Journal : Hepatology Communications
A rebuttal has been published in Hepatology Communications where a team of doctors tried to defame Homoeopathy through a so called scientific article
The study published by Theruvath et al1 showed some serious flaws in data capturing and depiction. The authors should have depicted the data appropriately, especially concerning the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM) and observations related to gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy analysis (GC/MS).
The authors recalculated the RUCAM score based on the aforementioned observations and found that 4 patients out of 9 must be excluded. Of the 5 patients included, 4 are under the “unlikely” and 1 under the “possible” category (Supplemental Table S5, https://links.lww.com/HC9/A319). RUCAM warrants transparent reporting of baseline and final scores for each patient and product for appropriate causality assessment. Unfortunately, the discrepancies cited clearly indicate the inadequacy of the data, making the study findings invalid.
Altogether the article has shown enough examples of selection and information biases with a weak causality link between homeopathic remedies and DILIs. From the overall review, it is understood that the conclusions derived from the given article1 are irrelevant.