Cancer
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.
As I am not an avid reader of the UK honours lists, I totally missed the fact that Robin Daly has been awarded an MBE (Member of the Order of the British Empire) in the 2025 New Year Honours list. The honour was for his outstanding contributions to the field of integrative cancer care as the founder of the charity, “Yes to Life”. The “Yes to Life” website reported the event as follows:
We are thrilled to announce that our Chairman and Founder, Robin Daly, has been awarded an MBE in recognition of his outstanding contributions to the field of integrative cancer care and his tireless work through Yes to Life. This prestigious honour celebrates Robin’s unwavering dedication to supporting those affected by cancer and promoting holistic approaches to well-being. Congratulations, Robin, on this well-deserved accolade! …
On this blog, we have encountered “Yes to Life” before, e.g.:
- The ‘Yes to Life Show’ is outright dangerous, if you ask me
- Uncharitable charities? The example of ‘YES TO LIFE’
I had again a good look at what “Yes to Life” is currently offering and am glad to report that they clearly cleaned up their act. The charity used to promote outright dangerous quackery to desperate cancer patients. Today they still do this but they do it less overtly, e.g.:
- “Whether you’re seeking improved mental clarity, glowing skin, weight loss, detoxification, or support in battling diseases like cancer, juicing offers a customisable approach to achieving your wellness goals. In this comprehensive guide, we’ll explore how to adapt your juicing routine to address specific health needs, from overall well-being to targeted concerns like skin health, mental well-being, weight loss, detoxification, menopause, heart health and cancer support.”
- “From the moment of diagnosis through treatment and beyond, cancer patients face plenty of challenges that extend far beyond the physical symptoms. Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), also known as tapping, have emerged as a promising support offering a gentle yet profound approach to addressing emotional and psychological well-being. At its core, EFT is a modality that combines elements of ancient Chinese acupressure with modern psychology. The technique involves gently tapping on specific acupressure points on the body while focusing on and verbalizing emotional issues, negative thoughts, or physical symptoms. By stimulating these energy meridian points and addressing emotional blockages, EFT aims to restore balance to the body’s energy system and promote healing on a holistic level.”
- “Turmeric, often referred to as the “golden spice,” contains curcumin, a compound with powerful anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Curcumin has been linked to enhanced immune function and may help the body defend against infections. You can incorporate turmeric into your diet by adding it to curries, soups, or even warm turmeric milk for a comforting and immune-boosting treat.”
- “Stress, anxiety, and emotional distress as well as physical pain and discomfort may be present along the entire cancer care pathway. These factors may impact treatment outcomes and recovery time. Most importantly, they present a significant burden of suffering to those affected by cancer and their loved ones. EFT is an effective, efficient management tool that can meet these needs and can be self- administered as well as used in a therapeutic relationship. The physical and emotional need for support can vary timewise along the cancer pathway and sometimes surprisingly patients can have significant mental and emotional needs as they recover, so well beyond their treatment phase (see the accompanying graph). Meeting these needs can contribute to long term well-being.”
- “The slightly strange sounding ‘Essiac’ tea is, in fact, simply a reversal of the surname of the woman who made it famous. In 1922, a young Canadian nurse, Rene Caisse, was given certain herbs by an old woman who had cured herself of breast cancer and had been handed down the recipe by the Ojibawa Native Americans who had used it for generations.”
Are we sure that the promotion of a whole lot of caner quackery merits a gong?
No!
Oddly, as I was writing this, I came across this on social media:
Ken Loach refused one of Betty’s gongs, in 1977, saying: ‘I turned down the OBE because its not a club you want to join when you look at the villains who’ve got it. It’s all the things I think are despicable: patronage, deferring to the monarchy and the name of the British Empire, which is a monument of exploitation and conquest’.
Perhaps we should add QUACKERY to Ken Loach’s list?
It has been reported that Nigel Farage’s ‘Reform UK’ has received an award for being the organisation that engaged in the “most prolific promotion of pseudoscience” during 2025. Each year the UK’s The Skeptic magazine, names their pseudoscientist of the year, and awards them the ‘Rusty Razor’ prize. This year it went to Reform UK in recognition of the party’s “widespread embrace of climate change denialism and antivaccine misinformation.”
