The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and Its Consequences

RebornHammer accused me of not reading the meta-study "The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and its Consequences" (Schott et al, 2010) (I referred to the authors as Lieb et al in the discussion). I disagree as I did read it and I think my understanding of the meta-study is better than RebornHammer's.

RebornHammer:

tinyurl com/6qjmgb4 PROZAC is so great!! A study on trials of SSRIs revealed that those with significant results were more likely to be published, sometimes more than once, whereas trials with non- significant results or findings unfavorable to the drug under investigation (intention-to-treat analyses versus per-protocol analyses) were not published

wstevenschneider:

1) This article is not a criticism of peer review or science, it's a criticism of pharmaceutical companies and how they try to thwart the science that exposes inefficacy or side-effects of their products. Lieb et al are encouraging government to take steps to see that this doesn't happen and that science continues to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable for evidence.

2) This in no way is evidence supporting Homeopathy.

RebornHammer:

@wstevenschneider thats evidence for a bias against homeopathy and any research or peer review that might prove it to work..

@wstevenschneider And that is why every time you ask for peer review proving homeopathy you are asking for something that is unlikely to ever exist under the current political/ medical situation on the planet earth.

@wstevenschneider hello? can you read? what this is is a criticism of peer review that is used by the medical community to choose treatments for their patients. The point is that the pharmaceutical industry is out of control, and owns(through contributions and donations) most of the most highly respected peer review for medicine out there. This means that if it's not a pharmaceutical drug it does not get the light of day. Homeopathy is not a pharmaceutical drug.

Let's read "The Financing of Drug Trials by Pharmaceutical Companies and its Consequences" (Schott et al, 2010) together.

Methodology

Fifty-seven independent studies looked at various trials that were funded by pharmaceutical companies. These studies were then organized into a meta-study to get a more comprehensive view of what is going on when pharmaceutical companies fund research.

Results

Incomplete registration
With the aim of facilitating public access to clinical trial data and preventing pharmaceutical companies from influencing the publication of results, in 2004 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) made registration a condition for publication in any of the 11 leading medical journals (7): new trials had to be registered by 1 July 2005; those already under way, by 13 September 2005. Meanwhile several reg- isters fulfill the ICMJE standards.

In January 2005 major pharmaceutical organi- zations, among them the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Inter- national Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA), implemented guidelines that obliged their members to enter trials prospectively in publicly accessible registers (8, 9).

Despite this, two of the 57 studies included in the present investigation contain data suggesting that phar- maceutical companies are still not registering important information on clinical drug trials.
.
.

Evidence that some pharmaceuticals are not disclosing their funding of drug-trials.

Concealment of adverse drug reactions
Seven of the studies investigated concerned themselves with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in industrially sup- ported drug trials (Table).
.
.

Evidence that some pharmaceuticals are repressing the publication of self-funded trials that reflect negatively on their product.

Publication bias
Of the 57 studies included in this investigation, 14 ana- lyzed the connection between the type of funding of a trial and publication bias.
.
.

Evidence that some pharmaceuticals only present the self-funded trials that reflect positively on their product to the FDA.

Rights over trial data and restricted publication rights
Two investigations on this topic were identified. Both an analysis of the protocols of all studies initiated and published by pharmaceutical companies in a particular region of Denmark in 1994 and 1995 (e28) and a ques- tionnaire survey of medical specialists in Australia (e29) indicated that in some trials pharmaceutical companies secure the rights over the data and place constraints on publication rights.
.
.

Evidence that some pharmaceuticals consider the methodology, results and data from the drug trials on their product to be propriety information, particularly if they are funding the trial.

Ghostwriters and guest authors
A case study on rofecoxib (e5) and an investigation into the above-mentioned studies in Denmark both found evidence of frequent resort to ghostwriters and guest authors in industry-funded publications. The Denmark investigation showed that statisticians employed by pharmaceutical companies are frequently not men- tioned in the published articles (e4).

Evidence that some pharmaceuticals attempt (and succeed in some cases) to control the direction of and what is said in the report of a trail they are funding.

Conclusion

This systematic review clearly shows that clinical trials with the involvement of pharmaceutical companies often present the therapeutic benefit of a drug in too positive a light and also fail to mention risks. Clinical studies are increasingly being funded by pharmaceuti- cal companies (e32­e35). Professional medical bodies construct evidence-based guidelines on the basis of published trial results, so their recommendations may be flawed. This contributes to excessive prescription of expensive new drugs whose efficacy is overestimated and risks underestimated. Moreover, because the evi- dence is distorted patients do not receive adequate in- formation (14).

In the past few years measures have been taken worldwide to deal with the problems described here. Laws have been enacted, for example, with the inten- tion of securing public access to research data (15­18). In the USA, for instance, a law of 27 September 2008 prescribes the registration and publication of the results of clinical trials in a register accessible on the internet (15, 19). In the European Union, directive 2001/20/EC requires registration of all clinical studies (16). A guideline implemented in 2008 lays down what classes of information from the EudraCT database-- accessible only to governmental authorities--should be made available in the publicly accessible EudraPharm drug database, which thus remains incomplete (17, 18).

Pharmaceutical organizations have implemented recommendations that are intended to ensure compre- hensive publication of research findings, whether posi- tive or negative (9, 12, 20). This initiative on the part of the pharmaceutical industry is welcome; however, the present investigation shows that negative results are still not being published in timely fashion and control mechanisms have failed.

Official regulatory measures to guarantee public access to study protocols and results and prevent the withholding of information about dangerous ADRs are urgently required. This would also give independent drug bulletins and bodies representing physicians, e.g., the Drug Commission of the German Medical Associ- ation, the opportunity to obtain detailed, unbiased in- formation about new drugs. Furthermore, it should be obligatory to prove that a new drug provides additional benefit compared with existing pharmacological and non-pharmacological forms of treatment. More public funding should be made available for independent studies (21, 22).

Measures must be taken at many levels to ensure that commercial interests do not undermine the knowledge of scientifically correct study planning, study execu- tion, and publication (4, 5, e15, 15, 23­25, e36, e37). A large number of physicians are involved in the planning and conduct of drug trials. For the benefit of their pa- tients, they should assume greater responsibility and work to counteract the economic self-interest of pharmaceutical companies in research and clinical practice.

This meta-study is not an indication of the corruption of peer review though it does indicate that some pharmaceutical companies attempt to subvert the peer review process in pursuit of profits. What the meta-study does show, albeit indirectly, is the self-correcting nature of peer review at work. Science is always questioning things, even its own conclusions. Peer review is also subject to this scrutiny.

