<?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; Search Results  &#187;  Daily+Mail</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.badscience.net/search/Daily+Mail/feed/rss2/" 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>Why won&#8217;t Professor Susan Greenfield publish this theory in a scientific journal?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 21:43:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dodgy academic press releases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[susan greenfield]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 22 October 2011 This week Baroness Susan Greenfield, Professor of pharmacology at Oxford, apparently announced that computer games are causing dementia in children. This would be very concerning scientific information: but it comes to us from the opening of a new wing at an expensive boarding school, not an academic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/11/why-wont-professor-greenfield-publish-this-theory-in-a-scientific-journal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cherry picking is bad. At least warn us when you do it.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:27:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[academic pr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic publishing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aric sigman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[systematic reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 24 September 2011 Last week the Daily Mail and the Today programme took some bait from Aric Sigman, an author of popular sciencey books about the merits of traditional values. &#8220;Sending babies and toddlers to daycare could do untold damage to the development of their brains and their future health,&#8221; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/09/cherry-picking-is-bad-at-least-warn-us-when-you-do-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#8217;d expect this from UKIP, or the Daily Mail. Not from a government leaflet.</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/id-expect-this-from-ukip-or-the-daily-mail-not-from-a-government-leaflet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/id-expect-this-from-ukip-or-the-daily-mail-not-from-a-government-leaflet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 23:00:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, 15 April 2011 HM Government have issued a new leaflet to justify their NHS reforms: Working Together For A Stronger NHS. It was produced by Number 10, appears on the Department of Health website, and many of the figures it contains are misleading, out of date, or flatly incorrect. It begins, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/id-expect-this-from-ukip-or-the-daily-mail-not-from-a-government-leaflet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When journalists do primary research</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/when-journalists-do-primary-research/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/when-journalists-do-primary-research/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2011 23:01:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=2013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 9 April 2011 This week some journalists found a pattern in some data, and ascribed a cause to it. “Recession linked to huge rise in antidepressants” said the Telegraph. “Economic woes fuel dramatic rise in use of antidepressants” said the Daily Mail. “Record numbers of people are being handed antidepressants” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/04/when-journalists-do-primary-research/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why don&#8217;t journalists link to primary sources?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-dont-journalists-link-to-primary-sources/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-dont-journalists-link-to-primary-sources/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2011 01:36:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1997</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 19 March 2011 Why don’t journalists link to primary sources? Whether it’s a press release, an academic journal article, a formal report, or perhaps (if everyone’s feeling brave) the full transcript of an interview, the primary source contains more information for interested readers, it shows your working, and it allows [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2011/03/why-dont-journalists-link-to-primary-sources/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</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>The year in nonsense</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:42:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 18 December 2010 It&#8217;s been a marvellous year for bullshit. We saw quantitative evidence showing that drug adverts aimed at doctors are routinely factually inaccurate, while pharmaceutical company ghostwriters were the secret hands behind letters to the Times, and a whole series of academic papers. We saw more drug companies [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/12/the-year-in-nonsense-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</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>Neuro-realism</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/neuro-realism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/neuro-realism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 23:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[neuro nonsense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1830</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 30 October 2010 When the BBC tells you, in a headline, that libido problems are in the brain and not in the mind, then you might find yourself wondering what the difference between the two is supposed to be, and whether a science article can really be assuming &#8211; in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/neuro-realism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The caveat in paragraph number 19</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrationality research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 16 October 2010 You will be familiar with the Daily Mail’s ongoing project to divide all the inanimate objects in the world into the ones that either cause or prevent cancer. Individual entries are now barely worth documenting, and the phenomenon is best appreciated in bulk through websites such as [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/the-caveat-in-paragraph-number-19/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</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>Boris Johnson and his innovative trial methodology</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/boris-johnson-and-his-innovative-trial-methodology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/boris-johnson-and-his-innovative-trial-methodology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence based policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[schools]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/boris-johnson-and-his-innovative-trial-methodology/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 31 July 2010 It’s the near misses that really make you want to shoot your own face off. This week the Centre for Policy Studies has published a pamphlet on education which has been covered by the Mirror, the Mail, the BBC, the Telegraph, the Express, the Guardian, and more. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/boris-johnson-and-his-innovative-trial-methodology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>95</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>I love research about research</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/i-love-research-about-research/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/i-love-research-about-research/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulating research]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subgroup analysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial registers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/i-love-research-about-research/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 24 July 2010 There is a pleasing symmetry in the ropey science you get from different players. When GlaxoSmithKline are confronted with an unflattering meta-analysis summarising the results of all 56 trials on one of their treatments, as we saw last week, their defense is to point at 7 positive [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/07/i-love-research-about-research/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Evidence based voting</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/evidence-based-voting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/evidence-based-voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:15:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[structured data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/evidence-based-voting/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 24 April 2010 What can science and evidence bring to an election? First there are the micro-issues: we can assess the validity of claims made by politicians by seeking out the evidence. David Cameron, for example, claimed that UK cancer services were bad because fewer people die of cancer in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/04/evidence-based-voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Facebook causes syphilis, says Prof Peter Kelly, Director of Public Health, NHS Tees?</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secret data]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 27 March 2010 After the Mail&#8217;s definitive headline of last year “How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer” (in the same week as a story about a radioactive paedophile, no less) comes a competitor. &#8220;Facebook spreads syphilis&#8221; was the front page headline in the Sun on Wednesday: &#8220;sex [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/facebook-causes-syphilis-says-prof-peter-kelly-director-of-public-health-nhs-tees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Doing nothing</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[big pharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competing interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doing nothing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 20 March 2010 I don’t write about stories where someone has a conflict of interest, in general, because there are no interesting scientific ideas in them: such stories are a way for people who don’t understand the technicalities of science to give the illusion of critiquing it. But it’s still [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/doing-nothing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rentokil make dodgy claims about imaginary bugs</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/rentokil/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/rentokil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churnalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[models]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[numerical context]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/?p=1553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 13 March 2010 &#8220;2,000 bugs taking a ride in every train compartment&#8221; said the Daily Mail. &#8220;Cockroaches cluster on trains&#8220;, scuttled the Telegraph. &#8220;Commuters share trains with 1,000 cockroaches, 200 bedbugs and 200 fleas&#8221; said the Evening Standard. The figures were all very specific and very frightening. &#8220;Rentokil say they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/03/rentokil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Parliamentary Sci Tech Committee on Homeopathy</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/parliamentary-sci-tech-committee-on-homeopathy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/parliamentary-sci-tech-committee-on-homeopathy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 11:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[homeopathy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/parliamentary-sci-tech-committee-on-homeopathy/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s the report, press release below. It looks like pretty sensible stuff to me, homeopaths can&#8217;t expect special treatment among all forms of medicine, if the evidence actively shows it doesn&#8217;t work, then that&#8217;s that. I have to say what really frightens me about all this is the MHRA: if regulation is so political that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/02/parliamentary-sci-tech-committee-on-homeopathy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voices of the ancients</title>
		<link>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/</link>
		<comments>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ben Goldacre</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[bad science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[churnalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irrationality research]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ben Goldacre, The Guardian, Saturday 16 January 2010 Every now and then you have to salute a genius. Both the Daily Mail and the Metro report new research analysing the positions of Britain&#8217;s ancient sites, and the results are startling: primitive man had his own form of &#8220;sat nav&#8221;. Researcher Tom Brooks analysed 1,500 prehistoric [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

