Dana and me
by endlesspsych
I’m a patient man in most respects. I am also very much aware that when declaring myself as a skeptic there are certain people who may be uncomfortable answering questions I may ask.
Perhaps they fear being caught out in some sketi-trap of my malicious creation?
Certainly my last post, again inspired by the 1023 campaign, has attracted one drive by comment from the homeopathic community and no more. (Perhaps just having one comment means that from a homeopathic perspective the debate is settled?)
However when you ask a question of a well known member of the homeopathic community, some might say leading, who runs a homeopathic educational organisation no less. That they would have a vested interest in politely answering your queries in the name of public enagement?
Well not @homeopathicdana it seems… I have had the following exchange via Twitter with him (in full fairness Twitter might not be the best medium to impart such info but that doesn’t excuse the supercillious attitude!):
@HomeopathicDana this link has my questions about homeopathy: http://j.mp/8PAiTU If you have time to look at that and answer cheers.
Which I thought was a fairly reasonable request.
@endless_psych Heck, you haven’t even tried to understand homeopathy (or tired lamely) & you’ve ignored basic sciences research…whoops.
Well… I was asking for info on the basic science… If Dana treats all enquiries like this then quite why he heads up a homeopathic educational service is beyond me!
@endless_psych Do you even know what type of water homeopathic manufacturers use? Do u? Tell me…
No, again that would he why I was asking the man described variously as “homeopathy’s foremost spokesman” and a “leading proselytizer of homeopathy”…
Not least that the whole point of me asking the question was for him to tell me! However I did a little research and discovered that the water used was distilled (or so I thought)…
@endless_psych Nope…it is double-distilled…and out go any “memories” — why do skeptics try to over-simplify. That’s bad science.
Woah! Trying to oversimplify is bad science! Someone hasn’t hears of Occams Razor! However I persisted with the following question:
@HomeopathicDana what about the distillation process flushes out the memories?
And recieved the following reply:
@endless_psych Do you mean that you don’t even know about the DBPC research that shows that high heat to meds erases its biological effect?
Well I didn’t. I mean should I? Is this some common knowledge that everyone in the world apart from my shares?
However I do wonder now what erasing the biological effect of a drug with high heat has to do with the “voids” that supposedly carry the homeopathic energy signal (or whatever it is – no one has yet answered that either). By what mechanism do the voids dissapate or dissapear?
I did ask and got the following reply:
@endless_psych My point is…it seems that you are not even familiar with basic sciences research testing homeopathics. Whooops.
I’m not sure what the whoops is suppossed to indicate. Is it not acceptable to know something when you ask a question? Dana Ullman should perhaps look up public engagement. Indeed he appears to have missed the entire point of my questions.
I. WAS. ASKING. BECAUSE. I. DIDNT. KNOW.
If you are prominent proponent of a particular product or process then surely you should expect people to ask questions about it?
Furthermore when they do if you have confidence and faith (or better still evidence in) in your product or processes then you should good naturedly deal with queries surely?
Not assume the worst and tell people off for asking the questions in the first place!
(In fairness perhaps the CRU email thing shows that scientists aren’t always whiter then White in this regard either…)
The further down the rabbit hole we go I suspect the more replies will come telling me that the skeptics are doing bad science…
Without even the slightest hint of irony.
Cheers
(If anymore tweets come in I’ll update the above)
EDIT: new response
@endless_psych Sorry, I cannot hold your hand. Why do u choose to be deaf, dumb, & blind? See my huffingtonpost articles. Jeez…
Sorry… Why are you promoting yourself as some sort of expert or educator in homaopathy if you can’t be arses educating people about homeopathy…
What a rude man. Thanks Dana…
and your electron microscope 
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Keir Liddle, Keir Liddle. Keir Liddle said: Dana and me: I’m a patient man in most respects. I am also very much aware that when declaring myself as a skeptic… http://bit.ly/5k8wX7 […]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by endless_psych: http://bit.ly/91tnP9 #ten23 What happened when I attempted to ask a few questions of Dana Ullman… (Not as exciting as it might sound)…
That would be because Ullman is a collosal ass. I’m using one of his posts this spring to teach critical thinking skills. See http://kwomblesengl1302.blogspot.com/2009/12/romp-through-homeopathy-magic-water.html and http://kwomblesengl1302.blogspot.com/2009/12/man-aint-dull-he-just-aint-found-right.html.
🙂 There are links to the posts I will use in the first url and the second is the rebuttal piece to Ullman’s Huff-woo.
I agree that there is no reason to be rude, and from what I have encountered thus far, you seem to be very polite and, as far as I have seen, genuine in your approach.
However, the homeopathy profession and individual homeopaths are presently receiving a very bad press (as you will be aware, of course). This can take the form of web pages, newspaper articles, direct ‘attacks’ via email, emails from ‘skeptics’ pretending’ to be patients, twitter, facebook etc etc.
In any other sphere this would be called bullying, pure and simple.
So while it’s not nice to be rude, if you personally were the recipient of a tireless onslaught, either personally or professionally, you could understand why your questions might not have been treated as fairly as they could have.
You’ll find that, in the current climate, most homeopaths will, understandably, be suspicious…
I hope that the debate will continue on your questions page. I’m enjoying the exchange.
Hi Keir,
Bearing Mairi’s comments in mind, as I’m sure they do apply, I’m inclined to agree that Dana can come across as very rude. I’ve had one email exchange with him and was rather taken aback by his manner and priorities and wouldn’t talk to him again – and I’m a homeopath LOL!
