Comments on: The Year in Bad Science

By: xintian

xintian — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 08:59:16 +0000

Turkish women came up ed hardy bikini with a good solution. ed hardy ed hardy swimwear

By: sudont

sudont — Fri, 28 May 2010 01:53:10 +0000

Hmm, is this is the “smoking tweet” that answers my original query?:

“mm, the lady downstairs seems to smoke so many cigarettes that my flat stinks of fags. there’s no stylish way to deal with this.”
- Tweet from Ben Goldacre

By: sudont

sudont — Fri, 28 May 2010 01:23:21 +0000

“You might want to take a close look at where the data contradicting the scientific consensus on the matter is actually coming from.”

How about the original EPA study? They cherry-picked the data, reduced the confidence level to 90%, and still only showed a risk of 1.19. The American Cancer Society, for instance, will not accept studies as showing any effect below 3.0.
But what about common sense? Smokers inhale deep lungfuls of the stuff, all day, everyday, for decades before developing lung cancer. It’s absurd to think the small amounts non-smokers are exposed to would cause cancer. I didn’t need the tobacco companies to tell me this, and was suspicious the first time I heard this nonsense:
www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
As for unreasonable claims, wow, could not go into all of them here! Have a look at Dr. Michael Siegel’s blog:
tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
He’s a second-hand smoke believer who’s appalled at his own colleague’s increasingly ridiculous lies, and covers them quite well.

By: jiang

jiang — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 05:21:48 +0000

ed hardy ed hardy ed hardy clothing ed hardy clothing ed hardy shop ed hardy shop christian audigier christian audigier ed hardy cheap ed hardy cheap ed hardy outlet ed hardy outlet ed hardy sale ed hardy sale ed hardy store ed hardy store ed hardy mens ed hardy mens ed hardy womens ed hardy womens ed hardy kids ed hardy kids ed hardy kids

By: Nutritious Terrapin

Nutritious Terrapin — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:36:51 +0000

[quote]what possible reason could there be for the smoke to be harmful when inhaled directly and not so when inhaled by another person 30 seconds later?[/quote]
What if, playing Devils advocate here, the lungs in fact filtered out (and trapped inside) all the nasty harmful particles and exhaled smoke was in fact then rendered less noxious? We already know how much tar and particles the lung collects from tobacco smoke so there could be plausibility in this as a reason.

By: Moi Un Mouton

Moi Un Mouton — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:16:51 +0000

Now we can read, from a link on the main BBC News webpage today, that it’s in fact tomorrow, 19th Jan, which this year is “regarded” as the most depressing of the year, Blue Monday. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7836319.stm

Perhaps the formula by which this is calculated contains a variable that makes the day always be just in the future, in order that the media can continue to publish the article every weekend for the foreseeable (or not) future.

By: stephenh

stephenh — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:48:07 +0000

Interesting post on Mind Hacks about the “Blue Monday” nonsense formula: www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/01/blue_monday_bullshit.html

Vaughan invites you to come up with a formula for bullshit formulas.

By: Ian Preston

Ian Preston — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:13:33 +0000

I see that the “most … day of the year” theme about which you have been so eloquent in the past has reemerged in today’s papers. The Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2009/jan/05/most-stressful-day-big-brother) and Telegraph (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4109267/Today-is-the-most-stressful-day-of-the-year.html) report that “research” from the RNLI says “the most stressful day” is today. Elsewhere, “research” suggests it is actually next week (www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/news/January-12-stressful-day-year-research-claims/article-585961-detail/article.html). But weren’t we told just over a year ago that it’s in early December (www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/12/10/stress-day.html?ref=rss)?

By: The Biologista

The Biologista — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 21:37:59 +0000

Rich,

It’s a traditional saying that is incorrect in many cases. Try lots of tiny doses of arsenic and let us know how you get on with that…

Plenty of toxic substances are harmful in multiple low doses. Including many of the constituents of tobacco smoke.

By: Rich

Rich — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:00:52 +0000

The Biologista said, “Even if there were not a good body of evidence to support the notion that passive smoking in and of itself is harmful, what possible reason could there be for the smoke to be harmful when inhaled directly and not so when inhaled by another person 30 seconds later? The only difference is concentration.”

What happened to, “It’s the dose that makes the poison”?

HNY!

By: Sili

Sili — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:06:20 +0000

Thank you, dr Goldacre.

Thank you so very very much.

By: Svetlana Pertsovich

Svetlana Pertsovich — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:14:25 +0000

HAPPY NEW YEAR, Ben!
New Year has already come to Russia (Far East)! Then – I can congratulate all people
Best of the best wishes in 2009!!!
I wish you new victories in new year!

By: The Biologista

The Biologista — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:09:24 +0000

Studont, the health risks associated with tobacco smoke are very well established at this stage. Even if there were not a good body of evidence to support the notion that passive smoking in and of itself is harmful, what possible reason could there be for the smoke to be harmful when inhaled directly and not so when inhaled by another person 30 seconds later? The only difference is concentration.

You might want to take a close look at where the data contradicting the scientific consensus on the matter is actually coming from. The tobacco industry is unquestionably involved in the current attempts to discredit the current thinking on second hand smoke. They’re generating the illusion of a scientific debate that’s about as real as the “debate” over creationism.

Are there some specific articles you think are making unreasonable claims?

By: sudont

sudont — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:49:03 +0000

Wonder why you’re not covering all the “second-hand smoke” nonsense? Perhaps you don’t care for tobacco yourself, but the increasingly ridiculous claims that the anti-smoker crowd are making in the name of science, tarnish all statistical studies.
And what does it say about those scientists who remain silent, perhaps because the resulting restrictions benefit them personally, inasmuch as they no longer have to suffer a whiff of tobacco smoke?

By: The Biologista

The Biologista — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:58:57 +0000

Keep on fighting Ben. Our numbers grow daily.*

* I don’t actually have any evidence to support that assertion.

By: stoat

stoat — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:38:33 +0000

And here’s a last-minute entry from the Telegraph…

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was-the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html

By: M2

M2 — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:29:00 +0000

It’s not “unwinnable.” While we may never have won, past tense, we are still winning as long as people like you keep writing. Cheers!

By: gazza

gazza — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:47:46 +0000

The book was a nice highlight of the year.

I would like to see more double page spread articles, like your one on Homeopathy in the Guardian. I know it’s a time thing but the occasional ‘blockbuster’ article as well as your shorter pieces would keep the pot bubbling against the woo merchants, and show that some of the media is serious about rationality in news stories.

A low point was those stupid red LEDs for sticking up your nose to treat hayfever – they were just so prominent at Lloyds Pharmacies this summer. In the ‘genuine’ old fashioned snake-oil tradition…..

By: randywombat

randywombat — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:41:28 +0000

The Indy has another interesting review of the year – from the point of view of politicians’ misunderstandings of science – here: www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html

By: jackpt

jackpt — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 04:05:41 +0000

I think there’s beginning to be a media awareness of an audience worth chasing. Leading to things like the revival of the token sceptic (or two) in otherwise woo satellite television programmes, and a major newspaper with a me-too version of the Bad Science column. I think there’s money in it. The internet has probably broadened the demographic of intelligent fence sitters seeking info, and given them a way to get to quality with less effort than was required prior to the internet. If that audience grows it will force the media to raise its game or face a shrinking audience among internet users. Columns like yours, and blogs dedicated to similar issues, are the internet competition to science reporting in the old school media. You do so without treating your audience as if it is composed of thick people, which, at the least, is a positive message to send out to the wider media.