In June 2017, two multi-center randomized controlled (single/double) blind clinical trial papers were published simultaneously in JAMA — one of the world’s four most prestigious medical journals. One study, by Researcher Liu Baoyan and Chief Physician Liu Zhishun from the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, examined electroacupuncture for stress urinary incontinence. The other, by Professor Wu Xiaoke from Heilongjiang University of Chinese Medicine, investigated acupuncture and clomiphene for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Both research communities reported the findings, using language like “first of its kind” and “pioneering” to underscore the significance of the work.
What is rather intriguing is that the Liu duo’s study yielded positive results, while Wu Xiaoke’s study yielded negative results — and the two papers appeared only one page apart.
For those who only noticed the positive-result study, this was undoubtedly proof that Chinese acupuncture had demonstrated its efficacy on the international stage. But when it came to the negative results, domestic commentators fell conspicuously silent.
If we didn’t dare comment, the Americans certainly did. In the front section of the same journal issue, a dedicated editorial was published alongside these two papers, discussing the challenges that lie ahead for acupuncture research.
The editorial, titled “Acupuncture and the Complex Connections Between the Mind and the Body,” is worth reading in full. What is clear is that the American scientific community has not dismissed human subjectivity or the power of the mind. Western science continues to vigorously explore the relationship between the mental and the physical — a pursuit that, within China, has long been relegated to the category of “feudal superstition.”
Acupuncture research is not my primary area of expertise, and the experimental methods in both papers were rigorous enough that the results are persuasive. However, this approach can only demonstrate that acupuncture is effective in practice — it cannot prove whether acupuncture theory or, more broadly, traditional Chinese medicine theory is valid.
What I find rather puzzling is that neither domestic institution acknowledged the other’s work in their reporting. Had an informed friend not pointed me to the original journal, I too would have only learned about the positive-result study. This is not the attitude scientists ought to have.
Ultimately, when it comes to demonstrating the scientific validity of traditional Chinese medicine, I hope we can achieve breakthroughs in methodology — that we avoid being confined by Western modes of thinking. We are all people who study science; as long as what we have is genuinely good, no one will refuse to recognize it.
中文原文 / Chinese Original
2017年6月，中国中医科学院刘保延研究员、刘志顺主任医师关于电针治疗压力性尿失禁和黑龙江中医药大学吴效科教授关于针刺和克罗米芬治疗多囊卵巢综合征的两篇多中心随机对照单（多）盲临床试验研究论文在国际四大著名医学期刊之一《美国医学会杂志》同时发表，双方所在圈子均报道了此次研究成果，且都使用了”首次”、”开创”类字样，彰显了研究的重要性。
值得玩味的是，双刘组合的研究结果是阳性的，而吴效科的研究结果是阴性的，两篇文章在页码上只相差1。
对于只看到阳性结果研究的人来说，这无疑是中国针灸在国际舞台上证明了自身的有效性，但是对于阴性结果，国人是不敢评论的。
咱们不敢，美国人敢，在杂志的前半部分，专门为这两篇论文刊发了一篇述评，讨论了针灸研究下一步所面临的问题。
述评的内容大家可以自己去看，题目是《Acupuncture and the Complex Connections Between the Mind and the Body》，显然，美国人并没有否认人的主观能动性，没有否认精神的力量，西方科学技术仍然在竭力探索精神和物质的关系，而这一切，在国内早已属于封建迷信。
对于针灸的研究并不是我的主要专业范围，而且两篇文章的实验方法都比较严谨，没有太大的问题，试验结果有说服力。但是，运用这种方法显然只能证明针灸是切实有效的，并不能证明针灸理论或中医理论是不是有效。
我比较奇怪的是，国内两个单位并没有同时报道对方的存在，如果不是有识之士告诉我，致使我去拜读了源刊，我也只会了解到阳性结果的存在。这并不应该是科学家的态度。
最后，在如何证明中医科学性的问题上，希望我们自己能在方法论上有所突破，不要被西方思维所禁锢，大家都是研究科学的人，只要我们的东西够好，没有人会不认可。
发表回复