In January 2024, this remarkable paper was published in a top journal:
Macrophages are associated with innate immune response and M1-polarized macrophages exhibit pro-inflammatory functions. Nanoparticles of natural or synthetic compounds are potential triggers of innate immunity. As2O3 is the major component of the homeopathic drug, Arsenic album 30C.This has been claimed to have immune-boosting activities, however, has not been validated experimentally. Here we elucidated the underlying mechanism of Ars. alb 30C-mediated immune priming in murine macrophage cell line. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and X-ray diffraction (XRD) used for the structural analysis of the drug reveals the presence of crystalline As2O3 nanoparticles of cubic structure. Similarly, signatures of M1-macrophage polarization were observed by surface enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) in RAW 264.7 cells with concomitant over expression of M1 cell surface marker, CD80 and transcription factor, NF-κB, respectively. We also observed a significant increase in pro-inflammatory cytokines like iNOS, TNF-α, IL-6, and COX-2 expression with unaltered ROS and apoptosis in drug-treated cells. Enhanced expression of Toll-like receptors 3 and 7 were observed both in transcriptional and translational levels after the drug treatment. In sum, our findings for the first time indicated the presence of crystalline As2O3 cubic nanostructure in Ars. alb 30C which facilitates modulation of innate immunity by activating macrophage polarization.
On 21 August 2024, this paper was retracted; here is the retraction notice:
After publication, concerns were raised about the reagents used in this study, in particular that the arsenic trioxide solution is diluted beyond the point at which any active molecules are expected to be present. Post-publication peer review confirmed that the nature of the particles detected in the study is unclear. This means that without further corroborative evidence, the data presented in the paper are not sufficient to attribute the effects observed after treating cells with the compound. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results reported in this Article.
Swift retractions of sloppy science, errors, fraud, scientific misconduct, misinterpretaton of results, etc. are necessary to prevent the harm caused by such unfortunate publications. The editors of SCIENTIFIC REPORTS should be congratulated to have achieved this so quickly and elegantly. This is in sharp contrast to similar events like the protracted hoo-hah that occurred until THE LANCET finally retracted the fraudulent study of Andrew Wakefield or the deplorable ongoing saga of THE ONCOLOGIST, the editor of which has still not retracted the fraudulent paper by Michael Frass et al claiming that homeopathy could prolong the survival of cancer patients.
57 Responses to HOMEOPATHY: Sloppy science or fraud? “The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results reported in this Article”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I’d love to know who the peer reviewers were. If they can do it post publication why can’t they do it properly prepublication?
Many journals now ask the authors to name a few potential reviewers and then use those for peer review; this lazy habit should stop!
Edzard on “Homeopathy: the undiliuted facts”:
“Other homeopaths believe that, during the process of succussion, tiny particles, called nanoparticles, are formed,
which in turn explain the health effects of highly diluted remedies. Others again think that hormesis—the phenomenon that, at very low doses, some toxins can have the opposite effects from those at high doses—could provide a scientific explanation for homeopathy’s mechanism of action. Unfortunately, all of these theories have one very obvious thing in common: they are just theories! As such they are shared by some but not by the majority of scientists, and a scientific consensus as to how homeopathy works simply does not exist at the moment”
I have read several of your books and curiously nowhere does this supposed “scientific consensus” appear. The “official verdicts” you mention in your books, suspiciously, do not even mention research on nanoparticles. In fact, neither do you! Hummm!
I also did not see anyone providing rebuttals or arguments against the recent retraction, no one. I didn’t see anyone on Peerpub mentioning that there was “sloppy” research or “fraud”. Basically, you don’t like the findings because they contradict your idea that “they are just theories” with no empirical or experimental basis. What I did see, curiously, is that several of your followers threatened to retract the article, which from their track record obviously they should have sent complaints to Nature, as they have done on other occasions in other journals. This is very petty.
You find it curious that something that “simply does not exist at the moment” does not appear?
a long list of quotes by various international science organisations – as cited in several of my books – is in my view a consensus.
Not in your view?
Why am I not surprised?
