Many of you will remember the multiple posts on this blog about this study and about the fact that Frass himself has stated that his dubious ‘homeopathy for cancer study’ will be retracted. At the time, our resident defender of the indefensible (pseudonym ‘sandbox’) commented (as almost aways incorrectly) as follows:
1. Ernst attempted to retract a high-quality article using falsehoods.
2. Ernst accused the principal investigator of fraud without evidence.
3. Ernst sent a letter to the editor that was not published.
4. The verdict allowed the clinical trial to continue through a corrigendum.
5. Ernst felt desperate and, with his group of friends, pressed to try again to retract the article.
6. Ernst realises that, apparently (from a vague statement by Frass), the trial is going to be retracted.
7. Ernst congratulates himself because he has managed to retract the article, but admits that, not for his reasons, he has no confirmation (yet) from The Oncologist.
8. Ernst calls The Oncologist incompetent for publishing an editorial in which they only ask to test each of the drugs used in the trial.
That was around a month ago. Now, finally, an official retraction notice has appeared:
This is a retraction of: Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk‐Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer‐Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, 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, The Oncologist, Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages e1930–e1955, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548.
The journal published the article in November 20201 and a correction in March 2021.2 In August 2022, the journal received a request from the Commission for Research Integrity of the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI) to retract the article following an investigation they conducted at the request of the Vice Rector of the Medical University of Vienna. The journal published an Expression of Concern in October 2022,3 followed by a second correction4 and accompanying Editorial in September 2024.5
Subsequent to the two corrections, concerns have continued to be raised about the study. In light of this continued uncertainty and the issues previously covered in the corrections, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions reported in the article and has decided to retract.
Many co-authors disagree with the journal’s decision to retract6, while one agrees7 and others have not commented either way.
REFERENCES
1 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk‐Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer‐Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, 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, The Oncologist, Volume 25, Issue 12, December 2020, Pages e1930–e1955, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548
2 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Claudia Pirker, Erwin Grasmuk-Siegl, Julian Domayer, Maximilian Hochmair, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Michael Schumacher, Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller, Raj K. Manchanda, Andrea Schrott, Otto Burghuber, 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, The Oncologist, Volume 26, Issue 3, March 2021, Page e523, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13693
3 Expression of Concern: 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, The Oncologist, Volume 27, Issue 12, December 2022, Page e985, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac221
5 Correction to: 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, The Oncologist, Volume 29, Issue 11, November 2024, Pages e1631–e1632, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae253
4 William D Figg, Susan E Bates, Clinical trial results: each patient’s participation should count, The Oncologist, Volume 30, Issue 7, July 2025, oyae252, https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae252
6 Michael Frass, Peter Lechleitner, Christa Gründling, Katharina Gaertner, Cornelia Duscheck, Ilse Muchitsch, Christine Marosi, Raj K. Manchanda, and Otto Burghuber disagree with the journal’s decision to retract.
7 Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller agrees with the journal’s decision to retract.
_________________________________________
I am of course pleased that this is finally done, but believe that the wholly incompetent Editorial (ref 4 above) needs retracting as well. Finally, I feel that an appology from the editor(s) (for their endless delay tactics, their refusal to understand the issues at hand, for not answering multiple emails, etc., etc.) might be in order.
51 Responses to Finally! The long-awaited ‘retraction notice’ of the infamous study by Frass et al (on homeopathy for cancer) has been published
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
The decision came far too late. But at least it was made.
I am now looking forward to the reactions of homeopathy apologists DUllman, sandbox and colleagues. They will surely want to “delight” the blog with their “expert” insights.
Perhaps you can explain how, of all the authors (most of whom disagree), the only one who agrees with the retraction is the one who has a conflict of interest with Big Pharma. It’s a very curious detail, don’t you think?
“DISCLOSURES
Sabine Zöchbauer-Müller: Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche,
AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen
(H), Merck Sharpe & Dohme (RF). The other authors indicated no
financial relationships.”
QED. Play chess with yourself, dove. 😀
A detail that may go unnoticed, but could have a greater impact, don’t you think, RPG?
But still: A mere detail.
Norbert, I cannot trust a lobbyist who wrote such a poor book as your colleague Richard Rasker did. From what I can see, your attempts to censor the study by Frass et al. are due to the fact that it contradicts the conclusions of your book and because of Frass’s rivality with Ernst (if one looks at the literature, curiously enough, Frass has apparently made better designs than Ernst).
