<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/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>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:20:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Steve Connor is an angry man</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ We’re having a meeting in a pub tonight, it’s free to get in and open to all, we’ll talk about the problems with science journalism. Apparently science journalists won&#8217;t tolerate this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/steve-connor-lofty-medics-should-stick-to-their-day-job-1724485.html
Steve Connor: Lofty medics should stick to their day job 
Science Notebook: Doctors claim media coverage is &#8220;lazy, venal and silly&#8221; 
Independent, Tuesday, 30 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/07/steve-connor-is-getting-eggy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#8217;m doing a talk at Glastonbury, Saturday 5pm Green Fields Speakers Tent</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/im-doing-a-talk-at-glastonbury-saturday-5pm-green-fields-speakers-tent/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/im-doing-a-talk-at-glastonbury-saturday-5pm-green-fields-speakers-tent/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:22:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/im-doing-a-talk-at-glastonbury-saturday-5pm-green-fields-speakers-tent/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Walk up the hill towards the Stone Circle, turn right at the homeopathy tent (if it&#8217;s in the same place this year), down Healing Broadway, nice big green tent on the right organised (among others) by my mate Shane Collins from t&#8217; Green Party. I&#8217;ll be talking at 5pm on Saturday, just after Tony Benn, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/im-doing-a-talk-at-glastonbury-saturday-5pm-green-fields-speakers-tent/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>World Conference of Science Journalists &#8211; Troublemakers Fringe, Penderel&#8217;s Oak Pub, Holborn, 1st July 8pm &#8211; Midnight</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/world-conference-of-science-journalists-troublemakers-fringe-penderels-oak-pub-holborn-1st-july-8pm-midnight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/world-conference-of-science-journalists-troublemakers-fringe-penderels-oak-pub-holborn-1st-july-8pm-midnight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 12:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1237</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Come and see me, Vaughan from Mindhacks.com and Petra from drpetra.co.uk talk in a pub on Wednesday.
Next week the World Conference of Science Journalists will be coming to London. A few of us felt they were might not adequately address some of the key problems in their profession, which has deteriorated to the point where [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/world-conference-of-science-journalists-troublemakers-fringe-penderels-oak-pub-holborn-1st-july-8pm-midnight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Steorn perpetual motion machine, amazingly, may not work: independent jury resigns</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 11:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those who care about follow-ups:

http://stjury.ning.com/forum/topics/jury-announcement

Jury Announcement
In August 2006 the Irish company Steorn published an advertisement in the Economist announcing the development of “a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy”. Qualified experts were sought to form a “jury” to validate these claims.
Twenty-two independent scientists and engineers were selected by Steorn to form this [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/steorn-perpetual-motion-co-s-independent-jury-runs-out-of-energy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Behind the curtains</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/behind-the-curtains/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/behind-the-curtains/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:10:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/behind-the-curtains/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre 
The Guardian
Saturday 20 June 2009
When is a conversation public, an act of performance, and when is it private? This problem rears its head with greater frequency in the age of the internet, as more discussions are publicly accessible without necessarily, in the minds of the participants, being for the public. 
 
In everyday [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/behind-the-curtains/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>This is my column. This is my column on drugs. Any questions?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drurrrgs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[social policy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
Saturday 13 June 2009
The Guardian
In areas of moral and political conflict people will always behave badly with evidence, so the war on drugs is a consistent source of entertainment. We have already seen how cannabis being “25 times stronger” was a fantasy, how drugs-related deaths were quietly dropped from the outcome measures for drugs [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/this-is-my-column-this-is-my-column-on-drugs-any-questions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>61</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Home taping didn&#8217;t kill music</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 23:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday 6th June 2009
You are killing our creative industries. “Downloading costs billions” said the Sun. “MORE than seven million Brits use illegal downloading sites that cost the economy billions of pounds, Government advisors said today. Researchers found more than a million people using a download site in ONE day and estimated that in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/06/home-taping-didnt-kill-music/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>95</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dodgy academic PR</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/dodgy-academic-pr/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/dodgy-academic-pr/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 May 2009 04:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/dodgy-academic-pr/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday 30 May 2009
Obviously we distrust the media on science: they rewrite commercial press releases from dodgy organisations as if they were health news, they lionise mavericks with poor evidence, and worse. But journalists will often say: what about those scientists with their press releases? Surely we should do something about them, running [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/dodgy-academic-pr/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>To the battlefield, my fellow dweebs!</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/to-the-battlefield-my-fellow-dweebs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/to-the-battlefield-my-fellow-dweebs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 00:04:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday 23 May, 2009
So last week the papers were filled with more quirky, prejudice-affirming, untrue science news. Here is just one. “Man flu: it really does exist, girls” said the Daily Star. “Man flu is not a myth: Female hormones give women stronger immune systems” said the Daily Mail. The Daily Telegraph palmed [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/to-the-battlefield-my-fellow-dweebs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What would you say to people from the developing world who use science to make decisions, but don&#8217;t necessarily always have a lot of time, or know a lot about it?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/what-would-you-say-to-people-from-the-developing-world-who-use-science-to-make-decisions-but-dont-necessarily-always-have-a-lot-of-time-or-know-a-lot-about-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/what-would-you-say-to-people-from-the-developing-world-who-use-science-to-make-decisions-but-dont-necessarily-always-have-a-lot-of-time-or-know-a-lot-about-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 12:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve been asked to facilitate a couple of sessions with some civil servant types from various countries in the developing world who advise their governments on science, and particularly on the science informing policy and purchasing decisions. The idea is to focus on how people might try and mislead you with science, and the range [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/what-would-you-say-to-people-from-the-developing-world-who-use-science-to-make-decisions-but-dont-necessarily-always-have-a-lot-of-time-or-know-a-lot-about-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>97</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>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Elsevier get into fanzines</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/elsevier-get-into-fanzines/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/elsevier-get-into-fanzines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 23:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/elsevier-get-into-fanzines/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
The Guardian
Saturday 8 May 2009
In Australia a fascinating court case has been playing out around some people who had heart attacks after taking the Merck drug Vioxx. This medication turned out to increase the risk of heart attacks in people taking it, although that finding was arguably buried in their research, and Merck have [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/elsevier-get-into-fanzines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</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>