Here we see scientists taking a look at a particular portion of peer review, in this case drug-trials, and finding evidence of pharmaceutical companies trying to subvert the peer review process. This meta-study serves to alert researchers, journal editors, medical doctors and policy makers of these subversion attempts.

Furthermore, the meta-study acknowledges that, while progress has been made countering some of these threats to peer review, more effort is required as more pharmaceutical companies are starting to fund research. Schott et al calls for several things:

• Official regulation of drug-trails to guarantee public access to studies and provide disclosure of adverse drug reactions.
• New drugs should provide benefits beyond that provided by old regimes.
• Increase public funding for more independent studies.
• Improved measures to prevent commercial interests from subverting the research and the peer-review process.
• Doctors to be proactive in countering the commercialization of medical science.

It does not follow that because there are pharmaceutical companies that attempt to subvert research and peer review that the peer review process is unreliable.

In fact, much of the message that comes from this meta-study is that the reader should be wary of pharmaceutical-funded clinical trials. As usual, the trials to go to are the publicly-funded, independent third-party studies that have no vested interest in the success of the drug being reviewed.

Far from being evidence that peer review and medical science are corrupt and unreliable, this meta-study shows us that peer review allows scientists to verify attempts to corrupt the process and to suggest corrections. It also demonstrates that science is out to protect the well-being of the general public and that pharmaceutical companies must continue to be held accountable.

While no one disputes peer review is not without its flaws, it is the only thing preventing pharmaceuticals from corporately raping the public. This meta-study serves as a call-to-arms to protect the integrity of peer review from being subverted by pharmaceuticals whose main interest is producing profit for their share-holders.

So, RebornHammer I'm curious as how you got, "The point is that the pharmaceutical industry is out of control, and owns(through contributions and donations) most of the most highly respected peer review for medicine out there," from Schott et al when this is clearly not what the meta-study says. I get the impression that you read the abstract and drew your own conclusions without bothering to find out what the meta-study actually said.

Examining Peer-Review

RebornHammer's Campaign

Our good friend RebornHammer dislikes the fact that his detractors call for peer reviewed evidence in support of his claims of Homeopathy. RebornHammer dislikes the fact so much that he has begun to wage a campaign to discredit peer review.

RebornHammer:

tinyurl com/735c5v9

Richard Smith, also a past editor of the British Medical Journal, recently summed up his view of journal peer review as follows:2

“We have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.”

RebornHammer - Quote-Mining Richard Smith"

RebornHammer: (in response to the claim that the previous article doesn't discredit peer review or the research that demonstrates Homeopathy doesn't work)

tinyurl com/73x23m3 Where to now for health-related journal peer review?: Excerpt from JLM, June 2011 "despite 25 years of effort, journal peer review processes are themselves not “evidence-based”. This is not to suggest that we should become cynical about peer review, but rather that systems of peer review be recognised as generally not being based upon firm scientific data and that they are as much about politics and ethics as about “evidence”."

RebornHammer - Not Understanding the JLM Article.

Measured Response

Dear RebornHammer, nobody ever said that peer review is the end-all and be-all of scientific evidence.

• Is peer review slow? Yes.
• Are erroneous articles found in journals? Yes.
• Do many laypersons and some scientists uncritically accept the validity of peer reviewed articles that appear in a journal? Yes.
• Do journals reflect the biases and sometimes ideologies of their editors? Yes.
• Could we have something better than peer review? Sure, but we don't have that yet and need to use the best tool available which is peer review (perhaps it might be you, RebornHammer, who discovers/develops a better tool).
• Do flaws in peer review invalidate science? Certainly not.

Why then do we prefer peer reviewed evidence over some random article found on "teh Intrawebs" you may wonder? The main thing peer reviewed journals provide for us is a body of evidence that has a guarantee that most of the articles will be free of basic errors.

Your next question, RebornHammer, should be "How does this body of evidence work?"

As scientists perform their research their results are submitted for peer review. Assuming there are no basic errors in the paper the paper gets accepted for publishing. Sometimes a journal's editorial staff do not practice sufficient oversight and a researcher may have to try to get their paper published in different journals before it finally gets accepted.

Regardless, if the scientists' results are verifiable then the conclusions and results of their paper will be used by other scientists when they explain the results of their own particular papers. Over time the number of papers using these results will constitute a body of evidence that confirms the correctness of the results of the original paper.

On the other hand, if the scientists' results are not verifiable then the conclusions and results of their paper will not be used by many other scientists to explain the results in their own particular papers. This will result in a dearth of evidence for the results of the original paper.

What this means, RebornHammer, is that the articles you quote do not invalidate peer review. These articles warn the people who use peer review, be they scientists or laypeople, to maintain a modicum of skepticism even when citing peer reviewed literature!

Now, you may maintain that I and others accept peer reviewed literature uncritically but tear-apart your non-peer reviewed literature. It is true that we are more likely tear apart your non-peer reviewed literature than any peer reviewed evidence you may cite. It is not true however, that I, at least (though I'm sure the others are the same, but I don't wish to speak their minds for them), don't view the peer reviewed evidence we use as our evidence without skepticism.

Nonetheless, the body of evidence is overwhelmingly against the idea that Homeopathy even works. Too much research has been done on Homeopathy over the past 200 years, too many clinical trials have come back in the 60 odd years since they've been used, to support the notion that Homeopathy works in any way imagined by Homeopaths.

The take home message here is: Despite the flaws and limitations of peer review it is the body of evidence that matters and the body of evidence does not support the Homeopathy hypothesis!

Sourced Articles

The Richard Smith Article

The JLM Article

Dealing with Anti-scientific Buffoons

I can't believe some of the anti-science crap floating around YouTube. No sooner than you flush some of the excrement out of a forum you're frequenting then some more gets dumped in. What's an honest skeptic to do?

The HomeoTards Past

Mr. Benneth hasn't shown his face in the YouTube forums since the skeptics there spanked him pretty hard over his dishonesty. For now he's sulking and firing potshots from his personal blog.

Mr. Bonking still makes an appearance, mainly to preform a "drive-by" spamming and rarely engages in conversation anymore. Sometimes he'll attempt his Homeopathy apologetics as drhomeopathycures, but even that's weak and infrequent.

The HomeoTards Present

One Homeopath I deal with is only 16 years of age. Old enough to be held accountable, but young enough I still hold out some hope for his eventual return to reality. At this point I'd rather not consider him a HomeoTard, but if the evidence suggests otherwise I may have to change my mind.

This brings me to the main subject of this post, RebornHammer. This "gentleman" (a term I use here, but loosely) came into the forums making claims that James "The Amaz!ing" Randi" had defrauded one Vithoulkas on the $1M Challenge.

