Talk:Dana Ullman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 The Wikipedia Community has placed homeopathy and pages subject to related disruption on probation (see relevant discussion).
Editors making disruptive edits may be placed on revert limitation or topic-banned by any uninvolved administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of sanctions, and may be appealed to the Administrators' noticeboard.
An arbitration case, reviewing the results of the probation and various editors of homeopathic articles is currently ongoing. If you would like to participate, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-08-06. The result of the discussion was Keep - nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Dana Ullman, has edited Wikipedia as
DanaUllman (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] References

[edit] Clean up

1, Is this guy notable?

2, What changes to the law did he recommend?

3, Did the 2003 changes have anything to do with him?

4, How does he handle scientific criticisms of homeopathy? eg, his website has personal attacks on people and support in a series of non-contextualised quotes from celebrities.

5, What studies were repeated on the 20/20 show?

6, Shouldn't this be in the bio of living persons thing?

7, When did he create his publishing group?

8, Does his homoeopathic practice, referred to as classical, differ from the widely discredited 200 year old homoeopathic practice, and if so how?

9, Is the 20/20 program related to the BBC Horizon homeopathy debunking?

The above is just a start to making this page in any way useful. 88.172.132.94

These are mostly valid comments, except for (8) which has a definite editorial slant to it. Homeopathy is loved by millions and hated by millions. It has some scientific basis, but mostly experiential results. I will not defend homeopathy here, but nor should some unnamed user be free to get away with slamming it as "widely discredited".

Strubin 01:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this discussion, and question 8 still stands - is his "homoeopathy" different from classical homoeopathy, therefore having no basis in science and has been repeatedly shown to have no effect beyond placebo. He might do it differently, eg by including some behavioural therapy, recommending lifestyle changes, diet changes, and other facets of conventional medicine. Feel free to post your scientific basis and experimental results to my talk page and the homeopathy page. According to the WHO only 500 million people worldwide. The population of India, where homeopathy is most prevalent, is 1.12 billion 88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Celebrity Book

Dana Ullman appears to have written a book about celebrities and historical figures who use homoeopathy. One of these, which he goes on at great length about, is Charles Darwin. It is known from Darwin's letters that although he tried homoeopathy he only did so in order to not upset his friend Dr Gully, and was under no illusions that they would work. He never ascribes any improvement to homoeopathy and several times lambastes it. I can back all this up with references to Darwin's letters online and published, hence this is not origional research. Should this be added to the article? Are any of the other endorsements as fishy as this one is? 88.172.132.94 (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Added 147.171.255.159 —Preceding comment was added at 09:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You are showing bias in referring to Ullman's book, "The Homeopathic Revolution," as a "celebrity book." This book is full of verified stories, with 50+ references in each chapter that show that many of the most respected cultural heroes of the past 200 years have used, said something about, or advocated for homeopathy, including 11 U.S. presidents, 7 popes, Charles Darwin, JD Rockefeller, Charles Kettering, and dozens of leading literary greats. Yes, this book also includes verified references to celebrities, but please, let's not show bias. Ullman has recently written about this in his book in far greater detail than has been written about by skeptics. He has responded online at a skeptic's blog that questioned the skeptic's knowledge of Darwin history. The posts from December 4 and 6 are noteworthy. http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html. As yet, the quackometer has not responded. Based on this more detailed information, the discussion on Ullman's page on Darwin needs to be rewritten. Drwein (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 20/20 section and other recent edits

Per this edit summary[1], I have checked my facts. The only notable disagreement over this experiment came from Ullman himself. Ullman reports that Dr. Ennis concurred with his disagreement, but I can't find any independent verification of this. As a compromise, I'd be happy to link to Ullman's rebuttal of the 20/20 study, and add the text "Ullman objected to the results of the experiment, claiming that the experimental protocol was different than what he initially agreed upon" or something of that nature. We can't appeal to authority using Dr. Ennis' name without independent verification.

Other issues with this edit[2] are the addition of unsourced claims. An earlier version of the article claimed that Ullman lectures regularly at a variety of institutions, but I removed these claims because I was again unable to find any independent verification of this at any of these institutions. This doesn't mean that it's false, just unverifiable. Furthermore, this edit completely broke the formatting of the page, which is something we can change, but it's still ugly. Skinwalker (talk) 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and am unclear on how to change things without others undoing them. I thought that I would first discuss some issues, and perhaps people who know how to make the changes will do so. The information on the 20/20 and BBC show is not correct on several facts. Ullman and Ennis did not simply question the results of the experiment as much as they questioned its design. It is conclusive that this study was designed and conducted by Wayne Turnbull, a medical technologist with no publishing record on basophils (although some respected scientists "oversaw" the experiment, they have never formally asserted that the TV experiment was a "replication of Ennis' experiment," and as such, any reference to these TV experiments as being done by "respected scientists" needs to be verified. Because Ennis is a primary source of her own research, her assertion and Ullman's confirmation of it combine together to create verification (it is acknowledged by both sides that 20/20 contacted Ullman and asked him which was a good experiment to test homeopathy; Ullman recommended Ennis' experiment). It is therefore YOUR requirement to provide evidence for and verification that this experiment was a replication of Ennis' work, which the body of evidence shows otherwise.
Actually, no, the burden of proof is on you, since you want to add material that refutes two otherwise reliable sources. As I've said above, I think it's perfectly OK to add a sentence that says "Ullman objected to the results of the experiment, claiming that the experimental protocol was different than what he initially agreed upon" and cite his essay at homeopathic.org. That way we properly attribute who said what. Unfortunately, the only source for what Dr. Ennis has said on this subject is Ullman, and we can't use him as a reliable source, since his website has no formal fact-checking or editorial oversight. We can, though, use it as a source of his opinion. Skinwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
The present information on these TV experiments on this site is inaccurate, and if people who continue to assert them as factual will be reported to wikipedia unless you verify it as true (this is not the case at present). There were no experiments that 20/20 did in "conjunction" with the BBC. As previously stated, both experiments were designed and conducted by a low-level scientist with no publishing history. Further, it MUST be asserted that Ennis' research was replicated in three other university laboratories, and their combined research was published in a respected peer-review journal:
Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflamm Res 2004; 53:181-8.
Further evidence of serious bias in the present status of this article are the sentences:
"Ullman recommended a biochemistry experiment that had been supposedly been successfully conducted by pro-homeopathic scientists."
The word "supposedly" must be deleted because this study included multiple replications and a total of 2,706 data points, with a p-value of 0.0001, and with an inhibition of degranulation as high as 43%. Further, referring to this study as conducted by "pro-homeopathy" scientists is wrong and again shows bias. Ennis was previously a skeptic of homeopathy, and Cumps, Mannaioni, and Roberfroid have not previously conducted homeopathic research but have published a large body of other studies. Just because a scientists investigates homeopathy does not make them a "pro-homeopathy scientist."
We can compromise on the wording here. I'm ok with deleting the phrase "pro-homeopathy" in light of the lack of other publications on homeopathy by these individuals. "Supposedly" is also a bit of a weasel word. I would instead substitute "Ullman recommended a biochemistry experiment that he indicated had been successfully conducted in the past." Skinwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that these TV experiments were never published anywhere. If you continue to suggest that these experiments were replications of Ennis' work, as the BBC clearly said it was, you must verify this. Ennis and Ullman are primary source people in this information, and this information has been further verified here: http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwein (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, no one but Ullman has objected to the experimental design used by the BBC and 2020. The link you give above simply links to Ullman's essays on the subject. Skinwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, the BBC's program said on air that they sought to replicate the work of Professor Ennis. ABC's 20/20 asked Dana Ullman which experiment was a good test of homeopathy, and he recommended Ennis' experiment. 20/20 Producer, Mark Golden, asked for Professor Ennis' consultation on this study, and when he was informed that the study, developed by medical technologist, Wayne Turnbull, had significantly different and had substantial flaws, Golden didn't encourage Turnbull to change any aspect of the experiment. This is confirmed at:
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,55

http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,60

Ennis has chosen to not talk with the media or to conduct any "tv experiments." Drwein (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
This is unfortunate, because without a reliable source that records her opinion on this matter we can't use it in the article. Please ask me if you have any questions, and please read the policies I've linked to throughout my responses. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just edited this section for coherence, and renamed it to "Television experiments", as "Controversy" seems like an unhelpful title for it, and I'm actually struggling to see any controversy here. He was a (minor?) advisor to a TV program, he recommended the Ennis experiment under the mistaken belief that it produced results, and when they ran it, it produced no results? How is this controversial, or even notable? Or is there more to the story than that? --McGeddon (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darwin stuff

As illuminating, and as accurate, as I find it I can't support the inclusion of this material. We shouldn't be listing every single book Ullman writes (especially new publications that he's trying to sell), and the Darwin info meanders into the realm of the off-topic. A casual reader of this article just isn't going to know that Ullman flogs the Darwin angle constantly in this book. Also, didn't Darwin have Chagas disease or some other horrific tropical ailment? Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Historians are uncertain what specific illness Darwin had, but what is clear from Darwin's letters is that he experienced great improvement under the care of Dr. James Manby Gully, a well-known and respected homeopathic physician who owned a large hydrotherapy established in [Malvern], England.
Just prior to seeking Dr. Gully's care, Darwin was so ill that he could not attend his father's funeral. He wrote that he thought he was dying, "I was not able to do anything one day out of three, & was altogether too dispirited to write to you or to do anything but what I was compelled.­ I thought I was rapidly going the way of all flesh."[3]
Although most of us can and should be initially skeptical about Darwin's experience with Dr. Gully, Ullman's book and his short summary article provide links to Darwin's letters to create substantiation for potentially significant benefits from homeopathic treatment given to Darwin by Gully.. Drwein (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Dana 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's synthesis to use Darwin's diaries as a disproof of a particular marketing claim of Ullman's. It's not even clear how Darwin's scepticism of homeopathy and continued illness disproves or is otherwise relevant to the quoted claim that he "couldn't have written Origin of Species". I see no reason for the "Homeopathic Revolution" section to exist, as it stands. --McGeddon (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but it is a notable part of his book. It is also of interest for us to know with greater certainty what Darwin really made of a treatment he definitely used. I think it is relevant but we need the actual quotes with proper cites NOT speculation. I am not especially bothered either way but I tend to think it is interesting stuff. thanks Peter morrell 11:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means write a section about the book, but it's unencyclopaedic to build up an argued rebuttal from primary sources. If it's a notable part of a notable book, a reviewer or academic will have commented on it, and we should draw from that instead. --McGeddon (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we can all work harmoniously together on this article so as to improve it and keep it NPOV as well. I hope so. thanks Peter morrell 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't thinks it's a synthesis to show that quotes from Darwin directly contradict Ullman's statements. This is a claim Ullman is making on any forum that discusses homeopathy at the moment, and this book is a principle reason for people looking for information about him. By all means add a link to the review by the quackometer.net, but I thought it best to directly refute the claims with no spin at all. I'm in favour of this section being expanded to cover more of his writing, but I only know of this one book by experiance. He also makes an amusing claim that Hitler didn't practice homeopathy, because he didn't dilute enough and there was still some of the original substance (IIRC). I think this section, which should be more generally about his writings, should be kept and expanded. His bio should also be expanded, and maybe the biography moved up the page. A problem is finding sources that aren't blogs, self-penned, self-published, or interviews! Please post them here (in a new section) if you find them. I'll try to join in making this article better as much as I can, but I've come down a bit ill today and it's christmas soon so I won't be devoting much time to it for a while. Merry Christmas! 88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It's synthesis to assert that Darwin's general scepticism disproves (or is relevant to) Ullman's claim that Darwin "could not have written" (whatever that means) Origin of Species without homeopathic treatment. If Ullman's book goes into more detail about this claim, then we can do better than use an exclamation-pointed marketing quote, but even in the case of outright contradiction, it's not Wikipedia's job to publish errata or to comment on otherwise unremarked inconsistencies - we should find existing, reliable sources which comment on them. I'm not sure whether Quackometer meets the requirements for WP:RS, but if it does, we should frame the criticism at least in partial terms of their review. --McGeddon (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1976 arrest

I've removed this section under WP:LIVING, for being unsourced and potentially libellious. It'll need a source before it can go back in, but I've only been able to find mentions of it in interviews with Ullman and in sympathetic write-ups from homeopathy websites that I can't judge the notability of. --McGeddon (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victorian medicine

I too edited this section - there should be no reference to Mr. Ullman practicing homeopathy in the spirit of "Victorian" medicine. Homeopathy is a an art and a science, that, although working it's way through clinical and statistically significant trials, may indeed one day establish itself as the medicine of the future. This of course, in all fairness, will be determined down the road, but to denigrate it by using an antiquated term like "Victorian" is disingenous. No reference I've ever seen in any homeopathic text or in any other homeopathic context, has ever alluded to it as being derived from that era of medicine. Please cite your sources for this. As to Mr. Ullman's arrest, the part I corrected was referenced from a published article - not one written by him. Lack of proper citation by the former poster does little to substantiate his/her claims in this regard.---- --Flagtheerror (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, by no definition is Homeopathy a science. Secondly, the line says like modern medicine, unlike Victorian medicine; so the article says he practices homeopathy in a way like modern medicine - except without the scientific and evidence base. The criticism implied by Dana is valid against Victorian medicine but not modern medicine. Try reading the part you deleted again. Also, and this isn't in the Dana article so is an aside, the inventor of homeopathy was a Victorian doctor, and it therefore is a branch of Victorian medicine. Stop using straw men arguments. You last point makes no sense, so could you elaborate? Thanks 88.172.132.94 (talk)

