--- On Sat, 4/24/10, Ivo da C.Souza <icso...@bsnl.in> wrote: > > **I did not refer to "money scams" of (Dr.) Dana Ullman, but to his > >knowledge of homeopathy, since he has books on homeopathic > medicine. --- On Sat, 4/24/10, Ivo da C.Souza <icso...@bsnl.in> wrote: >..................................................................... > **Homeopathic consultation takes a lot of time (not less > than 45 minutes). 'Allopathic' physicians are sometimes too fast in >giving > prescriptions. Today medical profession is becoming a business >(speaking in > general). >
I am afraid Fr. Ivo is confused about Dana Ullman. He appears to believe that this individual is a qualified homeopath and charges $40 for the first 10 minute and $3 per minute thereafter, for doctor-patient type homeopathic consultation and advice on the phone. This is obviously false. Dana Ullman is not a homeopath. He is charging this money for answering theoretical questions about homeopathy and referring you to a homeopath on the phone. He is acting as a telephonic information service and a middleman between a doctor and a patient. But even if Ullman was a qualified homeopath, it is important for Fr. Ivo to know that it is not appropriate for a doctor to charge money for consultations on the phone. Furthermore, Ullman cannot be referred to as Dr. Ullman merely on the basis that he has books on homeopathy. One has to be appropriately educated and qualified to have that prefix attached to his/her name. Anybody can buy books on homeopathy or write a book listing all the homeopathic drugs because there is not much understanding or background knowledge that is required to do that. That is also why anybody can obtain a mail order degree in homeopathy. Fr. Ivo wrote: > >Dr.Gilbert will be quite honest in his work, as he is honest in the >>assessment of modern medicine. > Regarding Gilbert, he has contributed nothing to this discussion after simply providing a link to the Huffington Post article. If in providing that link entitled "How scientific is modern medicine really?", he was claiming that modern medicine was not really scientific, as opposed to homeopathy and other healing rituals, then Gilbert would be anything but honest on this matter. Fr. Ivo and Admin Noronha will not understand this because of their scientific illiteracy, and unfamiliarity with modern medicine, but Dr. Gilbert ought to know that modern medicine is eminently scientific because it strictly follows the self-critical scientific method of falsification by observation or experimentation, and it rests on the solid foundations of basic hard sciences, namely physics, chemistry and biology, fully consistent with all their well-established principles. Homeopathy, on the other hand, is unscientific because it does not follow the self-critical method of science, and is completely at odds with the foundational principles of all the hard sciences. For example, it holds the superstitious belief that more dilute a solution is the more potent it is, and that the most potent solution is the one that does not have a single molecule of active drug dissolved in the solvent water. Another superstition that it believes is that water has memory, and that it remembers all the substances that were once dissolved in it. Homeopathy is entirely based on personal faith, superstitious beliefs and subjective feelings. That is why people from the various faith traditions such as religious priests are drawn towards it, as is clear from what Fr. Ivo had stated in his earlier post. It relies entirely on anecdotes, testimonials, grandmother's stories and urban legends, just like astrology, ufology and superstitious mysticism. Unlike Fr. Ivo and Admin Noronha, Dr. Gilbert ought to also recognize that what Ullman did was simply rail against doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies because they charge too much money for their services and products, which is exactly what he himself is doing on his homeopathy promotion website. His diatribe also involved an attack on doctors because they point out that homeopathy and other alternative rituals are unscientific, in some cases tantamount to quackery. Despite the title of his article, Ullman could not tell us why modern medicine was not scientific, and what its limitations were from the scientific standpoint. The few statistical claims he made were blatant falsehoods meant to deceive the readers. I have already pointed out a couple of these deceptions. I point out another one below: QUOTE Although we are commonly told that we are living longer than ever now, this is simply a clever, even tricky, use of statistics. The fact of the matter is that there has been a considerable reduction in deaths during the first five years of life ... and this reduction in deaths has resulted primarily from a medicinal agent called "soap," not from the use of any specific conventional pharmaceutical agent. Ultimately, an American who was 40 years old in 1900 and an American who was 40 years old in 1960 has a similar chance of living to 80 years old today. UNQUOTE .......Dana Ullman Please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/how-scientific-is-modern_b_543158.html Talk about stupid and fraudulent use of statistics. Please note how he makes claims about the "first five years of life" and the situation "now", but then turns around and provides massaged statistical facts for age 40 years and the year 1960. The truth is that life expectancy at age 40 in 1900 was 68 years . In 2004 it had increased to 79 years. In 1960, when modern medicine had still not become fully scientific the life expectancy at age 40 had increased to 72 years. But more importantly given his bogus claims regarding soap in the first five years of life, the life expectancy at age 5 years has increased from 58 years in 1900 to 78 years in 2000. This is important because this progress can be entirely accounted for by scientific progress in modern medicine. The unscientific garbage of homeopathy has remained totally stagnant in that time. It is virtually unchanged since Hahneman. Cheers, Santosh