A little research into the matter reveals the following:



After frequent attempts to get RebornHammer to provide some verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence fail, RebornHammer begins posting quotes from scientific laureates in an attempt to convince the skeptics that they're being irrational and unscientific. The skeptics of course understand these quotes and their meanings better than RebornHammer does. It also gets pointed out to reborn hammer that these quotes don't count as evidence in support of Homeopathy's supposed efficacy.

The upshot of this was that I finally lost my temper. Perhaps I was over the top, I don't know. Dealing with deniers of science and cranks all of the time makes me feel cranky. Anyhow, here's an excerpt of the conversation where I blow up.

RebornHammer:

Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest, watch it 'till the end!

tinyurl com/25lz49u

regarding what it worthy of scientific study, WHERES THE MONEY?. what is worthy of being studied, please watch the YOUTUBE video titled : Cancer is finally cured in Canada but Big Pharma has no interest, watch it 'till the end!

wstevenschneider:

@RebornHammer How is this evidence of the efficacy of Homeopathy?

RebornHammer:

this is evidence of the inefficacy of the scientific community and the Pharmaceutical industry. There is little interest in cures and medicines that are not patentable. Homeopathic remedies are not patentable. So there would be no interest in proving their efficacy. How about you tell me something that is proven to work(peer review or whatever you think is worthy) that is not patentable? There will be few things you can tell me about. Of course I could be wrong but you go ahead and tell me.

wstevenschneider:

@RebornHammer The puerile pustulence that erupted from this particular post of yours demonstrates what passes for thought in that festering and malodorous mound that you call your brain. None of your technology that you enjoy so much has come about w/o science guiding it. From the car that you drive, to the device that plays your favourite music, to medicine that's protected you from illness, to the building that you live in.

None of these things would have come about without the science, the scientific community and the peer-review process which you so revile. If you dislike these things so much then please turn in your vehicle, give up your music player, stop taking medicine and move into a cave.

You argue against medicine when supporting homeopathy, but you want a "cure for cancer" that hasn't been all the way through trials yet.

In your arguments against science and medicine you try to have it both ways. You want science to approve of the things that you want, but you don't wish to let science take its course and discover how some cure really works, when it works and how well it works.

Now you conflate a possible medicine that may be used in the future with Homeopathy. DCA has much more effectiveness than any Homeopathic remedy so your sorry attempt to equate the plight of Homeopathy with DCA just marks you as desperate and pathetic.

Homeopathy has already been explored and found wanting. There's nothing new here; in-vitro tests on cancer cells with Homeopathic remedies weren't statistically more significant than the control and quality clinical trials have never shown that Homeopathy is more effective than placebo.

DCA: currently being researched and has efficacy beyond control

@RebornHammer In case you interpret this as an ad hominen note that I am criticizing your continued lack of understanding of how science works, how peer-review works and your insistence that we believe Homeopathy works despite its consistent failure to work in trials or lab tests.

Go and educate yourself on how science and peer-review works instead of concocting conspiracy theories. You're beginning to bore me.

murdocha (Ah, where were you earlier? :-)):

@RebornHammer What is your argument here? Big Pharma makes money so it is bad, therefore homeopathy works? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be the essence of your argument. Please, make a request for the financial records of Boiron, Hahnemann Labs, Celletech, OHM Pharma (a Big company), see if they are making a profit. If they are, be prepared to judge them in the same light.

RebornHammer Claims about Cancer Cure
RebornHammer Claims Bad Science and I Blowup
My Blowup Continued

So yes, my head hurts from having to deal with these sorts of people on YouTube. Maybe I will take a break from YouTube for a couple of days, spend time with my wife and kids and get reconnected.

The Fish of Time Redux

Meeting Two of the Rational Theists

The rational theists of YouTube got together for their second show the other day, The Fish of Time Show, to talk about Creationism. There was some interesting discussion, but there are some things I feel I'd like to address.

The Fish of Time

My Thoughts on Show 2

At 00:38:46 into the show, one of the participants (sorry, I don't know them all by name) mentioned that you have to consider the Genesis story to be allegorical, but the story of Jesus' death and resurrection to be fact. The thing is, how do you decide what to consider allegory and what to consider fact? Is there evidence to support the notion that some parts of the Bible are fact where others aren't? Is there evidence that suggest anything about the Bible is factual at all?

Now, I'm not saying that there is absolutely nothing true or factual in the Bible; you just can't depend on the Bible as a book of facts. For a book purported to be The Word of God this is problematic. How can you count on the Bible to reveal truth if it can't recount facts in a reliable fashion? Even if the Bible turns out to be The Word of God and is Truth, this lack of reliability in terms of facts doesn't lend the Bible much credibility.

So, once you start deciding that some parts of the Bible aren't to be taken literally due to a "fact deficit" what's to stop you from doing the same to ever more and more parts of the Bible? The above is what happened to me. The more I learned the more I realized that the revealed truth of the Bible didn't conform to the observed facts of science.

Listening to The Fish of Time Show I wonder how they can deny one part of the Bible, but accept another part? The truth is, no Christian accepts the entire Bible as literal fact as some amount of interpretation is required. If we were actually to accept the entire Bible as factual and true it would be insane, some parts of the Bible were meant to be allegorical!

I was amused when they laughed at the Koran. Two holy books, which is truer? Good question, is there an answer?

Addendum

04 Dec 2011

After a conversation with a historian friend of mine (where she pretty much waxed the floor with me regarding evidence in classical studies) I feel it's necessary for me to add the following:

• Some parts of the Bible's historicity are verifiably true
• Some parts of the Bible's historicity are verifiably untrue
• My primary issue is how different sects of Christianity determine what is true and what isn't
• My secondary issue is how Christians believe the veracity of one set of claims of the miraculous in the Bible over others
• My tertiary issue is how some Christians' belief in the Bible being inerrant leads them to acts which are technically immoral by any sane reasoning, harmful to the people around them and to trying to restrict basic human rights

Thanks Jo for kicking my ass and keeping me honest.

creationists still sucking at paleobiology

Sherry Konkus's Latest Post

Sherry has posted this article on some more stupid Creationist claims on her site Stupid Dinosaur Lies



Well done as always Sherry. Your debunking efforts continue to be appreciated.

A moment of Science Awesome

Scientific and Religious Worldviews Collide

The CMI travesty happening here in Cold Lake today has got my feathers ruffled, I admit.

Making Light of the Buffoons

I found this post by PZ Meyers on Pharyngula amusing and weirdly appropriate.

