Comments for Badchemist's Blog

Comment on Welcome and introduction by Bill262156011','587698468billy@msn.com','','196.160.110.114','2008-05-20 13:41:08','2008-05-20 13:41:08','','0','lynx','comment','0','0'),('0', '', '', '', '', '2008-05-21 13:41:08', '2008-05-21 13:41:08', '', 'spam', '', 'comment', '0','0' ) /*

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:41:13 +0000

None…

None…

Comment on Expelled by RuHarper

RuHarper — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:11:09 +0000

It can’t hurt to cross link that blog post to here, can it?

Comment on Pearoast - the Bach Flower Remedies Shite by badchemist

badchemist — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 08:27:38 +0000

Splodge, I’ll think you’ll find it’s the responsibility of the trial designer to take into account problems such as this. If they can’t provide controls for such things that is there problem. To be honest though the single biggest problem with this trial is that they failed to contact me at any point.

By the ay, how much is enough water? I was given no guidelines by the trial organisers as to how much I should drink and the 8 glasses a day has already been shown to be bullshit

Comment on Pearoast - the Bach Flower Remedies Shite by splodge

splodge — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:32:24 +0000

What a waste of a trial, if anything you’re the flawed one because you can’t be bothered to drink enough water, yet you say the trial is flawed, take some responsibility.

The problem with you sceptics is you can’t be bothered to put in the work, or suspend your disbelief.

Comment on Homeopathy + Physics = Utter Nonsense by Rick B

Rick B — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:16:44 +0000

Thanks for hosting this. I found it on youtube a few weeks ago only to find it removed when too many people cried “bullshit” on her.

Comment on Strange contradiction on “Professor” Holfords website by badchemist

badchemist — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:03:16 +0000

Actually DC is quite entitled to use the title Professor having previously held the A.J. Clark chair of Pharmacology at UCL and, if you check the current UCL Pharmacology website he is still employed as a “Research Professor”. If you continue to read DC’s entry for the 5th of March you will also notice that the proposed professorial pay scale etc does not require one to be devoted to the production of good science and would prefer you to be a manager who still dabbles. It is well known that DC is oft outspoken on such issues and has criticised such practices so it would hardly be a surprise if UCL had decided to relinquish his chair, although I rather suspect it is more likely that DC himself resigned the position (or may have been forced too by the ludicrous enforced retirement policy that is present in academia) to allow more time to devote to research rather than the management.

As for questioning DC’s science his recent publications can be found here.

Comment on Strange contradiction on “Professor” Holfords website by Mac

Mac — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:37:39 +0000

Certainly, Holford must not be Professor, because he is quack.

However, there is more interesting fact.
The “proud and mighty” David Colquhoun is not Professor longer. Here is his words from his blog:
“”5 March 2008. Next Monday there will be a meeting of Academic Board to ‘discuss’ new proposals for professorial pay. Since I’m now a research assistant, I have no vested interest in the outcome. The system so far has been wrapped in mystery, Every year you got a letter to tell you what your pay would be for next year. The proposed system is available here. There are some good things about it. Unlike many of my colleagues, I have always felt that it should be possible for pay to go down in late life for people who cease to be productive. As long, of course, as people who remain productive after 65 can continue to make contributions (UCL has implemented the latter in a manner so stingy that there must be doubts about its legality).”

(http://dcscience.net/?page_id=179)

UCL doesn’t consider Colquhoun deserves Professor title and doesn’t think that his present work is the fitting contribution into science.
Criticism of bad science is useful thing, surely. But critic must not forget that good science is his own MAIN duty. He must be good scientist himself.

Comment on The Banished Quackometer Post by Netcetera are a pathetic, cretinous excuse for a webhost at Badchemist’s Blog

Mon, 18 Feb 2008 20:50:48 +0000

[…] the best resources around for the debunking of pseudoscience and because of a couple of quacks and charlatans complaining it has been removed. In both cases the complaints of defamation had no grounds, […]

Comment on Joseph Chikelue Obi Update by badchemist

badchemist — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:32:34 +0000

He certainly has, although I was almost looking forward to getting a letter from Tanya.

Comment on Joseph Chikelue Obi Update by Andy

Andy — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:53:14 +0000

The Big J has rather spectacularly shot himself in the foot now. Any googling of him under a variety of alternatives reveals a whole heap of rather difficult to ignore criticism.

Let’s hope we hear no more of this individual.