RankingsPrimerArbiterPhysicistMathematicianContrarianQESites logClaimsSourcesResearch notes

2026-10-04 PNAS (pnas.org) and PubMed Central

Queries (Google): PNAS 1998 95 2670 acupuncture fMRI visual cortex Cho Jones retraction. - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1502495/ - blocked (reCAPTCHA "Checking your browser"); not retried. - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0602520103 - read. Saved: research/files/PNAS-retraction-Cho-2006.html

Findings - claim 5 (acupuncture / fMRI)

  • The paper at PNAS vol. 95, pp. 2670-2673 (issue 5, March 3, 1998) is "New findings of the correlation between acupoints and corresponding brain cortices using functional MRI" by Z. H. Cho, S. C. Chung, J. P. Jones, J. B. Park, H. J. Park, H. J. Lee, E. K. Wong, and B. I. Min. [web: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.5.2670 per Google result; retraction notice below] Mallove's reference 6 gives authors "So, C.S., Jones, J.P., Kidney, D.D., Saito, T." and title "Evaluation of Acupuncture Using fMRI and Ultrasonic Imaging" with the same volume and pages. The volume/pages match the Cho et al. paper; the authors and title in Mallove's reference do not. Whether a separate So/Jones/Kidney/Saito work exists (e.g. a conference abstract) was not established in this run.
  • Retraction, PNAS 103(27):10527, July 5, 2006 (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602520103): Cho, Chung, Lee, Wong and Min retract, "Having concluded that there is no point specificity, at least for pain and analgesic effects, and that we no longer agree with the results in our PNAS article". "J. P. Jones, J. B. Park, and H. J. Park have not approved this retraction." [web] So Joie P. Jones, the co-author Mallove quotes, did not sign the retraction; this dissent is part of the record.
  • The retraction notice summarises the original finding as a correlation between acupoint stimulation and cortical activation, "for example via increased blood flow in the visual cortex". The notice does not mention any speed-of-transmission result; the "1,000 times nerve speed" and "80-microseconds" statements in Mallove's article are not in the notice. Whether they appear in the 1998 paper itself was not checked in this run (paper PDF not opened).
  • The Google listing shows the 1998 paper as "Cited by 810". [web, Google Scholar snippet]