<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good Science, Bad Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/</link>
	<description>www.gonepublic.wordpress.com</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:30:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: www.topbloodpressureadvice.info &#187; Good Science, Bad Science</title>
		<link>http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/#comment-807</link>
		<dc:creator>www.topbloodpressureadvice.info &#187; Good Science, Bad Science</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:09:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/#comment-807</guid>
		<description>[...] Noelle McAfee created an interesting post today on Good Science, Bad Science.Here&#8217;s a short outline:Taubes makes a compelling case that all we’ve heard has been the result of a bandwagon or (see John Tierney’s terrific article) a cascade effect: one researcher comes up with a theory that fat is linked to heart disease, a theory poorly &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Noelle McAfee created an interesting post today on Good Science, Bad Science.Here&#8217;s a short outline:Taubes makes a compelling case that all we’ve heard has been the result of a bandwagon or (see John Tierney’s terrific article) a cascade effect: one researcher comes up with a theory that fat is linked to heart disease, a theory poorly &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: www.topcholesteroladvice.info &#187; Good Science, Bad Science</title>
		<link>http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/#comment-806</link>
		<dc:creator>www.topcholesteroladvice.info &#187; Good Science, Bad Science</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gonepublic.wordpress.com/2007/10/28/good-science-bad-science/#comment-806</guid>
		<description>[...] Noelle McAfee added an interesting post on Good Science, Bad Science.Here&#8217;s a small excerpt:Taubes makes a compelling case that all we’ve heard has been the result of a bandwagon or (see John Tierney’s terrific article) a cascade effect: one researcher comes up with a theory that fat is linked to heart disease, a theory poorly &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Noelle McAfee added an interesting post on Good Science, Bad Science.Here&#8217;s a small excerpt:Taubes makes a compelling case that all we’ve heard has been the result of a bandwagon or (see John Tierney’s terrific article) a cascade effect: one researcher comes up with a theory that fat is linked to heart disease, a theory poorly &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