In this post, I will exclude the important issue about climate and focus on the misinformation related to health. At Reform UK’s party conference last month, controversial doctor Aseem Malhotra gave a speech claiming that “mRNA jabs have likely killed or seriously harmed millions of people”, that the World Health Organisation had been “captured” by Bill Gates, and that Covid vaccines were “highly likely” a significant factor in cancer diagnoses amongst members of the royal family. The year before, Richard Tice called for a full inquiry into the “serious problem” of thousands of people dying from Covid vaccine side-effects, a claim which is of course unfounded. In a September interview, Nigel Farage parrotted comments from Donald Trump linking autism to paracetamol use. Farage even compared it to the thalidomide scandal. In addition, he claimed that migrants were kidnapping and eating swans from London parks.
Michael Marshall, Editor of The Sceptic, said: “Whilst the political positions Reform UK put forward are outside of the scope and remit of The Skeptic and our awards, their positions on science are not. On current polling, Reform UK is the party with the most support in the country, yet they have shown that they have no problem with spreading pseudoscientific misinformation that aligns with the interests of their donors, no interest in vetting their members and candidates for holding dangerously misguided views about science and health, and no issue with fostering and indulging all manner of conspiracy theories if they think there’s a vote in it.” Marshall branded Reform “a threat to science and reason, and deserving of being singled out as winners of our 2025 Rusty Razor award.”
I ask myself, why do Farage and company do it?
Why do they make overtly false health claims?
Don’t they know that these endanger the health of their followers?
The way I see it, there are several possibilities:
- They are too stupid to realize that the claims are wrong.
- They blindly repeat every BS Trump proclaims.
- They think they can win votes by misleading the public.
- They don’t care a toss.
I find it hard to decide – what do you think?
This case report recounts the story of a cow in Brazil diagnosed with Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma. The authors from the Department of Research, Idis Lamasson Institute, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil reported that “the mass grew suddenly and then V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter- Brazil was administered three times a week intramuscular close to the lesion with potencies D3, D6 and D9 close to the mass for eleven months.”
The authors observed that “after eleven months of treatment, that the clinical evolution of homeopathic V.a. in the
D3, D6, and D9 dynamizations promoted complete remission of the Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma, preventing metastases. The patient is currently (2025) in her fourth pregnancy and has achieved longevity without recurrence of the neoplasm. The in vitro articles that reported the antineoplastic action of homeopathic dynamizations of Viscum album contributed to the protocol used in this patient. Further research should be conducted on therapeutic proposals for production animals not intended for slaughter”.
The term “V.a homeopathic therapy by Injectcenter®- Brazil” refers to a homeopathic treatment utilizing the homeopathically diluted preparation of the plant Viscum album (V.a), i.e. mistletoe. It seems unclear whether the treatment was, as the authors stated, homeopathic or whether it was, in fact, anthroposophic. Viscum album is a standard therapy in anthroposophic medicine where it is not normally potentised but fermented and diluted.
A Mixed Apocrine Carcinoma is a malignant tumor that requires aggressive therapy (usually surgery) to prevent local spread, recurrence, metastases and eventual death. Without treatment, the tumor is expected to continue to grow.
For several reasons, the case report is difficult to interpret:
- It is poorly written.
- It lacks important detail; in particular, it does not state, for instance, that the mistletoe treatment was the only therapy the cow received.
- It probably confuses homeopathy with antroposophic medicine.
Therefoe, the cow’s survival could be due to:
- Conventional therapies.
- False-positive diagnosis.
- Spontaneous remission.
Of course, fans of homeopathy [including the authors of this case report] will argue that the outcome was due to the effectiveness of homeopathy. I am, however, unconvinced. What I am convinced of is this: it is unethical to treat a severely ill animal with an unproven therapy.
In November 2020, Frass et al published the study that prompted much confusion and concern. Its conclusions were as follows:
QoL improved significantly in the homeopathy group compared with placebo. In addition, survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control. A higher QoL might have contributed to the prolonged survival. The study suggests that homeopathy positively influences not only QoL but also survival. Further studies including other tumor entities are warranted.
On 7 October 2020, I was probably the first to voice concerns about this most suspicious piece of research in a blog post that raised no less than 13 questions about this trial:
-
- What is the purpose of group 3? The authors call it a control group and state it allows assessing the real homeopathic effect on the homeopathic cohort as the real effect will be the natural historical effect minus the placebo effect and the homeopathic effect. Does that make sense?
- Was the study under-powered? From my reading of the text, the answer seems to be yes.