Mr. Ernst. The “various international science organizations” that are for you a “consensus” come from 13 sources:
1. The Russian Academy of Sciences (non-peer-reviewed memorandum).
2. The second NHMRC report (review of systematic reviews).
3. Health Canada (statement only).
4. The Hungarian Academy of Science (this is only a statement).
5. EASAC (not an ETS).
6. FDA statement on Hyland’s product.
7. NCCIH (positioning based on very few sources).
8. Chamber of Science and Technology Report (based on Shang et al and Ernst 2002).
9. NIH (positioning based on a brief report with no choice criteria and on the British report).
10. National Medical Council of Poland (positioning).
11. KCD of Belgium (brief report).
12. France report (review of clinical trials).
13. Report from Spain (which is not an ETS).
1, 4, 5, 7 and 10 are based on 2. The Spanish report is several years old and is not even negative, but neutral. In your works you say that evidence-based decisions should be based on the “totality of reliable evidence”, but literally all the official verdicts you cite are flawed or are not even evaluations of trials (such as the FDA statement, NCCIH and academies’ positions). Furthermore, all those verdicts you mention plus others you do NOT mention, were already analyzed in this recent 2024 study (chapter 27):
https://www.academia.edu/118772108/Bolitas_y_chochitos_la_homeopat%C3%ADa_bajo_fuego_Disertaci%C3%B3n_antropol%C3%B3gica_epistemol%C3%B3gica_e_hist%C3%B3rica
Now, please show me the reports from various international science organizations that state that homeopathy is effective.
THANKS
Mr. Ernst.
Interestingly, the official “verdicts” you mention in your books, only two are evaluations based on secondary (the second Australian report) or primary data (the French report). The rest are “veredicts” are based on the Australian or the UK report (which is not an evaluation of the evidence, per se) and few on the Russian memorandum (which is also not an evaluation of the clinical evidence nor an official position from Russian Academy of Sciences). Moreover, the positions of some of the “verdicts” mentioned in the second Australian report were issued before Anne Kelso’s statement.
In the paper I mentioned to you, other official verdicts are mentioned, including a report from Colombia (more recent than the Australian report) quite favorable that briefly came to light until it was hidden by the government itself without any explanation!
please show me the reports from various international science organizations that state that homeopathy is effective.
Do all “international science organizations” made reports about efficacy?
as you hardly ever provide meaningful answers to the questions that you are asked, you must be categorised a troll.
so, either you answer questions or get banned from my blog – it’s up to you.
Nowadays the suggestions of peer-reviewers by authors can go even that far, that the suggested peer-reviewer can be the author himself using a fake identity https://de.slideshare.net/slideshow/fake-peer-review-what-weve-learned-at-retraction-watch/91554605
@Les Rose
I don’t know who the peer reviewers were either. But I do know who submitted the expression of concern that prompted the editors to take another look at and ultimately retract the article …
(and if anyone is interested in the full text of this expression of concern, I can post it here).
Dana predictably crowed about this back in January.
How did I reply?
It’s always nice to be proved right.
I wonder if Dana will come along and hang his head in contrition?
As if..
I would not hold my breath
Don’t expect too much from Mr Ullman at the moment; I am sure he is busily occupied in preparing a list for me of laboratories that can distinguish homeopathic water from other water……..
There is still a lot of solid research published and it is becoming more and more common to find it in mainstream journals (other than homeopathy or alternative medicines). You guys take time to push for retraction of articles, and I have noticed that not all journals listen to you (fortunately). Although it is impressive how desperate you guys are to retract any article, as long as it is favorable.
It’s like trying to cover the sun with a finger. But hey, I guess you learned from James Randi and since the Benveniste scandal. And of course, for Benveniste to be vindicated would automatically make Randi look ridiculous and be cancelled forever.
Curious how none of it has ever been able to demonstrate a consistent and reproducible set of effects for any homeopathic remedy.
The specious bumwash, handwaving and whataboutery trotted out by homeopathy freaks in an attempt to explain the mechanism of something that they have failed to demonstrate working remains amusing.
The ship sailed years ago, kiddo. Deal with it.
Mr. Lenny, the largest and most rigorous systematic review of all has already shown that homeopathy has consistent effects! No “skeptic” has published anything like this!
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02313-2
Moreover, these effects correlate quite decently with that obtained in laboratory experiments, even of high quality, in non-human animals, plants, cells, and physicochemical systems!
