Dana Ullman - Views and Controversies

Views and Controversies

Ullman was interviewed on the American Broadcasting Company program 20/20 in a segment about homeopathy (January 30, 2004). He claimed that homeopathic preparations of extremely high dilution, i.e. those likely to contain zero molecules of the original substance, are effective because, he said, "the water gets impregnated with the information or memory of the original substance." When asked to suggest a laboratory experiment that 20/20 could independently conduct as a way to test the legitimacy of homeopathy, Ullman recommended the Ennis experiment, a study that seemed to show that ultra-dilute solutions of histamine, diluted to the levels used in homeopathic remedies, could affect cells just as the controls did. The result of 20/20's experiment was negative; the homeopathic dilution failed to produce a measurable effect when compared to plain water. Ullman has claimed the test was flawed as it was not a direct replication of Ennis' work. However, this experiment and one run by the BBC were ruled to be valid by independent experts commissioned by the BBC.

In an editorial in The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, editor-in-chief Gerald Weissmann criticized the scientific basis of homeopathy and included Dana Ullman in his criticism. Weissmann criticized Ullman for recommending, during the 2001 anthrax attacks in the USA, the use of the homeopathic preparation called Anthracinum to prevent infection. Ullman said he recommended Anthracinium for people who are at high risk of infection and who decline ciprofloxacin because of concerns over its side effects. While Ullman expressed concern about vendors "taking advantage of people wrapped up in the fear of the situation", he said "It would be irresponsible for us not to provide something that might be helpful." There is no evidence for the efficacy of Anthracinum, which is derived from nosodes gathered from infected pigs, and then diluted to "a point where no molecules of the disease product remain." In a right-of-reply letter, Ullman depicted Weissmann's editorial as an "unscientific critique" of homeopathy and cited five peer-reviewed studies. Weissmann responded: "Mr. Ullman is clearly a devotee of his art, and I respect his opinions. I’m afraid that I view Mr. Ullman’s references to the efficacy of homeopathy as modern versions of those Dr Holmes distrusted," and went on to quote from a well-known critique of homeopathy by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.: "...such cases deserve very little confidence. Yet they may sound well enough, one at a time, to those who are not fully aware of the fallacies of medical evidence."