D

The wrong thing to take away from this is that females are more irrational than males (females being more irrational than males would be an unsubstantiated claim in addition to being an insult to females). The correct things to take away from this are that Creationism and by extension Religion are irrational.

If you need your Revealed Truth to get up in the morning, good for you. I choose to be rational and prefer the Empirical Evidence (and coffee), even if I don't like the evidence or it clashes with my expectations.

Kent Hovind Raps

CMI Plays their Con Today

At 7:00 pm MST CMI's Calvin Smith will stand in front of a crowd and preach CMI's doctrine of Creationism to the gulli-believers.

To "celebrate" let's watch one of the Creationist movements more infamous speakers give us his rap on Creationism. Ladies and Gentlemen, give it up for Kent Hovind!



Yes, Kent Hovind is an idiot, but the people who fall for this crap...I'm at a loss for words.

Updates

I had accidentally pointed the video URI to the wrong clip. They're very similar, but I wanted the original video not the modified one advertising the The Fish of Time Show.

The Creatards are Coming!

CMI Lia-A-Thon

CMI (Creation Ministries International) is coming to my town on the 24 November 2011. Prepare for misrepresentation of scientists' papers and findings, outright lying, dubious cryptozoology claims and basic shoehorning of half-baked claims into The Bible.

Radio Ad

A local radio station, K-Rock 95.3 ran a spot to interview the people sponsoring the event, Military Christian Fellowship. The organizers had the affrontry to claim that there was evidence for a young earth, raise the T-Rex blood canard and state that creationist scientistsidiots simply filter the paleontological evidence differently than those crazy liberal, satan-worshiping, NWO, "evolutionist" scientists! It ticked me off so badly that I had to shut off the radio for the duration.

I have a day off on the day of the seminar. So, should I attend?

Mr. Bonking vs. Murdoch: Throwing Down the Gauntlet

Better Than Ultimate Fighting

Well, I never watch UFC fights, but I find this more interesting anyhow.

The Challenge

Murdoch, tired of Mr. Bonking's constant spamming and sniping in the James Randi explains homeopathy channel forum has issued a formal challenge to Mr. Bonking.

drchristoaa:

@murdocha YOU , JUST A BORN IDIOT , Dont have
the ability to think and answer, i feel pity
for you..

The TRUTH is your IQ is very LOW, AND you have
proved it with more and more evidence by your
posts here, and still going on proving it...
ass hole

murdocha:

@drchristoaa Actually, I believe I have shown,
in post after post, a logical, well thought out
argument. You, on the other hand, have resorted
to name calling, mass spamming, voting a number
of posts as spam when they are not, and fake
accounts to prop up your beliefs, while providing
no robust evidence for homeopathy.

drchristoaa:

@murdocha TOTALLY WRONG COMMENT

murdocha:

@drchristoaa I issue you a formal challenge.
Please present your most logical and cogent case
for homeopathy from the posts on this video. No
trolling, no all-caps, no marking spam, just your
best argument from those you have made to date. I
will reply to that with the most logical and
scientifically based of those I have posted on
this video.

If you don't (or can't), then I will consider the
argument closed.

Murdoch challenging Mr. Bonking

Mr. Bonking's Current Response

Mr. Bonking's response thus far has been to ignore the challenge and continues his spamming program.

drchristoaa:

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF
HEALING...SCIENCE HAS ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY
WORKS...DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP DATE YOUR SCIENCE
KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED
HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because
many poeple are tuning to homeopathy for better health,
SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT.

Blech! Spam!

Where Now?

Until Mr. Bonking actually takes up Murdoch's challenge he will not be able to prove his case. However, I believe I can predict how this will go:

1. Mr. Bonking will yet again present the IIT Bombay study as evidence for efficacy of Homepathy.
2. Murdoch will refute IIT Bombay study yet again.
3. Mr. Bonking will claim, "Nuh huh!" and proceed to spam the forum.
4. The rest of us will document and publish the idiocy of Mr. Bonking's arguments and behaviour.

Bear in mind, I've been wrong before. Mr. Bonking may rise to the challenge. Although the science is settled,there's always that small chance that scientists got things wrong, however improbable that may be.

There's also the small chance that Mr. Bonking, should he fail at providing verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence for his claims, will bow out graciously. Small, but possible.

HTML Cleanup

Blogger's Compose Barfs div Tags

When I first started using Blogger I tried using the "Edit HTML" option, but I made the mistake of trying to use proper HTML syntax. In frustration I began using "Compose" until I learned the rules of editing HTML in Blogger. I've since learned what those rules are and will be editing the raw HTML in future posts.

Current Todo

1. Clean up HTML in old posts.
2. Make posts more accessible.
3. Make post Web Pages load faster (Point's 1) and 2) should mostly cover this).
4. Use HTML5 semantics as appropriate.

So, if you notice any errors in my old posts that may be a direct result of my clean up attempts please let me know.

John Benneth's Childish Fantasies of Persecution

Wow, The Guy Just Gets Nuttier

So, our friend John Benneth has been lying low ever since I announced that I was going to expose his dishonesty. While he was lying low Mr. Benneth composed the following video:

D

Frankly, I'm not too sure what Mr. Benneth is getting at here. I imagine that it may be one of several things.

Mr. Benneth:

• is feeling persecuted by other Netizens for his bizarre beliefs and claims and is expressing his desire to strike back.
• is angry at the success of Modern Medicine, frustrated with the ineffectiveness of Homeopathy and is expressing his desire for reality to conform to his views.
• has watched or listened to Dara O'Brian mock Homeopathy and woo in general and believes himself to be equally witty and sufficiently intelligent to counter O'Brian's humour.
• has a deep-seated hatred and fear of children and is expressing his wish to shoot them. (least likely, but still possible)

Mr. Benneth, though I laughed when I watched your video HOMEOPATH BRUTALLY BEATEN, it wasn't because I found you witty and intelligent. I was laughing, Mr. Benneth, because you are transparent, immature and a bad actor to boot.

If there was a reward for idiocy, I'd nominate you. In it's place I offer the "G' in th' fuck'n sack!" Award, dedicated to the personage who's humour you try to counter by emulating (while failing to do either), Mr. Dara O'Brian.

Introducing the Amazing NymShifting Homeopath Troll

I thought USENET was bad for Trolls.

Where do they come from?

November 2011, towards evening -7.00 hr Greenwich time I received an interesting notice in my e-mail from YouTube.

Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Reply_from_drhomeopathycure_on_=22James_Randi_explains_hom?=
 =?iso-8859-1?q?eopathy=22?=
From: YouTube Service 
To: wstevenschneider 
Status: RO
Content-Length: 2913
Lines: 97
  
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

drhomeopathycure has replied to your comment on James Randi explains homeop=
athy:
      @wstevenschneider asshole fuck off

Surprising e-mail

I was a little bit surprised and a bit confused. Who was this drhomeopathycure and what did I ever do to this person? Why was drhomeopathycure calling me an "asshole" and telling me to "fuck off"?