Queen Victoria came to the throne in 1837 while homeopathy began around 1796 to 1801, therefore no, homeopathy is NOT a form of Victorian medicine. However, it indeed flourished during the 19th century. Homeopathy is entirely an empirical science based on experiments and repeated observations. Study the subject first, thank you. BTW your previous wording in the article is completely unintelligible. Peter morrell 10:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I got my dates wrong about the founding of homeopathy. Although it is right to say it was popular during the Victorian era from 1832 until the arrival of modern medicine in the 19/20th centuries. Samuel Hahnemann was a Victorian doctor though, and I'm willing to substitute 18th Century for Victorian (a common mistake the other way, for which I apologise). This also removes the anglocentric bias.
I still dispute any claim that homeopathy is a science - it is not. Where is the proof of efficacy? What is the mechanism by which it works? What is scientific about "provings", "succussion", and dilution beyond any molecule of the substance remaining. See the article on homeopathy for the lack of supportive science for the billion dollar homeopathic industry.
Is your last comment directed at me or flag the error? Can you be a bit more specific please?
Thanks! 88.172.132.94 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Anglocentric? Victorian? what does this mean? he was German and died in 1843 when Victoria, German by blood, was only 24 yrs old. How can he be called Victorian? it is absurd. Homeopathy is an empirical science period. It is pointless to argue here about this. Your wording is still ambiguous at best. What does that last sentence actually mean??? "which are not deemed applicable for a "local disease";[2] in a similar way to modern medicine (which is scientifically based), as opposed to 18th Century medicine." Stated bluntly: it does not read so well! Peter morrell 11:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Victorian era started in 1832, and is chiefly a commonwealth definition of a period in history, hence Anglocentric. He practised medicine and died in the Victorian era; but this is all irrelevant. I didn't add that sentence, I was trying to remove bias from it. It contains an implied criticism of medicine, and I was trying to make clear that this criticism is of 18th Century/Victorian medicine, not modern evidence based medicine. Feel free to remove that whole line if you really think it's confusing (I don't, but flagtheerror certain seemed confused). As a native English speaker and writer,it is perfectly readable although I agree slightly clumsy. I didnt want to add an extra line as it was already barely on topic.
Homeopathy is not scientific. If you have evidence to the contrary please post it to the homeopathy page and my talk page. We could work together to write a paper about it and win the Nobel prize! Plus the Rand foundation million! That would be great. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed that whole area to try to make it more concise and improve the flow. Thanks 88.172.132.94 (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


88.172.132.94 - you seem very passionate about condemning homeopathy. Are you studying it? Have you some special insight into the practice that we who believe in it and use it, do not? And how to explain the legions of people - some quite famous, who use or used it in the past: the Royal Family, Ghandi, etc. Your background could help explain your repeated undoing of what others have considered your pointed vilification of homeopathy. To characterize it as Victorian is one thing, but to discredit Dana Ullman by repeatedly changing the reference I've added to explain or to give his arrest 30 some years ago, some context -- by pointing out that no one had been arrested since that time for illegally "practicing" homeopathy; those were alternative medicine's early years -- leaves one feeling you might have an agenda. Otherwise, please explain your decidedly aggressive attack on both Mr. Ullman and homeopathy in general. --99.227.136.205 (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defining Homeopathy on this page

The discussion below happened on my talk page, and is partly related to this article:

See User_talk:88.172.132.94#Dana_Ullman

Put here for information about editing that is going on now 88.172.132.94 (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about homeopathy belong on the homeopathy page, not here. If Dana Ullman's practice differs from conventional homeopathy as described on the homeopathy page then add that with references. 88.172.132.94 (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

I'm getting a bit worried about sock-puppet edits to this article by none other than Dana Ullman himself. I will ask him, if it is indeed him, to stop before I take any further action. Thanks 88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would urge Mr Ullman to read Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest. If User:71.139.180.49 is Ullman himself, he should be careful to give the context of edits such as "the results that he received from Dr. Gully’s treatment were significant" and "the result of treatment was unlikely due to a placebo response.", if they are being directly sourced from Ullman's work. It's easy to accidentally echo claims as neutral facts when you've written both the quoted book and the article, and this is one of many reasons why people are dissuaded from editing their own Wikipedia articles. It's fine to cite yourself, but you should be careful to clearly mark such commentary as a quotation. --McGeddon (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to interject, Mr. Ullman is quite aware of our conflict of interest policies. You can read all about it at User_talk:Danaullman. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

WP users these days seem to be obsessed and paranoid about so-called 'sockpuppets,' an American invention no doubt. Anyway, I checked that user and he lives in Texas so I would say it is unlikly to be Mr Ullman as you infer. Merry Xmas! Peter morrell 19:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, sockpuppetry probably is an American invention, since it dates back to the early days of usenet. Mea culpa, on behalf of my disruptive countrymen.
More to the point, the above IP actually traces to the San Francisco Bay Area. AT&T addresses often trace back to their server farms in Texas, but if you read the entire WHOIS listing the end customer is listed, and in this case resolves, roughly albeit, to Ullman's geographic location. Ullman himself has admitted sockpuppetry (see User_talk:Danaullman) and there are many accounts with no edits other than promotional ones to this page. Some good faith should be assumed, but it's getting tiring. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
There do seem to be a lot of pro-Ullman anon IP edits that also bear a striking similarity. I think the time has come to send these off for further investigation. I have reverted to a pre-sockpuppet version, that was also less biased in general. This may have removed a few small good edits for which I apologise. I am of the opinion that Dana Ullman is a self-publicist is not actually worthy of inclusion in wikipedia for numerous reasons. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I find it amusing to read this (and other) sections of the discussion page in which random users with only IP addresses to identify themselves complain about possible Sockpuppetry! And who are you people? Do all of you really exist, or are you all just one person trying to attack Dana Ullman? Let me be clear about my opinion of him: he *IS* a self-promoter. Who isn't? But he has written quite a few books, which is certainly more than most of you. Strubin (talk)

Please try to assume good faith from other editors, even if they haven't published books. --McGeddon (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've written a book (there's copy in the British library) and had several papers published. I don't see how that has any effect on my arguments. Arguments from authority are poor arguments. I choose not to have an account as I don't want one. Used to have one, didn't like it (abandoned, not banned). I don't want to use my real name for personal reasons, and I guess others don't too. The allegations of sockpuppetry were that Dana was editing after being banned. I haven't been banned, and I'd assume that if a checkuser or whatever checks are run, they'd be run on all IPs editing here - so people calling for a check are hardly likely to be puppets themselves. Who are you Strubin? Your name tells us no more about who you are than my IP address. You may have many accounts, you may put a "real" name on your talk page. I don't know because I haven't looked, and even if I did how would I know that's who you really are? And why does it matter unless WP policy is being broken? It doesn't. I'm glad you found the page amusing. I found some of the arguments at times depressing and hilarious. Happy New Year everyone on the DU talk page. I found this page via the excellent Bad Science column by Ben Goldacre. 81.153.131.222 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The following edit has had alot of text removed but i can't really tell if it is or isn't constructive: 23:06, 24 December 2007 86.146.119.116 (Talk) (4,333 bytes) (Reverting to last unbiased version)
212.120.248.128 (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't vandalism 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of law change claims

The law change claims were removed previously as there was no independent evidence that Dana's input had an impact on the changes; only from reports he published on his website or interviews held with Dana, etc. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blanked and problems with blanking and "protection"

Due to edit warring and article issues, both forbidden in BLPs, the page has been stubbified' - reversions to the previous version will be classed as a BLP violation, and possibly vandalism. Will (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer this version. Can we just delete the page now. 86.146.119.116 (talk) 20:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear what the logic to stubbification was. An earlier editor had added NPOV references to Charles Darwin's letters, to a book from Darwin's favorite physician (Dr. James Gully) that verified his use of homeopathic medicines with and without hydrotherapy, and to an interview with Dana Ullman that was published in UC Berkeley's magazine. All of these references were previously requested, and even one person (McGeddon?) who is normally skeptical of homeopathy, approved of the NPOV information and references and simply made minor edits and format improvements. Then, someone vandalized this site by undoing this NPOV without comment. Then, this site was stubbified. Then, this site was "protected." It seems like a lot of energy is going into muting information about Dana Ullman. The fact that 86.146.199.116 prefers this stubbification suggests that this editor has a strong POV, does not want good, referenced information, and prefers that readers remain ignorant. All of the people involved in these efforts need to be reported and investigated. And for the record, yes, I am a friend and admirer of Dana Ullman. 71.198.193.248 (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Correcting blatant POV shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of references; I've said that I wasn't familiar enough with Quackwatch to know how authoratitive it was, only that it was preferable to obvious WP:SYN of Darwin's letters.
Editing an article about a close friend can be as much a breach of conflict-of-interest guidelines as editing an article about yourself - please take a look at WP:COI. --McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The only reference is Dana Ullman, who is not a good source by Wikipedia standards. The Berkeley piece was an interview with him, and his articles on his website are no good either 86.146.119.116 (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong about everything that you just wrote, and considering your strong biases against the man, this is predictable. The link to UC Berkeley's article included an introduction to him written by the editor of the magazine, which includes some information about his arrest for practicing medicine without a license and the victory of his court case. As for the other references, it seems that you didn't even see them. They were to Darwin's letters and to Dr. Gully's book. Considering the fact that I just said these things above, it seems that you are not even reading what others write but only seeing what you want to see. Thanx for showing your colors here. Now that you know the truth, what are you going to do to correct it?71.198.193.248 (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny. Darwin's letters prove that Ullman is wrong! 86.146.119.116 (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Ullman Intro

Intro - BIO

Reverted to old changes since other posters seem to delete information that is easily verifiable and is factually correct. Everything is open to discussion but why remove info that is not at all part of the discussion and in fact, not even deemed contentious? --Flagtheerror (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Ullman as a source

Dana Ullman is not credible as a source, as has been established above. This is includes his websites. Any unsourced or poorly sourced statements must be removed. Happy New Year --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BLP Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Wikipedia:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves may provide some further guidance here. If I understand the guideline correctly, this means that the material in question may be acceptable if it comes from the subject of the article themselves, within certain limits. Regardless, this looks like an edit war and needs to be sorted out between the users involved rather than just continuing to revert each other. If you need help, please consider seeking a Wikipedia:Third_opinion or, if that fails to produce a consensus, follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It would appear that the edit war is about the fact that most of the article was drawn from a single source which was (?) written by Ullman. I would personally argue that this entire article is just not notable. Also it would be nice if the IP(s) would get a user name as it changes periodically and it is confusing to the run of the arguement, and can be construed as gaming the system to avoid WP:3RR. Shot info (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Stephanie is correct: the source is in agreement with Wikipedia policy. Also, all the facts can be verified. Challenging the notability of the topic is something else entirely. As long as it exists, however, Wikipedia policy should be followed. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have only edited as this IP here. Dana's website is not credible, as it is making claims about institutions and other people and organisations --147.171.255.159 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I also agree that this guy is non-notable and this article should be deleted. Can someone start the AFD process? --147.171.255.159 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
How would that make it not credible? Claims about institutions and other people are rather common, and verifiable. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
He claims that other institutions etc have given him positions, honours, praise, support, etc, which must be verified independently. I also would ask someone to start the deletion process, which I would support. Also, can Guido please refrain from making unsupported accusations on contributors talk pages and assume good faith. I am not engaged in an edit war, as is clearly shown by the history and diffs --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't need to be verified. First of all, his website is not a Wikipedia article, so Wikipedia rules don't apply to it. Relevant are only those statements that are included in the article, but those don't need to be verified by us either. It is sufficient that they can be verified. With regard to the warning: this is Wikipedia policy. New users must be made aware of WP:3RR first before they can be reported for violating it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes they need to be indpendently verified. How about I write on my website that I have a nobel prize and two professorships from Oxford, and then that gets put on wikipedia? Surely you'd want something from Oxford and maybe some newspaper reports to back it up? Your argument is poor and incorrect. Also, the 3RR applies to over 3 reverts being made in under 24 hours, where have I come close to that? Maybe in future you should save your warnings for the third revert in 24 hrs, and assume good faith. Note I haven't threatened you for your reverts. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unreal as to why this particular paragraph offends some. You're on a mission that's for sure if you are deleting simple info that can be easily verifiable. How threatening is this simple account? And the concept of no more than 3 reverts in the 24 hour period is not being honoured. Wonder why the censors have not given 88.172 a warning. For someone who obviously disdains anything homeopathic, why monitor this article 24/7? Just what is your M.O.? --Flagtheerror (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

They have not been verified to be true. The University of Berkeley and the US department referred too might disagree, or they might not. His word alone is not good enough. Find a ref that is external to Dana Ullman and these edits can stand. How have you verified it except by looking at his website? If you've got other sources please disclose them --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the other way around. Until there is evidence that the facts taken from the source are wrong, they are assumed to be correct. So the job is yours. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to WP:V, the burden of evidence is on the person who adds material, not people disputing the verifiability. As stated, if reliable, third-party sources are not supplied, they should be removed, especially in an article on a living person. Also, as stated here, you can't use self-published sources if the article is based primarily on those sources. In this case, this article only has self-published sources. This article is a perfect AfD candidate. -- Atamachat 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, the external link that I added provides plenty of independent information. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The ref you added is to Dana Ullman's website. It is external to wikipedia, but not independent or third party (or reliable!) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Either way, Guido your arguments are backward; you can't rely on this guy's own written words as references (primarily) and the people adding info have to prove that it's verified, other people don't have to prove that it's not. By the way, I'm not taking sides here (I don't care one way or the other about the article's subject), just pointing out Wikipedia's policies. -- Atamachat 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We can rely on them, by Wikipedia policy, since it is not the only source. The publications have ISBN numbers, for instance, which is full proof of their existence. That said, it's not so hard to find further confirmation of reliability, e.g. [4]. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has nothing to do with the book list. The website you provide says that he has published 9 books, this is not disputed. And presented something about nanopharmacology and homeopathy (which are in no way linked, as he well knows). Should we list every speaking engagement someone has had? It backs up maybe one of the claims, although it would need heavy rewording, and it should say he gave a talk for this forum, not the university. Anyway, can someone start the deletion review process? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Certainly we should not make such a list, but neither should 'we' assume that because we found confirmation of one, no confirmation of others exists. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Guido, can you respond to the points raised by Atama above? Shot info (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe I already have. It's not the only source, so the exception does not apply. If a guy can write 8 books on a topic, it's not too much of a stretch to think that he might indeed have chaired some conferences that were held by his own center. On the contrary, doubting that borders on the ridiculous.
Now, whether all of that constitutes sufficient notability, I have no idea. On nl:Wikipedia I have seen local rock bands with one published single accepted and scientists of international fame with a hundred publications rejected. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting...) Unfortunately, we can't draw such conclusions, that because Ullman writes so many books he must have chaired conferences. As much as that seems like common sense, our sources have to be explicit. If we make assumptions, that's considered original research. -- Atamachat 00:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh). We don't have to draw conclusions. We have a source, one that we should consider reliable according to Wikipedia policy as explained by Stephanie. Going in circles here. Guido den Broeder (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Stephanie is correct provided that the self-published sources don't weigh too heavily in the article. Let's say that you have 10 sourced statements, if a couple of them are backed up by items that Ullman wrote I'd think that it doesn't violate WP:V. Keep in mind, too, if those statements are controversial they will also fail as references (they cannot be contentious). And I'd like to stress again that the burden will always fall on the editor wanting to add material to the article to provide verification, a person objecting to the material does not have to prove that it is unverifiable (sorry if I sound like a broken record here). Those sources should not be dismissed just because they came from Ullman however, provided that all else in WP:V is satisfied. -- Atamachat 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
One other thing I forgot to mention... One compromise to consider when adding such information is to add qualifiers instead of presenting something as fact. For example, you might begin a statement with, "Ullman claims that..." You would then only have to provide evidence that Ullman himself asserts that it is true. Of course we still want to be careful to avoid weasel words when possible. -- Atamachat 00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
That is, indeed, the sensible way out of this dispute. Something like "Ullman indicates" should do IMHO. The mentioned facts are, after all, not so enormous that we should go out of our way to source it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

