Dana Ullman Goes After the Homeopathy Skeptics at HuffPo [again]

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post piece by homeopath Dana Ullman [see 001., below]:

001. Ullman writes in "Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously" (2011-01-30):

"Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine [...] most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used. Most clinical research conducted on homeopathic medicines that has been published in peer-review journals have shown positive clinical results [...] Montagnier [...say] 'high dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules' [...]  electromagnetic signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic biological effects [...] although skeptics of homeopathy may assume that homeopathic doses are still too small to have any biological action, such assumptions have also been proven wrong [except for the fact that they have been proven RIGHT]."

Note: it is interesting to see someone so adamant about sugar pills.  It is quite interesting.  I think Montagnier has gone off the science reservation, so to speak, much like Pauling did.  Separating out Ullman's sophistry [which he is quite good at, actually], quality evidence does not exist that homeopathy works.  It is so irrational, in fact, that it is labeled implausible.  And that's based upon ALL the evidence.

Dana Ullman on Naturopathy's Essential Vitalism - HuffPo 2010-07-07

homeopath Dana Ullman writes in "Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing With Ancient Roots" (2010-07-07) at the Huffington Post:

"this invisible yet ubiquitous self-healing/self-regulating system or field within the organism has been given various names at different times in history and in different cultures. Hippocrates called it 'physis' (from which the word 'physician' was derived); Paracelsus called it 'archeus'; the modern-day scientist and discoverer of vitamin C, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, called it 'syntropy' (which he defines as 'the drive in matter to perfect itself'); the Chinese have referred to it as 'ch'i'; the yogis as 'prana'; homeopathic physicians -- 'vital force'; and naturopathic physicians -- 'vis medicatrix naturae' (translated as 'the healing power of nature') [...] like acupuncture and other energy systems of medicines, the heightened power and effect of those homeopathic medicines that have undergone greater potentizations (the process of serial dilution with vigorous shaking in-between dilutions) may be the result of what the homeopaths call the 'vital force' becoming sensitive to and resonant with the medicinal agent."

Note: ah, so many synonyms, and NO EVIDENCE.  An actual energy, field, or force is quite in evidence in science!

Dana Ullman Recommends Naturopathy and Homeopathy, HP 2010-04-20:

here, I cite from a recent Huffington Post [HP] article by absurdity/homeopathy proponent Dana Ullman [see 001., below]; then, I REALLY discuss naturopathy and homeopathy [see 002., below]:

001 Ullman, D. (MPH ?) states in "How Scientific Is Modern Medicine Really?":

"I have previously made clear that my own point of view on this subject is that we must develop a more 'integrative model' of medicine and healing and that we should utilize various naturopathic and homeopathic methods as a way to honor the Hippocratic tradition of 'first, do no harm.'"

Note: first, the "really" from the title. This is a really half-assed really but don't take my word on it: Orac does a quite thorough debunking of this fallacious tack. The criticisms against regular medicine are no more supportive of naturopathy and homeopathy [absurdities] as the criticisms against jet plane travel are no more supportive of using flying carpets [absurdity] instead [I borrow that from Dr. Atwood, 2004].  It's a false dichotomy to structure an argument as 'this or that' when the choices are by no means equal. 

Overall, knowing what I know about naturopathy and homeopathy, the "harm" that Ullman is likely concerned about relates to that hugely debunked sectarian figmentation known as 'the vital force.'  For instance, when the State of Oregon discusses "Naturopathy" and "do no harm," it states:

"[naturopathy's principle #3] first, do no harm. Primum no nocere. Illness is a purposeful [teleological] process of the organism. The process of healing includes the generation of symptoms, which are, in fact, an expression of the life force [vitalism] attempting to heal itself [...] the physician’s actions can support or antagonize the actions of the vis medicatrix naturae [vital force...per principle #1] the healing power of nature. Vis medicatrix naturae [...] healing process is ordered and intelligent [teleological]; nature heals through the response of the life force [vitalism...] therefore, methods designed to suppress symptoms without removing underlying causes [what's primarily harming the VMN] are considered harmful and are avoided or minimized [...because] methods of treatments are chosen to work with the patient’s vital force [vitalism], respecting the intelligence [teleology] of the natural healing process."

Note: vitalism, teleology and that other naturopathic belief in 'spirit' that I'm not even discussing here are all external to science, as either science-ejected or fundamentally unsupportable by science.

002. really:

002.a. naturopathy:

is, clearly, the nonscientific [vitalistic, teleological, supernaturalistic] falsely labeled as scientific, violating the basic principles of commerce and the more stringent principles of professionalism [and you get the added value of the State of Oregon on that B.N.M. page falsely labeling the scientifically-ejected as 'able to surivive scientific scrutiny'].

002.b. homeopathy:

clearly doesn't work.

003. a note on integrative:

so, what is "integrative" really?  It is the lowering of standards to such an extreme that that which is profoundly, preponderantly nonscience is then labeled science and fraudulently traded upon.  This is what the State of Oregon endorses.  So,  I don't rely on Dana Ullman to inform me about what is "really." His rhetorical skills are quite formidable, but, when you peel back all that ornate manipulation, you get to the essentially sectarian-absurd that he [along with Oregon] is promoting.

PalMD on HuffPo's Homeopath Dana Ullman - 'A Dangerous, Idiotic Twit':

PalMD writes in "A New Low At HuffPo":

"Dana Ullman [...] has started blogging at the Huffington Post [...] the stupid truly burns brightly in this one [...that's] certainly an appropriate venue for his brand of cult medicine belief [...and his] stunning level of ignorance of basic human biology [...we know] there is a science to medicine -- our instincts and hunches often betray us, and only by studying the body systematically can we form valid conclusions. Or, if you're lazy or deceitful, you can just make shit up. Which brings us to Dana Ullman [...and his] ignorant load of horse shit [...] one can view the human body in one of two fundamental ways: as a typical biological organism that is subject to the usual laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, and therefore understandable through systematic investigation; or as some sort of mystical thing infused with an elan vital, subject to the whims of the supernatural and fundamentally mysterious. It's pretty easy to verify which is a better model of reality, and which is a fundamentally arbitrary fantasy [...] confounding a reaction with a purposeful, beneficial response is idiotic [...it's a] type of teleologic[al] thinking [that] is child-like [...] Dana Ullman is an ignorant twit who leads a fringe medical cult which promulgates dangerous falsehoods [...per] his pet medical cult, homeopathy."

Note: one of the central reasons I left naturopathy was due to its cultic, vitalistic & teleological supernaturalism falsely postured as 'science not belief'. The retardedness known as homeopathy is actually labeled a science by naturopathy.

Dana Ullman is Disqualified: SBM 2009-01-27:

Dr. Harriet Hall, in response to homeopath Dana Ullman's ravings regarding homeopathy, wrote quiet concisely in commentary for the article "Historic College of Pharmacy to Honor Homeopathy Leader" (2009-01-26) by D.J. Kroll:

"Dana is not playing by the rules of science [...] he has disqualified himself from serious consideration by rational scientific thinkers, and has lost the right to participate in any discussion of science-based medicine. He is like a child butting into an adult discussion to say 'there really is a Tooth Fairy and I can prove it because here's the money she left me.' He is not even capable of understanding why his arguments fail to convince us, even though it has been explained to him many times in great detail. We should have compassion and be kind to the handicapped, but we shouldn’t have to pay any attention to their ravings."

Nice: reminds me of the NDs, who absurdly claim that the scientific and the profoundly science-ejected are the same thing.