Re: Dr. William Rea

In article <c75aa07e-706d-400f-9fdf-e46dbea64e8c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:> That page is not the *current* page, namely,
:> <http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/>.
:
: Prior to this post, you've never cited that page. You cited the NIH
: Consensus page. Why must you always lie, Richard?

Idiot. In the previous article, I emphasized that I was discussing
the *current* page, which anyone with half a brain would have realized
could not have been the 1997 consensus statement, if for no other reason
than the text that I quoted does not appear on the web page that contains
the 1997 consensus statement.

Since you seem to spend most of your time collecting my usenet posts,
you must know that when I talk about the NCCAM acupuncture page, I am
talking about the one that does not contain the disclaimer about its
being more than five years old. Indeed, in article
<fq1u3e$khv$3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, I asked, "If I provide you with research
papers that are later than 1997 that present evidence that acupuncture is
*not* efficacious, will you agree that the 1997 statement has been
superseded (as if the NIH's own statement to that effect were insufficient)?"

:> "It" is the 1997 consensus statement -- you know, the one with the disclaimer
:> that says that it is out of date. ?I was talking about the *current* NCCAM
:> page on acupuncture, referenced above, and it was from that page that I
:> provided a lengthy quote that you (what a surprise) ignored.
:
: "It" is the page you cited. It says:
:
: "Efficacy for Specific Disorders.

The page I cited, i.e. the one from which I cut and pasted a lengthy
quote about "Status of Acupuncture Research," does not contain *any*
section entitled "Efficacy for Specific Disorders." Are you lying
again, or so blinded by rage at someone who is skeptical of your claims
that you failed to read the lengthy quote that I posted?

:> : ?Why do you have to rely on a statement that is a decade old
:> : rather than on current research?

:> : I don't. ?

:> That is -- what is the word that you like to use? -- a lie. ?You are quoting
:> the 1997 consensus statement rather than the current NCCAM page.

: I've cited research from 2004.

You *repeatedly* quote the consensus statement as if there were no
more recent data.

: Besides, just because the statement
: has aged, doesn't mean they retreated an inch from their 1997 consensus.

If they haven't retreated an inch from their 1997 consensus, then why is
it that the current web page does not cite a single positive result from
the 1997 consensus, saying merely ". . .the 1997 NIH Consensus Statement on
Acupuncture found that, overall, results were hard to interpret because
of problems with the size and design of the studies," and why is it that
the page containing the 1997 consensus statement says "This statement is more
than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to
the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably
accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was
initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date,
and at worst simply wrong"?

: As a matter of fact, they still have the Consensus
: statement and osteoarthritis study link at the top of the acupuncture
: page. Isn't a wonderful document? It has the power to enrage feeble
: minds and make dishonest pricks lie.

So now you concede that I wasn't referring to the consensus statement.

:> : I've got the 2004 osteoarthritis study amongst many others.
:>
:> What about the long list of studies that I posted, and Peter Moran's
:> explanation of the likely conclusion that one can draw from those studies?
:
: What about your repeated lie that the NIH doesn't specify any
: condition for acupuncture is efficacious?

Where on the *current page* does the NIH make any statement about
acupuncture being efficacious?

: Well, why do you keep lying about something that is clearly there?

It is *not* there.

Why do you keep refusing to address the list of articles that I posted?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot,
but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well, rightards? Was: Placebo effect was: kenoki footpads
    ... The National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program ... Development Statement on Acupuncture on November 3-5, ... because of design, sample size, and other factors. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Acupuncture: Predictions for 2009
    ... This year will be the 12th since the NIH published its Acupuncture ... Of course, since the consensus statement says what you want it to, it can't ... he has cited as evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture. ... the WHO and will CONTINUE, in my opinion, to post his OPINIONS about ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Acupuncture: Predictions for 2009
    ... This year will be the 12th since the NIH published its Acupuncture ... Of course, since the consensus statement says what you want it to, it can't ... and not those of Bar-Ilan University ... "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Acupuncture: Predictions for 2009
    ... Citizen Jimserac wrote: ... This year will be the 12th since the NIH published its Acupuncture ... Of course, since the consensus statement says what you want it to, it can't ... the WHO and will CONTINUE, in my opinion, to post his OPINIONS about ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Acupuncture: Predictions for 2009
    ... Consensus. ... we've seen acupuncture grow ... Does anyone expect that the US Armed forces will discontinue their ... I do not predict any US medical schools will stop offering or ...
    (misc.health.alternative)