This is an odd story, so I'd better fill you in.

Background on Christoa

The youtube user known as jamesbondking aka drchristoaa (He calls himself doctor, but his degree is in Homeopathy. Even if Homeopathy were viable science I don't see how an undergraduate's degree entitles him to practice medicine. But Homeopathy isn't medicine is it? No, it's woo.) heretofore known as Mr. Bonking, likes to enter forums where a video has been posted denouncing Homeopathy. Initial posts by Mr. Bonking often begin with an announcement of a study done in Bombay that, in his opinion, proves Homeopathy works.

drchristoaa

new research conducted at the respected Indian Institutes of Technology has
confirmed the presence of “nanoparticles” of the starting materials even at
extremely high dilutions of homeopathic medicine. Researchers have
demonstrated by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron
diffraction and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic
Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES), the presence of physical entities in these
extreme dilutions

the researchers received confirmation of the existence of nanoparticles at
two different homeopathic high potencies (30C and 200C) and because they
tested four different medicines (Zincum met./zinc; Aurum met. /gold; Stannum
met./tin; and Cuprum met./copper), the researchers concluded that this study
provides “concrete evidence.”

Citing the Bombay Study

Challenge Mr. Bonking's understanding of the Bombay Study, say you tell him that finding particles in the Homeopathic remedy doesn't equal proof that homeopathy works, Mr. Bonking shows that he can't accept an alternate explanation.  Mr Bonking can't even begin to explain how the Bombay finding supports his notion that Homeopathy works.  At that point, Mr. Bonking begins to talk down to his challengers.

drchristoaa

@wstevenschneider Again you are becoming a clown here...dear read the article
understand it as it is, dont make your own explanation ok science has proved
how homeopathy works and homeopathy is the most advanced science of healing

you dont mislead innocent people, the fact is homeopathy works and is the most
advanced science of healing.And science has recently proved it using
nano-particle studies, IIT bombay found it, and it is not metal contaminates,
scientists at IIT are not fools like u. They know that science is everchanging.
They have done genuine test of Homeopathic dilution,and is done dublind blind.
They never know the aurum met 200 was the medicne before they detected the gold
particles form it.

wstevenschneider

@drchristoaa - "you dont mislead innocent people,"

Until proven otherwise, Homeopathy is a scam!

"it is not metal contaminates"

Do you even read what you post?  The article clearly said that they were
studying the metal contaminates _not_ the active ingredients.

"They have done genuine test of Homeopathic dilution,and is done dublind blind"

Their tests didn't prove anything beyond placebo, which what _all other double
blind studies_ found.

Talking Down to Challengers

Mr. Bonking even believes that Homeopathy journals are respected scientific journals. This despite the fact that Homeopathy journals don't appear in listings such as PAIS. (Yes, I misspelled it. Hey, I never claimed perfection, I just demand it.)

drchristoaa

@wstevenschneider Randi is still knows homeopathy can work. Homeopathy
works and is the most advanced science of healing, scientists has
proved it,(search IIT BOMBAY HOMEOPATHY) and the research paper
appeared in PEER reviewed well established journal and the result was
published after 4 years of study on nanotechnology and homeopathy by
scientists of IIT Bombay.

This definitely shows that HOMEOPATHY is the MOST ADVANCED  science
of healing and medicine of present and future.

Homeopathy Journals not in PAIS

Once all of his arguments run out (which doesn't take long) he not only continues using them as if they weren't refuted, but he begins to spam the forum. For example:

drchristoaa

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS... DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP
DATE YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT..

Spam

and

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS... DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP
DATE YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT..

More Spam

and

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS... DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP
DATE YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT..

Even More Spam

Detect a pattern yet?

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS... DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP
DATE YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT..

Spam Again

Want to guess what's coming next?

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS... DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP
DATE YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE,
EVEN THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.

This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.

HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT..

Side order of Spam

The fact is that Mr. Bonking does this a lot. He's not a very good troll, but he's definitely consistent.

Getting Bonked Twice

I have to say, that I certainly did not enjoy it. When I first met Mr. Bonking I met him under his jamesbondking Channel ID in the James Randi's Challenge to Homeopathy Manufacturers and Retail Pharmacies posted by JamesRandiFoundation. Suddenly someone named drchristoaa started responding to our posts and sounding a lot like jamesbondking. Naturally, we were suspicious and so we pressed drchristoaa for the truth.

murdocha

@drchristoaa Wow, you sound a lot like jamesbondking. Are you
related?

wstevenschneider

@murdocha - Based on dr(?)christoaa's posting history I propose
this possibility.

drchristoaa == jamesbondking

Thoughts?

murdocha

@wstevenschneider It is astounding that you never see the two of
them together at the same time.

drchristoaa

@wstevenschneider yes u are right.Homeopathy works and is the most
advanced science of healing and science has proved it.

@murdocha Both are same,

wstevenschneider

@drchristoaa "Both are same, "

QFT as in the days of USENET.

murdocha

@drchristoaa Thought so. Troll away!

drchristoaa

@murdocha shut up..

Mr. Bonking's First Sockpuppet

To Mr. Bonking's credit, he did admit to the nymshift even if only under coercion.  To this day, Mr. Bonking keeps both accounts active though these days he's been posting most often as drchristoaa.

Hypothesis: A Third Bonking?

So, you've seen the e-mail that I received from drhomeopathycure at the beginning of this post. Here's a screenshot I took of drhomeopathycure's response. As you can see, drhomeopathycure's response has been deleted, but guess who also replied to me?

drchristoaa

@wstevenschneider fuck off

Evidence of Third Bonking?

As you can see (aside from Mr. Bonking's stream of verbal abuse) Mr. Bonking's response is suspiciously similar to drhomeopathycure's. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it is my belief that Mr. Bonking has nymshifted a third time and accidentally replied as drhomeopathycure.

Drhomeopathycure's Channel Screenshot

Because my screenshot program isn't working at 100% efficiency right now, I had to take a series of shots of drhomeopathycure's Channel. In the fifth screen shot you'll see drhomeopathycure's recent activity. Anything seem familiar?

