I'd rather correct your screwball mistakes here.
Besides, I don't really have any "peers." :-)
When I get my detailed analysis of spore interaction onto my web page, I'll be asking every scientist I encounter to comment on it. You, too. My web site may not be "a peer-reviewed science journal," but, as we've seen, there is no end to the scientific nonsense that gets "peer reviewed" and printed in scientific journals. It appears to be a I'll-review-yours-if-you review-mine process where criticizing a report is not polite. Instead, criticism is done in letters to the editor and on the Internet AFTER the report is printed.
On my web site I welcome criticism, and I specifically request that people write me if they can PROVE that something I've written is wrong. When they do, I correct my web site.
The letter to the editor was the standard way scientists discuss their work. It was pointed out that a statement was made that was unsupported and that it should be followed up with data. It was not followed up with the data - hence the statement no longer enjoys peer-reviewed status.
If Beecher had provided the data then the statement would be accepted. I wonder why Beecher didn’t provide the data? But I’m sure you don’t wonder why.