Comments on: The Telegraph: The End of More Illusions

By: Maggie

Maggie — Sat, 17 Apr 2010 08:40:07 +0000

I suggest that you read the Protein Power books by the Drs Michael and Mary Dan Eades, and Dr Michael Eades’ blog http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/ before dismissing Barry Groves’ way of eating as a fad diet.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 11:48:43 +0000

I do like the way that you complain about us ‘attacking the messenger’ and then sign off with “Smug pommy prats”. I’m no Popperian, but I didn’t think that the way the Telegraph reported Groves’ ‘doctorate’ was helpful. Some of Popper’s debates with e.g. Wittgenstein reportedly got fairly heated, but I don’t think that discussions ever deteriorated to the ‘pommy prat’ level.

By: peterlepaysan

peterlepaysan — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:03:02 +0000

Comparing Groves to Holford? C’mon, r u havng a bad hair day.

If you people were as “scientific” as you pretend you might have checked out Groves’ citations and and conclusions.

You did not. You are are as shonky as Holford.

Groves is controversial. Are his arguments faulty or hopelessly flawed?

I do not think so.

Attacking the messenger and not the message suggest a very biased (and hence insecure) listener.

Time you grew up, ate some humble pie, looked in the mirror and followed Poppers philosophy (like real scientists).

Otherwise you have as much credibility as Holford.

Smug pommy prats.

By: The Telegraph runs uncritical articles discussing homoeopathy and unconventional theories about climate change « Evidence Matters

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:15:51 +0000

[...] has previously written about problematic material in the Telegraph. If we cannot trust the Telegraph’s science and [...]

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:45:44 +0000

Having read Barry Grove’s book – Trick and Treat, and actually checked a few of the references he quotes (and he quotes pages of references), I think you do him a disservice. Much of his point of view is the same as Holfordwatch and Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science. I think all three of you offer valuable information.

The Telegraph article may have given a wrong impression, but his book makes real sense, and the references do check out.

Maybe you should investigate further?

By: Barry Groves’ Second Opinions website loses honcode accreditation « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:39:58 +0000

[...] 20, 2009 · No Comments Following the Telegraph and Victoria Lambert’s credulous coverage of the ‘nutritionist’ Barry Groves’ beliefs about diet, a complaint was submitted to the Health on the Net Foundation – who had certified Groves’ [...]

By: dvnutrix

dvnutrix — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:06:52 +0000

Barry Groves might be interesting because his Second Opinion website is well-regarded in some communities as people do place some store by the "studied nutrition since the 1960s" shtick and the doctorate. There are no penalties associated with carrying these dodgy adverts so, in many ways, no harm no foul for the Telegraph although they have now lost money in having to deal with the ASA over this.

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:53:13 +0000

I’m rapidly losing faith in newspapers – I no longer read anything to do with science and medicine (except in order to blog about how bad it is) and I’m increasingly turning to the internet for general news and political comment – the election campaign, for example, was best followed online, newspapers just couldn’t keep up.

I suspect that in about a year or two I’ll stop reading print newspapers. I give them 10 years or so before they become unviable and it all goes online.

By: jonhw

jonhw — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:16:43 +0000

Hm – maybe I’ve taken too long to become disillusioned…

By: jdc

jdc — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:05:32 +0000

“I used to be under the impression that – if something was in the Telegraph – it had been subjected to a reasonable amount of scrutiny.”
I’m not sure what the Telegraph used to be like but in recent times (at least since I’ve been taking more of an interest in teh national media) there does seem to have been some shocking rubbish published in their pages. The Independent is another paper that has sadly gone downhill – possibly more so than any other broadsheet – and is now basically a conspiracy theory rag as far as I’m concerned. And the Observer is not what it used to be – the 1 in 58 story from “Scoop” Campbell, the witterings of Spencer the astrologist being published on a weekly basis *grumble, grumble*. Maybe it’s just a sign that I’m getting older and grumpier rather than any real downward trend in broadsheet quality. I’d like to think so.