Over the objection of all of the authors, a journal has retracted an article on a homeopathic approach to penis enlargement and virility after deciding that the putative remedy wasn’t potent enough for the task at hand.
The paper, “Effects of chronic treatment with the eNOS stimulator Impaza on penis length and sexual behaviors in rats with a high baseline of sexual activity,” appeared in the International Journal of Impotence Research — a Springer Nature title — in March 2013.
Among the authors of the article was Oleg Epstein, a Russian scientist whose company, OOO NPF Materia Medica Holding, of Moscow, makes homeopathic products. Epstein’s research has been the subject of multiple retractions, as we’ve reported, embarrassing reputable journals into whose pages he managed to publish papers on homeopathy.
Impaza, a name which sounds more like a Subaru than a sexual aid, purportedly:
enhances endothelial NO synthase activity, restores production of nitric oxide (NO) by the endothelium during sexual stimulation, increases the levels of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in smooth muscles, and facilitates their relaxation, which leads to increased blood filling of the cavernous bodies. These effects ensure erection of sufficient strength and duration. … Impaza increases libido (sexual desire) and intercourse satisfaction.
But the paper earned an editor’s note on May 21, 2020, and was retracted on June 23. According to the retraction notice:
The editor has retracted this article because there are concerns about the scientific validity of the study. Specifically, the reagent is diluted beyond the point to which any active molecules are expected to be present and there is no molecular analysis to support the presence of molecules at these dilutions. These concerns have caused the editor to lose faith in the reliability of the findings.
Anders Ågmo, of the Arctic University of Norway and the senior author of the paper, told us:
The reasons for disagreeing with the editor’s decision to retract the article are:
1. There are data suggesting that the preparation of the compound used indeed may contain the active molecules. References to these data were provided to the editor, but our argument was rejected.
2. There is a series of other studies showing that the drug preparation used has pharmacological actions in vivo. Furthermore, it is used clinically. In fact, the preparation is a registered drug in Russia. The editor chose to disregard all these observations.
In view of the above, we felt obliged to manifest our disagreement.
That last bit, about Impaza being a registered drug in Russia, deserves attention. As Alexander Panchin, a Russian researcher, has pointed out, the country seems to have particular problem with homeopathic products.
The country has endorsed some homeopathic therapies but condemned others, particularly substances that their manufacturer calls “release-active antibody-based” drugs. As Panchin and others have argued, these compounds, which include Impaza, are so highly diluted that an effect is physiologically impazable, er, impossible:
these innovative “drugs” contain no active molecules and can be considered a new brand of homeopathy. This indicates one of two possibilities: either we are at the brink of a revolution in medicine or that something went wrong with research published in numerous academic journals. We argue that the latter explanation is more likely and that this conclusion has severe implications for the scientific and healthcare enterprises.
We asked Ågmo if he had any concerns about the drugs in question:
It is certainly possible that the drug is not clinically useful. I have not seen the data supporting its usefulness. However, I see no a priori reason for mistrusting the Russian colleagues or the Russian drug administration.
Hat tip: Smut Clyde
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at [email protected].
Also h/t @Neuro_Skeptic, who stumbled on the same story, and wrote his own blogpost:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/the-strange-case-of-the-homeopathic-sex-enhancer
Am I reading this wrong, or does the graph at the top of the article indicate less penis length with Impaza than with water, which I assume is the placebo?
Maybe I’d need to know more about rats, but these differences hardly look significant, at least at first glance.
maybe rat sizes are too negligible for any difference to show itself.. (jokes aside, I see like that too)