- What is the full list of conventional treatments the patients received, and did they differ between the 3 groups?
- If I understand it correctly, the study patients did not receive immuno-oncological therapy. Does that fact not render the study unethical?
- What homeopathic potencies were prescribed in group 1? The paper says: The constituents of the different homeopathic remedies were mainly of plant, mineral, or animal origin. This is unlikely, as most homeopathic remedies contain nothing.
- The authors seem to have used individualised homeopathy according to Hahnemann’s instructions. Did Hahnemann not strictly forbid combining his approach with other types of treatment?
- How well respected is THE ONCLOLOGIST, the journal that published the paper?
- Was the article peer-reviewed? If so, by whom?
- Was the placebo indistinguishable from the verum?
- Was the success of patient-blinding checked?
- Have similar findings regarding survival been reported previously? The authors call this finding ‘unexpected’; I find it more than that; it is baffling.
- Should we accept such surprising findings, or would it be more prudent to wait until independent replications are available?
- The first author of this trial is Prof Frass who has featured on this blog several times before (see for instance here, here, here, here and here). Frass has published several studies of homeopathy and invariably manages to produce positive results. Am I the only one to find this odd?
Subsequently many more in-depth critiques have been published by colleagues on this blog and elsewhere, e.g.: A thorough analysis of Prof M. Frass’ recent homeopathy trial casts serious doubts on its reliability. This was followed by several complaints to The Oncologist, the journal that had published the article. Frass countered with a statement:
This is a brief summary followed by a more detailed comment of the most important points, which is why the work is so exceptionally robust and valid. Any falsification, fabrication or manipulation of the data can therefore be ruled out:
1. The study was accompanied and monitored by the planning statistician with the help of the computer-aided randomization program Randomizer of the Medical University of Graz. This program automatically writes a protocol (= audit trail), so that every inclusion or exclusion process was recorded. Subsequent exclusion (‘post-hoc exclusion’) is therefore not possible, as every step has been monitored.
2. The authors, most of whom are not interested in homeopathy, had control of and access to the study data at all times.
3. The study was analysed in a four-stage procedure, which is unusual for an academic study: the data were entered into the tamper-proof Research, Documentation and Analysis (RDA) platform of the Medical University of Vienna, then forwarded by the planning statistician to the analysing statistician by means of an elaborate clearing process at the University. This quadruple evaluation check proves the extraordinary quality of the results.
We therefore confirm the reliability, veracity and accuracy of the data presented in our article published in The Oncologist.
Link to the study: https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13548
More detailed comment available here
The Oncologist published am ‘expression of concern‘:
In August 2022, the journal editors received 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.
A seemingly endless discussion with many dozens of e-mails ensued with the journal editors and publishers who not only resisted all demands to withdraw the study, ignored the wishes of co-authors to have their name withdrawn, but eventually published a remarkably incompetent editorial more or less vindicating Frass and his dubious research. Our long and frustrating attempts to get the study withdrawn continued unabated.
Meanwhile the ÄRZTEGESELLSCHAFT FÜR KLASSISCHE HOMÖOPATHIE (ÄKH) and other homeopathic organisations celebrated Frass as their hero e.g.:
In 2020, an article appeared in the journal ‘The Oncologist’ about an RCT study in which Prof Dr Michael Frass and others had shown that homeopathic treatment as an add-on therapy can improve quality of life and prolong survival in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Two years later, serious allegations were levelled against the research team. The authenticity of the study was questioned and there was talk of manipulation and fraud. Prof Michael Frass and his colleagues responded in writing and in detail to all the accusations, and the facts they presented were able to refute all the allegations – with the positive result that the journal ‘The Oncologist’ confirmed in September 2024 that it would not retract the article published in 2020. It rehabilitated Prof Frass and his team with an editorial confirming the value of the study. In addition, a revised S-3 guideline in May 2024 continued to list homeopathy as an optional recommendation for certain oncological patients. Our warmest congratulations!
In 2024, ‘Retraction Watch’ took on the issue and published the following summary thus far:
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.”
Our continued efforts to get the Frass study withdrawn have been summarised on 16 October 2025 in a guest post by Victor Weisshäupl here on this blog. As of 27 October 2025, the journal still advertised the questionable study, albeit with three caveats:
But now, after almost 5 years of insistance on our part, there has been a new development: the awful study will be retracted! This news came first via the ÄKH; a few days ago, they published the following statement about it (my translation):
In October 2025, the study was once again attacked with arguments that were absurd from a homeopathic point of view, namely that Michael Frass had changed the dosage and potency during the treatment of the study patients and that he had used the same medicines in his practice as in the study (conflict of interest). Unfortunately, these arguments led to the study being withdrawn after all.
As Frass is the vice-president of the ÄKH, we can take this as indicating that Frass has been informed by OUP and/or The Oncologist that his paper is about to be withdrawn. So far so good! What is odd, however, is the reasons given for the decision. They were not the subject of our complaints! Most likely, this is yet anouther attempt of Frass to white-wash the findings of his ghastly study. We will know more as soon as an official retraction notice becomes available – so, me entitling this post “the end” might not be entirely correct.
WATCH THIS SPACE.
Guest post by Viktor Weisshäupl
In 2020, Michael Frass (then of the Medical University of Vienna) et al published a study that reported homeopathy to be effective for lung cancer: 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 Published:07 November 2020. 6 comments on PubPeer (by: Gerris Caucasicus, Cedrela Fissilis, Metalasia Inversa, Erysimum Kamelinii, Pedicularis Gracilis, Amanita Japonica). The study concluded that “survival was significantly longer in the homeopathy group versus placebo and control”. Soon after its publication, several experts independently voiced serious concerns about the study’s methodology.
Here is the amazing, ongoing saga of our criticisms and dialogues with the journal’s editor and others:
May 2, 2021 We sent a Letter to the Editor to the Oncologist with some criticisms. The letter was never published. To date, there has been no response to this letter or the arguments it contains.
June 6, 2021 At the same time as publishing the criticism of the study on the websites of INH, Initiative for Scientific Medicine and Edzard Ernst in English, we also sent our criticism to the Rector Markus Müller, the Vice Rector Michaela Fritz, the Chairs of the Ethics Committee Jürgen Zezula and Martin Brunner of the Medical University of Vienna, to the lead author Michael Frass and most of the co-authors, as far as their email addresses were known.
June 11, 2021 In an email, Vice Rector Fritz thanked us for the presentation we provided. She reported that the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI) had been asked for a statement and requested that we be available to answer any questions the ÖAWI might have.
June 15, 2021 The Chairs of the Ethics Committee of Meduni Vienna thanked us for our comments.
June 17, 2021 The Online-Standard (an Austrian news journal) reported on our criticism of the study.
July 9, 2021 The Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI) requested our permission to contact the lead author of the study, Michael Frass, using our names (Aust and Weisshäupl). We agreed.
Aug 31, 2021 The Chief Editor of the journal “The Oncologist”, Bruce Chabner, requested that the Rectorate of Meduni Wien keep him informed about the ongoing investigation by the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI).
January 1, 2022 The journal “The Oncologist” moved from Wiley to Oxford University Press, with Susan Bates, Professor of Oncology at Columbia University, New York, becoming Editor-in-Chief in July 2022, Bruce Chabner resigning as Editor-in-Chief June 30, 2022.
Sept 30, 2022 Vice Rector Michela Fritz informed us that a final statement by the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI) had been published and that the ÖAWI and the Medical University of Vienna intended to use this statement to obtain a retraction from the “Oncologist.”
Oct 4, 2022 The ÖAWI informed us about its final statement on the study by Frass et al.
Oct 23, 2022 The ‘Profil’, Volume 2022, Number 43, 23.10.2022, pp. 58 – 61, reported in detail on the results of the ÖAWI review under the title “Almost too good to be true”.
Nov 2, 2022 An “Expression of Concern” regarding the study appeared on the website of “The Oncologist”
Nov 5, 2022. We contacted all co-authors again by email. Given the “Expression of Concern” in “The Oncologist” and the expected retraction of the publication, we suggested that the authors consider withdrawing their authorship themselves to expedite the process.
Nov 7, 2022 We were informed that a total of five co-authors (four co-authors working at hospitals of the Vienna Health Network and one co-author working at Meduni Vienna) had already applied to the journal “The Oncologist” for the retraction of their co-authorship at the end of September 2022.
Dec 2022: The Austrian Medical Homeopathic Societies published a statement on their websites rejecting all findings of the ÖAWI review and announcing legal action against the ÖAWI. See here and here .
