Merged The One - Australian TV

AndyD said:
The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...

Richard Saunders for PM! :)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think our current Prime Minister bases much on evidence, although I don't have much evidence of that. :o
I was hoping he would be much better than the last, we will have to wait and see.
 
AndyD said:
The AMA statement might not say anything specific about acupuncture but it does point to the Cochrane Collaboration and they do have a number of reviews of the treatment for a variety of conditions and, in general, the results are un-amazing.

Lots of "no evidence of efficacy - more trials needed" but I haven't seen anything that says "it works but we don't know why."
Click to expand...


Maybe they should offer some specific guidance to the medical profession along the lines of:
"At this time there is no evidence that acupuncture works for any condition for which it is presently being used and no mechanism by which it could work"

The only way we'll get Medicare to spend our money more wisely is to get a prime minister who bases decisions on evidence...
Click to expand...


Our PM hails from Queensland and believes in god.
Enough said. :D

Richard Saunders for PM! :)
Click to expand...


:)
 
friendofandymilman said:
AndyD,

The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..." Actually I was very cranky to hear this nonsense. It simply is not true, and to follow up with the homeopathy thing, well you can imagine my ire.
Click to expand...


The facetiousness went clear over my head, sorry.

Thank you for doing a search on this.
Click to expand...


Don't mention it.

regards,
AndyD :D
 
wombatwal said:
Unfortunately I don't think our current Prime Minister bases much on evidence, although I don't have much evidence of that. :o
I was hoping he would be much better than the last, we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to hear that your impression of our Mr. Rudd is the same as mine.
As Keating says, he has no "narrative".
 
The quote "it works but we don't know why" came from the gob of Stacey. I was being facetious when I said "I wasn't aware..."
Click to expand...

Yes, I got that. I was simply confirming that, despite Demarco's claim, the AMA defer to Cochrane and Cochrane don't appear to say, anywhere, that acupuncture definitely works at all, never mind that we don't know how.

Thank you for doing a search on this.
Click to expand...

I'd say "don't mention it" but BillyJoe already said it :boggled:

Actually, that's the first time I'd visited the Cochrane site. I started at this page which has a search field. Many of the results have easy to read summaries of findings. Perfect for the non-science mind, like mine. In future I'll use it as part of any search for info on medications rather than relying on the wikipedia battleground
 
Last edited:
Unless acupuncture was listed in the last 10 months it has nothing to do with Kevin Rudd and in any event in our political system the decision is not left up to any individual PM or Minister. They may ratify the decision but they act on advice of the relevant statutory body. Quite rightly, I don't want them pushing their own hobby horses (even ones I agree with). Recall the controversy over Tony Abbott bringing his Catholic views into various issues of sexual health when Health Min.

Also, acupuncture is only covered under Medicare if done by someone who is also a real doctor, ie a GP.

See, under "What's Not Covered" down the bottom:
http://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/public/claims/what-cover.jsp

Personally I am more irked by the private health companies who hand out subsidies for all manner of bollocks without even those restrictions. And if you object to subsidising them with your own coverage, it's really difficult to find a package without any woo.
 
Richard - any truth to the second series rumour?

There's a "haunted" gaol in Albany, WA. If you can get them to do a shoot there I could pop down and say "Hi". :)
 
Me too! Haha!

It'd be too hard though. Travelling the furthest they possibly could while still managing to stay in this country. Albany's jail isn't renowned across Australia either.

It'd still be great.
 
Richard said:
I have not heard.... we will all have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Encourage them to do something on the Beaumont Children, or maybe the Adelaide Oval case. In the case of the former it's nearly been a year since I last heard something so they'll have perfect timing.

There already have been "psychics" on the Beaumont case so you have something of a control.
 
I want a sceptic or cold reader to go on so bad. But as I heard Richard say somewhere, the public can't know.

Perhaps they can say that at least one of the 'psychics' are a trained cold reader/sceptic. I think that the editors might make it difficult for him to be accurate though...

Your suggestions are good too Wildy. The Beaumont Children case would be good.

Alex.
 
