<?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; legal chill</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/category/legal-chill/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>NMT are suing Dr Wilmshurst. So how trustworthy are this company? Let&#8217;s look at their website&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/nmt-are-suing-dr-wilmshurst-so-how-trustworthy-are-they/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/nmt-are-suing-dr-wilmshurst-so-how-trustworthy-are-they/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 00:44:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1884</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 11 December 2010 You will hopefully remember – from the era before Wikileaks &#8211; that US medical device company NMT are suing NHS cardiologist Peter Wilmshurst over his comments about the conduct and results of the MIST trial, which sadly for NMT found no evidence that their device prevents migraine. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/nmt-are-suing-dr-wilmshurst-so-how-trustworthy-are-they/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I made a documentary about science and libel for the BBC: here it is</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/i-made-a-documentary-about-science-and-libel-for-the-bbc-here-it-is/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/i-made-a-documentary-about-science-and-libel-for-the-bbc-here-it-is/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:29:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1874</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi all, I made a documentary for the BBC World Service on libel and science. It&#8217;s really good, go and listen to it here: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009xbbw It goes out live on the BBC World Service today (8 December) at 20:30 GMT; 9 December at 01:30; and 11 Dec at 13:30. There&#8217;s a piece about it here [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/i-made-a-documentary-about-science-and-libel-for-the-bbc-here-it-is/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Science is about embracing your knockers &#8211; updated as Rodial begin to play games</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/science-is-about-embracing-your-knockers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/science-is-about-embracing-your-knockers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 23:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churnalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 13 November 2010 If science has any credibility, it derives from transparency: when you make a claim about how something works, you provide references to experiments, which describe openly and in full what was done, in enough detail for the experiment to be replicated, detailing what was measured, and how. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/science-is-about-embracing-your-knockers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>And then I was incompetently libelled by a litigious millionaire</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gillian mckeith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Monday 19 July 2010 What do you do, as a campaigner for libel reform, when a litigious millionaire calls you a liar? This ethical quandary was presented to me last week when twitter account of Gillian McKeith &#8211; or to give her full medical title, “Gillian McKeith” &#8211; called my book [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/and-then-i-was-incompetently-libelled-by-a-litigious-millionaire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://www.stablesound.co.uk/mp3/drgillian.mp3" length="2058765" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Libel claimants get what they deserve. So do you.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/libel-litigants-get-what-they-deserve-and-so-do-the-public/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/libel-litigants-get-what-they-deserve-and-so-do-the-public/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/libel-litigants-get-what-they-deserve-and-so-do-the-public/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Friday 15 April 2010 [Full text at guardian.co.uk, abbreviated in the paper] After 2 years of pursuing one man through the courts, at a cost to him of £200,000 and 2 years work, the British Chiropractic Association yesterday dropped their libel case against science writer Simon Singh. The case was over [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/libel-litigants-get-what-they-deserve-and-so-do-the-public/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>British Chiropractic Association drops shameful libel case against science writer who criticised them</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:30:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The BCA have dropped their case. It has not been good for them. It will now get worse. Singh has made it clear that he will pursue them for his costs: this will cost the BCA dearly, and it is money they can ill afford. I’m off to write about it for the Guardian but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/british-chiropractic-association-drops-shameful-libel-case-against-science-writer-who-criticised-them/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I patent your ass. And your leg. And your nostril.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/i-patent-your-ass-and-your-leg-and-your-nostril/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/i-patent-your-ass-and-your-leg-and-your-nostril/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:58:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/i-patent-your-ass-and-your-leg-and-your-nostril/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 2 April 2010 This week the Association for Molecular Pathology, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, won a major victory, overturning just some of the patents owned by a company called Myriad on the BRCA1 gene for breast cancer. There are three reasons why gene patents like these are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/i-patent-your-ass-and-your-leg-and-your-nostril/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Last chance for libel reform: mass lobby of MPs next Tuesday</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/last-chance-for-libel-reform-mass-lobby-of-mps-next-tuesday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/last-chance-for-libel-reform-mass-lobby-of-mps-next-tuesday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/last-chance-for-libel-reform-mass-lobby-of-mps-next-tuesday/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is your last chance to convince your MP that libel reform is a good idea before parliament dissolves. Politicians can feel