A paper that claimed to show a homeopathic intervention improved quality of life and survival for people with advanced lung cancer has received an extensive correction two years after a research integrity watchdog asked the journal to retract the article over concerns about manipulated data, Retraction Watch has learned.
The two scientists who sounded the alarm on the paper are not satisfied with the correction, they told us.
The article, “Homeopathic Treatment as an Add‐On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non‐Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo‐Controlled, Double‐Blind, Three‐Arm, Multicenter Study,” appeared in The Oncologist in November 2020. Michael Frass, the lead author of the paper, is a homeopathic practitioner who was working at the Medical University of Vienna, at the time the work was published.
The paper has been cited 18 times, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, and was included in a German medical organization’s guideline about complementary treatment for cancer patients. Many homeopathy organizations posted about the study on X as evidence of the approach’s benefit, helping propel the article to the top 5% of all research articles for which Altmetric, a publication data company, has tracked online attention.
The article also attracted the notice of Norbert Aust, a retired mechanical engineer who started the Homeopathy Information Network in Germany, and Viktor Weisshäupl, a retired anesthesiologist now working on the Initiative for Scientific Medicine in Austria. The pair undertook an analysis of the study protocols and data posted to ClinicalTrials.gov.
They found several differences between the initial registration posted in January 2012, a protocol dated January 2011 but uploaded in July 2019, and the published paper. These differences included the number of participants, study arms, exclusion criteria, follow-up time, and cancer types included in the study. Aust and Weisshäupl also noted the study protocol said the software the authors used to analyze their data was a version not yet available in 2011.
“In conclusion, it seems likely that the substantial modifications of crucial study parameters that occurred after the study had been started and results had become available biased the results in favor of homeopathy,” Aust and Weisshäupl wrote in a description of their findings on Edzard Ernst’s blog in June 2021.
According to another article Aust and Weisshäupl published in Skeptical Inquirer in 2023, the pair reported their findings to the Medical University Vienna, which referred the matter to the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity.
In a report dated September 2022 and obtained by Retraction Watch, the Austrian watchdog said its investigation “found numerous manipulations,” and asked The Oncologist’s editor in chief Susan Bates to retract the article.
Among the findings:
- “The presentation of the study as double-blind placebo controlled is untrue.”
- “Substantial” changes to the study protocol while it was running, including to the primary endpoint, that were not mentioned in the publication, “suggestive of data manipulation.”
- “Many patients were excluded post-hoc, which is suggestive of data manipulation.”
- “Fully implausible” survival data, “compatible with selective deletion of records.”
- “The patients in the homeopathy group report a quality of life that is much higher than that of the general population known from other surveys. For patients with stage four non-small cell lung cancer this is highly implausible.”
The Oncologist published an expression of concern in October 2022 citing “credible information from the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity about potential data falsification and data manipulation in this article.”
“While The Oncologist editorial team investigates and communicates with the corresponding author, the editors are publishing this Expression of Concern to alert readers that, pending the outcome and review of a full investigation, the research results presented may not be reliable,” the notice stated.
On Tuesday, the journal published an extensive correction to the article, stating:
Additional details not included in the original publication have since been provided by the authors and reviewed by the editors to clarify these concerns. These omissions do not affect the results of this study.
Frass told us he and his team were “pleased that after a profound and thorough investigation by The Oncologist it has now been proven that the paper is correct. The Commission’s allegations are unsubstantiated and completely unfounded.” He provided a diagram he and a friend made which he said showed “all allegations could be refuted adequately.”
Along with the correction, the journal published an editorial by Bates and another editor describing how The Oncologist published the paper in a section dedicated to the results of clinical trials that might not otherwise be posted. It concluded:
The Oncologist and its CTR section hope that—by turning to the laboratory to determine whether any fraction of a homeopathic remedy holds a thread of promise—science identifies what is in these mixtures and that, in turn, potential anticancer compounds are then developed through conventional pathways.
We reached out to Bates for comment, and received the following response from a spokesperson for Oxford University Press, the journal’s publisher:
In 2022 The Oncologist received a letter about “Homeopathic Treatment as an Add-On Therapy May Improve Quality of Life and Prolong Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Three-Arm, Multicenter Study” from the Commission for Research Integrity of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI) and the journal issued an expression of concern. The journal has since conducted a thorough investigation and based on guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), determined that a correction is the appropriate response to the concerns raised. The accompanying editorial provides further context. The correction and editorial are the journal’s full response.
The correction doesn’t address the issues Aust, Weisshäupl, and the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity found with the study, Aust told us.
“They explain some trifles,” he said, “but the elephant in the room is not mentioned.” He also wondered why a letter to the editor he and Weisshäupl submitted in 2021 had not been published.
The editorial’s question of whether some components in the homeopathic intervention could be therapeutic “is completely irrelevant,” Aust said.
“If some results are obtained by data manipulation and falsification, then it is pointless to argue if there might have been some effect by the preparations that were administered,” he said. “The data are not valid and it is wrong, unethical and might cause harm for patients if they stay published like solid outcomes of some rigorous trial.”
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].
Did Aust publish his letter anywhere?
No, we did not publish the text of the letter, which is a compressed resume of our findings. These findings however were published in various forms and media, see the links in the above article.
The entire premise of a study involving homeopathy is utterly ridiculous on it’s face to begin with. A legitimate scientific journal shohld not allow such studies to even be published unless the study is regarding placebo benefits.
