Wednesday 20 January 2010

Non-misleading Homeopathic Packaging


Anonymous said...

You've made my day! :D

Atheist in Hiding said...


VicHoon said...

A shame you're a week late for b3ta's woowoo competition!

Alice said...


It has been described by a farmer as "like manuring a field with a fart" . . .

Cosmic Navel Lint said...

Played sir! Worth the entrance fee alone!

Dana Ullman, MPH said...

Or how about medicines made from the piss of pregnant horses (oh...that's PREMARIN)...or how about a medicine made form explosives (oh...that's NITROGLYCERIN)...or how about medicine made from mold (oh...that's penicillin).

Conventional Rx is the real witchcraft.

Cosmic Navel Lint said...


Other than perhaps referring to Miles Per Hour, might we please try and ascertain what the "MPH" stands for after your name? Some form of accreditation or qualification perhaps? If so, in what?

And the one thing you've omitted to say is that all the examples of medicines you cite have been open to peer reviews and testing for efficacy and side effects, unlike the examples Crispian satirises.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Dana Ullman, MPH said...

Why are so many "skeptics" so daft that they cannot think for themselves or google answers. "MPH" stands for masters in public health...from U.C. Berkeley. Here's an interview with me that UC Berkeley's alumni magazine published:,61

As for "peer view" for conventional drugs...what a joke. The lifespan of a drug is usually a couple of years until they realize that it "works" but causes more problems than benefits (whoooops).

Cosmic Navel Lint said...

Ah, you mean the same Dana Ullman who bills himself as 'Dana Ullman, M.P.H. is ""', at the website ?

The same Dana Ullman who's interviewed by "Homoeopathic Educational Services"?

So, apropos vested interests or any criticism of homoeopathy, neither of these can be considered remotely compromised as sources, then? Err... OK.

And as to sceptics not taking your chosen topic seriously, there is a reasonable answer to that, too: because there's very little appreciable science behind it to prove that it works.

Cosmic Navel Lint said...

A bit of satire to keep us going.

The Homoeopathic ER:

Auntie Em said...

Wow - so they don't teach you how the drug approval procedure works on your MPH? That's a pretty big gap in the curriculum right there. Or did they teach it homeopathically? The less you know, the more confident of your position you'll be?

No-one is claiming that medicines are side effect free. They alter physiology, which is *why* *they* *work*. The ones that do nothing (or at least nothing useful) are filtered out way before coming on the market.

Modern (i.e. effective) medicine is trialed against placebos, and against the best current competitors, before it ever gets near your pharmacy. Unlike homeopathy: which came on the market when the patient "just not dying for a bit" was proof of miraculous properties. The only physiological effect I'd get from necking a bottle of 30c "arsenic" is the sugar rush from the pills.

(Don't believe me? Come watch us do it:

I must find out what institution that you did your MPH at, and make sure I never recommend it to my students.

Auntie Em said...

Thanks for linking to the interview actually - it told me all I need to know the deep inconsistencies in your world view:

[DU] "... [y]ou have to speak with humility unless you’ve done some kind of systematic study or review."


[UCBAM] "How is homeopathy futuristic?

[DU] "I’m reminded of the Star Wars phrase: “May the force be with you.” Because underneath that view is the concept of energy medicine, the concept of an energy that flow through you, which is like a “vital force,” which is the word we use in homeopathy. “May the vital force be with you.”"

Yeah right. To paraphrase a meme "Data - or it didn't happen."

Dana Ullman, MPH said...

Hey Cosmic DingDong: It would help if you were smarter and could actually read, but I guess I'm asking too much.

The UC Berkeley's alumni magazine published an interview with me (by its editor!).

Do you really think that UCB would publish an interview with someone who is self-interviewed? Are you really that daft? Yeah, I guess you are.

My apologies for being a tad harsh here...but sometimes you gotta fight venom with venom (it's somewhat homeopathic).

Cosmic Navel Lint said...

Ah, the Quack awakes!

Thanks for proving what we already suspected Dana.

You're a legend in your own lunchtome.

Tony Lloyd said...

Crispian, you've attracted Dana Ullman to your blog! Well done on getting a serious woo crank.

Is it to much to expect Deepak to put in an appearance soon?

Tony Lloyd said...

Fuck me! I didn't realise what a total nutter Dana Ullman (MPH!) was.

This is just mild woo, catagory errors, slippy slides from one thing to the next etc:

But get a load of this:


Tony Lloyd ACA

Anonymous said...

That picture made me LOL! Thank you.