`   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`