It’s a shame he has gone, he was quite funny and the Daily Mail loved him, keeping all those dodgy types in one place was a good idea.

Who said peer reviewed EBM was anything else but state sponsered marketing anyway, don’t know what all the fuss is about. Do people seriously believe self appointed people like this, that amazes me.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/12/what_dr_stanislaw_burzynski_doesnt_want.php

No, my definition of a quack is someone who lines their pockets by selling scientifically unsupported therapies and who has too much invested in doing so to take the blinkers off and consider the counter-evidence they would prefer didn’t exist.

Merry Christmas yourself.

I guess your definition of quack is: someone who has the audacity to disagree with life as you see it or offer any criticism of the same.

But on a lighter note, Merry Christmas to you and Zeno

And for Tzspence, just as for Stefaan, that is where the examination of the evidence begins and ends. The wealth of conflicting evidence can be ignored.

What a perfect illustration of how quacks think.

Skepticat for instance discussing, amongst other things, ethical film making and although I can just about see her point, it never fails to amaze me how many things she is real expert in?

I also feel that the usual bloggers may be just jumping on the bandwagon in support of their circle of friends. This of course makes it look once again, like quite an orchestrated piece of work against any who may disagree with what and how they write.