like a dispiritingly disengaged shower of till-dippers, but here is one issue that you can care about, and it&#8217;s worth one final stab at making them see sense. Our libel laws stifle critical [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/last-chance-for-libel-reform-mass-lobby-of-mps-next-tuesday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Libel Reform</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/libel-reform/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/libel-reform/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:22:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/libel-reform/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday morning I helped to launch the libel reform campaign in parliament with Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. To be fair, the best line came the day before at the celeb launch from Alexei Sayle, who explained that he was once sued for libel by someone, and it cost over £100,000 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/libel-reform/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Behold the jot of evidence</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/behold-the-jot-of-evidence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/behold-the-jot-of-evidence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1386</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, Saturday 17 October 2009, The Guardian For those with the finances to try to silence their critics, this has been a week of spectacular own goals. Trafigura has loudly advertised the report on the dumping of toxic waste in Africa by taking out a super-injunction through Carter-Ruck. And on Wednesday Simon Singh, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/10/behold-the-jot-of-evidence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Protecting the powerful is a feature, not a bug</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/protecting-the-powerful-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/protecting-the-powerful-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/protecting-the-powerful-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here’s a quick piece about libel that I bashed out on request for CiF, covers ground you’ll have read before but it’s always good to keep libel alive in peoples’ minds. I should also say, I think I was in a bit of a mopey mood when I emailed it from the rail replacement bus [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/protecting-the-powerful-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>45</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;We are more possible than you can powerfully imagine&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/we-are-more-possible-than-you-can-powerfully-imagine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/we-are-more-possible-than-you-can-powerfully-imagine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre The Guardian Wednesday 29 July 2009 Today the Australian magazine Cosmos, along with a vast number of other blogs and publications, reprinted an article by Simon Singh, in slightly tweaked form, in an act of solidarity. The British Chiropractic Association has been suing Singh personally for the past 15 months, over a piece [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/we-are-more-possible-than-you-can-powerfully-imagine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A characteristically amateurish and socially inappropriate approach to pitching an article</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/a-characteristically-amateurish-and-socially-inappropriate-approach-to-pitching-an-article/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/a-characteristically-amateurish-and-socially-inappropriate-approach-to-pitching-an-article/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 17:56:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/a-characteristically-amateurish-and-socially-inappropriate-approach-to-pitching-an-article/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi there. I’m going to write 800 words on the British Chiropractic Association suing Simon Singh, and the early adjudication on meanings. I’m assuming the Guardian don’t want it, since they apologised over the original piece (let me know if you do, natch, wld love to). If you are some kind of editor, and you [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/a-characteristically-amateurish-and-socially-inappropriate-approach-to-pitching-an-article/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>LBC, MMR, Jeni Barnett, an Early Day Motion, the Times, and, er, a bit of Stephen Fry&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/lbc-mmr-jeni-barnett-an-early-day-motion-the-times-and-er-a-bit-of-stephen-fry/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/lbc-mmr-jeni-barnett-an-early-day-motion-the-times-and-er-a-bit-of-stephen-fry/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:35:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeni barnett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stifling criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/lbc-mmr-jeni-barnett-an-early-day-motion-the-times-and-er-a-bit-of-stephen-fry/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought since a few days have passed that I should let you know what&#8217;s happening with the slightly ridiculous LBC situation. If you skip to the bottom you will find a discussion on some mischievous activism which I think has great potential. Since LBC unwisely threw their legal weight around to prevent you from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/lbc-mmr-jeni-barnett-an-early-day-motion-the-times-and-er-a-bit-of-stephen-fry/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>154</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Er, &#8220;help&#8221;. Legal Chill from LBC 97.3 and &#8220;Global Radio&#8221; over Jeni Barnett&#8217;s MMR scaremongering</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global Radio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jeni barnett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal chill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stifling criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[Update: recent developments are now available here, including an EDM in parliament and discussion in mainstream media] [Update: links to transcripts and audio hosted elsewhere at bottom of post] One more thing, since Stephen Fry excellently tweeted this post to his 8 billion followers (weirdly he wakes me up every morning) I&#8217;ve had to activate [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/legal-chill-from-lbc-973-over-jeni-barnetts-mmr-scaremongering/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>234</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