I have been reading the documents they mention, and everything revolves specifically not around the data, but around discrepancies in the protocols. But it is interesting that several (pseudo) “skeptics” cite this:
https://www.laborjournal.de/rubric/hintergrund/hg/hg_25_04_02.php
“Seriösen Fachjournalen genügt es bereits für eine Retraktion, wenn nur mit homöopathischen Verdünnungen gearbeitet wird (Sci Rep. doi.org/pb5w; Sci Rep. doi.org/pchw).”
So, my point is proven: even if the study by Frass et al had no discrepancies, you would have pressured the editors of Oncologist to retract it because of the use of high potencies. This is called censorship, Norbert.
Your notion is utterly wrong.
We started to investigate into this study because its results contrdict science as we know it. So what is wrong? Science or study?
You may find an account of our findings in numerous sources, e.g. on this blog (here: https://edzardernst.com/2021/06/a-thorough-analysis-of-prof-m-frass-recent-homeopathy-trial-casts-serious-doubts-on-its-reliability/)
With these findings in mind, especially the backdating of the protocol, the probability is much higher, that the study is wrong, not science.
Norbert:
I just told you that even if Frass’s study hadn’t had those changes in the protocol that you mention, you would still have tried to argue that “the results cannot be possible.” You respond by saying that I am wrong, but at the same time you confirm that I am right in saying that you don’t care about the data, but rather about censorship: “because its results contrdict science as we know it”.
Nonsense. How do you know what would have happened if something else was different? Sell your talent as fortuneteller.
But here: Which of our findings are untrue. Which of our conclusions are wrong? Is there any other explanation than fraud?
If you cannot answer any of these questions, there is no sense in continuing this discussion.
None of the authors who have a conflict of interest with SCAM (homeopathy or the Ministry of AYUSH) agreed with the retraction. It’s a very curious detail, don’t you think?
😂😂😂😂
Atkins, two of the authors who disagreed with the retraction are not “homeopaths.” At least read the document before commenting.
Dear persistent troll,
LEARN TO READ! Then learn to UNDERSTAND what you have read, before you write your BS comments.
None of the authors who have a conflict of interest with SCAM (homeopathy or the Ministry of AYUSH) agreed with the retraction. It’s a very curious detail, don’t you think?
😂😂😂😂
So, Atkins, you said that only authors affiliated with homeopathy had retracted their statements, but I have shown you that two authors who are not affiliated with homeopathy disagree. The only author who agreed has a conflict of interest with conventional Big Pharma. This is very interesting. If there was supposedly “fraud,” then you would be saying that a member of Big Pharma played a role in that alleged “fraud,” and this would undermine not only trust in Frass but also in the “conventional” industry. It’s all very strange.
Dear persistent troll,
You emitted: “So, Atkins [sic], you said that only authors affiliated with homeopathy had retracted their statements.”
You are a LIAR.
Perhaps you are far too stupid to understand the following:
none [pronoun]
• not any
• no person
• no one
— Oxford Languages
Either name the authors who have a conflict of interest with SCAM (homeopathy or the Ministry of AYUSH) who agreed with the retraction; or STFU. Thank you.
I’ll break it down for the imbecile…
• of the16 authors,
1 agreed with the decision to retract (6.25%)
∴ 15 did not agree (93.75%)
• of those 15, you claim:
“but I have shown you that two authors who are not affiliated with homeopathy disagree”
• therefore
• not even one
• of the at least 13 authors (81.25%) who have a conflict of interest with SCAM (homeopathy or the Ministry of AYUSH)
• agreed with the retraction.
Hence my statement that contrasts yours:
None of the authors who have a conflict of interest with SCAM (homeopathy or the Ministry of AYUSH) agreed with the retraction. It’s a very curious detail, don’t you think?
😂😂😂😂
Definitely far too late.
“The Oncologist” took the fee for the submission of our letter to the editor as early as in 2021 but ghosted us completely and never published it though one of the authors is a clinical oncologist. Status 10.9.2024 “With Editor”. This letter already noted the faked protocol date, the post hoc miraculous increase of exclusion criteria but no excluded patients in the CONSORT diagram.