This article has repeatedly been targeted by some individuals who do not respect homeopathy. Attempts to delete this article, or wipe out almost all the existing content, have repeatedly occurred. I would suggest that this nonsense stop. Dana Ullman has been a very well known author on the subject of homeopathy for decades. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced statements have to be removed, as per WP:BLP. What does respect for homeopathy have to do with this article? The subject is Dana Ullman, who may (or may not) be notable amongst some homeopaths, but he is not in general a notable person. The problem of finding any reliable, secondary sources is a testament to that. Remember to Assume Good Faith. Let's try to either discuss how to improve the article, or other methods (such as AFD) of solving this dispute. --RDOlivaw (talk)

It is not considered appropriate to change the heading title on a Discussion page, as RDOlivaw did when he added "Accusations of" to the heading title I created. It is also, in my opinion, inappropriate to keep removing entire sections of an article using the excuse that the sections contain "Unsourced or poorly sourced statements". As I have observed in the history of this article, when sources have been provided these have repeatedly been rejected as not good enough. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Arion, according to the guidelines you should keep all topic headings neutral and not criticize the article in them. RDOlivaw was correct in their edit. Your opinion also about removing sections of an article is contrary to the policy that improperly sourced material must be deleted immediately. You should read the very first infobox on the top of this talk page. -- Atamachat 19:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The topic heading of this section conveys what I believe is widely accepted: censorship has no place in Wikipedia. I again repeat my observation of the editing history of this article, "when sources have been provided these have repeatedly been rejected as not good enough." Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are more specific perhaps we can address your concerns. What information, and what sources. Provide diffs for the information and list the sources you think are appropriate. Please AGF, and do not make unsubstantiated claims. Try to be constructive. There has been no censorship, and you can see the full history. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Just having sources isn't enough. The sources have to be good, especially with a biography of a living person. -- Atamachat 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed content

I would like to propose the addition of the following content to the article:

In May, 1976, Dana Ullman was arrested for practicing medicine without a license in Oakland, California.[1] In March, 1977, he reached a settlement with the court that allowed him to practice homeopathy as long as he did not diagnose or treat disease and referred to medical doctors for diagnosis and treatment of disease.[2] [3] Ullman's court case, reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, referred to it as a "pioneering" agreement. Under the governorship of Jerry Brown, the medical board hired Ullman to consult with them on rewriting the medical practices act. At present, the law in California now allows unlicensed health care practitioners to practice homeopathy and other alternative treatments.[4] Instead of maintaining a clinical practice, Ullman used his training at the School of Public Health at the University of California Berkeley to work as a health educator specializing in homeopathic medicine and integrative health care.
Dana Ullman also participated in the development of the holistic health movement. He served as an editor of the Holistic Health Review, one of the earliest peer-review journals in the field (published by Human Science Press, 1977-81). In 1980, he co-chaired a conference in Washington, DC, entitled "Holistic Health: Policies in Action" that was co-sponsored by two federal health agencies.[5] He organized a conference for U. C. Berkeley entitled "Conceptualizing Energy Medicine" [6]

I have placed the References at the top of this page to facilitate comments. I welcome your comments. Arion 3x3 (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 questions regarding this information, which on the surface seems sourced well enough. Firstly, what is notable about him being arrested for practicing medicine without a license, did it cause some law to change? What impact did it have? I'm sure people get arrested for practicing without a license all the time. Secondly, what is important about Holistic Health Review? I can't find anything about it on the web. Surely people who practice homepathy have web sites, why is it not discussed about anywhere? I don't see anything in that information that would look notable on a resume, let alone Wikipedia. -- Atamachat 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, few people are actually arrested for practicing medicine without a license, and even fewer win court settlements. What is also important about Ullman's court case was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, referred to it as a "pioneering" agreement. Under the governorship of Jerry Brown, the medical board hired Ullman to consult with them on rewriting the medical practices act. At present, the law in California now allows unlicensed health care practitioners to practice homeopathy and other alternative treatments. The primary lobbying effort for this legislative change was done by another homeopath, John Melynchuk. [5]

Secondly, you will not find a lot of info about the Holistic Health Review because it was one of the earliest peer-review journals in the alternative medicine field, but my recent google search found numerous references to it, despite the fact that it existed from 1977-1981. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't include the SF Chronicle's information without a reference, if you can find the article and cite it then it could add some context to his arrest, explaining why it's important. However, remember you can't connect the dots yourself, you'd need a good reference showing that Ullman made a solid contribution toward the California legislation before making such a claim, otherwise it's original research. But if you can do that, it goes a long way to showing why Ullman is notable and toward making this a good article.
As to the Holistic Health Review, I can find maybe 4 hits on Google for it, and those are just referring to it, I can find literally nothing on the web actually talking about it. I don't know how easy it will be to establish its notability. -- Atamachat 07:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I did cite the SF Chronicle: Katy Butler, Pioneer Health-Care Accord, San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 1977 - just look at the references at the top of this page. As for Holistic Health Review hits on Google, there are numerous publications from just the last few decades which are not on the web yet, so Google will not show them. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Did Dana's involvement in the consultation lead to the law change? The text proposed implies this. If I remember correctly the law change a long time after Dana's court case. I don't think the word "pioneering" should be included, and the following sentences are ungrammatical. I'd propose removing the sentence "Ullman's court case, reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, referred to it as a "pioneering" agreement." and adding the ref to the end of "Under the governorship of Jerry Brown, the medical board hired Ullman to consult with them on rewriting the medical practices act, which led to the law being changed" if we can find a ref that says that Dana is responsible, or "Under the governorship of Jerry Brown, the medical board hired Ullman to consult with them on rewriting the medical practices act, which didn't result in a change. However, the law was subsequently changed (for other reasons? ref?) ... and currently one does not need a license to practice alternative medicine in California". We need proof that he was involved directly, you see. I don't know what the ref says so I don't know which is accurate, but going on the date of the ref probably the no change version. Also, who is Jerry Brown - that part needs expansion and support. If it's redrafted with these comments taken into account it may be worth another look --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, chairing talks etc. isn't particularly noteworthy, even those funded by the government --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

First . . . despite the age of the HOLISTIC HEALTH REVIEW (1977-1981), there are a reasonable number of hits on Google if you type in the name of this journal.

Second, the SF Chronicle referred to the court settlement as "pioneering." It is totally appropriate to refer to it as "pioneering." This was not Dana Ullman saying this. This is a reliable 3rd party source (in the headline!).

Under the governorship of Jerry Brown, the California medical board appointed Ullman to consult with them on rewriting the medical practices act, which didn't result in a change, until 2003, when fellow homeopaths successfully lobbied for changes in the law in which one does not need a license to practice alternative medicine in California. To clarify, Dana Ullman did not simply "chair" a panel or a conference; he was the co-organizer of it and the co-editor of the conference's proceedings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Arion, if you just type "Holistic Health Review" into Google, sure, you get over 2 million hits. That's because Google is returning hits of all web pages with the words "holistic", or "health", or "review" in them. If you do a search for the phrase "Holistic Health Review" and add the word magazine, to give an accurate result, you get 9 pages. Looking at those 9 pages, you'll find that only 4 of them are actually referencing the magazine, and even those 4 are just referencing it out-of-hand, not actually discussing it. I see nothing establishing the notability of the magazine, and it's not notable just because it's old. From what I can see it's not worth having in the article.
If you actually quote the SF Chronicle to provide context for the "pioneering" label, that might help establish some notability. As to the appointment by Governor Brown, by your own admittance Ullman's consultation didn't result in a change until much later, so unless you have a source saying that Ullman had a direct impact on the legislation, it's original research. So far, however, I'm afraid that this text doesn't do much to establish notability for Dana Ullman.
I think you can do a lot better. An example of a good source is ABC News which declares that Dana Ullman is "homeopathy's foremost spokesman". Time Magazine calls him the "leading proselytizer of homeopathy". I consider those very reliable sources, you can link to them, and they're showing that he's not just some random homeopath who wrote a few books. You should build off of that kind of information. I don't think that Ullman isn't notable, I just don't think that it has been established well enough yet. -- Atamachat 17:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions for ABC News and Time Magazine. I have incorporated them into the article. Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome and I think the article's off to a good (re)start. -- Atamachat 23:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of conferences

I cannot see why the following sentence is notable and included in the article: "In 1980, he co-chaired a conference in Washington, DC, entitled "Holistic Health: Policies in Action" that was co-sponsored by two federal health agencies.[5] He organized a conference for U. C. Berkeley entitled "Conceptualizing Energy Medicine" [6]" There is nothing notable about either of these things. I also question whether the conference was organised for UC Berkeley; I believe it was actually organised for/by a forum at UCB. This is a big difference, as the current text implies UCB invited him to organise it, and hence sanction him and his opinions. The reference is also to Dana's own publication; surely there is a 3rd party ref? --RDOlivaw (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Google searching for these events brings up references only to Dana's bio on his site and similar. Are there any 3rd part refs for them, and any details on who organised, which groups were involved, etc. Even if these are found, I still think the sentence "Dana has organised and chaired several conferences on homeopathy and alternative medicine" is preferable to what there is now. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a 3rd party reference to the "Conceptualizing Energy Medicine" conference: [6]

The holistic health conference is notable for several important reasons:

  • its sponsorship by several federal agencies
  • it took place in 1980, an early part of the modern age of alternative medicine

As for a reference to the Holistic Health Review being one of the earliest peer-review journals, it was published by Human Sciences Press, a now-defunct publisher of peer-review journals. There are a dozen + references on Google to "Holistic Health Review". Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak reference to the conference, it's just a doctor listing it as a conference that he went to once. It only establishes that it exists which I don't think is in question. Remember too that the time that an event occurred doesn't change its notability, so its occuring in 1980 doesn't make it notable. Now, as to the Holistic Health Review... No, there aren't more than a dozen references. If you can link those pages that reference the magazine it would be appreciated, but I guarantee you won't be able to because you are just looking at the hits without looking at the pages to see if there are really referencing the magazine, or if they just match your search criteria. Also, remember that notability is not temporary, if something has been forgotten over the years as that magazine has, then it is not notable. I'm afraid we just can't include information about that conference or magazine because both fail WP:N. -- Atamachat 21:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Sponsorship by federal agencies really isn't notable. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
No one (yet) has said so, but I think that you're living on a different planet if you think that sponsorship by federal agencies isn't notable. It was extremely rare for them to have co-sponsored conferences on holistic health in the early 80s (or at any time). It is easier to get medical schools to co-sponsor conferences (because they bring continuing medical education credit with their sponsorship). This information beckons a response. Dana Ullman Talk 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Just my 2c worth, sponsorship by federal agencies isn't notable unless there are sources that clearly and unambigiously say so (per WP:RS). Otherwise we fall once again into OR territory. Shot info (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Quotation Request: 1977 San Francisco Chronicle

Can somebody please provide the quote for the following source:

Thanks so much. TableMannersC·U·T 06:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the quotation request is important is because without some reliable source noting the arrest, it is undue weight to include it in this article, as well as original research. I am going to remove the section pending verification of the San Francisco Chronicle material. TableMannersC·U·T 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the article per WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH.
In May, 1976, Dana Ullman was arrested for practicing medicine without a license in [[Oakland]], California.<ref name="courtcase">''The State of California vs. Gregory Dana Ullman'', Municipal Court Oakland Piedmont Judicial District, 98158, March 29, 1977</ref>{{or|date=January 2008}} In March, 1977, he reached a settlement with the court that allowed him to practice homeopathy as long as he did not diagnose or treat disease, and referred to medical doctors for diagnosis and treatment of disease.<ref name="courtcase" /> <ref>Katy Butler, Pioneer Health-Care Accord, San Francisco Chronicle, March 30, 1977.</ref>{{Request quotation|date=January 2008}}
I will go look for alternative sources. Meanwhile, if somebody other than the subject can provide a quote from the SFC article, that would be useful. TableMannersC·U·T 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, Dana Ullman seems to wear the arrest as a badge of honor. For example, he states "After four years, I actually was honored to be arrested for practicing medicine without a license" at Dr. Redwood Interviews Dana Ullman. See also I was arrested 30 years TODAY for practicing medicine without a license!. Without some other secondary reliable source establishing the notability of this arrest, it should not go into the article. TableMannersC·U·T 03:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Board of Medical Quality Assurance

Is Dana's appearance here notable? Was he invited to talk, or did he ask to talk? Was it a public forum or could only selected people talk? There isn't enough information to work out whether this is really worthy of inclusion. It looks like he just appeared as "an homeopath" and gave his opinion. Was he on the board or have any extra powers? Was this meeting specifically about Ullman, or homeopathy, alt. med., or just a general meeting? --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was one of 25 or so invited consultants to a series of four weekend conferences that was sponsed by the state medical board. The medical board even covered my expenses and gave me a per diem. I was not "on the medical board" nor does the bio say or suggest this. The meeting was not about me, but it was about the legal definition of medicine, which was made to be a controversial subject after my court case and with the emergence of "holistic health care" (this is what we today refer to as alternative medicine or integrative health care). There was another SF Chronicle article about this and will suggest a reference for this shortly. Dana Ullman Talk 13:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can provide a ref that would be great. If it's not online could you post the relevant information for us to check? Thanks --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Television experiments

