A few people?

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 Given that Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have withdrawn WDDTY in response to customer pressure, it seems likely that it’s more than “a few”.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)

6 thoughts on “A few people?”

  1. Hi,

    Am happy to say I am one of the ‘few people’ who would like to see this crackpot publication removed.
    I’m not affiliated with any of the ‘groups’ McTaggart feels are targeting them for no reason other than self promotion.

    Just wondering if there is a petition set up anywhere for people to sign ?

    All the best.


  2. Until they get better at putting research information in its proper context I’d like to see the publication return to its subscription-only system rather than being widely available in supermarkets and in some cases promoted. I’m linked with the groups mentioned only in the sense that I follow some of the people involved on Twitter and have signed up to various e-newsletters.

    While working at Diabetes UK (2003-2012) I came across several examples of misleading adverts about diabetes and reported them (as me, not in my capacity as an employee) to the Advertising Standards Authority, so I’ve been doing this for quite a while, before I knew about other groups doing it. I’d carry on doing it even if no-one else was.

    I’d like to see WDDTY be what it says it is, which is a medical ‘watchdog’. There’s a lot it could do that’s useful in supporting improvements in health and in the NHS, not to mention supporting the All Trials campaign to chivy Big Pharma into sharing all of its information, not just the good bits. Piddling about with guff like satsumas being the cure for piles (I’m joking but they are a bit ‘Fruit X solves medical condition Y’) seems like a waste of everyone’s time.

  3. This piece of trash needs to be off the shelves until it truly is ‘balanced’ – it hides behind objectivity – a see through and weak distraction from the alarmist, alt med and downright dangerous that the mag truly is.

Leave a Reply