WDDTY editor Lynne McTaggart makes the claim that “a few people” want the magazine “banned”.
The banning claim is manifestly false – we want it to stop printing false, misleading, anti-science, anti-medicine disinformation, and in the mean time we think that unsuspecting people should not be offered it by trusted retailers who falsely categorise it (in its current state) as a “health” magazine.
The “few people” bit. It seems to me as if every skeptic on the planet wants WDDTY off the supermarket shelves until it changes its current utterly credulous approach to quackery and its attendant offensive conspiracy rhetoric.
I’d like to hear from you if you are in favour of WDDTY being removed from sale in mainstream shops until it cleans up its act. Feel free to email or comment here; a name is good or the Twitter handle or blog name you usually use.
The scientific definition of few is elastic – sometimes stated to be an integer less than five, but not always. Given that Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have withdrawn WDDTY in response to customer pressure, it seems likely that it’s more than “a few”.
Let’s see if we can’t put some science behind it. And in the process prove that once again TatMaggot got her figures by proctomancy.
Some of the people already known to have called for this include Times journalist Tom Whipple (@whippletom), science writer and Sense About Science director Simon Singh (@SLSingh), science communicator Dr. Matthew Lam (@DrMatthewL), neuroscientist and Guardian columnist Dean Burnett (@Garwboy), Andy Lewis of the Quackometer blog (@LeCanardNoir), director of the Nightingale Collaboration Alan Henness (@Zeno001).
There have also been critical comments from media doctor Christian Jessen (@DoctorChristian), Dr. Margaret McCartney, author of The Patient Paradox (@MgtMcCartney)