Here’s another excerpt from The decline effect and the scientific method that I wrote about a couple weeks ago.
Between 1966 and 1995, there were forty-seven studies of acupuncture in China, Taiwan, and Japan, and every single trial concluded that acupuncture was an effective treatment. During the same period, there were ninety-four clinical trials of acupuncture in the United States, Sweden, and the U.K., and only fifty-six per cent of these studies found any therapeutic benefits.
Related posts:
Popular research areas produce more false results
Little malaria on the prairie
{ 1 trackback }
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Geoff 01.31.11 at 01:00
My favourite was the study comparing treatments for injury. 25% got better with no treatment, 53% got better with acupuncture and 54% got better getting pinned by someone who didn’t know what they were doing. Apparently random holes work best!
EastwoodDC 01.31.11 at 09:40
Stick it to ‘em, John!
Peter 01.31.11 at 10:32
Examining the use of acupuncture in veterinary medicine may be a better approach to determining if there is any biological effect let alone a clinically useful one in humans.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16734078
SteveBrooklineMA 01.31.11 at 15:55
Were the Chinese results confirmation bias or fraud?
John 01.31.11 at 16:05
I start from an assumption of confirmation bias rather than fraud, following Hanlon’s razor. Though scientific fraud is not unheard of.
But who said the Asian studies are wrong? That’s the simplest explanation, but maybe there’s an anti-acupuncture confirmation bias in the West. Or maybe both: perhaps Asian and Western scientists are each confirming their cultural expectations. In any case, it’s extremely suspicious that the trial results differ so much by continent.
Someone told me that he thought the Western studies were placebo controlled (sticking needles at places other than the traditional acupuncture locations) while the Asian studies were not. I do not know whether this is the case.
SteveBrooklineMA 02.01.11 at 19:22
I understand your point. Acupuncture “science” is a pet peeve of mine.
John 02.01.11 at 19:25
My point?
Nice pun.
Konrad 02.12.11 at 05:12
I think in this particular case widespread fraud is the more likely explanation, given the political context of TCM. Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst have written about this in Trick or Treatment: basically, the revival of TCM and acupuncture in particular was pushed by the communist party in total ignorance of science, as an alternative to “capitalist” Western medicine. Simply put, the revival of TCM is the Chinese version of Lysenkoism. It spilled over to the USA after the communist party staged fake operations to (successfully) impress western politicians and their delegations.
Sara 01.16.12 at 10:53
I suspect it’s simply the act of sticking something into the skin. The body responds by heating up. It’s some form of energy transfer. And a great placebo for those who meditate during the procedure.