• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dana Ullman attacks James Randi on Huffpo

Reads like any of 50,000 posts about actual audio scientists on any audiophile magazine, really. It didn't even assert that Randi was anti-American and trying to destroy the country, unlike about 1/4 of the audiophile nutters argue from one way or another. Anything with a DBT is liberal. [sarcasm]I had no idea.[/sarcasm]

Still, "disinformation" about homeopathy? Well, you know, anything you hear from a homeopath qualifies.
 
Love the comments section. Randi himself went and posted to correct some misinfo. :)

When he was in Montreal, I asked how he became involved in the BBC experiment. It was funny that he told them not to let him know when it was happening, or he'd get blamed for blocking it with negative vibes.
 
utterly disgusting the level of deceit.... any of you care to comment????


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/disinformation-homeopathy_b_969627.html?ref=tw

I agreed to participate in the experiment if Professor Ennis conducted the study or served as a consultant to the study to assure that it was correctly conducted. The producer agreed. I was therefore flown to New York to be interviewed, and a month later the study was to be conducted. Professor Ennis is a highly-respected researcher, and she told the producer and me that she had no interest in conducting a "TV science experiment," but she would review the protocol of the researcher they chose to use.

When Professor Ennis was ultimately sent the protocol, she was shocked at what she received. This protocol was not her experiment (Ennis, 2004). In fact, it was clearly a study that was a set-up to disprove homeopathy. Ennis noted that certain chemicals used in the experiment were known to kill the specific types of cells that the experiment would be counting. Further, she listed egregious problems with this study (Ennis, 2004) and asserted that the "researcher" who created this new study had seemingly never previously conducted and published a study in his life. Actually, the researcher who created this study and who was to conduct it was a lab technician without a graduate degree and without any previous publication history.

Professor Ennis and I also learned that this same researcher had conducted the same faulty experiment for the BBC, which sought to discredit homeopathy (BBC, 2002). The narrator of this BBC program explicitly asserted that this TV experiment was a "replication" of Professor Ennis' previous study, though this assertion was sheer fabrication.

I then contacted "20/20's" producer, Mark Golden, to alert him of....
Click to expand...
 
Deetee said:
I see Dana Ullman, promoter of self and of quackery in every form, particularly homeopathy, has attacked Randi in an ad hom fashion
Click to expand...

Nuh uh. It says right in the article that it's not ad hom.

Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi and Ms. Brown is not an ad hominem attack on these two individuals.
Click to expand...
 
Touche on the Anthropogenic Global Warming. But it's not actually Randi, there are a lot of so called skeptics out there who don't accept global warming is real, and post on his blog, also some prominent friends of Randi, IIRC.
 
Well, I couldn't stop myself. Had to post a comment.

Not sure if or when it'll pass moderation.
 
Randi's reply from the comments section:

There appears to be alarm in the homeopathi*c community. Briefly, a few comments..*. I performed no tests of homeopathy*. I'm not capable of doing so, lacking the financial and technical means. When the BBC offered to enlist the Royal Society and test whether homeopaths could simply differenti*ate between homeopathi*c preparatio*ns and plain water, I saw that as an excellent test, and agreed to risk the JREF's prize money on the test. The test failed.

I am not a "climate change denier." Ullman knows that, but chooses not to know it. See the references in SWIFT for data on that accusation*.

Vithoulkas has refused to send an applicatio*n for the million-do*llar prize, and until he does, he knows he is ineligible*. Simply sending in the applicatio*n would make him eligible, but he refuses to do so, thus escaping the test. It's that simple.

Ennis will not communicat*e with me from her Ivory Tower, though I invited her outside for some fresh air...

Dana Ullman and the homeopathi*c community can see their farce collapsing*, and must resort to ranting and raving to survive. "Vibration*s" and incantatio*ns are all he has now.

James Randi.
Click to expand...
 
I'd also note when he talks about how homeopathy is effective, he doesn't make one mention of placebos. I found that more than a bit suspect since that's the biggest oversight on any study I've seen showing homeopathy to "work."
 
The author of that piece doesn't know the meaning of ad hominem. "Please know that this review and critique of Mr. Randi and Ms. Brown is not an ad hominem attack on these two individuals." She then goes on to say things like:
"James Randi is not just a homeopathic and alternative medicine skeptic, he is also a climate change denier"

Which has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy. What this (and other things about him as a man) has to do with whether or not homeopathy is effective, I have no idea, but it certainly seems like " an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it".

I'm also curious why she didn't say explicitly what was wrong with the study she mentions, rather than simply saying something like "the expert I chose didn't agree with it!". Okay, but why? What was the actual problem that made it invalid? If you're going to attack randi for:
It is inappropriate to say that Randi (or anyone) should not expose any type of fraud, but it is reasonable to ask: Is there a "method" to deciding to focus on one rather than the other? Even though Randi prides himself on uncovering frauds and hoaxes, he seems to turn a blind eye when he himself may be involved in what could be deemed a fraud or hoax.
Click to expand...
It would perhaps be a good idea to show how what you're referring to can legitimately be called "a fraud or hoax".
 
From the HuffPo article: Evidence based homeopathy? :rolleyes:

Where does one start with that dishonest claim? We know they don't have any evidence.
 
It would be nice to hear from either Ullman or Ennis to find out exactly what was wrong with the methodology of the tests. The only complaint voiced is that some chemical was used that was known to kill cells. Assuming that chemical was in homeopathic solution, it should have resulted in an explosion of cell growth.

Ward
 
I thought HuffPo was a reasonably respected publication.
Do they usually provide a platform for cooks?
 
Eddie Dane said:
I thought HuffPo was a reasonably respected publication.
Do they usually provide a platform for cooks?
Click to expand...

Like this chap?

They are heavily into the woo I am afraid as far as medical articles go.
I have been fighting a long drawn out battle there for a while, mainly on issues such as vaccines (they are very antivaccine in general) and homeopathy.
 
Wow, i have to say, I never knew that James Randi was a climate change denier before this Huff Po article. I assumed that they were simply lying (as HuffPo does so pretty regularly when talking about science or medicine), but then I found this article by Randi in which he does in fact deny climate change:

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

What I found most disturbing about randi's article was the following:

Meanwhile, some 32,000 scientists, 9,000 of them PhDs, have signed The Petition Project statement proclaiming that Man is not necessarily the chief cause of warming, that the phenomenon may not exist at all, and that, in any case, warming would not be disastrous.
Click to expand...

The only thing that is required to sign the Petition Project and be considered a scientist is that you have a B.S. So basically, my ex room mate who just barely graduate college with a psych degree, who now works as a massage therapist, is considered a scientist who could affix her name to this petition by the standards set by the Petition Project. My other friend who has a B.S. in biology and has only ever worked as a waitress since college is considered a "scientist" by these standards.

Secondly, one doesn't need to be a scientist who has anything to do with climate change to sign the petition. You could be a biochemist who doesn't know the first thing about climate and still sign.

Lastly, the petition, from what I can tell, goes by the honor system. They don't even verify the B.S. degrees of those who sign.

I have to say, although this article certainly doesn't make me think any more kindly towards Dana Ullman, homeopathy, or HuffPo, I have lost quite a bit of respect for James Randi. Not so much for his climate change denial, but the fact that he seems to base it at least partially due to a petition list that is so easily debunked. I mean, I'm certainly no climatology expert, but when I first heard about this list and checked it out, I could see it was essentially fraudulent immediately. Randi couldn't?
 
Last edited:
The guy isn't perfect, and you've excercised critical thinking in determining he's wrong about this one. Works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom