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.