So your great victory boils down to pressuring and intimidating scientific journal editors once again to retract a good study, which had already been corrected. Congratulations, Ernst, you have only shown your great desperation because that study debunked the minimum threshold stipulated by the NHRMC. So, you didn’t manage to retract the study because of allegations of fraud, but because of a stupid claim that, according to Frass, you had a “conflict of interest” because you used drugs that you used in private practice.
The most interesting thing is that The Oncologist itself only had to give in to external pressure with a “we have no confidence in the results.” It’s very similar to Monsanto’s tricks with Séralaini. Why is that? Of course, Ernst is a friend of Hank Campbell and has ties to the Science Media Centre.
of course, our resident quackery defender is issuing pure BS again!
He reminds me of Rumpelstiltskin.
So why do you always avoid those details, Ernst? If you have Science Medica Centre on the banner on the left. And you have your profile on this website full of industry lobbyists: https://www.science20.com/profile/edzard_ernst
And your friend Hank Campbell:
https://www.science20.com/profile/hank_campbell
Ernst, I have found numerous links between people with the so-called CSI (COP), ACSH, and the industry, even though they claim to be “independent.” It’s very strange, don’t you think?
did you forget the little red pill against paranoia again?
You say this is “red pill”? Ernst, Monsanto’s involvement in the retraction of Séralini’s article is well documented and proven.
I never saw your group of minions protest Monsanto’s manipulated data. On the contrary, since the Monsanto Army was discovered (several trolls who belonged to that movement and also commented on your friends David Orski and Steve Novella’s blogs) magically disappeared from many of their blogs defending Monsanto and attacking Séralini.
Science Media Center, Sense About Science, American Council on Science and Health, Giordano Bruno Stuffting, Pint of Science… Although sometimes it’s good to laugh at the fact that now the pro-trans faction of (pseudo)skeptics wants to cancel the anti-trans faction, and the latter wants to retract studies by the pro-trans (pseudo)skeptical faction.
You want to distract and, therefore, throw smoke grenades, little troll.
“You want to distract and, therefore, throw smoke grenades, little troll.”
The same was said by the Monsanto Army, funded by Monsanto and trained by Susan Gerbic with the help of “Guerrilla Skepticism” and sites such as CSICOP (now CSI). Simon Sigh (a close friend of Ernst) and Tracey Brown (also a friend of Ernst) said the same thing when they lied that Sense About Science was an “independent charity” and had even funded “All Trials” with Ben Goldacre (curiously, all of them, Sigh, Ernst, Brown, and Goldacre were behind the House of Commons Science and Technology report).
If you look at it, it’s similar: the UK report was used to close homeopathic hospitals in the UK, based on a report that was rejected even by the majority of MPs. It’s similar with Frass, all the Oncologist research and corrections, but money and power seem to have been able to corrupt the system and put pressure on publishers. We know you are bullies who like to threaten careers, so it’s no surprise.
Only one more comment to correct your misconceptions
Would you expect homeopaths to agree?
“So, you didn’t manage to retract the study because of allegations of fraud, but because of a stupid claim that, according to Frass, you had a “conflict of interest” because you used drugs that you used in private practice.”
Which drugs did Edzard Erst use according to your confuse statement?
It was not EE who intimidated the poor journal (I can’t hold my tears)
It was the fact that the critics filed a complaint with COPE. COPE suggested a meeting of representatives of the Meduni Wien, ÖAWI, and the journal. Neither Edzard nor me nor a member of the INH attended this video meeting. The arguments brought forward in this meeting made the chief editor change her mind.
Why only “we have no confidence in the results” and no details?
If they had agreed to list the facts brought forward, that could have been interpreted as:
1. We have been fully asleep when we decided to even accept this paper for review.
2. We very probably have agreed to send the paper to peer reviewers proposed by the authors, maybe of the Indian AYUSH ministry for pseudomedicine.
3. The editorial showed complete ignorance about homeopathy and we should be ashamed to have written it.
4. We have silenced scientific discourse and suppressed facts.
Nobody likes loosing her/his face.
For a better understanding of your misconceptions please read
https://www.initiative-wissenschaftliche-medizin.at/index.php?id=330
Viktor, it is normal to expect a series of retractions in any field:
1. When authors have failed to comply with ethical standards or have lied about them, or when there is evidence of manipulation and fraud.
2. Variable (depending on the editors) when images overlap (carelessness or good faith), which other journals take action to request images or for authors to clarify.