Aug 2023 We contacted the Editor-in-Chief of “The Oncologist” and inquired about the status of their own investigation. The response: The investigation is ongoing, the matter is being taken very seriously, and a decision is expected shortly. We also received an email from the Executive Publisher of Oxford University Press: The matter is complicated, ongoing, and they are trying to act for the benefit of patients and the scientific community.
Oct 2023 We contacted the Executive Publisher again. The response: The plan was to reach a decision by the end of August 2023, but work is continuing on the matter and details cannot be disclosed.
Nov 2023 We contacted the Executive Publisher again but received no further response.
Dec 2023 We contacted the CEO of Oxford University Press. We explained that communication with the Executive Publisher was fruitless and that a fact-check on the matter should be completed quickly and would not require a full year.
Jan 2024 We received a response from the assistant to the CEO of Oxford University Press informing us that the CEO has assigned someone to look into the matter.
Feb 2024 We contacted the CEO’s assistant and asked about the status of the project. She responded that they were looking for a suitable German-speaking reviewer and that a result was expected in early March 2024.
Approx. Feb 2024 The annual report of the ÖAWI was published online, including the results of the Frass-NSCLC homeopathy study on page 4 Inquiry A 2021/10
Feb and July 2024: Five coauthors contacted The Oncologist again and requested that they withdraw their co-authorship. This request remained unanswered.
April 2024 We learned that the review at The Oncologist is complete and that a meeting to discuss the results will take place soon.
May 2024 We contacted the CEO of OUP again because we still had not received any results. We received only a receipt for this email, but no further response.
Aug. 2024 We learned that the withdrawal of the five co-authors was registered by The Oncologist almost two years ago, and an update to the publication is planned. The date remained open, and so did the decision regarding a retraction of the study.
Sept 24, 2024. The Oncologist published a correction and an editorial on the study and sees no reason to retract the study. The correction does not resolve any ambiguities, and the editorial suggests that the critics of the study are ignorant of homeopathy.
Sept 24, 2024 The Oncologist invited Harald Sitte to write a commentary on the matter, which would, however, be subject to the journal’s “standard peer review and acceptance process in accordance with its policies.”
Starting in Sept 2024 We attempted to submit a paper titled “Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards” to various journals, including a reference to the journal’s ethical commitments. None of the journals we contacted expressed interest.
Oct 2024 Michael Frass reported on his website under the title “Great joy for lung cancer patients” that his study has been rehabilitated and that the Vienna medical university is pleased about it.
Nov 10, 2024 We filed a complaint with COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) about the conduct of The Oncologist, signed by Harald Sitte.
Nov 20, 2024 COPE sends an email to The Oncologist requesting an explanation.
Dec 16, 2024 COPE has not yet received a response from The Oncologist and therefore sent another email requesting a statement on the allegations, this time with a deadline of January 7, 2024.
Jan 6, 2025 The Oncologist answered to COPE.
Jan 7, 2025 Prof Harald Sitte, in response to an invitation from The Oncologist, submited a commentary entitled “Could homeopathy improve survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer?” to the journal. Authors: Harald Sitte, Viktor Weisshäupl, Norbert Aust, Jutta Hübner, and Edzard Ernst.
Jan 23, 2025 The Oncologist announced that the commentary has been sent to two reviewers and that their review results are expected in three weeks.
Feb 19, 2025 COPE requested The Oncologist to contact the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI) and the Medical University of Vienna to discuss the matter.
March 14, 2025: Two months after submitting the commentary to The Oncologist, the status of our submission is still “Under Review.” Harald Sitte requested an update.
May 23, 2025 More than four months after submitting the commentary, written at the invitation of the Journal, there has still been no response.
June 17, 2025 As suggested by COPE, a video conference took place between representatives of the Medical University of Vienna, the Austrian Agency for Scientific Integrity (ÖAWI), and the journal “The Oncologist.”
July 19, 2025 Still no response to the commentary submitted more than half a year ago by Harald Sitte at the invitation of the editorial staff.
August 18, 2025 Harald Sitte asked the chief editor of The Oncologist, Susan Bates, and the editorial office to send him the peer reviewers’ comments on the commentary. No response to this request.
Sept 14, 2025 Harald Sitte again asked the chief editor of The Oncologist, Susan Bates, and the editorial office to send him the peer reviewers’ comments on the commentary. No response to this request.