Top of Channel

Second sixth of Channel

Third sixth of Channel

Fourth sixth of Channel

@wstevenschneider asshole fuck off

Fifth sixth of Channel

Bottom of Channel


So there you go, whether drhomeopathycure is Mr. Bonking or not, drhomeopathycure did indeed curse at me. Not that's such a big deal, I have cranks and crackpots curse at me all of the time. However, if drhomeopathycure is Mr. Bonking then, Mr. Bonking, you've made an error and have been caught.  Because, Mr. Bonking, The Internets never forgets!

The Stolen Video

Aside from (unsuccessfully might I add) trying to destroy my confidence, drhomeopathycure seems to be a bit of thief too. Now, Standard YouTube License allows other YouTube users to use portions of other user's videos in their own videos. The license also allow people to mirror other peoples videos as well. Proper attribution and credits are required. Drhomeopathy cure used the video James Randi explains Homeopathy posted by Rational Response and reposted it as HOMEOPATHY EXPAINED WRONGLY....mp4. This was without proper attribution, crediting the original uploaders, stating that it's a mirror, without permission of the JREF and without modification.

Compare RationalResponse's video

D1

to drhomeopathycure's. (Video no longer available. See Updates below.)




Is there any significant difference between the two?


Drhomeopathycure, Mr. Bonking, or whomever the hell you really are, this is very low.  I don't even know if it's legal.  I can't, even for a moment, think of how you believe James Randi's video proves your case.  Have you no originality?

Updates

07 November 2011

1. Murdoch has informed me that drhomeopathycure has removed the questionable video!!!
2. Drhomeopathycure has given us more evidence in the If Homeopathy Beats Science forum that he is Mr. Bonking. (see screenshot below, he removed his original post)

Post in drhomeopathycure's activity window.

HOMEOPATHY IS THE MOST ADVANCED SCIENCE OF HEALING...SCIENCE HAS
ALREADY PROVED HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS...DEAR FRIENDS PLEASE UP DATE
YOUR SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE....HOMEOPATHY IS THE MEDICNE OF FUTURE, EVEN
THE FATHER OF MODERN MEDICNE SUPPORTED HOMEOPATHY.
This video is published by antihomeopaths, because many poeple are
tuning to homeopathy for better health, SO IGNORE THIS FOOLSIH VIDEO.
HOMEOPATHY WORKS...EXPERIENCE IT

Spam for desert too!


Mr. Bonking, did you accidentally post as drhomeopathycure again? Silly mistakes to make with your little sock puppets, your antics are revealed for all to see.

YouTube, DMCA and Safe Harbor

The Trials of Peter Hadfield

About Peter Hadfield

The YouTube user known as Potholer54 has produced many videos on YouTube on topics such as science and debunking anti-science. His videos are informative, witty and entertaining.

Thar's Gold in Them Thar Ducks and Crocodiles!

One of his video series is called The Golden Crocoduck Award and is awarded annually to those whom Peter's viewers feel has lied the most for Jesus that year. Nominees for this year's award included such illustrious types as Ian Juby, Louis Giglio, Richard Kent and Amenakin (I guess for Amenakin, she lied for Mohommad. Still counts though.)

When Peter produced his video for the nominee, Amenakin, he promptly received a DMCA takedown notice on her behalf. Peter counter-filed and in the meantime had a conference with Amenakin. Amenakin admitted that she was wrong in her video and agreed that the DMCA takedown notice was inappropriate though she still felt her copyright was violated.

YouTube's Unorthodox Decision

Despite Peter following the standard procedure, there being no legal grounds for YouTube to refuse to put the video back up and Amenakin withdrawing her DMCA-violation complaint, YouTube has refused to put the video back up. Since YouTube depends on its Safe Harbor status to avoid lawsuits over videos user's post on their channels, this decision has some far reaching implications.

Peter's Video Explanation

My Opinion

I believe that YouTube's decision will threaten its Safe Harbor positions and possibly erode it for other sites that claim Safe Harbor in other countries. Once a neutral party begins deciding who owns copyright and who does not then they have taken a side and must act accordingly. In fact, YouTube will be expected to act accordingly.

IANAL, please take my opinion for what it is, an opinion of a non-professional.

Updates

07 November 2011

Potholer wins! Potholer wins! Potholer wins!

Yes folk, Potholer54 has won his case against YouTube's copyright infringement claims. It's sure nice to see the good guys win once and awhile.

John Benneth (Bandershot), Homeopathy and YouTube

Arguing with a YouTube Crank

I was participating in a discussion on a YouTube video called James Randi explains Homeopathy posted by Rational Response. Actually, most of this discussion involved arguing (well I and several others argued) with drchristoaa who mainly spammed the channel and insulted anyone who disagreed with him).

During this Bandershot entered the fray who, along with drchristoaa argued that Homeopathy had proven efficacy in the peer-reviewed literature and that medical doctors were trying to suppress it. Bandershot posted some claims about Homeopathy that I refuted which he never responded to and has yet to respond to as of the time of this posting.

Bandershot's Claims and My Refutations

These are my refutations to Bandershots claims that he says that he never saw:

Bandershot's Claims:

@RationalRecon And if you believe THAT, then obvioussly
you haven't actually studied the literature on the
subject. Science no longer supports your null&dull
hypothesis, that because it shouldn't work, it doesn't
work. Anyone who has exp'd modern tech knows your's is
primitive reasoning. Our claims have been demonstrated
in the PETRI DISH! We've exp'd them, seen them work w/our
own eyes, on plants,animals,cancer in major clinics. So
how, in the face of THAT are you going to prove null&dull?

@RationalRecon If you believe THAT, you haven't read the
facts. Homeoapthy has been proven in the PETRI DISH!
works on plants, animals, cancer, used in major clinics,
such as MD Anderson, in epidemics, such as the Cuban
leptospirosis, taught in medical schools, such as the
American Medical College of Homeopathy in Phoenix, been
studied by top material scientists who have demolished
the argument that there's nothing to it. Now,apply YOUR
criteria to YOUR argument & see what happens!

My refutations:

@Bandershot "used in major clinics"

An article by one of your favourite people discusses this
phenomenon and why it's bupkis.

tinyurl . c o m/3bg85e2

@Bandershot "the Cuban leptospirosis"

I recall this one too. Poor controls, poorly randomized
sampling, anecdotal evidence...the works.

That study was a real travesty. Is all of the evidence
you have to provide this level of caliber?

@Bandershot The Cuban leptospirosis "study" (appearing in
the "respected" Homeopathy Journal)

tinyurl . c o m /3ht4phs

Skeptical analysis of the "study".

tinyurl . c o m/3v9zqfl

tinyurl . c o m /3szme6w

@Bandershot "works on...cancer,..."