The old text of the television experiment section seemed a bit better than what is there now. Perhaps they can be merged, while keeping Dana centre: "On January 30, 2004, the ABC program 20/20, asked Dana Ullman to suggest a laboratory experiment that their program could independently conduct as a way to test the legitimacy of homeopathy. Ullman recommended the Ennis experiment, because it had been conducted by four university laboratories and published in a peer-reviewed journal.[3] The result of 20/20's recreation of the experiment, as advised by Dana Ullman, was negative.[4]" A link to water memory and the horizon program with Randi might be relevant also. Perhaps some mention of John Stossel criticising Ullman is also required, as a quote from him is used as a puff in the lead. --RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I was previously assumed (incorrectly) that I could not participate on my own Discussion page, but I was recently told that there are no COI problems if I do so. So, hello. Thank you for placing info on the 20/20 program here. Others sought to do so previously, but this material got deleted. I'm sure that this new information will suffer similarly unless a NPOV is provided. To learn more about this TV experiment, I invite you to a summary about what I think that 20/20 got right and what serious problems in journalism and science they committed.[7] This TV experiment was not simply "flawed;" I contend and show that it was "junk science." You are welcome to assert that "Ullman contends." However, I hope that others do simply not quote from me, but also quote Professor Madeleine Ennis, one of the original experimenters.[8] Although I will participate on the Discussion page, I will not do so on the article page, unless it is a minor and uncontroversial edit. Dana Ullman Talk 12:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
We can't quote Ennis as she has refused to comment, and the veracity of that email is questionable. It is also a response to hearsay, from another unreliable source (Milgrom). Do you have any refs/citations for your claims, ones that you haven't written and aren't on your website? Please note that I didn't add this material. I'd also have to say that scientifically your opinion is invalid, as other scientists said that the procedures were fair (it's not just up to Ennis), and other homeopaths also said it was fair until after the results were shown --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Off topic, but related. I put the information about the challenge below the biography. It is important to establish the biography of Ullman before the challenge is discussed. Hope that doesn't tread on anyone's toes. Baegis (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree - that's where it used to be. Perhaps the old text and the new stuff can be merged (keeping more of the old maybe?) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's one reference that is not a link to my site: [7]. I hope to have other links soon. I also have a copy of the specific protocol that Wayne Turnbull used that he sent to me on Guy Hospital stationary. Is that of interest to anyone? I can fax it or email it to someone. Dana Ullman Talk 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An edit removed the section on WP:SYN grounds.[8] As this is not synthesis, I restored the paragraph. I've also notified the person who deleted the content to participate here. TableMannersC·U·T 02:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that paragraph is that it appears as a POV editorial implying that homeopathy is worthless, and combines WP:SYN derisive comments from James Randi (who appointed him the spokeman of science?) to emphasize that point. That type of argumentation does not even belong in a neutral article on homeopathy, let alone in a biographical article about one of the most prominent authors of homeopathic books in the last several decades. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles can and do use reliable sources that are POV, or seem POV. The question is whether or not the content accurately represents the reliable source. If the source appears POV, it doesn't matter. See WP:NPOV. TableMannersC·U·T 04:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does matter. Insertion of such a paragraph that is presented with a POV that ridicules homeopathy, and by extension, all who dare speak of the efficacy of homeopathic medicine, is simply wrong. It is wrong on NPOV grounds, and it is wrong on the grounds that this is a bio article. This is not an article by a "skeptic" in some magazine writing about homeopathy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's seek other views on the matter. TableMannersC·U·T 06:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The memory of water controversy is addressed by this page of the London South Bank University, which provides links to Dana Ullmann's site, stating "Although a scientific trial of homeopathy conducted for the BBC and similar work reported on ABC News' 20/20 program both failed to show any homeopathic effect, the experiments they reported have been subject to serious criticism including that of careless scientific methodology." . 82.54.82.238 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Medical Law Change in 2003: SB-577

Just a quick check for consensus, but I think it's fair to say that since the consultation over California state medical law took place 20 years before the law was actually changed, that we should not imply in the article that Dana actually had a direct impact on changing the law. At least not without a significant source saying so. I'd rather state on the one hand that he was consulted, but on the other hand it didn't change until many years later and let the reader draw their own conclusions. I'd also like to avoid something POV that implies that the consultation "failed" to change the law, or that it didn't have any impact. -- Atamachat 01:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that such clarification would be helpful. Arion 3x3 (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
...And it has been changed again. It now says once again that Dana's consultation led to no change in the law, which as I suggested before was a POV opinion. How do we know that his consultation didn't lead to a change in the law? As far as we know, when they considered changing the law in 2003 they used the information from 20 years ago to help make the decision. We don't know if it led to the change, and we don't know if it didn't. Without a source showing either case the only proper thing to do is to state (as it did before) that the consultation occured, the law didn't change at the time, but it did change 20 years later. To state otherwise without evidence is wrong. Also, the past-tense form of the verb "lead" is "led". -- Atamachat 17:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It might be easier to find this section if it had a meaningful title. The facts are all laid out in the consultation documents published in Calif. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I could have named the section more properly. I've renamed it. I'll look at those documents later, if they point one way or the other we can change the article to reflect that. -- Atamachat 18:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking at the article again, reading the whole section and I think it's fair enough because it does mention that the law was eventually changed. To go any farther, as in declaring that the consultation really did affect the law change 20 years later would require verification. I don't have any objection to the article as it is. -- Atamachat 22:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Water memory controversy

Does the water memory controversy covered by John Stossel of 20/20 fame warrant inclusion in this article on a spokesperson for homeopathy? See Stossel: Homeopathic Remedies 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes The fact that a national television program covered this in the context of Dana Ullman per WP:DUE. TableMannersC·U·T 06:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mark Golden (one of 20/20's producers) called me to inquire if there was a study that had been previously conducted that was a good test that homeopathic doses work (this study was never a test of "water memory"--it was a test of homeopathic doses of histamine and their effects on basophils, a type of white blood cell). I proposed that Professor Ennis' test was a good one because it had been conducted at four university laboratories. Mark Golden and I talked with Ennis via phone in his office. Golden promised to have the experimenter send her the protocol. Just prior to the conducting of the experiment by medical technologist Wayne Turnbull of Guys Hospital, Ennis was finally sent the protocol of the experiment. She alerted me that this study was not hers at all and had several significant flaws.[9] Golden was as surprised as I was, but he decided to continue with the experiment ("the show must go on"), and unlike the BBC's report, 20/20's report never said that this study was a "replication" of anything previously conducted (they knew that this wasn't true). Stossel instead assured the viewers that 20/20's "experts" (various quackbusters) had confirmed that their study was "good" and well-controlled. None of the experts that 20/20 used had previously conducted studies on basophils and were not experts on this particular trial. Other letters from participants in the trial are at: [10] I realize that some of you may think this information is "suspect" simply because it is at my website, but I invite people to read these links yourself and make your own judgment of their veracity. Dana Ullman Talk 08:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Danaullman, I just prefixed your coment with Comment. I hope this is okay. TableMannersC·U·T 14:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I think it's notable and should be included, but I think the wording needs some work. I've just made some changes. I'm afraid most of Dana's arguments are hearsay, biased, and also wrong. --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I agree with RDO about this one. Dana's opinions on the test being "flawed" are just opinions. The link to the BBC article was a good inclusion. Links from his website about the experiment would be highly suspect if added. Baegis (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • NO This is a bio article, not a discussion of the pros and cons of evidence for homeopathy. Also, placing links on a bio article to the subject's web site is a common feature of Wikipedia. To deliberately prohibit and delete such links would be "highly suspect". Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you want to take my comment out of context, lets try to make me say something good, eh? I didn't say that we shouldn't link to his website. One link to his website is perfectly acceptable and could be placed. Frankly, the 20/20 thing is what made him notable to a much wider audience and it doesn't weigh the pros and cons of homeopathy, by any stretch of the imagination. It was a notable trial in which Ullman was involved and even featured. However, his thoughts on the trial in question, could best be summed up by reading over RDOlivaw's comment above. Links to his own criticisms of said study serve little to no purpose. Self-pub. Baegis (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why would it be "highly suspect" if it's discussed here first? Why the quote marks? No one has suggested removing such links as they aren't in the article. Your No and it's reasoning seems to have little to do with the topic at hand --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Baegis just wrote: "I didn't say that we shouldn't link to his website." Yet in that very same entry and his above that, he wrote:
(a) "Links to his own criticisms of said study serve little to no purpose."
(b) "Links from his website about the experiment would be highly suspect if added."
I cannot fathom why you would deny that you wrote that we should not link to Ullman's web site, and then you went ahead and repeated that assertion again. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
He didn't say that links to Ullman's site cannot be included. This is highly off topic --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm voting in favor because it's the most notable thing about this article. At least as far as we've dug up so far, this "water controversy" is probably the best piece of information that gives this article "substance" and differentiates Ullman from being just another homeopath (no offense to Dana, I'm speaking from my understanding of Wikipedia policies). It's easily verifiable (the fact that it happened). Sometimes with Wikipedia, no publicity is bad publicity. -- Atamachat 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes and No -- A short mention on the controversy would be useful, but the bulk should be moved to the article dealing with Water memory ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 3rd party reference to tv science = junk science -- in case some of you don't see some of my comments below. This link by a respected professor of water sciences has confirmed the veracity of the email that I received from Professor M. Ennis that there were serious and fatally flawed differences in this "tv experiment" as compared with the real published studies by Ennis [11]. Further, this section should be called "TV Experiments on Homeopathy" -- because neither of these two studies have been published (for obvious reasons), they should be referred to a "TV Experiments." Dana Ullman Talk 20:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FASEBJ: The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

The following links have been brought to our attention by Dana on the Potassium dichromate talk page: Criticism by the editor of Homeopathy and Dana specifically [12], Dana's right-to-reply [13], and the FASEB response [14]. I think these would make worthy additions, the original article passes the notability, verifiability and reliable source guidelines, and they would restore balance to the puff nature of some parts of the article. --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the criticisms in the article are very important --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Water memory controversy" paragraph

Dana did NOT say what John Stossel's article claimed that he said. Anyone who saw that ABC program can verify that. That just shows how unreliable so-called "reliable sources" can be. First of all, a 12C potency of a homeopathic preparation is made by placing one part of a medicinal substance in 100 parts water, and the 12C potency is simply repeating that dilution and vigorous agitation (succussion) process 12 times - in other words 12 test tubes! How anyone could equate 12 test tubes of water with the Atlantic Ocean is very creative math and simply misinformation. This frequently used metaphor is sloppy statistics and a distortion of the facts of how homeopathic medicines are manufactured. The information on the TV experiment should not be a part of the article until some type of consensus is provided in the discussion. Arion 3x3 (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You should go and read about how dilution works. You obviously don't understand. --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
RDOoivaw...actually, Arion is absolutely correct. To make a 12C requires 12 bottles of testtubes. He (and I) know what we are talking about, and it is now obvious that you and anyone who uses that incorrect ("creative") math isn't. Dana Ullman Talk 16:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
He obviously wasn't commenting on the fact that 12 test tubes are required, but rather to Arion 3x3's comment "How anyone could equate 12 test tubes of water with the Atlantic Ocean is very creative math and simply misinformation". We are not equating these two things, but saying the level of dilution is such that it is less than a dilution equivalent (which is different to equal) to a dilution of 1 molecule in a body of water the size of the Atlanic ocean. This is fairly basic stuff. Your personal attacks are becoming tiresome. The number of test tubes and whether you shake it or not make no difference to the level of dilution, and no sane homeopath would claim otherwise. What does maths have to do with your use of different test tubes? (Do they count as different if you wash them, or do you have to blow a new tube every time you make something?) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Every "sane homeopath" will concur with what I wrote. I stand by its accuracy. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

88...I'm not clear how my above statement is a "personal attack" against you, but my apology if it seemed offensive to you (that was not my intent). You made an inaccurate statement, and I (and others) have corrected you, but for unknown reasons, you choose to take it personally. For the record, homeopathic medicines require both dilution and succussion, and there is a significant body of research from professors of chemistry, physics, and material scientists that show physical changes in the water that differentiate it from regular water. When you say that it makes "no difference" whether you shake it or not, you are showing a gap in your knowledge about this subject. And once again, the 12C potency requires 12 testtubes' worth of water, THAT is all. No reference to the Atlantic Ocean should be in this biography, especially since I never said or implied this. Dana Ullman Talk 20:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I found a solid reference from the New Scientist on Ennis' assertion that the BBC's study was flawed.[Robert Matthews,TV homeopathy trial was 'flawed', New Scientist, December 07, 2002] The BBC and 20/20 used the same experimenter (Wayne Turnbull) in the same hospital (Guys Hospital). Ennis' analysis on this experiment as flawed was based on the limited number of trials that were conducted. At that time in 2002, she was not shown the protocol used. When she was finally shown the protocol before the 20/20 experiment, she gave a more detailed analysis as to why this experiment was seriously flawed. With this new reference, the text must now make reference to the assertion by Ennis that the TV experiment was flawed. Dana Ullman Talk 22:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your ref is to a news story in New Scientist, not an article, remarking on the fact that you claim the study is flawed. We know you claim this, and it's in the article. This ref doesn't change anything. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not defending the current wording of the article, I agree with RDO that it needs improvement. But you are incorrect in your understanding of dilutions and concentrations. I explained it quite clearly. You are also wrong in your "great body of evidence claim". It is hard to debate with your when you say things that are clearly false. When you dilute things, using the homeopathic method, to a homeopathic potency greater than 12C there is none of the original substance left. Whether the water remembers or not is irrelevant to this argument, as is whether homeopathy works or not. It is a fact that you cannot argue with. The Atlantic ocean thing is an analogy, and I think it could be dealt with easily by a link to the potency section of the homeopathy article. I, and RDO, never asserted that you needed an Atlantic oceans worth of water. The dilution method done, using 12 test tubes of water, produces a dilution that is equivalent to a drop in the ocean. There is no gap in my knowledge, and I am aware that a form of "water memory" has been shown to exist for periods less that 50fs. I have not made an inaccurate statement, but both you and Arion have, and seem to have completely misrepresented or misunderstood my arguments. I also never claimed you insulted me, but you make statements that are insulting to people who don't agree with you. If you still don't understand what I'm saying about dilution, please ask about which part you find confusing. I think if you could understand this it might help us to understand each other more. Remember, the level of dilution isn't an attack on homeopathy. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That was a solid change there, uh, Mr. 88. A link to the potencies section of the homeopathy is quite appropriate and a good call to ease some tensions. And with regards to the other contributers, they would be well advised to not resort to straw men in order to argue their points. Baegis (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that New Scientist reference is important because it asserts that the BBC's study was flawed, and at present, the article doesn't include this important fact. Further, the "independent experts" assumed that the BBC's study was a "repeat" of Ennis' study (and the BBC's program said it was), but Ennis now claims that this simply is not true. Junk science = junk journalism = GIGO. Dana Ullman Talk 00:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