Homeopathy is blatantly farcical, the treatments contain zero molecules of chemicals to start with. There is no possible mechanism of action.
I don’t think you go far enough!! I agree, Homeopathy is a vast and weird con, which at best thrives on the placebo effect and at worst is a systematic falsehood with zero basis in reality, but then many people that turn to it have been failed by conventional medicine which has far more limitations than it admits to, so the situation is sad all around
The investigative report from the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (linked in the text) is thorough and absolutely scathing. Sometimes one has to read between the lines to figure that the investigators were being deceived by the authors:
> The survival figures reported in the article can largely be reproduced from the analytical file that was provided to the Committee. This file is clearly a version that was derived from a more original data file.
So the investigators did get some data, but certainly not all. In other cases no thinking is needed:
> After checking the data and observing implausible patterns, we asked for the original questionnaires. These show clear indications of data manipulations, such as corrected dates and information (information was e.g. crossed out and overwritten).
This was all send to Oxford University Press. And…
> The journal has since conducted a thorough investigation and based on guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), determined that a correction is the appropriate response to the concerns raised.
Perhaps as a profession we do not invest enough time, effort and diligence into quality control. Speaking as a peer reviewer who sometimes gets those submitted papers with huge amounts of supplementary information, I have found myself often enough in a situation in which I can either (a) spend the next couple of days trying to retrace the authors’ data and analyses and check whether their statistical results hold up and the conclusions are justified upon redoing everything or (b) spending an afternoon reading the paper, doing spot checks on the supplemental materials, and then writing my review. Clearly I do (b) regularly and may miss out on key issues, like the reviewers in the case of this paper did. But then they should have been more diligent, given the extreme claims of homeopathy, which require extreme (and extremely rigorous) evidence to hold up to scrutiny (which they won’t). I did (b) only once, in the case of a paper in my own field where I know the work and felt that the results, and particularly their consistency, was too good to be true. So I uploaded the authors’ data, scrutinized them carefully, looking for weird patterns or anomalous numbers, and reran all analyses, but couldn’t find any smoking gun. The paper was eventually published, but I try to steer clear from citing it. I still don’t trust it.
But when we hire scientists into tenured or tenure-track positions, of course we never reward them for how much time and effort they invested into the necessary quality control work of peer review. Perhaps the idea of rewarding peer review by making it more visible (i.e., Publons) is a step in the right direction. But as long as budding scientists are not valued as much for what they contribute to enforcing the quality standards of their filed through peer review as they are valued for their own research (productivity, citations) and raked-in funding, things won’t change.
Imagine a world in which a data sleuth had looked at this paper DURING peer review, found the weirdness that post-publication peer review has now detected, and in which (a) the paper had never been published and (b) the peer reviewer gets visible credit for preventing the paper from being published — credit that she/he can use on their vita and that is routinely taken into account when hiring or tenure decisions need to be made. That could change the game.
Overall, I confess that I am really worried about what will happen to science in the long run. It’s been incentivized in all the wrong ways, and we may be headed towards absolute chaos if we don’t change the rules.
Time to ignore anything published in The Oncologist, it seems…
So, to put this study into context, water was taken as a treatment to see whether it made a difference to patients with stage 4 lung cancer.
Taking this premise further, the patients receiving the homeopathic treatment were getting a placebo.
The reading of the article on how the patients received the homeopathy is pure jiggery-pokery with instructions on banging [sucussing ] the “medication” and don’t worry if you put an extra drop in. And then in another it it informs the patient to ensure that the mixture is not anywhere it could be affected by vibrations.
What a selection of dilutions available – C, CH, D,…..
Again I have to question who accepted it for publication. There is a common thread occuring in these sort of bad science publications – e.g. Wakefield and autism – in that supposedly good “scientific” journals have read, checked the analysis, ethical approval, etc before.
Sigh….
There’s no way to correct such nonsense. I think The Oncologist has a cancer of its own.
Many of the commenters here claim that the nanodoses used in homeopathy are too small to have any biological effect, let alone a clinical result. And yet, such commenters are clearly not familiar with the significant and growing body of basic science evidence that shows that these nanodoses persist in water solutions and that have a significant biological and physical effects.
From Nature magazine’s “Scientific Reports”: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-57009-2
From “The Journal of Molecular Liquids”:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732224005932
From “Dose Response”: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34177397/
From a leading Brazilian medical journal:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.64.02.93
From “Systematic Reviews”: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 (Conclusions: “Five systematic reviews have examined the RCT research literature on homeopathy as a whole, including the broad spectrum of medical conditions that have been researched and by all forms of homeopathy: four of these ‘global’ systematic reviews reached the conclusion that, with important caveats [3], the homeopathic intervention probably differs from placebo [4–7].)
And there are many many other basic science, clinical research, and meta-analyses that could also be listed here. Nanopharmacology is REAL, and it is a huge discipline…and homeopathy is the original nanopharmacology
“Dear Reader, ignore all of the warranted criticisms of the paper being discussed here and read some other papers that are totally above board”.
Junk science from junk scientists and woo-peddlers.
Nano-pharmacology is indeed a large field of medical research. The research from this field provides more precision, more effective, and safer therapeutics, by using nano-materials and nano-scale delivery
Homeopathy is not nano-pharmacology.