I remember a study someone showed me that was supposed to
be evidence that Homeopathy was effective in treating
cancer. IIRC the control (the same substance as the solvent
in the Homeopathic remedy) was killing almost the same
amount of cancer cells as the Homeopathic remedy. The
authors said the difference was significant, but their
results and analysis didn't demonstrate a statistically
significant difference.

There were also other issues...

@Bandershot "Homeoapthy has been proven in the PETRI DISH!"

I glad that somebody at least is thinking of those poor
petri dishes!

@Bandershot In-vitro cancer cells "study".

tinyurl . c o m/ylbbuxj

Skeptical analysis of the "study".

tinyurl . c o m/434nxg9

tinyurl . c o m/45y5w84

A word from ACS.

tinyurl . c o m/4yxmff2

Me Refuting some of Bandershots claims

Me Refuting some more of Bandershot's claims

The Ensuing Insanity

Bandershot demonstrates that he doesn't understand how burden of proof or proving a negative works. I and some others explain it to him.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider No, you're TOTALLY wrong. I don't have
to prove anything, you do. See NCAHF vs King Bio. There are 5
major metanalyses, NOT ONE concluded placebo. A min. amount
of study proves it. You're just repeating lies. The only meta
that came close to declaring placebo was Shang, which was
shot down 4poor quallity, 2say the least. Ludtke, in reviewing
Shang, said homeopathy has been shown to have a SIGNIFICANT
effect beyond placebo. Now show us just 1 study that proves
it's a placebo

@murdocha LOL, you're the one who doesn't get it. Homeopathics
don't have to prove anything. If they're guilty of what you
say, then you'd have won in court long ago. But when this very
issue WAS taken to court, your side lost, BAD! The Nat.
Council Against Health Fraud SUED a homeopathic mfg. for fraud
& "unfair competition." Read the case: Google NCAHF vs King
Bio. HUGE win for homeopathy, huge LOSS for Randi's friends. It
cost them 100's of 1000's. :-( Why do you think Randi's begging
4 $?

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot "I don't have to prove anything" _You're_ the
one making the claim counter to the verifiable, peer-reviewed
evidence, _you_ have to back it up.

"You're just repeating lies."

Wishing doesn't make it true.

"Shang, which was shot down"

In the blogs or in the peer-reviewed lit? Evidence?

"Ludtke...have a SIGNIFICANT effect beyond placebo"

That paper concluded that they didn't prove efficacy beyond
placebo. Now who's lying...again?

"Now show us just 1 study that proves it's a placebo"

Again, you demonstrate a lack of science and how research is
conducted. Why do you want to keep proving a negative?

The point is to try to prove something is effective
_beyond_ placebo. If unsuccessful then the substance is not
considered to be better than a placebo.

Again, it is up to you to prove that Homeopathy is effective
beyond placebo as you're making the claim.

murdocha:

@Bandershot I'll deal with your persecution complex
later. In this case, was it a win for Homeopathy? Nope,
The decision was that they failed to meet its burden of
proving that King Bio's advertising claims for its
homeopathic products were false or misleading. That's it.
Not a slam dunk for Homeopathy.

Oh you poor simple man. You seriously don't understand
how this works, do you? If you are making a claim, the
burden of proof is upon you to substantiate your claim.
You insist that Homeopathy works and that it works
better than the control (or placebo). If you want to
prove your case, provide a well designed, peer reviewed,
double blind, case controlled study that shows, at a
statistically significant level, that Homeopathy works.
That's your job.

Are you still working on the whole "prove a negative"
thing? Man, you just can't learn. Not that you don't
learn, you must be consciously trying NOT to learn.

Bandershot's lack of understanding

Bandershot still not understanding


Bandershot continues to ignore my refutation of his claims.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider No, you're TOTALLY wrong. I don't have to
prove anything, you do. See NCAHF vs King Bio. There are 5
major metanalyses, NOT ONE concluded placebo. A min. amount
of study proves it. You're just repeating lies. The only
meta that came close to declaring placebo was Shang, which
was shot down 4poor quallity, 2say the least. Ludtke, in
reviewing Shang, said homeopathy has been shown to have a
SIGNIFICANT effect beyond placebo. Now show us just 1 study
that proves it's a placebo

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot Well, it's been awhile and I see that I'm
not getting any responses to refute my posts scientifically.

What a lightweight.

Bandershot still hasn't responded

This is Bandershot claiming he never saw my refutations the first time while throwing out some accusations. My responses follow.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider No, I haven't seen your posts
"refuting some arguments," all I've seen R your posts
where you're complaining, lullzz, arguing, name
calling. What you&your friends failed to do is provide
a reason why you haven't taken your charges of fraud
2court. You haven't explained how it is that top
material scientists, incl. Nobel laureates, have
validated hpathy in question,test& theory. Read what
Roy, Chaplin, Montagnier, Josepshon, Tiller say. Ask
gd questions, get gd answers.

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot "No, I haven't seen your posts "refuting
some arguments"

Then you haven't tried. I have to wonder why when
it's such a simple thing to do.

"all I've seen R your posts where you're complaining,
lullzz, arguing, name calling."

I must say, this is wonderful stuff. Typical hypocrisy
of a denier of science. You're allowed to name call,
but others aren't allowed? Tsk, tsk!

Arguments in philosophy: a rational attempt to convince
someone of a claim. I then admit to arguing.

"You haven't explained how it is that top material
scientists, incl. Nobel laureates, have validated hpathy
in question,test& theory. "

1) Homeopathy has _never_ been validated. If you read my
posts you'd know that, but I suspect you already do know
that and have known that all along.

2) You appeal to authority in place of verified research.
If Randi endorsed Homeopathy tomorrow I still wouldn't
use it. Why? Lack of verifiable evidence.

"What you&your friends failed to do is provide a reason
why you haven't taken your charges of fraud 2court"

You still don't get it, science has never, _never_
determined the efficacy of Homeopathy beyond placebo.

The day is coming B S. The science is settled, the answer
is clear. Sooner or later the fraud charges will come to
court and a judge, who understands scientific inquiry and
the importance of verifiable evidence, will rule
Homeopathy as such.

It's coming.

Read my posts refuting some of your arguments and respond
to them. This is your last chance to do so in an honest
and timely manner. I will not hesitate to repost my
arguments otherwise if you do respond to said posts and
your dishonesty will be exposed.

Bandershot denies seeing refutations.

I tell Bandershot to respond to refutations.

Bandershot, as all "good" deniers of science loves the court-room drama.  They believe Law trumps Science not realizing that reality doesn't care about what is decided about it in the court-room.

