<?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; statistics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/category/statistics/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>These Guardian / Independent stories are dodgy. Traps in data journalism.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s an interesting problem with data analysis in general, and so, by extension, data journalism: you have to be careful about assuming that the numbers you&#8217;ve got access to&#8230; really do reflect the underlying phenomena you&#8217;re trying to investigate. Today&#8217;s Guardian has a story, &#8220;Antidepressant use in England soars&#8220;. It&#8217;s much more overstated in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/12/this-guardian-story-is-dodgy-traps-in-data-journalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What if academics were as dumb as quacks with statistics?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 12:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[methods]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neurostuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 10th September 2011 We all like to laugh at quacks when they misuse basic statistics. But what if academics, en masse, deploy errors that are equally foolish? This week Sander Nieuwenhuis and colleagues publish a mighty torpedo in the journal Nature Neuroscience. They’ve identified one direct, stark statistical error that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Benford&#8217;s Law: using stats to bust an entire nation for naughtiness.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 17 September 2011 This week we might bust an entire nation for handing over dodgy economic statistics. But first: why would they bother? Well, it turns out that whole countries have an interest in distorting their accounts, just like companies and individuals. If you’re an Euro member like Greece, for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/benfords-law-using-stats-to-bust-an-entire-nation-for-naughtiness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brain imaging studies report more positive findings than their numbers can support. This is fishy.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:14:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publication bias]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 13 August 2011 While the authorities are distracted by mass disorder, we can do some statistics. You’ll have seen plenty of news stories telling you that one part of the brain is bigger, or smaller, in people with a particular mental health problem, or even a specific job. These are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/brain-imaging-studies-report-more-positive-findings-than-their-numbers-can-support-this-is-fishy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sampling error, the unspoken issue behind small number changes in the news</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bbc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncertainty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 20 August 2011 What do all these numbers mean? &#8220;&#8216;Worrying&#8217; jobless rise needs urgent action &#8211; Labour&#8221; was the BBC headline. They explained the problem in their own words: “The number of people out of work rose by 38,000 to 2.49 million in the three months to June, official figures [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/08/untitled-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anarchy for the UK. Ish.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/anarchy-for-the-uk-ish/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/anarchy-for-the-uk-ish/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Apr 2011 12:02:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[presenting numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 2 April 2011 Here are two fun ways that numbers can be distorted for political purposes. Stop me if I’m boring you, but each of them feels oddly poetic, in its ability to smear or stifle. The first is simple: you can conflate two different things into one number, either [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/anarchy-for-the-uk-ish/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How to read a paper</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 00:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sun]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 29 January 2011 If science has any authority, it derives from transparency: you can check the claims against the working. Sometimes you hit a brick wall. Sometimes you might consider a shortcut. Let’s look at 3 types of checking. First up, in the Sun, a child has been born at [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/how-to-read-a-paper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>49</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Putting a number in its context</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Jan 2011 00:01:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 8th January 2011 “600 pregnancies despite contraceptive implant” said the BBC.  “500 fall pregnant after having contraceptive implant” said the Express. “Contraceptive implant alert” said the Daily Mail: “Hundreds of women fall pregnant after birth control fails”. The story first broke on Channel 4, and it’s still not entirely clear [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/01/putting-a-number-in-its-context/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A new and interesting form of wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/1864/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/1864/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 00:01:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[survey data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre. The Guardian, Saturday 27 November 2010 Wrong isn’t enough: we need interestingly wrong, and this week that came in some research from Stonewall, an organisation for whom I generally have great respect, which was reported in the Guardian. Stonewall have conducted a survey, and their press release says it shows “the average coming [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/11/1864/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The power of anecdotes</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 23:01:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[anecdotes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1764</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 28 August 2010 For simpletons and amateurs, there are good research methods, and bad research methods. In reality, different tools are valuable in different situations, and sometimes, even very tiny numbers of people can give you a meaningful piece of information: even an anecdote can be informative. For example, if [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/08/in-praise-of-anecdotes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fish oil in the Observer: the return of a $2bn friend</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 23:47:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fish oil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guardian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 5 June 2010 &#8220;Fish oil helps schoolchildren to concentrate” was the headline in the Observer. Regular readers will remember the omega-3 fish oil pill issue, as the entire British news media has been claiming for several years now that there are trials showing it improves school performance and behaviour in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/06/the-return-of-a-2bn-fishy-friend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Righteous mischief from Archie