<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Counting the Cost</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tomchappell.com/blog/2007/03/counting-the-cost.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tomchappell.com/blog/2007/03/counting-the-cost.html</link>
	<description>Yet Another Media Spotlight</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Ravenscroft</title>
		<link>http://tomchappell.com/blog/2007/03/counting-the-cost.html#comment-182</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Ravenscroft</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Apr 2007 09:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tomchappell.com/blog/2007/03/counting-the-cost.html#comment-182</guid>
		<description>Don't these people have any notion of the Lancet's reputation for rigorous scientific methodology?
After a couple decades, the only time I remember the Lancet actually publishing something inaccurate was in the '80s when the "water memory" hoax was all the rage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t these people have any notion of the Lancet&#8217;s reputation for rigorous scientific methodology?<br />
After a couple decades, the only time I remember the Lancet actually publishing something inaccurate was in the &#8217;80s when the &#8220;water memory&#8221; hoax was all the rage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