I have noticed several retractions of homeopathy articles in journals, which is normal for some, as I have said, and some are explained by 1 or 2, or both. What is not normal is that most of these retractions do not fall into either of these two categories but rather into comments such as “we do not believe the data.” And what is even less normal is that several of these articles have been preceded by complaints from (pseudo) “skeptical” activists on social media.
Even less normal is that months of proceedings have passed and a single, non sensical complaint has led to their withdrawal without any evidence of fraud or image manipulation.
What is very clear to me is that we are seeing a pattern strangely similar to that of the Séralini affair:
1. Several (pseudo) “skeptics,” such as a certain group of Russians (Alexander Panchin and his friends) from an “information institute,” sent complaints to have Séralini’s article retracted, and they are the same people who pressure journal editors to retract articles related to homeopathy.
2. The fear of the (pseudo) “skeptics” at seeing that articles on homeopathy have increased, contrary to their prediction that it would disappear after the COVID pandemic. This makes sense when Rasker wants to play around with Excel to “prove that most are negative.” Of course, if we start removing retracted positive trials, Rasker can manipulate the figures to his convenience.
n the case of Frass et al, it is even rarer that the only complaints are not based on the data, but on changes in protocols. And it is even less normal that an agency such as the OAWI has made a disastrous assessment that the authors had no problem refuting shortly thereafter. It is even less normal that after several months, the editors reviewed the data and added a corrigendum, but were suddenly forced to retract the article, and not for the reasons you complained about.
The difference is that there were several Monsanto infiltrators on the editorial board of Food and Chemical Toxicology. In this case, you send indignant letters seeking details, often irrelevant, but which cause fearful responses from editors whom you threaten with “damaging their reputation.” The curious thing is how manipulated articles such as Shang et al. are not retracted, nor are articles such as Ernst 2002 (which contains falsehoods such as that he was a “trained homeopath”), his article criticizing Tuchín, or the one in the International Journal of Clinical Practice (one of Ernst’s worst articles, in which he gets drug names wrong, confuses reports, and contradicts himself by saying that high potencies can kill you after all).
So your reasons don’t make sense; mine make more sense.
If you keep dancing like that, Rumpelstiltskin, it will tear you right down the middle. 😜
If your lobby continue retracting articles through nonsense and censorship, sooner or later they will end up like Monsanto, and I suppose I will have a good laugh.
You are confused and talking nonsense. See a doctor who treats this problem.
“You are confused and talking nonsense. See a doctor who treats this problem.”
RPG, What you’re doing is classic pseudoskepticism, attacking others for always saying “crazy” things. They said the same thing about Monsanto and Coca-Cola, that they were “independent science.” How strange, they use the same pressure tactics as Big Tobacco. Don’t you find it curious that the American Council on Science and Health has been involved for years with pseudo-skeptical organizations and authors such as Quackwatch? Don’t you find it strange that Alexander Panchin (one of the retractors) was singled out for having a conflict of interest with Monsanto and was one of those who sent a letter to withdraw Séralini’s study? Don’t you find it strange that Simon Sigh had a conflict of interest with Coca-Cola, or that Tracey Brown had one with Big Tobacco? And of course, we can’t forget that EASAC had a strange relationship with a curious report that had the same origin as that of a certain US government organization accused of plagiarizing text from Monsanto. And of course, we cannot forget that one of the authors of the EASAC report, which Ernst likes to quote so much, has a conflict with Big Pharma without pointing it out in the document, and that another of the authors was strangely awarded by a (pseudo)skeptical organization in Europe.
But, of course, it doesn’t matter that Coca Cola has lost many lawsuits for fraud and has tried to remove labeling from its products, you don’t care that Monsanto has lost multi-million dollar lawsuits and pressured governments to prevent them from marketing glyphosate, you don’t seem to care that the False Memory Foundation mysteriously closed before the Epstein case, and that the ridiculous Elizabeth Loftus testified in favor of Ghislaine Maxwell, losing the case.
But, of course, for you as a (pseudo)skeptic, this is “conspiracy theory nonsense” (you don’t care that there is evidence), or “something similar to the flat earth theory” (you don’t care about all the evidence).
Copy-paste
@”Sandox”
You have no arguments at all. So, once again you are throwing smoke grenades, laying red herrings, moving goal post, engaging in whataboutism to distract from the emptiness in your head. 😛
@ Sandbox
And even if Coca Cola, Big Tobacco, Monsanto and all the others did those things, that you claim:
I fail to see the impact of all these things on the study we are discussing here.
