User talk:Dana Ullman

Welcome!

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! D. Matt Innis 20:55, 27 February 2008 (CST)

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started and our help system for other introductory pages. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. Announcements are also available via Twitter. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any administrator for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. --Larry Sanger 15:54, 11 September 2008 (CDT)

Celebrity endorsements: von Behring et al.

Do you think I should reiterate what I was saying about your work? I don't want to misrepresent your work. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 15:23, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

Opus magnum

I'll get your book as soon as I can.

Water - The great mystery

I'll get this too.

Mechanisms

My recent edit of the lead appears ok, but I invite you to enhance it. It's a crucial one. Often, traces of my French mother tongue make my texts more abstract and pompous than intended. ;-) Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 00:06, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

Response

Dana, I can't honestly say I have any more or less interest in homeopathy than before this article had been started. I am concerned with the general direction of the article in a Wiki that focuses on accuracy. Don't take that as an attack on homeopathy, but as two observations:

• First, nothing in the article has given me deeper insights into homeopathic thinking and practice than I had before was ever at Citizendium. At present, the article tells me nothing specific about how a homeopath evaluates a patient and the basis of making recommendations. It has been said that homeopaths use clinical laboratory and diagnostic imaging, but there is no information on how they affect decisionmaking.
• Second, I hold any healing discipline to the same standards. I need to see some coherent model of how and why things are done, not appeals to "try it", or testimonials. I need to see that the discipline recognizes uncertainty and constantly tries to improve, just as Yet Again, the cardiologists are back reevaluating whether stenting does or does not give clinical benefit.

When I asked about MD's, I noted that none of the greats cited, and Osler is certainly one of the greatest in history, were active since there was significant understanding of molecular pharmacology. I'm not sure if it's the current rate, but, a few years back, medical knowledge, simply in terms of publications, doubled every seven years. In that context, seeing Jenner as a source seems a bit odd. It is possible for me to be involved in detailed therapeutic planning that literally would have been impossible 20-30 years ago, for lack of diagnostics, molecular pharmacology, pharmacogenetics, and other disciplines. I cherish a 1934 book in my library, entitled Modern Office and General Practice, in that it's impressive to find a book where absolutely everything suggested is ineffective or actively dangerous.

An early contributor to this article may have shaped some of my attitude toward the article itself, because this person's contributions came across as an advertisement for homeopathy, with explanations that seemed little more than mysticism. Mysticism may indeed have a role in my spiritual development, but when I had a raging soft tissue infection, I'll take the indicated antibiotics for the likely pathogen. I have had enough direct and theoretical experience with infectious disease that I would be most dubious of any treatment that did not have a rather clear molecular basis. On looking at this contributor's website, I saw claims of healing HIV for 3 months with no definition of "healing"; there have been numerous HAART trials where PCR could detect no virus for a year or more, but, on stopping treatment, the virus always came back. 3 month claims are not credible.

Sorry, but I don't find the article to be meeting the basic goal of an encyclopedia: describe the core of the subject. There may be interesting things about the physical chemistry of water that merit their own article, but it's become a blind alley. Tell me how a homeopath assesses a patient. Pick your own words, but homeopaths do not appear to mean the same thing by "symptom" as would a conventionally trained physician. Yes, laymen mix symptoms and signs and clinical chemistry and imaging, but, the way I use the terms, they are part of a very specific process -- a process that recognizes that each patient needs individual assessment, but not necessarily an extremely individualized treatment. One of my trauma surgeon colleagues speaks of VOMITs (Victims Of Modern Imaging Technology), where patients either did not receive necessary surgery, or had unneeded invasive pictures, due to artifacts on a CT that were not consistent with the clinical presentation. At the same time, I've had my personal physicians simply hand me lab reports, without a word about diagnosis, which was quite obvious -- our discussion immediately turned to planning.

Don't try to impress me with testimonials or convert me to a faith. Give me information that lets me understand more. Right now, there's a lot of sound and fury, and not a lot of content.

On a slightly lighthearted note, my old physical chemistry professor would be the perfect consultant here. He was named Dr. Paul Waters. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:37, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

Please do the needful

Please look at the "if it doesn't work" is back again section/topic on the Talk:Homeopathy Page and do the needful.—Ramanand Jhingade 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

reapproval of homeopathy article

Several authors have recently put quite a bit of work into further developing the draft version of the homeopathy article and there has been some discussion about reapproving the article. Would you mind having a look at the latest draft and make any comments you might have on the talk page? Thanks very much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

reapproval of homeopathy article

Several authors have recently put quite a bit of work into further developing the draft version of the homeopathy article and there has been some discussion about reapproving the article. Would you mind having a look at the latest draft and make any comments you might have on the talk page? Thanks very much. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)