The issue, dear board, is whether or not it is acceptable to erase actual numbers that show the ignorance of a previously quoted "expert".  With regards to Edzsard Ernst making the claim that there is no difference in sham and real acupuncture I have given the actual numbers that he is claiming to be "exactly the same" and yet ignoramousiroxy ther dog and alexbrntake it upon themselves to remove the actual data that shows clearly that the quote is misleading, a lie and should either not be shown in this section or taken down completely.

the paperhttp://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513
And yet the findings of the paper in question highlight the ignorance of such statements from Edzard Ernst as "Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs. These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses, including those related to publication bias."http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357513 As any first year stats student would be able to see from the available information!

I have very little tolerance for ignorance and lies and so should you.GaelanClark