Closing the evidence gap in integrative medicine

I should have thought the point I was making was crystal clear; That
quoting a single, execrably conducted, purely anecdotal "clinical" study
of TCM therapy hardly provides evidence that TCM/CAM is taking the
business of scientifically exploring outcomes or end points seriously.

John Heptonstall is rather drifting off message here. He may think he
knows of "hundreds of thousands of scientific studies originating in
China" that fit the bill, but no-one else apparently thinks these studies
provide decent evidence, hence the acknowledgment from McPherson et al
that there is indeed an "evidence gap", and their appeal to close it by
changing the rules of scientific enquiry. Perhaps his angst should be
directed at them for having lost the faith, and not me?

There may well be an "enormous collection of data emergent from
China", but I doubt it amounts to much if it is of a similar standard to
that which John Heptonstall cites. Perhaps when assessing his own criteria
for what comprises valid evidence he would do well not to ignore what
Edzard Ernst has termed the "TCM Paradox" of why any trials published in
the Chinese medical literature are always positive(1). This is not just
because most of the trials are of poor quality or because of publication
bias, but there appears to be a desire among chinese researchers to prove
that their experimental therapies do work rather than trying to find out
if they don't.

(1) Vickers A et al. Do certain countries produce only positive
results – a systematic review of controlled trials. Controlled Clin Trials
1998; 19: 159–66.

Competing interests:
None declared