Cochrane</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/righteous-mischief-from-archie-cochrane/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/righteous-mischief-from-archie-cochrane/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heroes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heroes of bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uncertainty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/righteous-mischief-from-archie-cochrane/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Working on an editorial about the importance of evidence based social policy, I re-discovered this moment of genius from Archie Cochrane which I thought I’d share. It’s 1971, he’s part way through a randomised trial comparing Coronary Care Units against home care, and the time has come to share some results with the cardiologists. I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/righteous-mischief-from-archie-cochrane/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lucia de Berk &#8211; a martyr to stupidity</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/lucia-de-berk-a-martyr-to-stupidity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/lucia-de-berk-a-martyr-to-stupidity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 22:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/lucia-de-berk-a-martyr-to-stupidity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 10 April 2010 Lucia de Berk is a Dutch nurse who has spent 6 years in jail on a life sentence for murdering 7 people, in a killing spree that never happened. She will hear about her appeal on Wednesday, and there is now little doubt that she will be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/lucia-de-berk-a-martyr-to-stupidity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Guns don&#8217;t kill people, puppies do</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/guns-dont-kill-people-puppies-do/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/guns-dont-kill-people-puppies-do/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 00:21:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 13 February 2010 Often one data point isn&#8217;t enough to spot a pattern, or even to say that an event is interesting and exceptional, because numbers are all about context and constraints. At one end there are the simple examples. “Mum beats odds of 50 million-to-one to have 3 babies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/guns-dont-kill-people-puppies-do/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If you want to be trusted more: claim less</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 8 January 2009 “Public sector pay races ahead in a recession” shouted the front page of this week’s Sunday Times. “Public sector workers earn 7% more on average than their peers in the private sector — a pay gulf that has more than doubled since the recession began.” The Telegraph [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/if-you-want-to-be-trusted-more-claim-less/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>By me in the BMJ: the dodginess of drug company trials</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/by-me-in-the-bmj-the-dodginess-of-drug-company-trials/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/by-me-in-the-bmj-the-dodginess-of-drug-company-trials/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:54:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hiding data]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subgroup analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systematic reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial registers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/by-me-in-the-bmj-the-dodginess-of-drug-company-trials/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here’s a piece by me in the British Medical Journal this week, published online already, and in the print edition this Friday. It’s a head to head with Vincent Lawton, who until recently was head of Merck in the UK. Briefly, I set out the quantitative evidence demonstrating the scale of the problem, and he [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/by-me-in-the-bmj-the-dodginess-of-drug-company-trials/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>73</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lloyds and Carbon Monoxide</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/03/lloyds-and-carbon-monoxide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/03/lloyds-and-carbon-monoxide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash-for-"stories"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churnalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1045</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just looked this up myself and saw that for some reason it never got posted on the blog, so here it is. Ben Goldacre The Guardian Saturday 10th October 2008 What I like about Bad Science is that it&#8217;s a game the whole family can play. This month &#8220;Lloydspharmacy&#8221;, as Lloyds Pharmacy insist on being [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/03/lloyds-and-carbon-monoxide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>29</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Datamining for terrorists would be lovely if it worked</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence based policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[surveillance]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Guardian Saturday February 28 2009 Ben Goldacre This week Sir David Omand, the former Whitehall security and intelligence co-ordinator, described how the state should analyse data about individuals in order to find terrorist suspects: travel information, tax, phone records, emails, and so on. “Finding out other people&#8217;s secrets is going to involve breaking everyday [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/datamining-would-be-lovely-if-it-worked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>77</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A rock of crack as big as the Ritz</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/a-rock-of-crack-as-big-as-the-ritz/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/a-rock-of-crack-as-big-as-the-ritz/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 02:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/a-rock-of-crack-as-big-as-the-ritz/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre Saturday February 21 2009 The Guardian In a week where our dear Daily Mail ran with the headline &#8220;How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer&#8221;, I will exercise some self control, and write about drugs instead. &#8220;Seven hundred British troops seized four Taliban narcotics factories containing £50m of drugs&#8221; said the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/02/a-rock-of-crack-as-big-as-the-ritz/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drink coffee, see dead people.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/drink-coffee-see-dead-people/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/drink-coffee-see-dead-people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:54:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[badscience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dodgy academic press releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[express]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[presenting numbers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/drink-coffee-see-dead-people/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Guardian, Saturday January 17 2009 Ben Goldacre &#8220;Danger from just 7 cups of coffee a day&#8221; said the Express on Wednesday. &#8220;Too much coffee can make you hallucinate and sense dead people say sleep experts. The equivalent of just seven cups of instant coffee a day is enough to trigger the weird responses.&#8221; The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/drink-coffee-see-dead-people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