But nobody’s perfect: let’s just say he’s very focused and tends to brush folk away like flies, and there are lots of people in the world who do that. Often the representatives of any field (politics, the church, environmentalism, science, CAM – you name it) have proposed and sometimes even appointed themselves as experts and authorities: there is such a thing as the ‘cult of personality’ and I have sympathy for the view that ‘skeptical’ thinking is a rational response which can help cut through the guff by setting a framework for discussions with the loonies: it most certainly serves a purpose! The caveat is to be careful not to tar everyone in any movement with the same brush or throw babies out with bathwater; we sometimes need compassion too. But that’s a whole other discussion and I’m just mentioning it to say that we all have our problems and perhaps that’s one of the areas where we have some common ground!
What I take from his abrupt comments (and 140 characters is a limitation) is that the distillation/sterilisation process occurs BEFORE the water is used to make the remedy; presumably to eliminate all those other interesting little things in water that could then be potentised. Probably the best people to ask about those issues would be the pharmacies themselves; it’s even possible to have a tour around Helios Homeopathic Pharmacy if you arrange it. I understand that an international group of under-grad biochemists was shown round there last summer, learned a lot and really enjoyed their day.
Jeez, this Dana Ullman guy is a total donkey.
@Mairi Frost
Let’s not forget that the reason homeopaths are receiving a bad press is because they are lining their pockets by aggressively promoting a worthless therapy and some gullible people have suffered needlessly and even died as a result.
By being rude, snide, ignorant and patronising, Dana Ullman isn’t doing much damage limitation.
Jeez…you can dish the dirt (please don’t pretend to be the nice guy), but cannot take it yourself. You actually have the audacity to ask complex and academic questions on twitter. Get real (and get a life while you’re there).
I publish my writings in peer-review journals and at select websites. Go to these sources and/or write your own.
You remind me of an adolescent who stamps his or her feet because you’re not getting the attention you want. No tears for thee Argentina.
See my newest blog at the Huffingtonpost for a response to you and your fellow deniers (who simply don’t know the real research and who are arm-chair philosophers, not real scientists or academicians).
What’s audacious about asking casual but complex academic questions via twitter? I’ve had several exchanges on complex scientific subjects via twitter, none of which were met with the downright rudeness and dismissal that I was met with in my mercifully brief exchange with you. Most scientists are very keen to discuss their work and will do so enthusiastically with anyone who takes an interest, via whatever medium. Especially if that interest is critical. You bluster, insult, and fob people off to the very articles they’re criticisng in the first place.
The fact is, Dana, that you’re afraid of questions because you know you will not be able to perform competently in an honest two-way discussion of your ideas. You direct people to your terrible, ill-informed, riddled-with-fallacies, posts at HuffPo rather than engaging with them because it’s a one-way discourse – which suits you down to the ground.
If you want to actually take part in a two way discussion about your ideas, we’d be more than happy to interview you for The 21st Floor.
You can answer questions in as many or as few words as you like (if it’s the character limit that annoys you).
Fire me an e-mail if you’re up for it.
Oh, and by the way, your “atomic power” analogy was hilarious.
“Yeah, there’re some rocks in my garden about the size and shape of potatoes. So there’s nothing to say they won’t make a nourishing meal.”
Dear Dana,
I’ve read a lot of your “scientific” and “academic” blog posts.
They’re utter, utter nonsense. Cherry picked data or made-up “science” – frequently they boil down to a lot of sciency-sounding words strung together in a diatribe that you hope no-one’s actually going to read, and you clearly have no idea what any of it means. You wouldn’t know real science if it bit you on the arse.
Kind regards,
Becky
How dare anyone claim that Dana doesn’t know what he’s on about, and hides behind ‘sciencey’ sounding words! He is an “academician” after all.
Hmm. Retract that. (Not the allegation.)
“@Rushyo Thanx for the grammatical correction. Twitter speed does not lend itself to adequate proofreading…”
“@HomeopathicDana Saying ‘current’ when you mean ‘100+ yr ago’ is a pretty significant grammatical omission. Like mixing up true and false.”
…and not the only ‘correction’.
“@Rushyo You don’t seem to read JAMA, do ya? Heck, check out the coverstory of Newsweek. It will depress ya. Totally daffy. #ten23”
“@HomeopathicDana I don’t read individual journals unless I have a reason. Or I’d be spending my entire wage on mostly irrelevant facts Cite?”
…no reply. Although I had actually happened to read the article in question. I just wondered if he’d offer it up for inspection. Guess I’m not a ‘peer’.
“(who simply don’t know the real research and who are arm-chair philosophers, not real scientists or academicians).”
I am a member of the Chartered Institute of IT’s Academy of Computing and my work is worth millions to the NHS. So an academican and nothing ‘arm chair’ about it. I’ve published a range of software security advisories which were published by the, at the time, largest security advisory network (Milworm) and many, many others. I’m currently programming an operating system for an 8-bit AVR microcontroller and writing a paper for a Health Informatics journal. I am also 22 and I have long, greasy hair. I like moshing and loud music. I love greasy food. Do take your potshots.
“You actually have the audacity to ask complex and academic questions on twitter.”
Audacious: To be uncowed by threats and pressure. To be invulnerable to fear or intimidation.
Should asking a question be met with threats, pressure, fear and intimidation?
Look, it would be very easy to call Dana Ullman a dense, belligerent, petulant, stultifyingly ill-informed tit-a-ma-boob; a blithering mountebank with a massive persecution complex, a complete lack of social skills, an ugly soul, an inability to grasp basic facts, sausage fingers, no mates and a laughably over-inflated sense of his own self-importance.
Fun, too.
[…] award deservedly goes to Huffington Post columnist and self-styled expert on homeopathic medicine Dana Ullman for this gem in his most recent article for HuffPo: “England’s Royal Family has been […]
[…] don’t think McKeith, like so many of her woo peers (Dana Ullman comes to mind), would actually engage with questions about her research. I also doubt whether she […]