3 things. 1) Ennis never says anything about the study being flawed in the article in question. She merely mentioned that the Horizon experiment was incapable of making any kind of definitive conclusion, due to the size, at least according to the article. 2) It was a quick news story that barely took up any space (what, 500 words?). 3) Frankly, New Scientist isn't exactly a sterling example of an RS, at least when it comes to judging scientific trials. Baegis (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that "TV science" isn't the same as "research science", they do small experiments to demonstrate things rather than to prove them. It might become junk science if you try to publish it, or if the experiment is so awful that many expert scientists in the field complain (for example, see the BBCs recent apology over the Parorama Wi-Fi scare stories). However, Ennis has only said that these experiments weren't replications of hers, which is fine for "TV science". She also isn't the final arbiter on all things related to her work. Other scientists in the field, and other homeopaths, said the test was fair. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Most people assumed "good faith" from the BBC and 20/20. I personally was shocked to discover that the tv experiment wasn't a replication of Ennis' work, especially in the light of the fact that the BBC clearly asserted that it was. I am still surprised that the article HERE still asserts that the BBC's test was valid and that it disproved homeopathy. Which homeopaths considered either of these studies to be "fair," and do they know the differences between the real studies (the published ones) and the tv experiments? (I'm not just talking about the number of trials, but HOW the experiments were conducted.) Does anyone out there really still consider these tv experiments to be a RS? As for the New Scientist being a RS, there is a lot of support that it IS an RS. Dana Ullman Talk 15:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The New Scientist is a RS, but the news article is not a peer-reviewed science article, and your complaint is already in the article. The TV experiments are notable, and the BBC page and 20/20 page are reliable sources for those programs, and verify the points made. --RDOlivaw (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated reverting of biographical info

In my opinion, there is no justifiable reason for the continual reverting of this bio info that I've added twice, and had it reverted twice:

Beside the books listed below, his writings have also appeared in The Western Journal of Medicine, Social Policy, Utne Reader, The Futurist, and The Reader's Digest Family Guide to Natural Medicine. He has written many texts for consumers and professional homeopaths. Dana Ullman served on the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons and was asked to serve as a consultant to Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness. Dana is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals. Some of the schools he has appeared at include U.C.S.F. School of Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Duke Medical School, U.C. Berkeley, New York University, and University of Illinois.[9]

Copy violation has been used as one "reason". What is the purpose of this repeated deleting of relevant bio info in a bio article? Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why not to included biographical information which is properly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of Dana's bio article has again been deleted! Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Almost all of the article was about Homeopathy. I kept all of the biographical content. PouponOnToast (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What you wrote is inaccurate. Arion 3x3 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How so? PouponOnToast (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Biographical content has been removed. Look at the history of changes in the last few days, and read what I wrote at the beginning of this section. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason (one of them at least) was copyright violation for the publishers bio. Also, this bio is written by Dana, isn't it? --88.172.132.94 (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
So, now, editors are deleting biographical information because they "think" that it is a copyright violation? There is no basis for doing that, unless you verify that it is a copyright violation. What was posted here was not copied from the publisher's site or my site (see for yourself). So, 88 and Poupon, which one of you will re-post it with an apology? Dana Ullman Talk 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The biography section is pathetic. It's been established that he's notable, so let there be a biography. It's really unnecessary that there be a battle over absolutely every change. It's the biography section. This is an encyclopedia. Put something in it. Lara❤Love 05:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lara, and thanks for weighing in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful. An extended lead, a freely licensed image and we're in business. Lara❤Love 06:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow...all of this activity here. I'm honored. If you'd like to add a photo, I grant you the right to use this one [15] Secondly, someone here said that I contributed to my own article. That is no longer true. I previously did (before I knew better), but ALL of that was deleted in December from a stubbification. Reference to my participation in this article is only via the Discussion page. The reference to my participation in my own article should be deleted. Is that appropriate now? Dana Ullman Talk 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] False analogy criticism of Ullman

I think Homeopathy is specious at best but I also think that this could be a lot of fun if everybody keeps there cool. I also think a criticisms section is in order but for wikis sake please let everyone be as respectful and courteous to one another as possible. I am saying this ahead of time because I have been watching some of the related arguments on other pages turn a wee bit sour. I am going to let a more experienced editor develop a criticisms section. This does not have to be like pulling teeth. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And as an addendum please consider the fact that because Dr Ullman also appears to be a wikipedian we should be very careful not to make personal attacks against him.  : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? Feel free to engage in discussion --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I will do that on your talk page in about 15 minutes from now : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You could do it here then everyone can debate this to improve the article --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more appropriate here. And, for the record, Dana will probably participate. For those who do not know, I am his mentor, so I'll be here to assist in keeping things civil. My recommendation would be to start with a list of criticisms and sources to back. Start that here on the talk page and build prose as a group with discussion. Then move to the article after consensus is reached.

This will probably be difficult for Dana, as I'm sure it would be for anyone, so please be courteous of his presence. Lara❤Love 20:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Laraloves idea of creating a list of criticisms to work into prose through discussion. I welcome Dana's presence and input. This does not have to be about pov. I think the fact that he and Lara are open to adding criticisms speaks volumes. Chow for now. : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Commenting from the section two below this one, I haven't read the link, but it appears from said discussion that the criticisms are of Homeopathy, not Dana. In that case, this article is not the appropriate place, and the section title is misleading. Lara❤Love 05:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It shows that Dana uses poor analogies in his arguments and reasoning, but that is standard for a homeopath (and many people not trained in how to make arguments) and isn't very notable (although he is doing it on wikipedia too, which is a tad annoying). --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the content, not the editor. Thank you. Lara❤Love 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] homeopathy

There is a history of edit warring on several of the article that deal with homeopaty related pages. The fight on those pages led to a fairly nasty fight. If you want specifics you can find a lot of them here. I am hoping that thing will be far more civil on the Dana Ullman article. : Albion moonlight (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you link to ScienceApologist as evidence of edit warring? I should think people are aware that Dana is active on wikipedia as this is discussed a lot above, Dana has contributed above and to the page itself, and there is a conflict of interest warning at the top of this page mentioning Dana too. In order to keep this discussion civil and on-topic, please restrict your comments to the article and improving the article --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You asked me to be more specific and then you scold me for doing so. I was very civil. I am not blaming anyone for anything but you have chosen to jump to a conclusion rather than to take the the time to read my reply and the link I provided in its intended context rather than wrongfully accuse ::me of being off top or uncivil. This article has the potential for becoming a powder keg. It could and should be fun to edit but I am getting the feeling that you are not interested in such a silly notion as harmonious editing. I sincerely hope that I am wrong about that. :Albion moonlight (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt I was scolding you. I was asking why you linked to ScienceApologist and above I wanted to know what your specific problems with the article are. Those are the things that should be discussed on talk pages - not other articles or general points of view, unless they are directly relevant. Please understand I dd not intend to scold and I am still asking for more specific information from you. Whether or not there are "edit wars" elsewhere is off topic, and I simply pointed out that it is well known here that Dana edits - he has even edited here. I'm glad you are getting involved and hope you bring good edits and discussion here. I still don't understand why you linked to SA's talk page. That's why I wanted clarification of this point. Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK then I just put message on your talk page prior to reading this message. It suggests that a section that shows criticism of Ullmans analogy(s)

such the one highlighted above could very well serve to balance this article, As for the link to SA I think that there is a place in that text where he pleads for help from admin because he is being taunted by some of his fellow editors. He eventually gets the help he asked for but I suspect that if it had not been for for one admin he would have been blocked indefinitely without sufficient cause. This is why I think that civility is so important on this article, Anyway thanks for the clarification and have a nice day. : Albion moonlight (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A proposal,

I propose that we add either a section or series of edits that incorporate some of the information included here.I do not think that this article will become balanced until we do this. My recommendation is to just do it, Otherwise we risk having an article that is lopsided. I am willing to write it but as I said earlier I think there are better writers here than me and I think that Dana Ullman is one of them. I am a bit of a putz who is still struggling with html and that sort of thing. Plus I am an extemely slow typist, Lol . Albion moonlight (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that other example and go here oops, : Albion moonlight (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't find it appropriate to expect Dana to write his own criticism section. I've made a recommendation in the section of the same proposal above. Experience suggests to me that such a method will be most successful. Lara❤Love 21:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
People who know me know that I love to talk and write about homeopathy, and I love to make reference to a wide variety of basic scientific evidence as well as clinical research. However, I wonder if my Talk page is the right place for this. Further, it would seem that my bio page should focus on who I am and what I've done rather than the subject of homeopathy itself. That said, there are several admins who are participating here, and I am open to hearing your thoughts. Dana Ullman Talk 01:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
These criticisms seem to relate to commom arguments, rather than specifically research done by Dana. Although the discussion within blogs of his research into the opinions of Charles Darwin is certainly interesting, I do not believe that this hit the mainstream press, and as such cannot be verified to appropriate strength, nor can such a weight be justified. I think the same should apply to any discussion of his writings - it must have been published also. LinaMishima (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
In response to Dana's question above, here is my question: Is the section "Homeopathic dilutions claims and experiments" factually incorrect, or irrelevant to your bio? If so, how? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, pardon me for sticking my nose in here, but since when has it been policy to actually ask the subject of a WP entry what is relevant to their entry? I'm a little confused by your post. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem with what is presently written is that the tv experiments were not simply "different" from the original experiments from Professor Ennis, these experiments were seriously and fatallly flawed experiments, as per the email sent to me by Professor Ennis. While some people here have asserted that a link to my site and to Professor Ennis' email to me is somehow not valid, I then refer you to the site of Professor Martin Chaplin who has verified, in solid 3rd party fashion, that the facts conveyed at my website in reference to Professor Ennis' critique are valid. See for yourself at:

[16] This is a solid 3rd party reference. Dana Ullman Talk 20:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually its author, Martin Chaplin is "Professor of Applied Science, Water and Aqueous Systems Research, Head of the Food Research Centre, London South Bank University". Can anyone explain why such an academic reference is non-admissible? 82.54.84.198 (talk) 08:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's hosted on a school's website doesn't make it a "solid 3rd party" ref. Look at the journal it appeared it. The article can be used to source things about homeopathy, but can't be used as any sort of vindication for homeopathy. Baegis (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sources are not provided to "vindicate" claims, but to provide relevant information. LSBU is a university, not a "school", the LSBU article is amply sourced and its author is a university professor, whose specialty is "Water and Aqueous Systems Research". As a matter of fact, none of the sources currently cited in the wiki-article has any academic credentials. 82.54.84.198 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I assumed that people would know that when I was referring to school, I clearly meant a university. And I would like to change my previous statement regarding it appearing in a journal. Chaplin did publish a homeopathy article in the Homeopathy journal, and was the guest editor according to Dana. The reference in question is clearly a case of Selfpub though. University professors are granted considerable leeway with what to put on their personal pages. Just because it is on the page does not mean that is it endorsed by the university, which is what I believe you are hinting towards. To give a brief comparison, I studied under an economics professor who had a large part his web space devoted to the belief that Ancient Romans had visited America. Interesting idea, but clearly not endorsed by the university. Baegis (talk) 09:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing wiki Bio's and responding to Dana Ullman

Wiki Bio's on living scientists vary radically when it comes to criticism's Jeremy Rifkin and Eric Drexler are 2 prime examples of this. It all depends on the editor who edit it. The Rifkin bio has a very short criticism section at the moment. Your own comments make it obvious that you prefer either a short criticism section or none at all. Wikipedia cannot guarantee either. In this particular case I prefer a short section because you have expressed concern but if other editors insist on a more lengthy section I am very open to that as well. I am very open to hearing your comments and suggestions on this matter but I urge both you and all of the other editors to have a real close look at other wiki bios of of living scientists. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These are not good examples. Jeremy Rifkin is not a scientist. The controversy section in Drexler's article covers a legitimate scientific disagreement, in which both sides had well-reasoned arguments backed by large amounts of research. I don't see how either apply here. Skinwalker (talk) 13:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Party sources

