<?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; letters</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/category/letters/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>Dr George Carlo responds to Andrew Goldacre</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:46:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electrosensitivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hate mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stifling criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This post is only if you&#8217;re not bored of the rather trying electrosensitivity lobby. Here is a letter which has popped up all over the interweb, I assume it is genuinely from Dr Carlo, who is hawked about as a rather eminent figure, and not a fake created in an effort to smear him. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2007/06/dr-george-carlo-responds-to-andrew-goldacre/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;It&#8217;s not a trial&#8230; wait&#8230; it is&#8230; and the evidence does show&#8230; and&#8230; and it&#8217;s for the KIDS&#8230;&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2006/10/its-not-a-trial-wait-it-is-and-the-evidence-does-show-and-and-its-for-the-kids/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2006/10/its-not-a-trial-wait-it-is-and-the-evidence-does-show-and-and-its-for-the-kids/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:58:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equazen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fish oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutritionists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Kelliher&#8217;s been busy with letters@guardian.co.uk It&#8217;s a definite improvement on the really rather revolting blog postings from the Portwood camp but addresses none of the interesting questions, and simply re-states the blander aspects of the case which have already been torpedoed. There are now much more interesting things to say on this than go over [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2006/10/its-not-a-trial-wait-it-is-and-the-evidence-does-show-and-and-its-for-the-kids/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad Science in Guardian.co.uk Top 5</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/guardiancouk-top-5/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/guardiancouk-top-5/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2005 13:17:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=175</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Comment: Editor&#8217;s week Emily Bell, Saturday September 17, 2005, The Guardian 1. Fifth Ashes Test, over by over No audio, no video, but utterly, utterly gripping 2. Why the iPhone won&#8217;t rock your world The Observer&#8217;s John Naughton is underwhelmed by the Apple/Motorola offering 3. Bad Science: Don&#8217;t dumb me down Ben Goldacre bemoans the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/guardiancouk-top-5/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters in Guardian about Dumb Me Down</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/letters-in-guardian-about-dumb-me-down/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/letters-in-guardian-about-dumb-me-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[9th September, 2005 Does Ben Goldacre (Life, September have any peer reviewed papers with statistical proof that &#8220;humanities graduates&#8221; are so woefully ignorant that he is justified in using the phrase as a term of abuse? If he doesn&#8217;t, he&#8217;s beginning to sound like a geek with a grudge. Ian Hunter Norwich]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/letters-in-guardian-about-dumb-me-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t dumb me down</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adverts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash-for-"stories"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[channel 4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[channel five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chocolate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dangers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[express]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gillian mckeith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mirror]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhDs, doctors, and qualifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[very basic science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weight loss]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We laughed, we cried, we learned about statistics &#8230; Ben Goldacre on why writing Bad Science has increased his suspicion of the media by, ooh, a lot of per cents Ben Goldacre Thursday September 8, 2005 The Guardian OK, here&#8217;s something weird. Every week in Bad Science we either victimise some barking pseudoscientific quack, or [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/dont-dumb-me-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>82</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Never as bad as it looks</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/never-as-bad-as-it-looks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/never-as-bad-as-it-looks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hate mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Thursday September 1, 2005 The Guardian Â· &#8220;One of Britain&#8217;s most widely prescribed antidepressants has been linked to a seven-fold increase in suicide attempts.&#8221; Hold the front page! Oh hang on, it&#8217;s on the front page of the Times already. &#8220;An analysis of trials for Seroxat involving more than 1,500 patients found seven [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/09/never-as-bad-as-it-looks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters in Guardian about the Placebo piece</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/08/letters-in-guardian-about-the-placebo-piece/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/08/letters-in-guardian-about-the-placebo-piece/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:58:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeopathy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[placebo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantum physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[very basic science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Letters: Observing the benefits of placebos Wednesday August 31, 2005 The Guardian Ben Goldacre&#8217;s thought-provoking piece (A tonic for sceptics, August 29) moves forward the debate about homeopathy and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The argument is no longer about whether homeopathy works, but how it works. He is absolutely right, therefore, to single out [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/08/letters-in-guardian-about-the-placebo-piece/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>57</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letter From Lancet Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/letter-from-lancet-editor/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/letter-from-lancet-editor/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=25</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Health risks Wednesday June 22, 2005 The Guardian I would add one vital element to Ben Goldacre&#8217;s sensible list of requirements for understanding health risks (Risky business, June 20). It is essential to convey the reliability of the evidence that underpins the risk. Much risk-related research is based on observing statistical associations between an exposure [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/letter-from-lancet-editor/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published MMR Mumps