NEWS 15
ausdoc. com. au 13 FEBRUARY 2026
NEWS 15
Quackademia: One journal’ s homeopathy headache
GETTY IMAGES.
A now-retracted study has angered a high-profile doctor after going viral.
Paul Smith
IT has often been observed that, if homeopathy is true, physics, chemistry and biology are false. So it perhaps should have been global news when the European Journal of Pediatrics published a paper suggesting that homeopathic treatments for acute illness in children showed better outcomes in the first 24 months of life.
The study, which purported to be a randomised controlled trial, tracked 108 Indian newborns.
Half the group received homeopathic primary care for any acute illness, with the other half undergoing conventional medical treatment alone.
The researchers acknowledged that homeopathy was one of the“ most controversial schools of complementary and alternative medicine”.
Unconvincing outcome measure
The study outcomes seem sort of dramatic if you do not think too hard when you read the paper.
Children in the homeopathic group had fewer sick days— five days versus 21.
The number of illness episodes in the homeopathic group was also half that of the conventional group. There were fewer respiratory illnesses too. The researchers said the homeopathic group required fewer antibiotics and their treatment costs were lower.
Then came the conclusion:“ This study supports homeopathy, using conventional medicine as a safety backdrop, as a safe and cost-effective primary care modality during the first two years of life.
“ Application of homeopathy in this context would also presumably contribute to minimising antimicrobial resistance.”
Published last year following peer review, this paper survived 10 months before being put in the retraction bin. Why was this? Is it because of the logical complication in using‘ needed no treatment’ as an outcome measure to document your treatment’ s outcomes?
You see, in the homeopathic group, some 25 % of the cohort did not get sick. The other fundamental flaw? Yes, both groups of children were randomised, but randomised to what?
Blindingly obvious
As you read through the paper, you come to realise that both groups actually received the necessary conventional care when more serious acute illness struck.
Hence the references in the paper to homeopathy in the context of“ conventional care as a safety backdrop”.
The biggest question is how such a study, which was not blinded and involved just 108 children, could have ended up in any journal from a reputable publisher.
That line of enquiry is still worthy of pursuit.
In a brief note announcing the paper’ s retraction, the journal editor revealed that a“ post-publication review” last month had confirmed concerns regarding the absence of blinding and placebo controls.
“ In the view of the editor, [ this ] may introduce significant bias in the interpretation of the data, results and conclusions, which cannot be rectified by an erratum.”
They said they no longer had“ confidence in the reliability of this article”, adding that the authors had been invited to
‘ I am trained in advanced statistics. The study was utter nonsense.’
submit a revised manuscript addressing the concerns. The world awaits the revised manuscript. But Dr Cyriac Abby Philips, a high-profile Indian hepatologist and senior consultant at Rajagiri Hospital in Kochi, India, is not happy at all.
The reason is that the paper, when published, did become news, at least in India.
Dr Cyriac Abby Philips.
Prescientific, not path-breaking
And that is because, in India, homeopathy is a part of the mainstream health system, enjoying government support. It even has its own ministry.
As noted by the study authors, India has more than 300,000 registered homeopathic practitioners and close to 7000 homeopathic hospital beds. This explains Dr Philips’ anger.“ The study was viral,” he wrote on X under his username TheLiverDoc.
“ It was all over the media and news here in South India and also in some national media, and was WhatsApp‘ proof’ of homeopathy being better than modern medicine in infants.”
He said the study was also used to promote anti-vaccine sentiments and homeopathy products, with homeopaths describing it as“ path-breaking”.
“ I read the study. I am trained in advanced statistics and research writing. The study was utter nonsense.
“ I wrote a letter to the editor of the journal asking him to kindly review the paper and investigate scientific integrity and ethics.
“ And after nearly 10 months of investigations by the journal, publisher and research integrity team, we were proven correct.”
He added:“ Homeopathy needs to be booted out of this country.
“ Parents, do not send your children to study homeopathy, even though India offers a five-year course and gives them a‘ Dr’ title at the end of it.
“ They are not doctors; they are legitimised frauds and legalised quacks, as you can see from this retraction.
“ Homeopathy is a lively relic of the pre-scientific era, not healthcare.”
Eur J Pediatr 2024; 19 Oct: bit. ly / 4bhm6ta