Publication bias explains apparent effects in alternative medicine research.

Evidence

Homeopaths and parapsychologists neglect the large number of negative or methodologically flawed studies that still exist and of which one can often only estimate how many will never be published. If five out of 100 studies deliver a statistically “significant” result, then that is exactly what would be expected by pure chance if there is no effect at all. However, studies for drug approval must be registered before they begin, so it is not possible to hide other studies with negative results. — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 770

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the file-drawer problem in meta-science and to publication-bias literature like Ioannidis on why most research findings are false. — connects to: Industry cherry-picking is continuous with ordinary scientific publication bias — Cailin O’Connor and James Owen Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False…, 359