Letters</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/published-mmr-mumps-letters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/published-mmr-mumps-letters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:31:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=97</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Letters Thursday June 2, 2005 The Guardian Generation before MMR is falling ill I agree with Ben Goldacre about MMR (Bad science, May 26) but I am not sure that the mumps outbreak is due to low uptake of the vaccine. The young people who are catching mumps at the moment are in their late [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/published-mmr-mumps-letters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published Letter</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/05/published-letter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/05/published-letter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2005 14:34:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=99</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Letters Thursday May 26, 2005 The Guardian Court out Bad science is compulsive reading, but is there no redress against the ridiculous claims Ben Goldacre exposes? I would like to see a Lawyers Against Bad Science (Labs) group set up to test these misleading ads in a court of law. Kurt Weithaler Norwich]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/05/published-letter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Office Hours</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2005/04/office-hours/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2005/04/office-hours/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Helen Pidd Monday April 18, 2005 The Guardian Â· WPM arrives this week sheepish, tail guiltily between her legs. For, for the first time ever, we must begin with a correction. Not just any old correction, either, but one initiated by the Guardian&#8217;s biologychemistryandphysics ombudsman. Who? Why, Dr Ben Goldacre of the legendary Bad Science [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2005/04/office-hours/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Atomic tomatoes are not the only fruit</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/12/atomic-tomatoes-are-not-the-only-fruit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/12/atomic-tomatoes-are-not-the-only-fruit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2004 11:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[celebs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[channel 4]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[channel five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[express]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gillian mckeith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[herbal remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[independent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutritionists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oxygen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhDs, doctors, and qualifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quantum physics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[very basic science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[water]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=18</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This article is a rough transcript of the most excellent Bad Science Awards 2004 that were held in the Asylum Club on Rathbone St W1, a tiny basement club with a fire safety license for 150. We were expecting 20 people but to general astonishment there were queues down the street, and an unruly crowd [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/12/atomic-tomatoes-are-not-the-only-fruit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brain sensitising</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/10/brain-sensitising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/10/brain-sensitising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[adverts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PhDs, doctors, and qualifications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[placebo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Thursday October 28, 2004 The Guardian Â· Generally, I don&#8217;t go for the little guys. But when the seventh copy of the Brain Respiration leaflet arrived in the Bad Science mailbag, I knew it was a serious moneyspinner: a multimillion dollar operation, in fact, with four centres in the UK, and headed by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/10/brain-sensitising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters &#8211; McKeith</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/08/letters-mckeith/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/08/letters-mckeith/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gillian mckeith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutritionists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gillian McKeith means well Thursday August 26, 2004 The Guardian Your criticism of Dr Gillian McKeith is scientifically correct, but medically hazardous (Bad science, August 19). In criticising her discussion on chlorophyll, and her other moments of &#8220;bad science&#8221;, are you suggesting that to eat whole, unprocessed foods is potentially damaging? Are you suggesting that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/08/letters-mckeith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 16:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pseudo corner Thursday June 10, 2004 The Guardian Nigel Calder should know better than to make the assertions he tossed out at the Hay festival (the Guardian, June 3). To state that any new discovery necessarily nullifies previous knowledge is absurd. Every discovery leads to dozens of new problems. And each of those gives rise [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>That floaty feeling</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/that-floaty-feeling-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/that-floaty-feeling-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=150</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Thursday June 3, 2004 The Guardian Â· You won&#8217;t be surprised that I get a lot of critical email. This is very embarrassing, but it&#8217;s best that I put my hands up and admit it: last week, I was wrong. In my defence, I am a very angry man, but that&#8217;s no excuse [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/that-floaty-feeling-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letters</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jun 2004 16:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=149</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Strong magnets can affect blood Thursday June 3, 2004 The Guardian Although blood does not appear to be magnetic at common levels of magnetism, I believe you are wrong to say it is not affected by magnetism at all (Bad Science, May 27). With a sufficient magnetic field it is possible to levitate any material, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2004/06/letters-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published MMR Letters</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2003/12/published-mmr-letters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2003/12/published-mmr-letters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2003 03:35:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[channel five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=66</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fears and frustrations over MMR Monday December 15, 2003 The Guardian I applaud Ben Goldacre&#8217;s efforts to highlight how much scientific evidence is available to prove the safety of the MMR vaccine and how much damage has been done to the public&#8217;s confidence in the vaccine by poor understanding of the science behind autism (Never [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2003/12/published-mmr-letters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