Bandershot:

@murdocha & its amazing how YOU won't use the courts 2
sue the evil hpaths! So let's see now, top material
scientists don't agree w/u: Roy, Tiller, Hoover, Bell,
Demangeat, Montagnier, Benveniste, Schwartz, Witt,
Baumgartner, Del Guidce, Bellavite, Conte, Chaplin,
Ennis, Belon . . the list goes on&on . . &now the
courts don't agree w/you, so they're in on it too, the
FDA doesn't agree with you, they're co-conspirators,
neither do MDs & cancer clinics, even you don't agree
w/you!

Bandershot cites the NCAHF case, again.

Bandershot misconstrues what's being said to him. I also take the opportunity to again refer to my refutations which he was still ignoring.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider No, Steve, they're the #1 cancer
clinic in the nation, period. They were rated that
before they incorporated homeopathy as a part of
their research.

And if all it takes here is to say that you''ve
refuted something to make it so, then you've given
us the reason why homeoatphy is becoming so popular.

However, we do appreciate your efforts to promote
homeopathy by telling obvious lies about it. Pls
keep up the good work!

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot "No, Steve, they're the #1 cancer clinic
in the nation, period. They were rated that before
they incorporated homeopathy as a part of their
research."

Did I argue their placement? No, of course not.
You're either misreading or misconstruing. I said
that doesn't prove efficacy. There are other reasons
why Homeopathy may be being used. Click "see all" to
find my refutation of this particular claim.

"And if all it takes here is to say that you''ve
refuted something to make it so"

When did I ever claim that? This is an out and out
lie. I've claimed that I've refuted a claim you made
because you hadn't bothered to defend it. Ergo, you
either concede that I'm correct or you're choosing to
ignore it hoping nobody will notice. How
Moncktonesque of you.

I remind Bandershot of my refutations

Bandershot accuses me of lying about ever posting any refutations.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider So in other words, you don't have
any references. If you had them you wouldn't be saying
"How about you check in your comments inbox."

Come on, Steve. Post them here for the public record,
where EVERYONE can see them.

Then we'll see how honest YOU are.

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot "you don't have any references"

You haven't read my comments have you?

"Post them here for the public record,"

Git, they are part of the public record. I posted a
comment here on the wall refuting your claims and a
copy is sent to your comments inbox. Hell, you
could google my comments they're that much of public
record by now. However, if that's too much for you I
don't mind smashing your claims with facts and truth
a second time.

The dishonesty ball is back in your court.

I'm accused of lying...again.

Bandershot takes some time to malign Shang et al's study and again shows us that he thinks Law trumps Science.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider Read the discrediting of
Shang in Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15;
71(1): 07.

Where Does Homeopathy Fit in Pharmacy Practice?
Teela Johnson, HonBSc and Heather Boon, BScPhm, PhD.
Read Ludtke& Rutten's analysis of the data: They
conclude, FROM SHANG's DATA hpathy to be above
placebo!

Surely you've read Linde, the #1 meta . . & we know
why you don't care to mention it.

Randi: "So sue me!"

LOL! Maybe we will, for soliciting malice against a
legal tradecraft.

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot "Read the discrediting of Shang in
Am J Pharm Educ. 2007 February 15; 71(1): 07"

Alright, let's read it together:

"this study has been highly criticized for being
methodologically flawed on many levels.52-61 Of
particular concern, the researchers eliminated
102 of 110 homeopathic trials and based their
conclusions on only the 8 largest high-quality
trials without clearly identifying the criteria
by which these trials were selected or the identity
of these trials.

Odds ratios calculated before the exclusions (on
all 110 trials) do not support their ultimate
conclusion that homeopathic interventions are no
better than placebo."

So, 1) their biggest complaint is that Shang didn't
include *all* the homeopathic studies (such as the
smaller, lower quality ones). Their second complaint
2) is that Shang didn't specify his criteria.

1) Okay, so Shang should have left the lower quality
studies in too? Seriously, this is a pathetic
complaint. Of course the lower quality studies were
omitted, they're lower quality and less reliable.
God, this is pathetic.

2) Shang's criteria was clearly stated in his paper.
I'll leave it you to you to read the paper and share
the criteria with us.

What a waste of my time. I want the past 15 minutes
back.
"Surely you've read Linde, the #1 meta . . & we know
why you don't care to mention it."

You're either a liar, or you're inept. I did mention
it and it's posted to the wall. Please scroll down
further.

murdocha:

@Bandershot Absolutely, sue him. That's your answer and
your proof for everything. You claim to have the
evidence against him and his claims (including the
fraudulent $1,000,000 challenge), so sue him in court.
That will show us skeptics!

Maligning Shang et al

Bandershot accuses me of cherry-picking, after I pointed out to him that that's what he was doing and then immediately demonstrates a cherry-pick.

Bandershot;

@wstevenschneider You accuse us of cherry picking, &
then all you pick are rotten ones. Maddox SAW IT WORK
til James "I got a million bucks to lose" Randi got his
mitts on the index to the double-blind. There've been
24 reps of the basophil degranulation test that show
postive results. Where's Randi's $1M for those?
Bailing out Pena?Poor quality? Read Hirst& the
assessment of it by Witt, Chaplin & Spira. Read Roy,
Ennis,Josephson,Conte, Montagnier& tell me w/a straight
face there's no science.

2008 Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Ludtke & Rutten
"The conclusions on the effectiveness of hpathy depend
on the analyzed trials. Shang’s recently pub'd meta on
hpathic remedies in the Lancet based its main
conclusion on a subset of 8 larger trials out of 21
high quality trials out of 110 included trials. We
performed a sensitivity analysis on various other
meaningful trial subsets of all high quality trials.

CONCLUSION: Homeopathy had a significant effect beyond
placebo"

wstevenschneider

@Bandershot Thank you for demonstrating proper
cherry-picking technique. May your household always be
well-stocked in cherry pies.

Yum, cherries!

Way to pick a cherry!

I begin to grow tired of Bandershot's refusal to deal with refutations of his claims while still trying to use them undefended (over a month has elapsed).  I utter my ultimatum.

wstevenschneider:

@Bandershot Since you continue to ignore my replies
refuting your posts, and even have gone as far to say
that I never posted said replies, my next series of
will replies will be to expose this dishonesty.

Bandershot:

@wstevenschneider Go right ahead, knock yourself out
showing everybody how dishonest I am. But be careful
you don't show them how dishonest you are, as I have
found from long experience that all positive skeptics
such as yourself and Randi are pathological liars.

murdocha:

@Bandershot That's a hoot, coming from you!

Ultimatum: Respond to refutations or be exposed

As of yet, Bandershot has yet to respond to my refutations and presumably never will.  However, Bandershot's dishonesty is now exposed.