Hi, can we try to find 3rd party sources to back up the statements that currently refer to Dana's own website and his Penguin Bio. This would make the foundation of the page much more solid --88.172.132.94 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know about those. I am going to take a look at the website tonite if I can. Do you have the penguin bio ? : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I will also help look for 3rd party sources. That is a good idea : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
88.172.132.94: Please read WP:SELFPUB. Ullman's website is an RS for these statements. You are welcome to add more sources, but deleting these sources, and replacing statements with {{fact}} is not acceptable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Objections were raised in the past to using Ullman's site because of what is stated in WP:SELFPUB. Specifically the criteria that the material not be "contentious" and that the article is not "based primarily on such sources". I don't think that Ullman's claims to have written in certain periodicals or his claim to be the chairperson of the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference are controversial. If you used his web site to attempt to prove that his homeopathic methods were valid, for example, that would be "contentious" and not allowed.
The other problem, however, is that the article cannot be based primarily on Ullman. In the past it was. At the moment there are enough 3rd party sources used as references that I don't think you can currently say this article "relies" on them, but if you aren't careful it can become that way again. As soon as there is too much weight given to Ullman himself as a reference it fails WP:V. So all that I'm saying is to be careful how much you use his site, and if at all possible find a reference somewhere else. -- Atamachat 19:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Jossi, your point about using WP:SELFPUB is well taken. Yes, his site can be used as a source, but is it truly reliable? ***[refactored]*** Third party sources would be much better. -- Fyslee / talk 19:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If any of the statements sourced to a self published source are challenged on the basis of 3rd party sources, I would welcome any such sources. In the absence of such 3rd party sources, there is no basis for a challenge and/or for deletion of material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I agree with the above, except I think that we need a 3rd party source for the chairperson claim; there must be one if it's an important role. So either there is one, and we can use that, or it's not as notable as it sounds, and shouldn't be included. The other two sources I think should be replaced as soon as possible. (Addition:) There is a basis as Dana's site fails RS --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead... third party sources are always welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've just searched through the Nat Centre for Homeopathy's site and found no mention of Ullman in relation to conferences they're involved in. Usually conferences have a website or a brochure, but I can't find one in this case that also mentions Ullman. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Then we leave that statement as is: attributed to the site in which that statement is made. That is what WP:V is all about. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
(ECx2) Fyslee, that is wholly unnecessary and highly inappropriate. His arrest is completely irrelevant in determining the reliability of his site. It's clearly agreed that third party sources are preferred, so there's no need to question whether or not he can be trusted based on an arrest for what is now not even a crime, if I recall correctly. Keep in mind that this is a WP:BLP. Also, I stated this before, and I will not state it again after this: Be courteous of Dana's presence here. Lara❤Love 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I have refactored the offending comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, although I was arrest for practicing medicine without a license, I was not found guilty. In fact, we won an important court settlement. I do not know what Fyslee wrote, but I'm glad that others are trying to keep wikipedia a decent place. To clarify some issues on this bio, I have served as the "conference chair" for the annual conferences of the National Center for Homeopathy for 18 of the past 20 years (not in 2008 and not one year in the 1990s). This fact is verifiable in the NCH's magazine, Homeopathy Today. Each January, I had an article summarizing what the year's April conference includes. As for the reference to my consulting with Harvard Medical School. I was asked to serve as a consultant to a specific project at Harvard. However, this project did not get funded. While it is technically true that I was "asked for serve as a consulting to" this project, I don't have a serious problem if people wish to delete reference to it. The biggest problem that I see in the bio article is the reference to me saying that the "tv experiment" was different from the original studies by Professor Ennis. The problem was not simply that the tv experiments were "different," they were seriously and fatallly flawed experiments, as per the email sent to me by Professor Ennis. While some people here have asserted that a link to my site and to Professor Ennis' email to me is somehow not valid, I then refer you to the site of Professor Martin Chaplin who has verified, in solid 3rd party fashion, that the facts conveyed at my website in reference to Professor Ennis' critique are valid. See for yourself at: [17] Dana Ullman Talk 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So you are not currently the chairperson? Thanks for the clarification. Your critiques of the BBC and 20/20 are still no good as the points are covered already, and are otherwise irrelevant. I would also ask Jossi not to edit war --88.172.132.94 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Look at the mirror. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Fyslee's remarks were out of line but I also think some good has come out of it. I think we can and should make mention of it in the article that Dana was arrested and found not guilty etc.etc. This kind of thing makes him look like he has likely been victimized for his views.:Albion moonlight (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC) :Albion moonlight (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey 88, so, let me understand your logic. If the BBC says that they are "repeating" a specific study, but don't repeat this study and instead have a low-level scientist with no published record create a new and different study, it is OK to just say that it was "different" but still "valid?" Is that OK? I don't think so, and it should be noted that your POV pushing and your ignoring the evidence is disruptive. Please explain why the 3rd party source cited isn't valid. Dana Ullman Talk 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, because that is your "POV". The BBC replication was not science, it was a TV show which used Ennis' work as a base and conducted a small experiment. It has been verified by independent experts. It is a TV replication of those experiments. Also,what is a "low-level" scientist? Unless you have found significant flaws with his work in this case (and this has been judged not to have happened by the BBC board and a panel of independent scientific experts), then this is, as far as TV science shows go, a good program, and a good ref. The BBC ref isn't the central one either, and whether you think they were good science or not they are still notable, and the 20/20 story is relevant to your article as you feature prominently. I do think that your arrest should either be left out, or should go in as it was with the caveat that your input did not lead to the eventual (+20years) law change. (edit conflict) --88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Ullman's claim reflects Ullman's POV is as irrelevant as it is obvious. The point is that the statement "Ullman has claimed the test was flawed as it was not a direct replication of Ennis' work" must be sourced. If an article states that someone made such-and-such claims, such statement must be referenced to a reliable source. In this case it can be sourced by providing a direct link to Ullman's site, where Ullman's claims and arguments can be perused. Ullman's site may not be a "reliable source" about immunology, but it is certainly reliable for documenting Ullman's claims. 82.54.84.198 (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) As a matter of fact, according to the notice at the top of this page, such an unsourced statement should be removed immediately. 82.54.84.198 (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Source

After graduation, he practiced homeopathy, and got into trouble for doing so. In 1976, an undercover agent came to him pretending to be a patient. “This was the only time in my entire practice that I ever sensed I was dealing with an agent,” recalls Ullman. “I told him, ‘I’m not doing anything illegal. You know I’m not a doctor.’ And he said: ’Yes.’” Nevertheless, Ullman was arrested for practicing without a license and spent eight hours in jail (where he read Ivan Illich’s Medical Nemesis). But he won in court, and his case set a precedent: he was the last person to be arrested in California for practicing “alternative medicine.”[10]

This could be summarized and added. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A full article on the subject appears here: Integrative Medicine - June/July 207. Retrieved on 2008-01-27. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If this case was a milestone as portrayed in these sources, it would warrant a mention in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It has been added in the past but removed:

"In 1983 Dana Ullman spoke before the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance on the subject of rewriting the Medical Practices Act, however this led to no change in the law.[11] Twenty years later this law was changed, and the Medical Practitioners Act in California now grants homeopaths and other natural medicine practitioners the right to engage in health practice without getting arrested for practising medicine without a license, within the provisions of the act.[12]"

Thanks --RDOlivaw (talk)

I like Jossi's idea of summarizing the source he provided. and placing it in the article. The question in my mind is where should we put it. I think it should perhaps appear in the lead but I do not have a strong opinion on this matter. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead is too strong. This should be, if anywhere, in the biography section. He was arrested, but I believe that they reached a settlement (ie neither side admitted wrongdoing etc); so he wasn't acquitted, and neither was he condemned. The fact is Dana's subsequent efforts didn't affect a change in the law. The law was changed 20+ years later, without Dana's involvement, and Dana stopped practising after the court case. So, he was arrested but doesn't (if my knowledge of US law is correct) have a criminal record, and he tried and failed to get the law changed. This doesn't seem to be very worthy of inclusion. We should still be trying to find V and RS sources for the claims that currently point to Dana's sites and to the Penguin bio. I'd hoped Dana could provide us with refs to his writings, and to his pieces about the annual conference he mentioned earlier --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective and from my understanding of Wiki BLP in general we are supposed to be as lenient toward the subject of the biography as we can. But I will not waste your time or mine wiki lawyering over sources and or wiki policy but I will see if I can find some sources at the library when I go there tomorrow. If it comes down to an Rfc or something like that I will discuss my understanding of Blp in greater detail. I also need to speak to Lara in regards to finding a picture of Dana. I will also see if she can help us persuade him to provide us with more references to his writings and etc. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to use the photo of me here [18]. As for some of the other issues above:
--I served as "conference chairperson" for every year from 1986 to 2007 (except 1994).
--I served as "conference chairperson" of a conference sponsored by U.C. Berkeley Extension entitled "Conceptualizing Energy Medicine" (1981) [Dana Ullman, "Conceptualizing Energetic Medicine: A Beginning," American Journal of Acupuncture, 9,3, July-September, 1981, 261-264] This is a peer-review journal. Please note that article was my opening presentation at the conference, though the editors changed the title of this article to fit their preference for grammatical usage; see also reference #53 here: [19] Several of the presenters have links to this conference, such as: [20]
--I served as co-chair and co-editor of the proceedings of a conference entitled "Holistic Health: Policies in Action" (May 30-June 1, 1980) co-sponsored by two agencies in the Dept of Health and Human Services in the US government and St. Louis Unveristy Hospital (at the time, and even today, it seems notable to have a conference on this subject sponsored by federal agencies)
In reference to my arrest, Dr88 is right. I was not "acquitted." We won a settlement that was a "pioneering agreement" (as per the SF Chronicle, already cited in the article) in 1977. I was then appointed to be a consultant to the California medical board (Board of Medical Quality Assurance) which conducted a series of private symposia exploring the "legal definition of medicine." The final report recommended several of my proposals, though no legislative action was taken at that time.[21]
If someone wants to see the entirety of my Vitae, I can and will email it to him/her. Dana Ullman Talk 20:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation requested, citation provided

Some people in the past have provided this reference to the Ennis study, but others have deleted it. It is a tad confusing when some people seem to go out their way to delete good research, NPOV sources. Please note that Ennis claims that she herself was previously skeptical of homeopathy. [Belon P, Cumps J, Ennis M, Mannaioni PF, Roberfroid M, Ste-Laudy J, Wiegant FAC. Histamine dilutions modulate basophil activity. Inflamm Res 2004; 53:181-8]. In the light of the wiki-community's serious concerns about edit wars, let's keep the peace. 05:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have references for the other three (four?) studies? They have been requested on the water memory page also --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
This study is a multi-center study. Four university labs. Dana Ullman Talk 19:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah so it's not four separate studies? The text, although accurate, is misleading then. Thanks for pointing that out - I'll make an update to the page to state that it was one team --88.172.132.94 (talk) --DrEightyEight (talk)

(unindent)should we say it was a multicenter study? (common descriptive term in medical literature)? Abridged talk 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really relevant, so probably not. If we were talking about that study we might be, but just saying Dana suggested it because it's published should be fine. Otherwise we'll have to find quotes of what was actually said and then say it was a multi centre study, and that all gets a bit tedious and beside the point --DrEightyEight (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Abridged talk 23:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. When I initially went to edit the article I did intend to edit along those lines, but it really just made more sense to chop that bit out --DrEightyEight (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr88, I wish that you would avoid putting your own made-up words into my mouth. There are many different studies that have been published in peer-review journals, but the reason that I suggested the Ennis study to the 20/20 producer was that it was a trial that had been replicated in FOUR university laboratories. This fact is what made this article so strong. It is inadequate and incomplete for this article to not mention this, except if you have and want to keep a bias here. Dana Ullman Talk 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I resent your implication. What I did was remove (misleading) words from your mouth. I have no problem with this. Please remember WP:CIVIL. --DrEightyEight (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, based on Dana's strong opinion here and the face that Dr88 did not seem to find it essential to leave it out, I've edited the text a bit to note that this was a "multicenter trial". That seems ok to add to me, and is very different than suggesting there were four different positive publication on this. Abridged talk 00:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding the photo Dana provided

If you you know how to add that photo and put it in an info box please feel free to go ahead and do it. I am complete novice when it comes to such things. I am reading up on it but I am having a hard time understanding the process or processes involved , I will probably get around to doing it sooner or later but if you are waiting on me you are waiting on a real slowpoke. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Albion. Here is the wikipage on images if it might be some help to you. [22] Abridged talk 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it looks like it will be quite helpful. I may get some time to give it a try later on tonight. Thanks again. : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] upcoming changes notices

Hi Homeophiles and Homeophobes, I am going to be making some edits to this article to make it more similar in format to the other bio articles of homeopaths. I won't remove anything but I'm going to be moving some stuff around. Please give me the benefit of the doubt, assume good faith, etc. OK? Abridged. Abridged talk —Preceding comment was added at 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you list the changes you're proposing/making so we all know and can discuss if needed. Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
There also seems to be a lot of "He has"'s. You've made some quite significant changes to the text which are hard to spot due to your moving things around. It would have been more constructive for you to propose smaller changes towards this goal. --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion. I didn't want to clog up the data base with multiple tiny changes. I didn't actually change too much. I have moved the career stuff--advisory boards he's been on, teaching positions, etc, higher in the text to make it similar to other bios. I took out a dual mention of columbia which was in the writings section for some unclear reason. I created a "views and controv. section and put the water memory stuff there, completely unchanged. I inadvert took out a phrase, "and letters" in the writings section, you put it back, THANKS. I put the misc writings under his books as a sep subsection as the books are more important. He had headed up some conference in the past but not now, I just change the sentence to say that he had done that and took out the phrase "but not now" since it didn't seem to be the best way to convey the info---better would be "did this from x year to y year. Anyway, that's really it. Please assume good faith. It was basically a copy edit. Abridged talk 17:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I also added an "external links" section and put his Web site there. I think that is pretty standard in bio articles. Abridged talk 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. It was just a lot all at once. I'm not objecting to most of the changes, but you need to discuss things first on a volatile page that is involved in probation. Thanks for responding. --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I did put the notice up that I was going to move things around without changing content significantly. If I had been intending to do anything that could be seen as controversial based on previous talk page discussions, I certainly would have discussed here first. Take care, Abridged talk 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anthrax and FASEBJ

Can someone add a bit about the Anthrax story in the FASEBJ? Dana brought this up himself, and it is very interesting, verifiable, a reliable source, and notable --88.172.132.94 (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I previously alerted 88 that FASEBJ chose to quote me from a popular (non-peer review magazine) and actually misquoted me. Although FASEBJ is a good source, the editorial was not peer-reviewed and was not fact-checked (a tad ironic, isn't it). I chose to be dignified and not even respond to those errors of fact in my response, but instead, I chose to respond to the substantative errors of fact on homeopathy. Someone has to be dignified. In other words, I don't see how that anthax story is worthy of inclusion here...but if others think otherwise, make certain to add in the various levels of complexity (this cannot be summarized in 1 or 2 sentences). Dana Ullman Talk 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The editorial is backed by the editor and the board. If it's inaccurate you should take a complaint to them. However, as it stands the editorial is notable (unlike, say, a letter published in the FASEBJ). Where is the evidence (WP:V and WP:RS) that it wasn't fact checked and misrepresented you? The article is noteworthy and fits WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. It should be added as it is also a notable criticism of Dana Ullman rather than homeopathy generally. There are no levels of complexity, and we cannot editorialise. Quotes, a summary, and the ref should do. We can include a ref to your right-of-reply, but would have to note that this was responded to also. --88.172.132.94 (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a short sentence or two about this now. --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is my first attempt, it needs some work I know, but I thought we could work together on this:

