The note at the bottom of this Guardian article ‘the science behind dietary supplements’ states that the website mentioned in the article is “an independent encyclopedia on supplementation and nutrition. It does not accept advertising.” However, nowhere in the article does it mention any other website that the author is involved with. Well, I found one that looked pretty interesting. Read the rest of this entry »
The symptom checker at webmd.com gives the following symptoms for the common cold:
- Pain or discomfort
- Decreased appetite
- Hoarse voice
- Runny nose
- Sore throat
- Nasal congestion
- Body aches or pains
- Decreased smell
Weirdly, I get some slightly odd symptoms not mentioned here. And one that contradicts the final symptom listed by webmd. When I get a cold, my sense of smell (usually pretty terrible) is greatly improved. I haven’t yet found an explanation for my odd symptoms, and nor have I met anyone who has similar symptoms (unless everyone I’ve asked is trolling me). If anything here rings a bell then do please comment. Similarly, if you have a plausible explanation for my odd symptoms I’d be pleased to hear it. Read the rest of this entry »
Dr Robert Verkerk has written an opinion piece for the April 2014 issue of What Doctors Don’t Tell You. Verkerk’s article is essentially a complaint about Big Pharma being involved in selling vitamin pills, and he ends by recommending that people use ‘natural’ forms of supplements not made by Big Pharma as these are never found to be harmful. It’s the synthetic, Big Pharma vitamins that are bad. If there were references in his article to the evidence that backs up his claims, I missed them.
Down the left hand side of the article, Verkerk is described as “the executive and scientific director of the Alliance for Natural Health International, a consumer group that aims to protect our right to natural healthcare and nutrition”. But that’s not all he does. Read the rest of this entry »
The World Health Organisation has published this document: PDF. It’s their traditional medicine strategy for 2014-23. Here’s just one of the things that raised an eyebrow or two: Read the rest of this entry »
Here is an online news story from What Doctors Don’t Tell You… and here [PDF] is their source. I’ve previously written about WDDTY’s reporting of a paper by DeStefano et al. This isn’t quite as bad, but there are a couple of mistakes in what is a very short article. Read the rest of this entry »
Here, Child Health Safety tackles the fascinating topic of measles incidence and mortality. CHS refers to “grossly false claims by the US Centers for Disease Control ['CDC'] – vastly exaggerating the threat measles as a disease poses” and accuses them in the title of lying.
The magazine What Doctors Don’t Tell You has this week issued a bizarre statement in response to a Times article by Tom Whipple. Among other things, they seem to be upset that the article claimed “that we’d told parents in our latest (October 2013) issues not to immunize their children with the MMR”. Read the rest of this entry »
DM Reporter is launching the first annual ‘Don’t Read the Daily Mail’ Day tomorrow.
We are thusly forbade on September 24th from reading, linking, tweeting, updating, posting, critiquing, spoofing, complaining, borrowing, commenting or thinking about the Daily Mail. We’ll keep it out of the line of sight of those who have befriended or followed us. We’ll not start sentences “guess what they wrote today,” and we will not bite when Samantha Brick offers us an apple.
DM Reporter argues that the Daily Mail “doesn’t care if we love it or hate it, it only cares that we read it” – they don’t care who is clicking on a link or why, they only care that people are clicking.
Ignoring the Daily Mail for just one day a year sounds like an easily achievable goal (if you think it’s too easy, perhaps you’d like to pledge to ignore the Mail for a longer period of time) and if there’s a chance it might annoy the Daily Mail even a little bit I think it might be worth a try.
Anybody who would like to irritate the Daily Mail but does not wish to ignore it might like to consider other options. You could carry on as you are and continue to point out their factual inaccuracies or instances of their bigotry or hypocrisy (or point and laugh at them, or whatever it is you do). If you have a legitimate complaint about an article, you might like to try complaining to the paper (who will ignore you) or the PCC (who will likely fob you off). Or you could perhaps try something a bit different – like reverse incentives. Maybe you could find a cause that the Mail would hate, and donate to it every time it was criticised by the Mail? I’m sure there will be plenty of other possibilities that haven’t occurred to me too.