Oct 12, 2025 Harald Sitte yet again asked the chief editor of The Oncologist, Susan Bates, and the editorial office to send him the peer reviewers’ comments on the commentary.
The Japanese physician and immunologist Shimon Sakaguchi, the American immunologist Fred Ramsdell and the American molecular biologist Mary Brunkow have been awarded this year’s Nobel Prize in Medicine. The work of the three researchers has completely changed our understanding of the immune system.
In 1995, Shimon Sakaguchi discovered a previously unknown type of immune cell, the Regulatory T cell (Treg). The immune system’s T cells are like an army, trained to kill invaders. The thymus eliminates any rogue T cells that might attack the body’s own cells—a process called “central tolerance.” But why then do some of us still develope autoimmune diseases?
Sakaguchi showed there was a second layer of protection outside the thymus. The Tregs act as brakes or peacekeepers, actively moving around the body to suppress other immune cells that get confused and mistakenly try to attack the body’s own organs.
In 2001, Mary Brunkow and Fred Ramsdell were studying a strain of mice that suffered from a severe, fatal autoimmune disorder. They managed to identify the exact genetic defect responsible for the disease: a mutation in a previously unknown gene they named Foxp3. They then found that a mutation in the human version of this gene also causes a severe, rare autoimmune disorder called IPEX syndrome. The broken Foxp3 gene meant the immune system started attacking the body. In other words, the Foxp3 gene was a master control switch for immune regulation.
Two years later, Sakaguchi was able to link the two discoveries by showing that the Foxp3 gene found by Brunkow and Ramsdell is the master switch that controls the development and function of the Regulatory T cells Tregs, which he had discovered.
The three Nobel laureats essentially demonstrated that, if you have properly functioning Tregs, thanks to a healthy Foxp3 gene, your immune system maintains peace or “self-tolerance”. If this system breaks down, your immune system turns on you, causing autoimmune disease. Their collective work created the field of peripheral immune tolerance and forms the basis for developing new treatments for conditions such as autoimmune diseases, cancer immunotherapy and organ transplantation.
While numerous studies have examined the efficacy of homeopathic treatments, very few have explored patients’ experiences during these consultations. The objective of this study was to analyze and understand how patients perceive this period of care, through a qualitative study conducted at the Integrative Care Day Hospital for oncology outpatients at Toussaint Hospital in Strasbourg, France.
Using interpretative phenomenological analysis, the researchers conducted semi-structured interviews between February and April 2022 with patients living with advanced cancer. Participants were referred by oncologists or supportive care providers to the hospital, where they received various integrative therapies, including homeopathy, acupuncture, aromatherapy, dietetics, osteopathy, mindfulness, art therapy, socio-aesthetic care, and psychological support. Interviews focused on patients’ lived experiences. Data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, which occurred after 20 anonymized interviews.
Seventeen of the 20 patients spontaneously commented on the homeopathic consultations, revealing seven key themes:
- attentive listening;
- sufficient time;
- trust and understanding;
- a holistic and person-centered approach;
- clear and detailed explanations;
- open-minded dialogue;
- comprehensive clinical and paraclinical assessment.
Consultations were perceived as moments of calm, openness and humanity. The care was described as non-intrusive, providing clarity and meaningful explanations.
The authors concluded that their findings align with prior qualitative research: homeopathic consultations in integrative oncology were positively received, appreciated for their holistic and empathetic nature. These results highlight the meaningful contribution of homeopathy in integrative oncology.
I think, this paper deserves a few comments:
- Its authors took all of three years to publish their data. If we assume that their findings are in any way important, this delay would arguably be unethical. If we assume they are unimportant, we must ask why conduct and publish them in the first place?
- The researchers seem to think that the listed perceived benefits are specific to homeopathy. In fact, they are the benefits of any good healthcare. If in Strassbourg only homeopaths are capable of having empathy, then something is seriously wrong with their cancer service, and this deficit would need addressing urgently.
- The researchers seem to think that their results prove a positive contribution of homeopathy to cancer care. In fact, interviewing 20 patients about their experience proves nothing at all. If anything, it shows that these patients were polite and thus answered kindly – the phenomenon is called social desirability and has nothing to do with homeopathy.
All this does matter little, except that it (yet again) demonstrates how far removed the planet is on which homeopaths seem to live.
