This article recounts the 5-year long odyssee of a few concerned and fiercely determined individuals [including myself] to get a published paper retracted that clearly was riddled with scientific misconduct and thus detrimental to science and dangerous to vulnerable patients. Here is the abstract of our just-published paper:
Scientifc misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy signifcantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientifc principles, doubts about the trial’s validity quickly emerged. Concerns were frst published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientifc misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the afliation of the study’s lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an ‘Expression of Concern’ at the time, despite fve co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship— a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was“under review,” with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specifc concerns raised about the study’s results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself. Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as“proof” that homeopathy benefts cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientifc fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientifc record and prevent harm to patients.
Our paper details the highly unethical behaviour of the editors of THE ONCOLOGIST who put many lives at risk through their incomprehensible inaction. In my view, this was nothing short of a scandal. I do encourage you all the read the full paper which is freely available to everyone.
9 Responses to Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Unfortunately the whole issue comes to an end here. This is a second rate victory only. Here is why:
The Oncologist failed with their retraction notice to point out exactly why the study was retracted:
‘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.’
This allows Frass to state, that his data and results were never challenged, that they qwere thoroghly checked by the editors and of course the abstract can still be referenced. The reason for the retraction is just that some education in homeopathy would be needed to understand the method applied, implying the critics just were too ignorant. Here his original statement with the German Central Association of Homeopathic Doctors (DZVhAe):
“In keiner Weise wurden die im September 2024 als korrekt festgestellten Daten angezweifelt. Der Grund für die Rücknahme liegt also in der Überqualifikation der HomöopathInnen, die eben diese zusätzliche medizinische Ausbildung absolviert haben und die Methode beherrschen.
Fazit: Die Daten der Studie stimmen, so wie sie vor einigen Jahren vom Journal genauestens geprüft worden sind. Das Abstract der Studie kann daher natürlich weiterhin zitiert werden.”
We ran out of optiuons to follow up on this issue.
According to this article, the primary reason that this article was retracted is that some individuals and organizations have deemed that it is “impossible” for homeopathic medicines to have the proported results of this study, even though CLINICAL trials are NOT expected to deal with mechanism action, only clinical RESULTS.
Science does not require knowing how something works before testing whether it works.
Examples:
Aspirin was used long before its mechanism (COX inhibition) was understood.
Lithium treated bipolar disorder decades before molecular mechanisms were clarified.
General anesthesia was used long before receptor pharmacology was mapped.
The other explanation for the retraction is that the authors seemingly back-dated their report to Clinical.gov.
This article provides no evidence of any specific data manipulation.
“According to this article, the primary reason that this article…”
No!
Much rather “according to Dullman’s blinkered view of this article, the primary reason that this article…”
Hey, Dana.. you know that no general anaesthetic agent has ever been subjected to randomised clinical trial to prove how effective it is and yet foolish sceptics insist that homeopathy should have to prove itself via robust clinical trial. Double standards at work!
It IS impossible for homeopathic medicines to have the proported results. That is what centuries of research in the natural sciences tell us. However, a snake oil salesman and homeopathy prophet like you cannot accept this fact, because otherwise your entire purpose in life would go down the drain.
The article seems like a joke. They accuse Frass et al of fraud, but there is no evidence of data manipulation anywhere. They only mention the change in protocol, and even if that is true, the authors uploaded the documents. They also mention that five of the authors asked to retract the article.
Ernst and his friends complain that Oncologist did not publish their letter, forgetting that Frass et al. were not given the opportunity to defend themselves after the first expression of concern, nor the anomalies of editor Susan Bates about alleged “vested interests” with homeopathic products without patent.
This paragraph is important: “There are examples where this has happened: The nature publishing group journal ‘Scientific Reports’ retracted 2 papers when it became clear, that the “drugs” investigate were diluted beyond the Avogadro number and did not contain pharmacologically active concentrations”.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19938-3
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-70287-9
And they are compared to Wakefield’s alleged fraud. For example, the first study states 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.” However, the text cites this article, which does support molecular analysis: https://academic.oup.com/jimmunol/article-abstract/205/5/1345/7930778?redirectedFrom=fulltext
The second text states: “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.”
It is said that a post-publication review “confirmed” not on the basis of a reproducibility analysis, but rather that “the particles detected are unclear.” If it wanted “corroborative” evidence, why didn’t Nature ask another laboratory to try to replicate the findings?
If we assume that Wakefield committed fraud or that his findings have not been replicated (supposedly because there is conflicting literature), it is unclear how Ernst et al. say that this example is comparable to that of Frass and the two retracted articles in Scientific Reports.
Pero el párrafo del inicio es el que más revelador: “Homeopathy is a healing system founded more than 200 years ago before scientific medicine’s dawn. One of its dogmata is that dilutions of substances even beyond the Avogadro number and thus containing only impurities of solvents and from dilution devices exert a strong healing effect. A public statement of EASAC (European Academies Science Advisory Council) from 2017 about homeopathy reads “The scientific claims made for homeopathy are implausible and inconsistent with established concepts from chemistry and physics” [3]. If homeopathy were to hold scientific testing, numerous textbooks in medicine and natural sciences would have to be rewritten. Considering the widespread consensus that homeopathy has no effects beyond placebo, many”
The EASAC report, as the authors know, has been widely questioned and does not contain a single piece of new evidence, but rather, as they themselves admit, “did not conduct a new assessment.” What aspects are “inconsistent with established concepts of physics and chemistry”? The only concept they cite is this: “In particular, the memory effects of water are too short-range and transient (occurring within the nanometer and nanosecond range) to account for any claimed efficacy.”
https://easac.eu/publications/details/homeopathic-products-and-practices
If one looks at the references, it is easy to see that absolutely all of them refer to a single “negative” experiment with potentized substances (Anick’s experiment in 2004), without explaining why the rest of the references and experiments with NMR are not cited. The other is Téxeira’s article criticizing the assumption of memory effects in pure water. The latter represents a serious contradiction because the rest of the references denying any memory effect refer to experiments in “ultra-pure” water (such as Cowan et al., Stirnemann et al., and Jungwirth). Grimmes does not offer any specific experimental references and has fundamental errors.
So Ullman is right, the retraction of the Frass et al. paper is nothing more than prejudice.
Proven fraud, idiot. For which he was struck off the medical register. How many times have his attempts to prove otherwise been thrown out of courts?
Take your halfwitted and inconsequential wibblings elewhere, kid. You prove only that, like Dana, you’re an ideologically blinded troll. Nobody anywhere of any consequence pays a blind bit of heed to your brainless jabbering.
thank you!!!
I could not have put it more convincingly that you are unable to understand scientific papers.
MUCH OBLIGED
First study protocol uploaded after completion of the study and given a fake date before the beginning of the study (citing to use an SPSS software version which had not yet been published 2011 etc) https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01509612?term=frass%20homeopathy&rank=1&tab=history&a=8#version-content-panel
Numerous exclusion criteria added post hoc – from 1 (pregnancy) to about 20
Luckily clinicaltrils.gov does not forget anything….