RE: Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

[Guest guest]

Tom,

Ever heard of JAMA?

Seldom are any negative pharmaceutical studies every published in the

jounral. In this way, they can argue that there are no negative findings.

JAMA got nailed a few years back for this huge bias in its reporting and

since that time the FDA has also come under scrutiny as well. While I know

it is not acceptable to use them as a scape goat for our lacking of good

studies, it is equally important to point that they cannot meet their own

gold standard. This is a huge concern over the concept of " evidence-based "

medicine. Who's evidence? This can really having you chase your tail, if

you still have one.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

 

> " Tom Verhaeghe " <verhaeghe_tom

>Chinese Medicine

><Chinese Medicine >

> Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A

>Systematic Review of Controlled Trials

>Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:44:22 +0100 (West-Europa (standaardtijd))

>

>

>http://tinyurl.com/zwjoj

>

>This is old news, but still necessary to know...

>

> " Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to

>acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

>were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR>

>...

>The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%,

>and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a

>test treatment to be ineffective. Conclusions: Some countries publish

>unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a

>possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should

>consider carefully how to manage data from these countries. "

>

>regards,

>

>Tom.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I learned these two adages in an undergraduate statistics class.

 

" There are lies, damned lies and statistics "

 

" Figures don't lie but liars can figure. "

 

In addition to bias and pre-existsing agendas, the meaning of a statistic is

vulnerable to ignorance of criteria for good experimental design, lack of

ability to recognize variables which are not accounted for, and conclusions

comprised of hasty generalizations.

 

JOE

[Guest guest]

Thanks to for the reference to the excellent

article " Evidence-Based Guidelines: Not Recommended, by Norman

Latov. I especially enjoyed the " Conflict of Interest Statement. "

 

We (westerners, the bio-medical research community) certainly have a

problem here. One scarcely reads a news report (newspapers, etc.,e.g.

NYTimes) without noting, lamenting that the study reported is more

often than not funded or conducted by the phrama firm which produces

the drug. Science, for all its supposed idealism, is also become

highly mercenary.

 

Paul Krugman, columnist for the NYTimes, has written often recently

on the sorry state of medicine in the USA; notably how the MD

profession is struggling between the ethics of patient care and the

industrialization of the field.

 

On the other hand, equally, if not more embarrassing are the

" studies " reported, in " Acupuncture Today, " for example, and largely

from the (Chinese) " Journal of TCM " , for their typical effectiveness

rates which, as Tom Verhaeghe documented, are (literally) incredibly

high. I recall Ted Kaptchuk once noting in a lecture (perhaps the one

on Psychology in CM, on tape from ConferenceRecording), that this

reflects a cultural difference in the attitude towards failure,

probably involving the phenomenon of " saving face " .