Sandbrain
The retraction of the Frass paper is, like you, of no consequence whatsoever. Even if it had not been retracted it would, like every paper Frass has published, have no impact whatsoever on clinical practice. They are all recognised for the nonsense they are and ignored by all apart from halfwits like you who imagine that they lend credence to your claims of the imaginary magic powers of shaken water.
At what point will you realise that all your yammering and stamping and handwaving is of no consequence whatsoever? Nobody pays any heed to your empty words. You are, Like Dana, howling into the void. Just another Rumpelstiltskin. Keep stamping, Sandbrain. We’ll keep laughing at you.
Lenny:
1. If it weren’t so important, your friends wouldn’t have spent five years trying to get it retracted. They spend a lot of time trying to censor articles, but what good does it do them if they keep getting published anyway? Until they get so overwhelmed that they can’t take it anymore.
2. You always come here to insult people, even though Ernst supposedly says that’s not allowed on his blog.
3. When you say “it’s magic,” you’re confirming what I said: the retraction has little or nothing to do with the anomalies, but even if the article hadn’t had them, you would have pressured for it to be retracted, as in other cases where no anomalies were found.
4. You seem to have a big obsession with Dana.
As ever, all you have is deflection, Sandbrain because you don’t want to answer the central question
And remember that evidenced statements of empirical fact do not become insults just because you don’t like what they say.
Lenny, I know you’re an old troll, I know that when you ask for evidence (just like Ernst and his minions) and they provide it, you’ll never accept it. Most of your predictions have failed to come true, and every time you are refuted, you resort to the fallacy of moving the goalposts. It’s no wonder we see David Shaw crying in the BMJ, calling for censorship of research into homeopathy in farm animals.
It would be interesting to know why you are always angry.
You mean “always refute” rather than “never accept”.
Such as? Name some. We’ll wait. I don’t make predictions. You’re pulling fantasies out of your arse, kiddo.
Such as?
I believe we’re seeing a pattern here, Sandbrain.
There’s only one person here stamping, flailing and shouting, Sandbrain. And it isn’t me.
Anyway. Why not stop deflecting and answer the question?
You remain the pathetic, witless, scientifically-ignorant and inconsequential troll that you always have been. Run along, now.
@Lenny
Exactly. And I would even go one further: no single paper whatsoever is (or should be) hugely consequential, including papers from non-SCAM researchers.
To paraphrase Edzard: it is the totality of research and evidence that counts.
And for homeopathy, this totality is in fact utterly pathetic: PubMed lists around 220 RCT’s between 1980 and 2025 – about 5 per year on average. Less than a hundred of these studies made it into regular scientific journals, and only 34 of those report positive results. In 45 years. And those positive studies themselves are still pretty useless: still vastly underpowered, with no consistent pattern whatsoever: the best they can tell us is that a particular homeopathic treatment sometimes appears to work, but more often doesn’t.
And in the past 5 years, no homeopathy RCT’s were carried out or published by real scientists at all.
Compare this to just one arbitrarily chosen medicine for an arbitrarily chosen purpose, e.g. furosemide, a common diuretic: PubMed lists 1100 RCT’s for this one substance. This is already 4 times as many as for all of homeopathy, which claims to be a complete ‘system of medicine’, suitable for treating literally thousands of conditions. Which is of course a ludicrous claim given the complete lack of evidence.
If homeopathy had any clinical significance whatsoever, we should see thousands of homeopathy RCT’s with consistent, specific effects in the treatment of lots of specific conditions. We see nothing of the kind at all.
Even if we ask our resident homeotrolls to name just one homeopathic ‘remedy’ that exhibits clear, consistent and repeatable effects, they have to resort to lies, obfuscation and of course Trumpian distraction tactics such as insults, narcissistic rants and trolling to avoid facing the harsh truth: there exist no proven effective homeopathic treatments. What tiny amount of evidence there is, only supports the notion that homeopathy causes placebo effects at best. It cannot and does not work as a medicine.
Rasker, you’re just projecting. I haven’t insulted you, but you and Lenny do so constantly. Let’s see:
1. In the Excel spreadsheet you made, you showed that you know NOTHING, since you confused in vitro trials with clinical trials. I still have your original Excel spreadsheet, and in the future I will upload it to show how clueless you are.
2. In that same Excel file, you distorted the conclusions of articles you didn’t read to turn positive results into negative ones.
