My Ill-informedness

wawei67 you claimed:

And who do you think I am-an anonymous trolling alien from outer space? Would you treat/doubt me the same way if I was in front of you and talking you through the evidence? Do you think I have nothing better to do (I'm NOT a homeopath btw) than 'convert' you? Do you think I'm self-deluded and/or a liar. These are the questions you really need to ask yourself before you are so sure about your illformed (by biased others, I might add) view of an incredibly effective medicine.

I don't know how you got that from this:

Regarding being even-handed, rational and progressive.

Objective != Even-handed. I do strive to be objective, rational and progressive. That said, I will argue on the side that I see as having the most supporting evidence. Ergo, I cannot be even-handed in such an unevenly divided debate.

Not all opinions are equal. The weight of an opinion is proportional to its supporting evidence and the expertise of the opiner.

Perhaps you could enlighten me in the comments section below, but I assume it stems from "Not all opinions are equal. The weight of an opinion is proportional to its supporting evidence and the expertise of the opiner." Is that correct, wawei67?

I'm not insulting you there. In the scheme of things the opinions of yourself and I are insignificant next to the scientists doing the research. The fact of the matter is that there is so much evidence that supports the efficacy of Modern Medicine (and I'm not just talking about Pharmaceutical drugs either) and there's really nothing that supports the efficacy of Homeopathy. This renders our debate rather one-sided unfortunately.

I'd also like to remind you that I did not begin by being rude to you, in fact I've been quite civil to you. You haven't practiced as much restraint, but then you are sixteen. I try not to take offense.

That said, you want to prove the efficacy of Homeopathy? Do you doubt that Modern Medicine is very effective? Good, doubt is always the first step in scientific inquiry! I would encourage you to persue a science education, get into medical research and try to falsify the claims of Modern Medicine.

I'm not mocking you wawei67, this is how science is done. In those clinical trials in the peer-reviewed literature, the researchers are trying to falsify the efficacy of the drug. The researchers are trying to demonstrate that the drug has no more efficacy than placebo. If the efficacy of the drug is not statistically significant from the placebo effect then the efficacy of the drug is considered inconclusive. If the efficacy of the drug is statistically significant from the placebo effect then the researchers have been unable to falsify it and the drug is considered to work.

Do I think that you have nothing better to do than convert me? I don't know, you seem to work pretty hard at convincing me I'm wrong though I question your methods. I'd find verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence much more convincing than trashing science, peer-review and scientists. In fact, that's what I've been asking you to do from the start; take me through the evidence you believe supports Homeopathy. I probably will look for flaws in your conclusions of what your evidence says, I may even try to find flaws in the evidence itself. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try as long as you've read the evidence that you're presenting yourself then you should at least have a ready answer to my questions if nothing else.

Self-deluded, you? Perhaps, but that's just Cognitive Dissonance. Interesting phenomena that Cognitive Dissonance, we're all subject to it, it's even a survival trait. Science is the only system we have that actually runs counter to Cognitive Dissonance as science's very existence is about questioning everything, even it's own conclusions.

Feel free to answer below. I think you'll find talking about this on the blog a better experience than trying to cram everything into a less-than 500 character limit text-box.

Accusations of Sophistry

wawei67 You claimed:

I didn't post anything cause I"m tired of it all and don't believe your sophistry would accept anything regarding the proof of homeopathy's efficacy (I really don't!). You're 'analysis' of what I posted was entirely your point of view smothering the fraud that is peer-review studies (or any studies) of H. And DON'T STRIVE to BE anything!!! Just be open minded and OBSERVE the fucking world!!! Is that so hard to do with you people???

1. Sophistry is a pretty serious charge to make. I don't take it lightly and neither should you make it lightly. If my logic has ever been in error, it was never deliberately so.
2. You're "tired of it all". Well I'm not feeling all that refreshed either, but if you're going to make a claim, you've got to put the effort into backing it up with evidence. Forget anecdotal evidence though.
3. I smothered the fraud that is peer-review? If you're referring to that article that RebornHammer posted as "proof" that peer-review was corrupt may I remind you of some small details:
1. RebornHammer claimed the article made a certain claim.
2. I read the article and said that it made a different claim.
3. RebornHammer accused me of not even reading the article.
4. I demonstrated that I did indeed read the article and that it said exactly what I claimed it said.
5. RebornHammer admitted to not reading the article and even seem to think it was a point-of-pride to have not read it.
6. The irony of RebornHammers actions was so poignant that I took a screenshot. Of the two of us it was RebornHammer, not I, that committed sophistry.
4. "...DON'T STRIVE to BE anything!!!" Okay, I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you please be so kind as to explain in the comments section below when you answer?
5. "Just be open minded and OBSERVE..." Right, simply observing is not doing science. What are you looking for? How will you know it when you see it? What can you do to make sure that you're seeing actual phenomena and are not just fooling yourself? Can others repeat your results or verify the observed phenomena in other settings? How can you relay your methodology and results to others? Who do you know that can check your work or figures? How do your results fit in with what we already know? etc.... These questions and more are what real scientists have to answer. If science were just all about observing it would never progress.

Here's a story I'd like to share with you now. I can't remember exactly how the story goes so I might get some of the details wrong. Perhaps you or another reader can provide a link to the original story.

"An elderly man in his late sixties decided that he wanted to make his contribution to science. Everyday at precisely 12:00 he'd sit himself down by the window of his apartment overlooking the busy street below. He'd record the number of people entering and leaving the stores, the time they did so, their sex, apparent age, apparent weight, etc.... The man continued doing this for next twenty odd years up till the day he got to weak to from infirmity to do so any more.

"On his deathbed the elderly man asked that it be put in his will that his contribution be given to the scientific community. After the elderly man's death the executor brought the elderly man's contribution to the local university and handed it to one of the head scientists. The head scientist looked through the contribution and give it back to the executor shaking her head sadly. "I'm sorry," said the scientist, "But there's nothing we can use in there. They're just lists of numbers and other data. This is not science.""

Now I ask you, why wasn't what the elderly man did science? Think about that and what I just discussed.

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.

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.

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.