A reply by proxy… I think.
Dr Rachie has pointed me at this page on Interhomeopathy.org where an editorial mentions (amongst other fallacies) an apparent reply regarding criticism of the “Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells” paper, aka Frenkel et al. Aficionados of woo will know that this paper was mentioned by the UK’s most credulous member of Parliament, David Tredinnick MP, in this EDM. One of the major criticisms of Frenkel et al is the disturbing lack of statistical analysis in the paper.
This point is apparently refuted –
The statistical analysis was done on each set of experiments; due to lack of space in the journal we could not have elaborated on all the details, but the results were significant and easily noticeable…
Right. Ok. So the critical statistical analysis that would have strengthened the argument that the paper was making immensly, and would be included in any reputable paper wasn’t included… because there wasn’t enough space.
I am deeply skeptical of this claim. Least of all because according to the publishing house Spandidos publications notes for authors – there is no word limit – least not one I can find.
If we take the .pdf of Frenkel et al and copy & paste it wholesale into word and do a word count, we get 5653. The first paper I looked at in the International Journal of Oncology had more words – (5900 words for this).
It goes without saying that this response fails to address many of the concerns raise, notably, no mention is made of the inadequate controls, missing HPLC data, un-quantified FACS, etc etc etc.
If Dr Frenkel has indeed read the criticisms of his paper, and this is best response he can give, it really does reinforce my view that this paper should be withdrawn or retracted.
- Huppert v Tredinnick: the EDM homeopathy smackdown (libdemvoice.org)
- Conservatives put Dumb and Dumber on the Health Select Committee | Martin Robbins (guardian.co.uk)