		<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>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I don&#8217;t really get why people are chatting about Tamiflu as if it&#8217;s all that</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/i-dont-really-get-why-people-are-chatting-about-tamiflu-as-if-its-all-that/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/i-dont-really-get-why-people-are-chatting-about-tamiflu-as-if-its-all-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/i-dont-really-get-why-people-are-chatting-about-tamiflu-as-if-its-all-that/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By-the-by I don’t really understand why the Guardian subs gave this piece, about how Tamiflu isn’t so great, a headline saying “the drugs do work”. I mean they kind of do work a bit, and we don’t know if they do in a pandemic since they’ve not been tested in those circumstances (which probably won’t [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/05/i-dont-really-get-why-people-are-chatting-about-tamiflu-as-if-its-all-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PARMAGEDDON</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/parmageddon/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/parmageddon/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:11:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/parmageddon/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is possibly the most boring thing I’ve ever written in the Guardian, but I have been genuinely weirded out by the number of people inviting me to be a naysayer on the aporkalypse. I’m not, it’s a genuine risk. I ought to add that most of the people who rang, when I explained my [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/parmageddon/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>59</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Giving it some chat on the Today Programme, Radio 4, about dumbing down and why scientists often don&#8217;t like media scientists</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/giving-it-some-chat-on-the-today-programme-radio-4-about-dumbing-down-and-why-scientists-often-dont-like-media-scientists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/giving-it-some-chat-on-the-today-programme-radio-4-about-dumbing-down-and-why-scientists-often-dont-like-media-scientists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 12:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/giving-it-some-chat-on-the-today-programme-radio-4-about-dumbing-down-and-why-scientists-often-dont-like-media-scientists/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was just on the Today Programme on Radio 4 talking about dumbing down science in response to this piece in New Scientist by Kathy Sykes (who I like, and regard with some hope as a bit of a mate by the way).

badscience.net/files/BenGoldacreTodayProgRadio427Apr09.mp3
I won&#8217;t talk about it too much here since I&#8217;m hopefully going to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/giving-it-some-chat-on-the-today-programme-radio-4-about-dumbing-down-and-why-scientists-often-dont-like-media-scientists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>70</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://badscience.net/files/BenGoldacreTodayProgRadio427Apr09.mp3" length="4559895" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A frankly thin contrivance for writing on the fascinating issue of subgroup analysis</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/a-frankly-thin-contrivance-for-writing-on-the-fascinating-issue-of-subgroup-analysis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/a-frankly-thin-contrivance-for-writing-on-the-fascinating-issue-of-subgroup-analysis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/a-frankly-thin-contrivance-for-writing-on-the-fascinating-issue-of-subgroup-analysis/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome back to the only home-learning statistics and trial methodology course to feature villains. You will remember the comedy factory of the Equazen fish oil “trials”: those amazing capsules that make your child clever and well behaved. A new proper trial has now been published looking at whether these fish oil capsules work. They took [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/a-frankly-thin-contrivance-for-writing-on-the-fascinating-issue-of-subgroup-analysis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Experts say new scientific evidence helpfully justifies massive pre-existing moral prejudice.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[MMR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dodgy academic press releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medicalisation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scare stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telegraph]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre
Saturday April 18, 2009
The Guardian
Is it somehow possible – and I know I’m going out on a limb here – that journalists wilfully misinterpret and ignore scientific evidence, simply in order to generate stories that reflect their own political and cultural prejudices? Because my friend Martin, from the excellent layscience blog, has made a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/experts-say-new-scientific-evidence-helpfully-justifies-massive-pre-existing-moral-prejudice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>67</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Matthias Rath &#8211; steal this chapter</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 12:25:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[BANT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternative medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[matthias rath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nutritionists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the &#8220;missing chapter&#8221; about vitamin pill salesman Matthias Rath. Sadly I was unable to write about him at the time that book was initially published, as he was suing my ass in the High Court. The chapter is now available in the new paperback edition, and I&#8217;ve posted it here for free so [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>109</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New cheap paperback edition of Bad Science is out now</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/new-cheap-paperback-edition-of-bad-science-is-out-now/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/new-cheap-paperback-edition-of-bad-science-is-out-now/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/new-cheap-paperback-edition-of-bad-science-is-out-now/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just so that your visual search strategy is correctly callibrated for bookshops and friends&#8217; living rooms, here is the cover of the new and cheaper edition of Bad Science. It features both an index and a new chapter, which I will post for free on the web in a minute. More below.

If you&#8217;re wondering why [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/new-cheap-paperback-edition-of-bad-science-is-out-now/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.639 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2009-07-04 06:32:08 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->