h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

I'm not going to argue the smoking issue. I may be mistaken, I may not. I'm basing much of my opinion on the fact that the study most often cited, a study performed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was thrown out by the US Supreme Court because while the actual data only showed an increase in disease well within statistical variance, the analysis of the data was quite bias and claimed to show a direct increase. The data would seem to be good, but the analysis not. And yet they still cite this report.

Even if my opinion is incorrect this topic does stand as a good example of what I'm talking about. This topic should NOT have a balanced discussion. Either environmental tobacco smoke causes disease or it doesn't. Unfortunately there are studies that "prove" both. They are usually funded and performed by groups who already have an opinion. One side must be wrong. But because there is so much B.S. on both sides it's nearly impossible to tell.

Here is a link that summarizes many of the ideologies on both liberal and conservative sides of the debate. The publication attempts to be balanced. http://www.acsh.org/publications/pubID.874/pub_detail.asp'

Often this goal of having a balanced debate only results in uncertainty and animosity. One side must be correct but good luck proving it. Even if there were a definitive study done, this demand for balance would require giving an opposing study its share of attention (airtime or whatever) without much concern to its validity.

<>

Leo:

"I don't see why one can't write an entry describing the methods of acupuncture and explaining that it hasn't stood up to much research.

I'll do it. "

There's a stunningly simple and easy to understand rule on these thread - first volunteer writes the entry.

I volunteered in post 2, and more explicitly in post 5 a few minutes later.

You volunteered three hours later in post 18.

Therefore: I'll do it, because that's how this works. The Eds are, or should be, well aware of my ability to deliver what's required.

SoRB

Oh, and to save everyone's time:

I believe it IS possible to write a balanced entry on this. I've successfully got in first to volunteer. I see no benefit discussing the subject further here. I'm therefore unsubbing from here now and will post the entry to PR when it's ready.

SoRB

Ooooo, handbags!!!

No prob, SoRB. But from the thread you didn't sound like you meant it - more like you just wanted to harp on how impossible it would be to do.

F48874?thread=4348654

Even the BBC sometimes "knows" that acupuncture is a sham:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4508597.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4764354.stm

At the moment I can't refind the mention I saw of a recent study where the actors using fake acupuncture points performed better than the real acupuncturists at "curing" people.

Here's the other thing I wanted to find yesterday, but then forgot in the struggle to re-find the first thing:

There has been speculation that the tattoos on Özti/Oetzi (the "iceman" found mummified in a glacier) were a form of self-documenting acupuncture - such that any other practitioner would be able to see the patient's records on his person!

http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.18461
http://www.theamt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=218
http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/43/5/662