<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Bad Science &#187; competing interests</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/category/competing-interests/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.badscience.net</link>
	<description>Ben Goldacre&#039;s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:39:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Doing nothing</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 20 March 2010 I don’t write about stories where someone has a conflict of interest, in general, because there are no interesting scientific ideas in them: such stories are a way for people who don’t understand the technicalities of science to give the illusion of critiquing it. But it’s still [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chilling warning to parents from top neuroscientist</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/professor-baroness-susan-greenfield-cbe/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/professor-baroness-susan-greenfield-cbe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 23:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adverts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[great popularisers of science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/professor-baroness-susan-greenfield-cbe/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Edit midday Saturday: I&#8217;ve just read the Guardian version and it&#8217;s been cut a bit, whole chunks missing, and bits rewritten. This is the best reason to have a blog. Anyway, if Baroness Greenfield responds &#8211; and naturally I hope she will, as there is a great deal more to say on this topic &#8211; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/professor-baroness-susan-greenfield-cbe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>74</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pay to play?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/pay-to-play/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/pay-to-play/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/pay-to-play/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday February 14 2009 The Guardian This column is about tainted medical research, not MMR. Now don&#8217;t get me wrong: it&#8217;s still an interesting week to be right about vaccines. On Sunday, Brian Deer at the Times claimed that the medical cases in Andrew Wakefield&#8217;s 1998 paper were altered before publication. The measles [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/pay-to-play/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>46</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roger Coghill and the Aids test</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/roger-coghill-fails-the-aids-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/roger-coghill-fails-the-aids-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 01:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrosensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[express]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[herbal remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhDs, doctors, and qualifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roger coghill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/roger-coghill-fails-the-aids-test/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre The Guardian, Saturday June 28, 2008 It&#8217;s the big stories I enjoy the most. &#8220;Suicides linked to phone masts&#8221; roared the Sunday Express front-page headline this week. &#8220;The spate of deaths among young people in Britain&#8217;s suicide capital could be linked to radio waves from dozens of mobile phone transmitter masts near the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/roger-coghill-fails-the-aids-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>94</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Patrick Holford&#8217;s untruthful and unsubstantiated claims about pills</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/patrick-holford-unsubstantiated-untruthful/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/patrick-holford-unsubstantiated-untruthful/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adverts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicalisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patrick holford]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Okay, you lot are seriously on a roll. Following a complaint from a badscience reader, the ASA have found that Patrick Holford made untruthful, unsubstantiated claims in a leaflet he was sending out. Pasted below is the full adjudication and also the original advert in question, so that you can decide for yourself about the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/patrick-holford-unsubstantiated-untruthful/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