Ullman has also been criticised in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology for, during the anthrax scares in the USA in 2001, recommending the use of the homeopathic preparation called Anthracinum[23] to prevent infection. There is no evidence for the efficacy of this preparation, which is derived from nosodes gathered from infected pigs, and then diluted to "a point where no molecules of the disease product remain"[24]. In a right-of-reply letter, Ullman didn't respond to the anthrax criticism, but instead attempted to make a case for homeopathy in general, and compared homeopathic preparations to CDs.[25]. The editor of FASEB responded dismissively in the next issue.[26]

Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr88, if you choose to include this objectionable and half-truth information, please be put on notice that you are breaking WP:BLP policies, especially in the light of the fact that you were previously warned and now warned again that the FASEB JOURNAL editor never interviewed me and instead he obtained his information from a popular magazine (the Utne Reader), which omitted an important part of my quote. The Utne Reader's article is here: [27]. Please note that I only recommended homeopathic doses of anthrax to those people who work in high-risk environments (and the part that the magazine left out was) "and who do not feel comfortable taking CIPRO due to the very serious side effects that it is known to have." Some of Cipro's side effects include: CARDIOVASCULAR: palpitation, atrial flutter, ventricular ectopy, syncope, hypertension, angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, cardiopulmonary arrest, cerebral thrombosis, phlebitis, tachycardia, migraine, hypotension; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM: restlessness, dizziness, lightheadedness, insomnia, nightmares, hallucinations, manic reaction, irritability, tremor, ataxia, convulsive seizures, lethargy, drowsiness, weakness, malaise, anorexia, phobia, depersonalization, depression, paresthesia, abnormal gait, grand mal convulsion...and many many more.
Although there is no research at present on the efficacy of homeopathy in the prevention and treatment of anthrax, there are many historical references that confirm that homeopathy became popular in the 19th century in Europe and America primarily because of the significant results that they obtained in the treatment of infectious disease epidemics that raged during that time, including cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, influenza, and more. Dana Ullman Talk 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I will be adding it, or whatever the consensus edit of it is, unless it fails BLP. It clearly passes V and RS, and you've just confirmed that you did recommend and unproven and ineffective treatment. I would ask other editors to comment, but I do feel that you should avoid this issue at it is a clear conflict of interest. You can comment on the discussions here if you wish, certainly. You might notice I linked to the article you mention. I don't think that extra part of your quote changes the nature of the criticism, and could be inserted, but I don't see why it should be. Perhaps a small note about you recommending an unproven and ineffective treatment because it had no side effects could be added, but no truly homeopathic preparations have side effects. Your listing of known side effects of an effective treatment is irrelevant. Do you actually have any V and RS refutations of this material? Or can you show that it fails inclusion criteria for any reason? If you'd like to suggest other wording, feel free. But be mindful of CoI, V, and RS at all times, and also CIVIL. The probation doesn't mean we leave out well sourced criticism, nor does CIVIL, and your warnings about FASEB being unreliable are patently false. It is clear that you'd find this objectionable, as it is a criticism of you. It is not a half-truth, but an attempt at an accurate summary of the FASEB criticisms of you and the responses --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could add what Dana actually said in the UTNE reader, re: individuals at high risk for exposure who decline cipro to this? It sounds like Dana was selectively quoted in FASEB. Please note that it is a very different thing to put something out there for people who have made a personal decision to refuse the standard of care, than to tell people to refuse the standard of care and use homeopathy instead. I think it would be a BLP vio to distort Dana's position in this way. Abridged talk 16:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Not disputing what you've written, why didn't Dana dispute this in his right-of-reply, if he feels so strongly about it? I'm sure something along these lines can be added. --DrEightyEight (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A second attempt, working in the above discussion points:

Ullman has also been criticised in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology[28] for, during the anthrax scares in the USA in 2001, recommending the use of the homeopathic preparation called Anthracinum to prevent infection[29]. There is no evidence for the efficacy of this preparation, which is derived from nosodes gathered from infected pigs, and then diluted to "a point where no molecules of the disease product remain"[30][31]. In a right-of-reply letter, Ullman didn't respond to the anthrax criticism, but instead attempted to make a case for homeopathy in general, and compared homeopathic preparations to CDs.[32]. The editor of FASEB responded dismissively in the next issue.[33]

I've moved the links arround to better support the text. I don't see support for saying only those that decline Cipro, so I don't think we can add them unless we find a V and R source. --RDOlivaw (talk)

The CD part is a bit weak, but maybe this could be used to bring in the "false analogies" criticisms previously discussed --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interview

In the light of the current climate of unease, and rather than just pasting it straight into the article, it would be helpful to have a measure of how acceptable folks feel about adding this external link to this article? Elaine Lewis, Treating Children with Homeopathy: Interview with Dana Ullman, Hpathy Ezine, April 2005 many thanks Peter morrell 12:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess it would depend where it was to be added, and in what context. It doesn't really seem to warrent being in the External link section in my opinion. The only notable thing I see in it is Dana claiming that doctors are guilty of child abuse. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
It's an excellent link and should be added. It illustrates Dana Ullman's perspective on the practical application of homeopathy in a clinical setting. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Does Dana actually believe that conventional, evidence based, medicine is a form of child abuse? I agree this link should go in the controversies section, with that quote fully intact. --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I could see a conventional MD claiming that homeopathy is a form of child abuse as well, but since Dana's view on the matter is clearly outside of the mainstream it might warrant a mention in the controversies section. -- Atamachat 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I just added the reference to the page. I wouldn't say homeopathy is child abuse per se, but it could run foul of child abuse laws if conventional treatments were not allowed. Certainly in the UK --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Half-quotes are half-truths. The entire quote is: "In the U.S, it is too common that antibiotics are prescribed to newborns, even for simply having a reddened ear. The long-term consequences are unknown and scary. This over-prescribing of antibiotics for both newborns and any child is a part of what I call 'medical child abuse.'" Further, my first comments are worthy for helping to put into context my concerns about "medical child abuse." These comments were: "'First, do no harm' was Hippocrates’ most famous words, and they are particularly important in the care and treatment of infants and children. Most people don’t know it, but most conventional drugs are tested on adults, and then, doctors estimate (or guess-timate) the appropriate dosage for children on such crude measures as a child’s weight. Worst still, in the United States, approximately 20% of pediatric visits leads to a prescription of more than one drug at a time. Once a second drug is given to a child, the doctor is not prescribing based on any research at all because the original research was not conducted with multiple drugs. Further, the doctor doesn’t know the interactions of the drugs together." As people know, I am unable to edit the article about myself for [COI] reasons. Editors can decide if this information is useful for verifying my concern about the presence of "medical child abuse." And for the record, I also write about "elder medical abuse" too, another serious problem in modern-day medical care. Dana Ullman Talk 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The entire quote, Dana, is: "It deeply saddens me that so many parents and doctors give powerful drugs to infants and children. They unknowingly are committing what I call "medical child abuse." Although these may be harsh words today, I believe that history will show them to be accurate." All but the last part of this is included in the quote, and I don't think the last part changes the meaning of the first two sentences; it rather underlines that you're aware of the import of your statement. I'll add it to the quote now. Personally, I think this is a horrendous slur and I'm quite shocked that someone with an "MPH" would say such a thing. Note that the page merely quotes you, and does not editorialise--RDOlivaw (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, for a person that truly believes that homeopathy works, when you look at the side-effects that often go along with conventional medicine that don't occur with homeopathic remedies then his comments make sense. I'll come clean and admit that I personally think that homeopathy is on par with astrology and alchemy as a pseudoscience but I can understand why Dana says what he says when you consider his perspective. It's not our place to judge him in any case. -- Atamachat 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced by that, as why would someone who is utterly convinced of homeopathy have to also forgo scientifically proven remedies? This is the sort of thing the anti-vaccination crowd normally say, not homeopaths. Anyway, this is a little beside the point. The fact is that Dana said it, and it is clearly a notable for someone in his position to hold this rather extreme view, means it should be in the article as one of his views (which he repeated above, so it isn't controversial that he said it) --RDOlivaw (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, many homoeopaths (although I don't know if Dana himself is among them) say that "allopathic" medication should be avoided whenever possible because, although it provides relief from symptoms in the short term, it makes matters worse in the long term by "suppressing" the symptoms ("pushing them inwards") with the result that they return even worse. Brunton (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, people! I have never said or written that doctors are committing "medical child abuse" just for prescribing drugs to children. Heck, my own father was a pediatrician (and professor emeritus at UCLA in pediatric allergy). My concern about "medical child abuse" is the over-prescribing of drugs to children! At present, this article is providing inaccurate and libelous information about me, and people here are breaking BLP policy. I assume that something should be done asap to correct these errors...and I would appreciate an apology. Let's be gentlemen (or gentle people) here. By the way, I also must complain against RDOlivaw who has characterized me here as "anti-vaccination" without V or RS. Dana Ullman Talk 01:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has said you are an anti-vaccer - RDO was clearly replying to Atama above. --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I must commend Dr88 for his English comprehension skills --RDOlivaw (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ullman's concerns about Misinformation and Original Research

I have no intentions of participating on the article page to avoid any COI. There are several issues that I want to clarify on this talk page. First, it would seem that the information about my views on homeopathy and anthrax represent OR. Where are the quotes of my words? It seems that what is written here is breaking BLP policies. Further, the author of the FASEB article draws his information from an unreliable source, and he didn’t accurately characterize what the article stated. These errors are verifiable. The Utne Reader article, which is the source article from which the FASEB article was written, is perfectly clear that “Ullman cautions that over-prescribing these antibiotics can change the nature of the disease, rendering the treatment less effective and making diseases more difficult to treat in the future.” The article continues saying, “Ullman recommends that only those working in a high-risk environment -- like a post office or a newsroom -- take a homeopathic dose of anthrax, and then only once a month as a preventive.” Ultimately, the concerns that I expressed on the over-prescribing of Cipro was later proven to be good health advice since the anthrax epidemic never happened. In the midst of what was beginning of public health hysteria about anthrax, I provided some sane health advice.

The article on wikipedia here says “Ullman didn't respond to the anthrax criticism, but instead attempted to make a case for homeopathy” and then this article ignored the vast majority of my published letter that refers to randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies that were published in peer-review journals on the homeopathic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, severe sepsis in hospitals, and influenza. Due to the limited number of words that I was allowed, I chose to defend homeopathy and to not give recognition or dignity to the half-truths written about what he thought my views of the anthrax epidemic were. At present, the article on wiki then says that the FASEB editor responded dismissively (again, this is OR. One could also say that the editor did not deny or disprove the positive results of these clinical studies published in peer-review journals.

The statement “a point where no molecules of the disease product remain” is completely OR at no place in any article (FASEB or Utne) is there any reference to me or any homeopath recommending a specific potency. There are plenty of potencies of anthracinum where there are molecules. The above quote is simply not V and is OR. Dana Ullman Talk 13:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement "a point where no molecules of the disease product remain” appears on page 3 (1757) of the FASEBJ article, on the 6th line of the 2nd paragraph of the 2nd column. The FASEB criticisms are verifiable and from a reliable source. The description of your right-of-reply letter could be extended, however I would say that by your own admission above the letter dealt with the efficacy of homeopathy (in COPD, etc) rather than addressing the concerns raised regarding your anthrax advice. How would you describe the response to your letter? You do seem to be confused about OR and V and RS policies, and how they apply to what's in the article, and to secondary sources. The references should be updated to the cite style as well. Maybe your CD analogy could do with being included, as there is a secondary source which debunks that too (mentioned previously I believe) --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I see that statement about molecules, but what is it based on? A reliable source is only reliable if it is verified as true. The FASEB editor drew his information from the Utne, and no potency information was provided. Homeopathic doses of anthracinum are available in all sorts of potencies (some of a "low" potency with plenty of molecules and some of a "high" potency that is a recognized over-the-counter drug recognized by the FDA), but no where do I (or anyone else) say that we recommend a specific potency. No statement can or should be made about "no molecules" unless it is also said that Ullman did not specify which potency to which he was referring. Once again, BLP policy encourages us to be careful and accurate. As for the FASEB editor's response, his only direct words were: "Mr. Ullman is clearly a devotee of his art, and I respect his opinions." He also quotes OW Holmes, but because my letter primarily made reference to modern scientific research, Holmes' words of 100+ years ago is somewhat meaningless. The quote directly from the editor is a must. Dana Ullman Talk 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I've added a direct quote from the response. Please note I didn't add this section. I think Holmes' words of 100 years ago were very relevant. Also, you haven't yet retracted the false accusation you made against me on your talk page. --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Which false accusation? As a gentleman, I always like to apologize if I have erred. By the way, your editing of this article is highly selective. I'm curious why you would not add the specific words that the editor wrote in praise of me...that and so many other selective examples. Hmmmm. Dana Ullman Talk 18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Maybe because you are already said in the article to believe in homeopathy and to be a leading light for it in the US, and this part of the article isn't about that. That's already been established. It only took me a moment to find RDOs last edit to your talk page where he asks for you to apologise, and for you to accuse someone else of quote mining is laughable. You cannot attribute a positive spin to the reply given by Weissmann. RDOs editing is selective, in that it is factual and supported by the sources directly and in their entirety. --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLPC Template

The subject of the article has expressed concerns about selective presentation of his views, and I do see some problems, e.g. possibly incomplete or selective citation of his views re treating children with drugs. It will take at least a couple of days to work these issues out, so in the spirit of "do no harm", I've added {{BLPC}} to the article for now. Thanks, Jim Butler (t) 02:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem to be becoming biased in tone, so allow me to suggest that Dana be more specific about how he would change the wording of that particular statement on children. Would he add to it rephrase it or delete it. I can help him change the tone by rephrasing it and perhaps call for a request for comment pursuant to specific entries but my time is limited. I will also speak to Lara about untying Dana's hands so he can defend his position more aptly. : Albion moonlight (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Cool; it actually is OK for people to edit their own articles, within limits, per WP:BLP. However, to avoid any appearance of impropriety, Dana can mention issues here and I will be happy to have a look. I'm not a homeopath but I am conversant in general CAM issues, basically scientifically literate, and grok WP policy. best, Jim Butler (t) 08:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Lara adopted him and as a part of a scolding she limited his participation for the time being. Your edits seem to show that you have the right Idea. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) BTW, this edit, breaking out sections, we me not logged on. I'll try to expand, source and balance the rest soon. --Jim Butler (t) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I see they've mostly been reverted, but I don't think your breakouts were very good. They didn't look too nice, and they didn't really work to describe the contents either. How about bringing them here for discussion? The Horizon and 20/20 experiments were replications of Ennis' work, but the title you suggested wasn't very good in describing the contents or staying entirely neutral. I'm glad someone else is taking an interest in the article. Cheers --RDOlivaw (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction: The producer of 20/20 thought that the experimentor was doing a replication of Ennis' trial, but shortly before the results were announced, we realized that he didn't do a replication of this important trial. If you read the transcripts of the 20/20 show, they carefully do NOT say that they repeated anyone's previous study. They simply say that their "experts" (none of whom had experience of basophil research) considered the trial well-controlled and well-conducted. I do not question that the study was well-controlled and well-conduct BUT it was the WRONG trial and it had numerous flaws that predisposed it to a negative result. Do you or do you not understand what "replication" means? Do you have any response to the concerns that Ennis has expressed? Dana Ullman Talk 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
As has been noted above, articles that I've written at my website are allowed to be sited on my bio page. One good summary article that I wrote about the BBC and 20/20 "tv experiments" is here [34]. Because I am quite emphatic about this marriage of "reality tv" and "science" to be "junk science" and "junk journalism," it would seem that some statement to that effect is vital and notable. Dana Ullman Talk 22:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

for RD: sorry, I had missed your comments above, and reverted the deletions, but am happy to discuss them here. You're right, maybe we don't need the breakouts at all. I'll get rid of those. But I do think we need to devote more space to describing disputes fairly rather than sound-biting them, as the earlier versions did. That was what I was trying to do with the FASEB exchange, as well as "overmedication" material. I share Dana's concerns about the putative replication of Ennis; "science by press release" is never as good a V RS as peer-review, and we should be careful to weight the text accordingly (unless I'm wrong, and the Horizon a/o 20/20 experiments have actually been published). We need to hold to consistent standards of sourcing sci results no matter what they say, I hope you'd agree.

Anyway, we'll get there, I'm sure, as long as the IP's participate in discussion and don't get too rowdy. Sounds like we (a) need to figure out acceptable wording for FASEB and Ennis; and (b) add some more material that adequately depicts the range of Dana's views, and not just the particular stuff that has been criticized somewhere. regards, Jim Butler (t) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I tried to improve the 20/20 para (diff here). Very important to clarify that the 20/20 and BBC articles are not peer-reviewed, as I mentioned above. Also linked to a New Scientist description of the Ennis experiment[35]. I also removed a statement lacking a citation: "and other independent scientific replications of these experiments (i.e., the 20/20 and BBC attempts to replicate Ennis's studies) have also found no effect". cheers, Jim Butler (t) 09:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't the fact that, in the BBCs case at least, they were cleared by the BBC board and a panel of independent experts (rather like a review committee), the television equivalent of peer-review? Haven't these TV programs been favourably cited in peer-reviewed scientific articles? Why do you think it's important that a TV program has to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, when a TV program is not a scientific article, but a popular science media for helping people understand science? See my comments below for your other failures of understanding --Partyoffive (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The "television equivalent of peer review" is not recognized in science as being even close to the same par as the peer-review system in journals. Yes, popular science books and programs have some weight, but per WP:SOURCES, not at all like peer-review, so we should say that. Consider the shoe on the other foot: if a TV show purported to replicate a negative result on homeopathy, or any alt-med topic, and got a positive result, what would happen? We'd have about a dozen scientifically-minded editors screaming about undue weight, and I'd be one of them. So, no double-standards, please. And thanks for bringing the light to my failures of understanding, always can use that. ;-) cheers, Jim Butler (t) 08:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The block quote.

An Ip address reverted a large percentage of a block quote intended to address Dana's concerns about blp and being misrepresented by his detractors. I reverted it back to include the longer block quote added yesterday by Jim Butler. One does not need to agree with Ullman in order to keep with the spirit of Blp here at wikipedia. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poor sources

Considering the that this is a BLP, and the new warning on the page, there are many poor sources on this page. For example, there are "factual" statements, rather than statements of opinion, that are only supported by references to Dana Ullman's own website. These must be replaced by unbiased third party sources urgently 217.186.105.9 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

What you're suggesting contrasts what is in WP:SELFPUB. Specifically, where it says, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." I suggest you read the rest of this discussion page where this has been brought up repeatedly before you beat the dead horse a bit more, thanks. -- Atamachat 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Those statements would have a firmer foundation if a 2nd or 3rd party source was found. Selfpub is fine for a persons opinions, but not for factual statements (eg, As a hypothetical, "I have an award from NASA" would be best supported by a statement from NASA or a newspaper, rather than the person's own hand). Please, remember to be civil, and not to bite newcomers. It's not very urgent, but the addition of the tag perhaps spurred this comment. Maybe we can find refs directly to Dana's writings, letters, lectures etc, that are external to him, and put this to bed --DrEightyEight (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Which self-pub statements appear problematic? The bio stuff seems pretty good, with citations from Penguin, a good publisher that I think we can rely on for fact-checking basic things like faculty appointments. regards, Jim Butler (t) 20:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed re other Ennis replications

I removed this statement, where "and" refers to the putative replications of Ennis's study by 20/20 and BBC: "...and other independent scientific replications of these experiments have also found no effect". We need a citation for that: I think there is at least one at PubMed, but need to make sure. Will dig around tomorrow, or maybe others know if it. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. The phrase "a study performed in four different laboratories" should be replaced by the more accurate "a single multi-site study", as it was before. There also seems to be some confusion about the scientific meaning of the word "replication". If you attempt to replicate someone's study, what you are trying to replicate is the results (ie significant effects, conclusions) of the study - not every method and protocol used. It is not an exact repeat, as no experiment like this can be (the results will always be slightly different). I think that some editors recently have been attempting to slowly introduce an anti science bias into this article --Partyoffive (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, the phrase "according to the respective broadcasters who sponsored the experiments" is blatant editorialising introducing a strong POV that this statement is incorrect. The BBC used independent experts, as agreed by both parties involved in the experiment and independent homeopaths etc. This should be removed at once. The following sentence is also highly dubius - they are TV experiments and were broadcast on TV. They are not science experiments for the advancement of science, but science experiments for the benefit of public understanding - so are more like popular science books, which are also not peer-reviewed. There have also been other replications of this work, published in the scientific literature, that have failed to find any effect.
Bias has also been introduced in to the FASEB section, by not describing the editorial by a respected scientist, as a scientific, peer-reviewed article that includes references to scientific publications, but including Ullman's criticism of it as "unscientific" - in a letter where he makes a laughable claim about CDs being similar to homeopathic "remedies". This article has been improved a lot recently, but not by these edits all made by the same person. --Partyoffive (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments above re double standards, and also my reply below at the bottom, unindented, below Dana's comments. --Jim Butler (t) 08:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the phrase "a study performed in four different laboratories" or alternately "a single multi-site study". Please can someone tell me why they think it appropriate to be this specific in this context? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the hallmarks of science is repeatability. Ennis was very surprised at the result she got, and repeated it in four different labs. It's appropriate that we somehow convey that idea to the intelligent, nonscientist reader. Does that make sense? (Addendum: just tried a reword to clarify the issue, borrowing text from Madeleine Ennis. Since Mr Ullman chose this experiment for a specific reason, good to depict that, rather than essentially "he said foo, it was debunked, all done, bye-bye". I realize some people feel that level of scorn toward homeopathy, but that approach is not kosher per NPOV and BLP. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Dr88 made that change without discussion. In actual fact, this study was performed in four different laboratory, and THIS is more specific than a more vague reference to "multi-center" study. It seems that some editors prefer to be specific when it suits their needs and prefer non-specificity when it doesn't. 24.5.196.223 (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the insight.
In terms of my concern however I don't think the distinction matters. My point is that I can't see how it makes a pinch of weasel dirt worth of difference to a reader's understanding of the paragraph whether they know or do not know that it was a multi-lab/multi-site study. Unless there is a good reason to leave it in, it should not be in. When I first read this, I was distracted from the main points of the paragraph by wondering about the significance of this "multi" business. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the history, the change was made to "multi-center" to remove the misleading implication that it was four studies. When the reference was made to it being a single published study, people complained. I think that saying it is just a single study is fine. If people really complain, then a single, multi-center, study. Any more detail is irrelevant and misleading. The other points raised above also still stand. Did 24.5.196.223 forget to log in? There is nothing "vague" about using correct terminology. I agree with 57 that "a single study" is both correct and detailed enough for this section --Partyoffive (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see my reply just above regarding repeatability. --Jim Butler (t) 08:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I had thought that I was logged in (but wasn't). I'm 24.5... My point was: the reason I recommended the Ennis study was because it was replicated by several laboratories. It is notable that this study was replicated because that is the crux of science. Dana Ullman Talk 00:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments re above: I'd strongly argue for retaining the phrase "according to the respective broadcasters who sponsored the experiments" as a modifier for "ruled to be valid by independent experts" for one simple reason: The studies were never put through the standard process of peer review that Ennis's work went through, and it would be a violation of NPOV and VER to imply otherwise. Absent peer review, we need to attribute the statement.

Regarding replication: during my undergraduate and graduate work in chemistry, it was pretty well accepted that if you're going to replicate an experiment in chemistry or biochemistry, you don't do stuff like change the reagents you use. I'm not sure what the exact implication is for how we write the article, but I'm at a loss to explain how that simple point is "anti-science". Seems like good science to me.

In terms of the wording "a study performed in four different laboratories", that was my proposed replacement for "single multicenter study" because the latter is jargon-y and might not be clear to a non-science literate reader. Feel free to change it back if the latter is better.

Finally, regarding FASEB, the important thing here as everywhere else is to depict the exchange fairly. I'm not sure whether or not editorials are peer-reviewed, but that's not a huge deal. As for the CD comparison, if we quote that, we need to quote the whole thing: the idea wasn't just "wow, homeopathic remedies are like CD's, cool man", but rather a statement that normal H2O is to a homeo remedy as a blank CD is to a written CD: identical chemical analysis, but different physical properties that are not readily apparent except with proper equipment. Whether that comparison is factually valid or not, it does need to be fairly depicted if we mention it, again per WP:YESPOV. regards, Jim Butler (t) 02:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A very similar analogy was used by Kent when he referred to an unhealthy person as being like untuned piano and a healthy/cured person like a tuned piano...no physical or chemical difference but miles apart in terms of well being! Peter morrell 08:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kent compared a person to a piano?!?! RIDICULOUS!! Science has proven people are not pianos! (/sarcasm)  :-) Yes, exactly, it's a perfectly adequate analogy as long as it's not caricatured. (And again, whether or not the analogy will be shown to be scientifically valid is not the issue; what is needed is to present the argument as it was presented by the subject, and not distort it.) best regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to be a pedantic jerk, but there is a physical difference between a tuned and untuned piano. Jefffire (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you're absolutely (get it? solute-ly?) correct, and correct is never jerky, at least in pure science-land. Probably no chemical difference (or a very subtle one), but yes physically. regards, Jim Butler (t) 09:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference in tension in the piano wires of course, but that is all...not something strictly molecular and something more as a quality difference rather than a quantity difference...in this respect the analoigy with a homeopathic potency or an audio CD is a good one, nevertheless. And THAT indeed was Kent's point! thanks Peter morrell 11:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies

There have been at least 5 or 6 anonymous IP's editing this article using TOR open proxies in the past few days, so I've semi-protected it. Comments are welcome here on the talk page. MastCell Talk 17:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Ullman is a contributor to Citizendium and seems to have added quite a lot to their Homeopathy article. Is this relevant for the Wikipedia version? Makitomoda (talk) 06:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking if Dana's contributions to Citizendium are worth mentioning within the article? There's nothing notable about participation to that site, it's just a more restrictive version of this site. -- Atamachat 17:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replication - repetition

There now seems to be a discussion going on in the article about whether the terms "replication" and "repetition" mean the same thing.

Hardly a good place for this discussion.

PS One definition I found for replication is: "In scientific research, the repetition of an experiment to confirm findings or to ensure accuracy." I don't agree with the last seven words in the definition, but the rest of this definition says the two words mean the same thing.

If there really is a difference in the present context, what is it? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is akin to the difference between "equality" (exactly the same; repetition of methods) and "equivalence" (produces the same result; a replication can have different protocols, but should attempt to test the same hypothesis and have comparable results). As an example, in computer science you would say two functions for computing factorial are equal if they have exactly the same behavior. Two functions would be equivalent if they produce the same result, irrespective of their behavior, implementation, etcetera... Repetition/replication and equal/equivalent are often taken to mean the same thing - but it is occasionally, as in this instance, important to note that there is a subtle but important difference. --41.207.177.15 (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
If that's an accepted definition in chemistry (as opposed to computer science), we should link to it. If we can't source it, I don't think it should be included. --Jim Butler (t) 07:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the accepted definition in all sciences. They can be taken to mean the same thing if you're talking about outcomes, but not if you're talking (precisely) about procedures, as Ullman does here..--82.156.181.209 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Husband and father

Note to the user that keeps adding variations of this phrase: I have no idea if Dana Ullman has a wife/civil partner, or if he has sired children, or has friends for that matter, but if he has then this fact can only be added if it is sourced. The "much loved" can not be added, unless it is an opinion attributed to someone, but it will probably be removed anyway as it's a silly thing to have in an article. --80.144.65.18 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding removal of notable wikipedian category

I reverted the removal of the notable wikipedian category here because:

  1. he is still a notable person who happens to have a wikipedia account, even if it's blocked.
  2. the category describes its members as "Wikipedia editors who also have Wikipedia articles about their notable activities outside Wikipedia", which Dana Ullman fullfills perfectly.
  3. the removal was done from an open TOR exit node, which makes me suspect that it's a sock from the indef blocked sockpupeteer account User:Unprovoked that was harassing Dana

In summary, this page fulfills objective criteria for being on the category, so please go raise consensus at the talk page of the category for changing the inclusion criteria to not include blocked users. Be warned that edit warring or arguing here about removing the category just because of the block just won't cut it. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)