When is lack of scientific integrity a reason for retracting a paper? A case study. Abstract: This editorial has just come out in the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. It is a discussion of issues that arose from this 2004 publication: This study is a triple-blinded randomised controlled trial of homeopathy for CFS. It might not come as a surprise to you that the primary outcomes of the study were all negative. The current discussion is related to one of the co-authors, who stood up in a talk recently and said that she had worked out a cunning plan for discovering whether participants were in the homeopathy or the control group. The current editorial explains why the journal did NOT retract the paper (because the results were all negative anyway, amongst other reasons). The interesting bit is the issues they chose to comment on (emphasis mine): None of us here will miss the irony that these requirements for good studies are simply waived for psychotherapy trials, without anyone even caring about the risk of bias. Silly homeopathy folks - don't they know that all they need to do to get around this is to combine their medicine with a wee chat. Hey presto - blinding problems solved!