Cancer patients frequently experience both physical and psychological challenges, including chronic pain and depression. While conventional treatments primarily often rely on pharmacological interventions, complementary approaches such as the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) do not and are claimed to help alleviate both physical and psychological distress.
This randomized clinical trial aimed to assess the effects of EFT on pain and depression in individuals with cancer. It was conducted in the oncology ward of a high-capacity hospital in eastern Turkey between December 2023 and March 2024. Seventy cancer patients were randomly assigned to either the EFT group (n = 35) or the control group (n = 35). The EFT group received four structured 30-min sessions over two weeks, led by a certified EFT practitioner, with symptom reassessment after each session. The control group received routine care. Data were collected using a Participant Information Form, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) before and after the intervention.
The results show that VAS scores in the EFT group significantly decreased from 4.82 ± 2.47 to 2.44 ± 1.97 (p < 0.05), whereas the control group showed a smaller reduction from 5.36 ± 2.42 to 4.25 ± 2.75 (p > 0.05). BDI scores in the EFT group improved significantly, decreasing from 31.44 ± 17.68 to 18.44 ± 7.0 (p < 0.05), while the control group’s scores increased from 27.94 ± 16.26 to 31.42 ± 12.65 (p > 0.05).
The authors conclused that these findings suggest that EFT was effective in significantly reducing both pain and depression levels in cancer patients.
We have encountered the EFT several times before, e.g.:
- Emotional Freedom Technique, a combination of two types of BS
- Emotional Freedom Techniques: More ‘alternative facts’ from ‘The Journal of Complementary and Alternative Medicine’
- Beware of the ‘new-born holists’
- Overcome the trauma of war with unproven treatments?
I had assumed it to be pure BS – but does this new study prove my assumption wrong?
Not really!
The trial is quite simply false-positive. The reason lies in the often-discussed A+B versus B design. It makes sure that even dubious BS like the EFT generates a positive result when tested in a seemingly rigorous study.
In view of this, let me re-phrase the conclusions by simplt adding two words:
these findings do not suggest that EFT was effective in significantly reducing both pain and depression levels in cancer patients.
Fatigue is often one of the most commonly reported symptoms in cancer survivors, but it is also one of the least understood cancer-related symptoms. Fatigue is associated with psychological distress, disruptions in sleep quality, and impairments in health-related quality of life. Thus, elective treatments for fatigue in older male cancer survivors represent a current unmet need. Prior research has shown that Tai Chi Qigong (TCQ), a mind-body exercise intervention, can improve physical and emotional health. Therefore, this study compared the efficacy of Tai Chi Qigong (TCQ) versus exercise intensity-matched (EIM) and usual care in older, male cancer survivors with fatigue.
The researchers conducted a three-arm, single-blind randomized controlled trial where older (55 + years), male cancer survivors with fatigue participated in usual care or one of two supervised group exercise programs: TCQ or EIM twice weekly for 12 weeks. Participants were followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome was patient-reported fatigue at 3-months post-intervention.
A cohort of men (n = 113) were enrolled (mean age: 69.1 (±7.0) years. In the primary outcome analysis, there were no significant within-arm or between-arm differences in fatigue (p-value, NS). However, the TCQ and EIM arms showed significant within-arm improvement in fatigue immediately post-intervention (p-value < 0.05). There were no differences in class attendance for either TCQ or EIM, with an average attendance rate of 78.4% and 76.8%, respectively.
The authors concluded that they found no significant or clinically meaningful improvements in fatigue for TCQ or EIM relative to usual care at the 3-month follow-up. However, significant improvements in fatigue were observed immediately after completion of the 12-week TCQ and EIM programs. This study suggests that TCQ and light intensity activity may lead to improvements in fatigue immediately after the group exercise program among older, fatigued male cancer survivors. However, the observed improvements did not persist beyond the program, suggesting that long-term maintenance may be required. Further testing is warranted in larger trials that include strategies to sustain both the behavior and the effects.
Tai chi is currently much-hyped. I have repeatedly stated that it is plausible to assume that excercise as positive effects on several levels. I have also doubted that there are huge differences between different typs of excercise.
This study is one of the few trials that tested tai chi against an intensity-matched conventional form of exercise. The results speak for themselves.
What matters most, I feel, is that patients find a form of exercise that suits them and is enjoyable. Whether this is an exotic or a conventional variation of the theme matters little. What counts is that patients are happy and therefore continue long-term.