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=89620
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/096032719401300706
https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0965-2299(07)00013-1
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1475491609001350
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2019.0064?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed
https://karger.com/fok/article/20/5/376/353085/Homeopathy-Meta-Analyses-of-Pooled-Clinical-Data
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39168134/
If you consider that one “the largest and most rigorous systematic review”, my I ask what your qualifictions in science and clinical research are?
THANKS
The German INH has already commented on that largest etc etc and debunked it: https://netzwerk-homoeopathie.info/im-datennebel-ein-neuer-review-zur-homoeopathie/
In short: the authors threw several metanalyses into one pot, so the same studies are there several times in the final analysis, artificially increasing the number of patients, which were studied only once but calculated several times for the desired result.
and months before the INH, so did I
https://edzardernst.com/2023/10/a-new-systematic-review-of-homoeopathy-reported-a-positive-result-but-i-cant-take-it-seriously/
Mr. Ernst and Mr.. Weisshäupl.
I am aware of the criticisms you mention, what you omit is that the authors (Hamre et al) already responded to them and debunked the GWUP assumptions.
->Unzuverlässiges Informationsnetzwerk
21.02.2024, Harald J. Hamre, Klaus von Ammon, Anja Glockmann, Helmut Kiene
https://homoeopathiehilft.at/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Hamre_et_al_2024-02-21_Richtigstellung_gegenueber_INH.pdf
They also replied to Mr. Ernst and debunked him!
https://www.dzvhae.de/neu_2020/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Hamre_et_al_2023-11-13_Comment_on_blog.pdf
The Benveniste affair has had thirty-six years in which to be vindicated. No-one has done it. (As soon as the lady examining the results under the microscope didn’t know which slide was which, the ‘results’ disappeared).
Tabbygraycat, you will doubtless be aware that the four main ideas posited as to how homeopathic ‘remedies’ might work are: 1) Spiritual Essence (Hahnemann’s own favoured idea), 2) Hormesis, 3) Memory of water and 4) Nanoparticles.
Which one of those do you espouse as the mechanism of action, Tabbygraycat, and why?
Mr. David, it is clear that you are not familiar with Benveniste’s work and how the events unfolded. The accusations against Elizabeth Davenas make no sense, since of the 7 experiments that were developed during three days, initially 3 routine (unblinded) were positive. The remaining 4 experiments were blinded, the fourth experiment gave a positive result. In fact, even the original paper by Randi et al mentions this.
https://www.nature.com/articles/334287a0
Only when the protocol was altered by Stewart and he applied an erroneous statistical analysis did Randi suspect “fraud” (after self-deception). Benveniste gave an answer on this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/335759a0
Steward assumed that the experiments were poorly controlled because they supposedly “contradict the law of large numbers” and the distribution of the experiments “was anomalous.” But since 1994 (original French version) a physicist proved Steward’s mistake, and when the correct formula is applied the data result in a normal distribution. Curiously, this book by Schiff is rarely mentioned by the “skeptics”.
https://www.amazon.com/Memory-Water-Homoeopathy-Battle-Science/dp/0722535341
About your questions. The idea of a “spiritual essence” is nowadays discarded. Hormesis, in case you don’t know, is not the same as homeopathy, hormesis is a general biological phenomenon and homeopathy is a very special case of hormesis.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0960327110369857?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
Homeopathy cannot be reduced to hormesis, as hormesis is usually limited to toxic substances and without individualization.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0960327110369860?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
The presence of nanoparticles is in fact compatible with the “memory of water”.
https://www.ijrh.org/journal/vol15/iss1/9/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167732222010388
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15593258211022983?rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed&url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org
David, do you have published arguments in scientific journals against this research? I mean do you have articles that by experimental evidence refute this. if so I would like to read them!
Tabbygraycat, I’m interested to know which YOU think is the mechanism of homeopathic remedies.