The dilemma is that the previous contestants were all (as I understand it) members of the association. Simon Turnbull is president of that association and adviser (if not creator) on the show.

So, how could you put a non-member in there and not have it known which one doesn't claim to be psychic?

I guess, since the shows were pre-recorded, it may be possible to keep it secret from the live audience but by the time it hits TV, the secret would probably escape. Maybe there's ways around this. Plus, Stacey Demarco would know which one was the skeptic so there would need to be an arrangement whereby the skeptic couldn't be voted off - which would hardly seem fair.

Having said all that, was anyone under the impression Channel Seven was remotely interested in debunking psychic powers?

I'd be happy enough if they just edited it more fairly, so the end product resembles a cut-down version of reality, and showed the audition failures. Since they've apparently chosen not to do that, I can only assume there was an agreement to cast the contestants in a positive light.
 
Last edited:
The whole, why would Channel Seven want to 'debunk' it was something I was thinking too. However, you can't tell me that it would be bad for ratings, people would want to watch that, believer or sceptic.

Plus, the "editting more farily" idea, when compared to secretly telling the audience that one of the contestants is a trained cold reader or something, really doesn't work for ratings. I wouldn't even want to watch them continually fail...no one would.

And there's no need to tell the judges who the sceptic is anyway. Just, when they're voted off, tell the audience. Or do the whole, film different endings, like they did for the final episode. Where they'd say that each contestant was the sceptic and film the correct one to keep it secret from the live audience.

It's an idea that can work, for ratings, and technically. It's just about thinking it all through. My suggestions then were off the top of my head, so there are obviously better options out there. Especially for someone who works in the business.
 
And there's no need to tell the judges who the sceptic is anyway.
Click to expand...

They would know. Firstly, Demarco (assuming she'd be a judge again) would know if she's ever heard of this person before. If not, she'd naturally assume a ring-in. It seems previous contestants were aware of each other. Mitchell does magazine and radio, Jason (believe it or not) was Psychic of the Year 2007 (?), Charmaine and Ezio are friends, She and Rayleen both have websites. Not sure about Amanda because she was supposedly a non-professional but she clearly has a history. All are members of the Association.

Besides the judge, the public know if they've ever heard of a psychic before so it would be hard to claim you're showing "the best" yet not have anyone who's known publicly. Take a look at the earliest comments on The One website. Many are from people expressing support for their own favourite psychic - someone they knew before the show aired.

Add to this the likelihood that there's probably very few Australian skeptics who are doing enough cold reading to compete at this level (although the demonstrations were pitiful so I could be wrong here) and they'd likely be known as skeptics.

Anyway, all the psychics would KNOW - they're psychic! :)

As for the entertainment value of debunking, I have to disagree. On any other "reality" show, we'd see contestants being humiliated for "our enjoyment". Whether you or I agree with the practice doesn't change the fact that, ordinarily, Channel Seven thinks humiliating contestants is good for ratings. Yet we didn't see humiliation of the psychics (other than there own failure).

I can't explain it, maybe Richard could, but Channel Seven seem to have a vested interest in protecting the reputations of people who claim to be psychics.
 
Last edited:
If a skeptic went on that show and did well it would only prove to the faithful that everybody has psychic powers - they just don't realise it yet.
 
Andy D,

Do you know the work of Lynne Kelly? She is an expert cold reader/sceptic, who could easily be a contestant.

From her website: lynnekelly.com.au

Tauromancy - my personal divination system for performing psychic readings. I am often told "There is no way you could have known that! You must be psychic!"

Cold reading can be used to exploit those unfamiliar with its principles. It can also be used to develop warm, honest and rewarding exchanges in a very short time. Knowing about cold reading is the best protection against being exploited - emotionally and financially.

She would be perfect, but you are right that all the psychics from series one are members of the association and known personally to the community. There would be no chance of a ring-in infiltrating.

Fortunately, Richard did get the term "cold reading" in twice on the last episode, and I personally asked audience members when I was at the tapings, if they were familiar with the concept. Some said they were, but insisted that "their psychic was real". The unsinkable duck I'm afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom