If you want to persist in your mythical ideas regarding western civilization by postulating what ever you need and making shit up, there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it.

That's not a reply to what I wrote.

Your study is making a more specific claim than mere bias in research, it's claiming bias in one particular direction.

Yes, that's what a bias is. A systematic tendency in one direction. As opposed to random error.

The point is that the SU was, mostly, using antibiotics (once production was set up, i.e. from some time after ww2).

And before that, they were using phages despite apparently pretty shaky evidence it was anything but a placebo. That said, pointing out the systematic bias of Russian science (among many other countries, and I'm fascinated, incidentally, how the only country you're defending like this is... your own. No love for Korea?) does not commit me to the premise that phages do or not work - you're the one who brought them up as an example of how excellent Russian science is, not me.

Well, and there wasn't a plenty in the soviet union despite supposedly higher success rate.

How many are there now? Shouldn't you have looked that up?

If you don't know correct rate you can't tell which specific rate is erroneous.

Difference in rates is prima facie evidence of bias, due to the disagreement. If someone says A and someone else says not-A, you don't need to know what A actually is to observe the contradiction and know at least one party is wrong.

It's not realistically possible to construct a blind study of acupuncture

Yes it is.

I really doubt that 91% of Russian language acupuncture studies published in Soviet Union found a positive effect (I dunno about 1991-1998 Russia, it was fucked up beyond belief at that time), and I don't know how many studies should have found a positive effect (followed by a note that more adequate blinding must be invented to study it properly).

And naturally, you have not looked for anything on the topic, you just doubt it.

And we know that what ever was the case there was no Soviet abandonment of normal medicine in favour of acupuncture - the system somehow worked out ok in the end.

Strawman. No country engages in 'abandonment of normal medicine' - if you go to China, do you only find acupuncturists? Of course not. The problem is that you find acupuncturists sucking up resources in dispensing expensive placbeos and you find that the scientific community is not strong enough to resist the cultural & institutional pressures and find that acupuncture doesn't work, resulting in real working medicine being intermeshed with pseudomedicine.

Fortunately, normal medicine (after tremendous investments in R&D and evidence-based medicine) currently works fairly well and I think it would take a long time for it to decay into something as overall bad as pre-modern Western medicine was; I also think some core concepts like germ theory are sufficiently simple & powerful that they can't be lost, but that would be cold comfort in the hypothetical cargo cult scenario ('good news: doctors still know what infections are and how to fight epidemics; bad news: everything else they do is so much witch-doctor mumbojumbo based on unproven new therapies, misinterpretations of old therapies which used to work, and traditional treatments like acupuncture').