The “vital essence” was an ad hoc notion like that of many authors of his time who saw the human body as a “black box”. But if you remove the root “spiritual” you can see that the so-called “vital force” is similar to something called homeostasis, both have the function of rebalancing the biological functions with their limitations. But this alone does not tell us anything because there is no only “mechanism” of action, there are hypotheses of how homeopathy can work. And three of the four aspects you mention (water memory, nanoparticles and hormesis) are intertwined.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13237-014-0105-0
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qua.22140
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1807593223000911?via%3Dihub
In addition, there is this thesis which has almost 1,500 pages and more than 2,800 references, in which half of it analyzes many claims of the so-called “skeptics” of homeopathy. In fact, the thesis also analyzes statements made by Richard Rasker in their more recent booo, Edzard Ernst and many prominent international “skeptics”.
https://www.academia.edu/118772108/Bolitas_y_chochitos_la_homeopat%C3%ADa_bajo_fuego_Disertaci%C3%B3n_antropol%C3%B3gica_epistemol%C3%B3gica_e_hist%C3%B3rica
Mr. David, it would be very interesting to read your reasoned comments, are you able to refute the articles and the thesis that I have left you?
Tabbygreycat, I am interested to know what theory YOU espouse as to how homeopathy works better than placebo.
Mr. David. Facts are facts. There are many studies show repetible and plausible effects in ultra highly dilution. You first need be able to differentiate between theory and hypothesis.
Tabbygraycat. why do you not answer my question?
Please tell us how YOU think homeopathy works: Spiritual Essence, Hormesis, Nanoparticles or Memory of Water. Or something else and if so, what?
If you do not give a plain, simple frank answer, I think we will be able to identify trolling.
and while he/she is at it, please also answer my questions:
1) what are your scientific qualifications?
2) can you show us statements from scientific organisations that claim homeopathy is more than a placebo?
Calling a retraction after 10 years ‘swift’ seemed somewhat strange, but then I noticed that the 2014 in the first sentence is a typo 😉
yes, I corrected my mistake
One remark. The first paragraph states: “In January 2014, this remarkable paper was published in a top journal”
The paper was published in January 2024.
On the other hand, I can only agree with Lenny. I am curious to see if and how (D)ullman and his sycophants will pull themselves out of the affair.
thanks – my mistake [now corrected]
Dana has plenty of experience of papers he’s waved around in triumph subsequently being retracted. His selective memory will kick in again.
@Lenny
This prompts the question: if a homeopath waves a paper around in America, could this cause a storm in Europe?
The same publisher did that trick already in 2021-22.
Published: 20 December 2021
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-03727-5
The randomized clinical trial results of the anxiety treatment in patients with somatoform dysfunction and neurotic disorders
Homeopathic dilutions of immunoglobulins were the drug “Tenoten”
Retraction published 14 September 2022 less than a year later
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19938-3
“…..there are concerns about the validity of the therapeutic intervention tested—specifically that Tenoten contains antibodies diluted beyond the point at which any active molecules are expected to be present and there is no molecular analysis to support the presence of molecules at these dilutions.”
I am beginning to suspect that this publisher takes medical science and his responsibility for scientific integrity seriously…
GOOD POINT!
The retraction was not for “sloppy science”, “fraud”, image manipulation or anything related to misconduct. It was because surely a bunch of “skeptics” complained to Nature that they don’t like the results. Basically, the retraction says that “they can’t be possible”. Now Nature will go down in history for making a fool of themselves, as this is not the only research they have retracted for the same thing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24707-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-020-0321-x
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44557-w
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-15829-9
It seems that the (officially) “skeptical” lobbies are very desperate and opt for censorship, instead of giving arguments or evidence against it.
yada yada yada 😀
Do you think you are the first homeopathy supporter to spread conspiracy theories about sceptics being to blame when articles are withdrawn?
You believers have not been able to prove that homeopathy works in 200 years and you will not be able to prove it in the future either.
I did not say it was a “conspiracy theory”. You just use the expression “conspiracy theory” randomly to disqualify. I have only relied on statements of your own “friends”, such as this one by Alexander Panchin in the BMJ where he proposes to retract, by “post review”, any paper that has a relation with homeopathy and extreme “dilutions”:
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/24/2/48
How curious that it is exactly the same operandi that can be seen in the retractions I pointed out!
About them not having “proven it works in 200 years”, I don’t know where you were at, but the current scientific consensus is that it can indeed work better than placebos. And I have to assume you are already aware of this review:
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02313-2
This umbrella review has one of the highest levels of evidence, higher than a narrative review or a meta-analysis in isolation or from a secondary report like the NHMRC one. You have a peer-reviewed article that refutes the review?
