesty of which he falsely accuses them, by citing studies he likes and ignoring those he does not.
Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, “Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy,” British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323. This is the best objective meta-analysis of clinical research prior to 1991. This meta-analysis reviewed 107 studies, 81 of which showed efficacy of homeopathic medicines. Of the best 22 studies, 15 showed efficacy.
And Kleijnen’s conclusion was:
Conclusions At the moment the evidence of clinical trials is positive but not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions because most trials are of low methodological quality and because of the unknown role of publication bias. This indicates that there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homoeopathy, but only by means of well performed trials.
Since then, better trials have been performed, and the results have been negative. Just fancy that.
Responses to the “junk science” review of research published in the Lancet (2005) by Shang, Eggers, et al.:
— Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. icon.ico">Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 61, 12:1197-1204. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.
— Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: the importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. 2008, 97:169-177. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008 (These two reviews and re-analyses of the Shang data threw into doubt the narrow analysis of Shang and team.)
WB Jonas, TJ Kaptchuk, K Linde, A Critical Overview of Homeopathy, Annals in Internal Medicine, March 4, 2003:138:393-399. Although this is not a meta-analysis, it is still a very good review of the clinical literature in homeopathy.
Gosh, some homeopaths chose to got o bat against a highly cited study that was negative. Nobody saw that coming. Sadly for Dullman, the criticism are entirely nullified by the responses, which include publication of additional data for which there was not space in the original paper.
Were the criticisms well-founded? Judge for yourself:
Contrary to the claims of Peter Fisher and colleagues, we clearly stated the matching criteria and made all the references available in appendices and provided additional information on outcomes in a table. A list of excluded studies, with reasons for exclusions, is now also available from http://www.ispm.ch.
We strongly reject Fisher and colleagues’ notion that our conclusions were based on “eight anonymous trials”. Following the same logic, Linde and colleagues’ study, which they and others have repeatedly quoted as proving the efficacy of homoeopathy, would be based on the five “anonymous trials” included in the worst case scenario. We estimated treatment effects in trials as large as the largest trials identified, based on an analysis of 110 trials. As for the analysis restricted to eight large trials of higher quality, we found no convincing evidence that homoeopathy was superior to placebo.
Neither of the two studies mentioned by Fisher and colleagues were regarded as large and of high quality. The influenza trial did not meet our prespecified quality criteria and the asthma trial was available as an abstract only and excluded.
And so on. Shang et. al. remains part of the record, as to the replies and the authors’ responses to those replies, which closed the “debate” in The Lancet:
Homoeopathy dates back to the late 1700s when Samuel Hahnemann first formulated the principles of similars and potentisation. At that time, homoeopathy might well have been superior to conventional medicine, considering that bloodletting was the standard treatment for many disorders. Contrary to what Harald Walach and colleagues suggest, homoeopathy and allopathy thus both started from a poor evidence base. Our study showed that more than 200 years later, based on more than 200 placebo-controlled trials, it has become clear that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are compatible with the placebo hypothesis and probably due to the non-specific effects of complementary and alternative medicine discussed by Walach and colleagues.
Clinical Trials Published in Leading Conventional Journals
Vickers AJ. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Reviews. 2006 Four treatment trials (N=1,194) found “promising” results from Oscillococcinum in the treatment of influenza or influenza-like syndrome. Three prevention trials (N=2,265) did not find efficacy of Oscillococcinum in the prevention of these conditions. Because Oscillococcinum is made from the liver & heart of a duck and because ducks are reservoirs of flu viruses, this drug make sense, biologically. It has been used in homeopathy since the 1920s and thus verifies that homeopaths have been knowledgeable of avian sources of flu virus for a long time.
Wow, a proper positive study in the literature! Oh wait, no: it’s withdrawn. To be fair, Ullman could not have known it would be withdrawn or that the replacement would be:
Results from two poorly reported clinical trials (total of 327 participants) do not show that Oscillococcinum® can prevent the onset of flu. Although the results from four other clinical trials (total of 1196 participants) suggested that Oscillococcinum® relieved flu symptoms at 48 hours, this might be due to bias in the trial methods. (source)
J. Jacobs, WB Jonas, M Jimenez-Perez, D Crothers, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Meta-analysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This meta-analysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
This was a masterpiece. Oh, wait, no it wasn’t.
In summary: 1) The study used an unreliable and unproved diagnostic and therapeutic scheme; 2)There was no control for product adulteration; 3)Treatment selection was arbitrary; 4) The data were placed into odd groupings without explanation, and contained errors and unexplained inconsistencies; 5) The results were not clinically significant and were probably not statistically significant; 6) There was no public health significance; 7) Selection of references was incomplete and biased to support the claims of the article, and references were quoted inaccurately; and 8) Editorializations were inappropriate.
And this is part of the published record which would have been known to any competent researcher after November 2009.
Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, Endler, C, Muchitsch, I, Schuster, E, Kaye, A. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. This is an impressive study was conducted at the University of Vienna and published in the leading respiratory medicine journal…with substantially significant results in the homeopathic treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD is the #4 reason that people in the USA die). The medicine used in this trial was Kali bichromicum 30C. At present, two different universities are conducted trials to replicate this important study.
David Gorski has analysed this nonsensical study in some detail. The study was very small, and 100% of the difference in outcomes can be explained by the documented fact, shown in the paper itself, that the “control” patients very likely had more serious disease or other complications. The data is insufficient to draw any firm conclusions other than that.
Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. Participants in active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender poit count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo. “Helpfulness from treatment” in homeopathic patients was very significant (P=.004). People on homeopathic treatment also experienced changes in EEG readings. The evidence of clinical benefits coupled with the objective evidence of EEG readings combine to verify a therapeutic effect from a physiologically active medicine.
Iris Bell is a prolific source of pseudoscientific paeans to homeopathy but seems in recent years to have had increasing difficulty getting published in real journals. The Rheumatology paper is very low powered (few patients) and Dr. Gorski notes problems with the randomisation, with important markers for severity waved away without explanation. Even then, the end results show no difference until they are “adjusted” – by an author who is a True Believer in homeopathy. No possibility of bias there, then.
But why quote this paper when there is a decent quality 2010 systematic review of homeopathy for fibromyalgia? You already know why.
Four RCTs were found, including two feasibility studies. Three studies were placebo-controlled. None of the trials was without serious flaws. Invariably, their results suggested that homoeopathy was better than the control interventions in alleviating the symptoms of FM. Independent replications are missing. Even though all RCTs suggested results that favour homoeopathy, important caveats exist. Therefore, the effectiveness of homoeopathy as a symptomatic treatment for FM remains unproven.
Why did Dullman not note at least the finding that the studies, including Bell, lack methodological rigour? One might be inclined to speculate that ideological consonance is more important than rigour in Dullman’s world.
Belon P, Banerjee P, Choudhury SC, Banerjee A., Can administration of potentized homeopathic remedy, Arsenicum album, alter antinuclear antibody (ANA) titer in people living in high-risk arsenic contaminated areas? I. A correlation with certain hematological parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 Mar;3(1):99-107. A couple of dozen trials testing homeopathic doses of arsenic to treat mice who were exposed to toxic doses of arsenic provide additional evidence of the benefits from homeopathic treatment.
I find no significant discussion of this in the literature, skeptical or otherwise. It appears not to be widely cited and there’s no evidence of independent replication. Philippe Belon is a director of Boiron, was a co-author of Benveniste’s refuted paper and also a co-author with Fisher of a refuted Lancet paper. In the absence of strong evidence to the contrary, it is safe to assume that this unrepeated result is due to the well-documented effects of experimenter bias in homeopathy studies.
Basic Science Trials
Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and 2/3 of those 18 that scored 6 points or more and controlled contamination. Nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.
“Health economic data were obtained for a subgroup of 38% of the patients.” – there was no explanation as to why 62% of the participants were excluded, even though these data are the primary endpoint. In any case, the study concluded: “In the present study, there were no significant differences between the overall costs incurred by patients according to the homoeopathic or conventional treatment strategies.” And the study “does not provide firm data on the comparative efficacy of conventional and homoeopathic treatments.” (source)
Banerjee, P.; Biswas, S. J.; Belon, P.; Khuda-Bukhsh, A. R. A Potentized Homeopathic Drug, Arsenicum Album 200, Can Ameliorate Genotoxicity Induced by Repeated Injections of Arsenic Trioxide in Mice.Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Series A, Volume 54, Number 7, September 2007 , pp. 370-376(7). DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0442.2007.00945.x
Belon again. I can’t immediately find a refutation of this, but it’s cited 23 times in 7 years, almost all either in SCAM-specific junk journlas like homeopathy or in papers where it appears to be almost irrelevant, such as this one. As evidence of something that would overturn most f physics, molecular biology and biochemistry, I think we can assume this is not Nobel material, but feel free to add detail in the comments.
References to water and homeopathic medicines: –Site of Professor Martin Chaplin, a world renowned expert on water: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html andhttp://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/memory.html — This site has almost 2,000 references to articles and research about water. Simple-minded people who assert that it is “impossible” for homeopathic medicines to have any effect or who assert that homeopathic medicines break present laws of physics simply are not adequately informed.
Yes, in the topsy-turvy world of homeopathy the opinions of one apparent believer means that all the people who agree that homeopathy is impossible according to current laws of physics, must be wrong.
In the real world, we can counter that with the vastly more authoritative position of Professor Sir John Beddington, former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British government, his successor, Sir Mark Walport, and the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies. It’s abundantly clear that if the evidence were compelling, sufficient to overturn current understanding of the nature of matter, then this would already have happened.
However, is Chaplin actually a believer? There are skeptical sources who say not. In fact, his articles are cited as a rebuttal to a lot of ordered-water bollocks, including homeopathy, though there are also insane conspiracists who assert the opposite.
So the question is: do you accept Dana Ullman’s word that Chaplin’s work is (a) scientifically robust and (b) evidence for homeopathy? The following quote from a learned Judge may help:
The Court found Mr. Ullman’s testimony to be not credible. Mr. Ullman’s bias in favor of homeopathy and against conventional medicine was readily apparent from his testimony. He admitted that he was not an impartial expert but rather is a passionate advocate of homeopathy. He posted on Twitter that he views conventional medicine as witchcraft. He opined that conventional medical science cannot be trusted.
Me, I suspend judgment. I’ll be reading in more detail in coming weeks, because regardless of what Dullman might think, it is important to me to be fully informed (rather than being informed only by the evidence I like, as Dullman is).
Elia, V, and Niccoli, M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.
Rey, L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.
So there we have it: if you determinedly mine the literature for supportive material, ignore retractions, re-analyses, rebuttals and refutations, and assume that all positive results are inerrant and all negative results don’t exist, there is indeed a mountain of evidence fro homeopathy.
That is, of course, what makes it [W:pseudoscience] rather than just nonsense.