*Now, his page below tells us Ullman is an "evidence based homeopath." That's like being an evidence-based Toothy Fairyist! So, below has lots of good rhetoric and argument, yet homeopathy is a placebo remedy at heart.
001. in "Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine" (2014-10-10), Mr. Ullman writes to HuffPo:
"in April, 2014, I had the happenstance to run into Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, on the streets of Vancouver. I was there to lecture to a group of medical professionals, while he was attending the TED talks. I expressed my appreciation to him for creating Wikipedia. I also then expressed concern to him about the 'unencyclopedic' tone and information in Wikipedia's article on homeopathy [...] evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against an objective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article [...]";
just because an entry at Wikipedia doesn't say what you want doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Actually, not ranking and summating ALL the knowledge about homeopathy, and therein cherry-picking as Ullman does, is what's unencyclopedic.
"Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is providing strongly biased, inaccurate information [...]";
yeah. Sure.
"after reading the below body of scientific evidence on the subject of homeopathic medicine, I hope that we can engage in a dialogue that will help reduce the amount of misinformation that pervades certain subjects, such as homeopathy [...and he writes admittedly] below is a partial list of such studies [...]";
this is, again, cherry-picking. By his own admission.
"is homeopathy really a 'pseudoscience'? [...]";
let's see, the American Association of Naturopathic Physician's calls homeopathy a "medicinal science" yet there's nothing in the remedies and preponderantly, no effect occurs. I'd say, really, homeopathy and naturopathy are both pseudosciences.
Note: just another example of how much crap HuffPo contains on a regular basis.