3. Obviously, it’s in your best interest to push for the retraction of articles to inflate your numbers and adjust them to fit your beliefs, since your credibility depends on it. That’s fraud, and you should know it.
4. I have shown you that there are at least two high-quality controlled clinical trials, even rated as such by Ernst himself in a review, Cochrane reviews, and a review funded by Boiron. All three show that these two trials meet your requirements of moderate effect and high quality replicated >12CH. You lost, Rasker. You don’t want to accept defeat even though the authors of the Cochrane reviews themselves have stated this.
5. Funding for homeopathy trials is scarce, as you know, and you want to prevent trials from being conducted because you consider them a “waste of resources.” This is a contradiction: you want evidence, but you want to prohibit studies from being conducted.
6. Rasker, the example of furosemide that you have given does not make much sense, as that drug has not been tested in high-quality trials, as even Cochrane itself tells you.
“Even if we ask our resident homeotrolls to name just one homeopathic ‘remedy’ that exhibits clear, consistent and repeatable effects, they have to resort to lies, obfuscation and of course Trumpian distraction tactics such as insults, narcissistic rants and trolling to avoid facing the harsh truth: there exist no proven effective homeopathic treatments. What tiny amount of evidence there is, only supports the notion that homeopathy causes placebo effects at best. It cannot and does not work as a medicine.”
You cried over a trial with 150 patients, now Rasker is crying.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41064737/
And you wanted prestigious scientists, well there you have Jessica Utts, one of the best statisticians. I know you’ll come out with an ad hominem saying she’s a “parapsychologist,” while you’re just an electronics technician calling yourself an “electromedical technician.” It’ll be fun to see how you cry now trying to retract that study, until the editors realize what you guys are doing.
We await the independent replication of the results, Sandbrain. Preferably by a group of researches fronted by someone without such a glaring financial COI. As ever, do you actually read or understand any of the shit you post or are you happy to credulously parrot any old bumwash that appears to confirm your belief in the powers of magic shaken water?
Der Spiegel also reports on the withdrawal of the study.
Translates as:
Der Standard also reports.
https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000298260/globuli-bei-lungenkrebs-wiener-studie-nun-offiziell-zurueckgezogen
The persistent troll has thus far used the word “censor” twice, and the word “censorship” four times.
Dear persistent troll,
The visibility of the study would have been reduced by its censorship.
Whereas the visibility of the study has not been reduced by its retraction.
You are incompetent at spelling people’s names correctly; therefore, it is not at all surprising that you cannot use words and phrases correctly during a scientific discussion.
It’s highly amusing to observe your incompetence with language during your pathetic attempts to bludgeon your opponents with (the wrong) words. You are a poster child for unconscious incompetence.
A small addition on my part: The ignorant troll does not understand the meaning of the term “censorship.” Therefore I love referring him to my favorite xkcd comic on “Free speech”.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
👍
Attkins, all you do is confuse people with your comments, even though you haven’t been able to provide any counterarguments or refute the studies. Anyone who debates and refutes you is a “troll,” but your friends who insult and applaud you are the “rational” ones. What a manipulative speech.
😂😂😂😂
You have not presented any arguments or solid studies at all, but have merely spouted nonsense and parroted long-disproved claims about homeopathy.
And as for your other whining about an unfair discussion: Cry me a river!
I must say Sandboxlitter is right on all accounts.
thanks for letting me know who you are:
Michael Budic is 69 years old and was born on 02/18/1956. Previous to Michael’s current city of Marlton, NJ, Michael Budic lived in North Olmsted OH and Buffalo NY. In the past, Michael has also been known as Michaael Budic and Michael J Budic. Personal details about Michael include: political affiliation is currently a registered Republican; ethnicity is Caucasian; and religious views are listed as Christian. Currently, Michael is married. Michael’s personal network of family, friends, associates & neighbors include Brian Budic, Patricia Budic, Mark Pease, Carmela Maniscalco and Denise Fidura. Taking into account various assets, Michael’s net worth is greater than $100,000 – $249,999; and makes between $200 – 249,999 a year.
And thanks also for making such a convincing argument!
RETRACTION WATCH JUST PUBLISHED THEIR SUMMARY OF THE SAGA:
https://retractionwatch.com/2025/12/11/copes-involvement-leads-to-retraction-of-paper-on-homeopathy-for-lung-cancer/