The first step in the expulsion of the
skeptics is stop allowing them to pretend
that there is any logic whatever
to their hysterical nonsense, personal attacks
and ridicule characteristic of their
"informed" postings.

Typically they will make sweeping generalities
supported by nothing but the most specious
reasoning and innuendo.

Martin, for example, considers Acupuncture
to be a sham.  Though he never provided
a link, I was able to find a single German
study which indicated that one out of
3 groups of test subjects for Acupuncture
for back pain seemed to get positive
results no matter where the needles
were placed.  Martin forgets to mention
that the main group DID claim
the highest benefit (those for whom
the needles were placed in the
traditional acuncture locations)
DID claim the most benefit for relief from
back pain.

Based on this ONE study, as opposed to
thousands of others, Martin admits there
is some effect but
that ALL of Acupuncture is a sham or
based on placebo effects.

Observe the simplistic nonsense of
the reasoning behind this denial
of the efficacy of Acupuncture -
OF COURSE there is going to
be some effect, some sensation
if you poke a needle anywhere in the
body, it MIGHT even distract from
some chronic pain.  But to claim
that THIS is
the "explanation" of ALL of Acupuncture
is to ignore thousands of research
studies, done by MD's and other
fully qualified researchers showing
effects of Acupuncture (done in the
traditional points!) showing effects
on aplastic anemia, the endocrine system,
amelioration or elimination of migraines,
comlete cure for Bell's palsy and
on and on for hundreds of conditions
many of which are recognized by
the World Health Organization.

When challenged or given links
showing the positive research,
they either ignore it, or more frequently
deny completely the validity
of the research journals which print
the research (look of astonishment
on my face)!

Imagine if we did that with standard
medicine!  Suppose we say that
ALL cancer research is to be disregarded
because it appears in standard medicine
cancer research journals and is therfore
biased(!).

Such is the kind of arguments which
appear against alternative medicine
again and again, repeated by the fallacious
and presumptious posters who brazenly
try to foist this non-thinking innuendo
as rational argument.

Formerly dominating this newsgroup,
they have now receded somewhat to the
background, and will continue to do
so in the face of the overwhelming
evidence, positive research and
wide popular acceptance and embracement
of the new (and some old!) alternative
systems of medicine.

That these alternatives systems of medicine
are now in the process of challenging
and even DISPLACING some of the
standard medical procedures which
have fallen deservedly into disfavor,
is proof of the wide popular realization
that there is NO one true perfect system
of medicine which replaces all others
and that a wise INTEGRATIVE approach
utilizing the best of MANY systems
is the wise choice in this era
of spiraling and out of control
medical costs, declining services
and inability of governments to
support a sufficient health infrastructure.

Citizen Jimserac