Your so-called review “Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment” has already been discussed in the blog. To Quote Edzard Ernst:
https://edzardernst.com/2023/10/a-new-systematic-review-of-homoeopathy-reported-a-positive-result-but-i-cant-take-it-seriously/
You lost, pal. Did you really think you could get away with such a cheap trick? Shame on you!
“…Now Nature would (will) go down in history for making a fool of themselves….”
yes, true, if they would not retract that paper
and it’s not ‘nature’ but ‘scientific reports’
Scientific Reports is a journal of Nature, just as Nature is part of a larger company “Springer-Nature”! I don’t see what the problem is.
You should learn to do proper research.
First of all, “Scientific Reports” is not a journal of “Nature”, but published by Nature Portfolio, which itself is a division of the international scientific publishing company Springer Nature.
Secondly, “Scientific reports” does not have the good reputation of “Nature”. On the contrary, they have had major problems in recent years because they have published more than questionable articles. This led to the resignations of editorial board members
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports
hear, hear!
Scientific Reports is part of Nature. It is simple. It is correct call Nature Scientific Reports as is correct call Nature Nanotechnology.
But there are more and more rigorous studies that leave the “skeptics” of homeopathy in a bad light!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39168134/
https://jish-mldtrust.com/understanding-of-potentization-process-of-homoeopathic-medicine-of-aurum-metallicum-and-its-characterisation/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921510723001071
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167732224005932
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021007076
@Tabbygraycat
The so-called “rigorous studies” are rubbish. Rubbish remains rubbish, no matter how beautifully you arrange and decorate it.
Rubbish is not argument. Can You provide and share you formation in Science, RPG? What is your experience evaluating the quality of experimental Research?
I have a diploma in chemistry. I had to carry out and document correctly enough experiments during my studies.
And yourself? What is your scientific experience? I dare to say you have no experience at all, because otherwise you would not be constantly praising bad studies and spreading scientific nonsense, Mr. Troll.
@RPGNo1
In case you should have some masochistic tendencies: the retraction note page offers the opportunity for discussion – and I was foolish enough to engage the resident homeopathy propagandist in discussion about the retraction.
He appears to be even more of an arrogant twit than ‘our’ Mr. Ullman, insisting that a 30C dilution does not contradict finding measurable amounts of the original substance (because nanoparticles), among other things. And, of course, he claims that ‘dynamization’ (i.e. diluting and shaking, something even a child can do) is not just diluting and shaking, but a very complex process with nigh magical results …
It is a true smörgåsbord of all the fallacies and fantastic beliefs of the dyed-through-the-wool homeopathy adept. Enjoy! 🙂
@Tabbygraycat
But there is not one rigorous study that shows any homeopathic preparation to have any clear, consistent and repeatable effect for any condition.
It is easy to get a positive result in a ‘review’ by cherry-picking studies, bias, and not accounting for statistical noise, but fudging the numbers isn’t even necessary.
After all, studies can only produce positive outcomes or zero outcomes – but not (numerically) negative outcomes. So you will always find a net positive result, simply because lots of studies taken together will always contain some positive results, if only by chance.
All your waving numbers around is completely pointless if you can’t even point out one (JUST ONE) homeopathic preparation that actually does something. Until then, the only justified conclusion is that it doesn’t work at all. I for one won’t hold my breath.
Mr. Richard:
https://www.ejog.org/article/S0301-2115(17)30060-X/fulltext
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1550830706005635
https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/s-0031-1296821
https://journals.lww.com/pidj/abstract/2003/03000/homeopathy_for_childhood_diarrhea__combined.5.aspx
Some double blind studies clearly show repetible effects.
“contain some positive results, if only by chance.”
5% is the chance in studies. Hamre et al show that positive studies are more than 5%. In fact, ~80% show positive studies.
@tabbytwat
Nonsense stacked on nonsense.
Any of that bumwash been replicated by anyone else?
No.
And the Jacobs papers?
Please. Been ripped to bits endlessly.
Please explain why homeopathy isn’t frontline treatment for childhood diarrhoea. Can’t be because of Big Pharma. They earn nothing from simple oral rehydration solution.
You’re just another pathetic deluded homeopathy loon. We’ve seen plenty.