badscience.net Report : Visit Site

Technical data of the badscience.net

Geo IP provides you such as latitude, longitude and ISP (Internet Service Provider) etc. informations. Our GeoIP service found where is host badscience.net. Currently, hosted in United Kingdom and its service provider is The Positive Internet Company Ltd .

the related websites

animalaid.org.uk clinpsy.org.uk amazon.co.uk forums.moneysavingexpert.com usvsth3m.com phc.ox.ac.uk medicinesresources.nhs.uk venusproject.org textiletown.co.uk thedoorknockercompany.co.uk demarvan.co.uk blissflowers.co.uk cashregistergroup.co.uk mhvideos.co.uk westminster.ac.uk dailymail.co.uk ikea.com 

HTTP Header Analysis

HTTP Header information is a part of HTTP protocol that a user's browser sends to called Apache containing the details of what the browser wants and will accept back from the web server.

DNS

HtmlToText

search ted talk collected journalism this nerdy book this great book t-shirts categories abpi (3) academic pr (4) academic publishing (6) adverts (45) africa (28) aids (6) alltrials campaign (16) alternative medicine (190) acupuncture (5) herbal remedies (20) homeopathy (52) nutritionists (88) anecdotes (2) annual roundup (1) aric sigman (2) authority (1) (677) badpharma (4) badscience (14) bant (2) big pharma (37) blue monday (4) book (9) book reviews (3) brain gym (11) brainiac (6) bullying (3) cash-for-"stories" (16) celebs (13) childishness (1) chocolate (6) churnalism (8) climate change (6) competing interests (6) conflict of interest (3) cosmetics (13) craig sams (2) crime (2) dangers (27) danie krugel (1) data (2) death (6) denialism (1) detox (7) dna (8) dodgy academic press releases (3) doing nothing (1) dore (4) drurrrgs (12) duplicate publication (1) economics (3) electrosensitivity (20) epidemiology (2) equazen (13) eshlsg (1) evidence (20) evidence based policy (15) evolutionary psychology (4) express (1) fish oil (20) fraud (1) fuel pr (1) geek (1) genetic nonsense (1) ghostwriters (3) gillian mckeith (25) global radio (2) gm (2) government reports (4) great popularisers of science (2) guest writers (1) hate mail (9) heroes (6) heroes of (6) hi-fi (2) hiding data (4) history of quackery (2) id (1) interviews (1) ions (5) irrationality research (14) ityfiabmctt (1) jeni barnett (3) jonathan leake (1) journal club (14) just a blog (2) laws (2) lbc (3) legal chill (15) letters (18) libel (14) lucy johnston (2) lucy johnston express (3) magnets (20) manufacturing doubt (1) matthias rath (9) media (162) bbc (35) channel 4 (11) channel five (4) evening standard (4) express (20) guardian (3) independent (21) itv (6) mail (45) mirror (15) news of the world (1) sun (6) telegraph (30) times (36) media research (2) medicalisation (14) methods (3) miniblog (1) miracles (2) mmr (44) models (1) mondo academico (3) mrsa (6) nanniebots (3) neuro nonsense (2) neurostuff (3) new scientist (4) not (9) numerical context (11) onanism (60) open methods (1) organic (1) oxygen (9) patents (2) patrick holford (14) penises (6) perpetual motion (4) phds, doctors, and qualifications (34) phone stalking (4) placebo (22) podcast (18) politics (31) postmodernist bollocks (6) powerwatch – alasdair philips (9) pr guff (5) predictions (1) presenting numbers (3) procrastination (1) pseudodiagnoses (1) psychic nonsense (1) psychology of woo (2) publication bias (22) qlink (1) quantum physics (12) rape (1) references (59) regulating media (2) regulating nonsense (6) regulating research (34) religion (26) retractions (1) revenge (1) risk (1) roger coghill (2) roland kapferer (2) roundup (1) scare stories (52) schools (7) science comms (2) scienciness (1) screening (2) secret data (3) show your working (1) small blogs (1) smears (1) space (4) spin (2) statistics (82) stephen whitehead (1) stifling criticism (10) structured data (6) subgroup analysis (3) suicide (2) surveillance (1) survey data (5) susan greenfield (1) systematic reviews (10) tamiflu (1) teaching resources (2) tobacco (1) toys (1) trial registers (6) uncertainty (4) utter nonsense (3) vaccines (2) very basic science (52) video (3) water (18) weight loss (10) whistleblowers (1) evidence to house of commons sci tech select committee on research integrity december 5th, 2017 by ben goldacre in alltrials campaign , publication bias | no comments » sorry not to be in regular blogging mode at the moment. here’s a video of our evidence session to parliament, where they are running an inquiry into research integrity. i think clinical trials are the best possible way to approach this issue. lots of things in “research integrity” are hard to capture in hard logical rules, so you end up with waffly “concordats” and rules that are applied inconsistently. with clinical trials you can make clear rules, you can measure compliance, and you can enforce compliance. there is lots of chat about this in the video below from 17:37 with me, simon read the rest of this entry » how do the world’s biggest drug companies compare, in their transparency commitments? july 27th, 2017 by ben goldacre in | no comments » here’s a paper , and associated website , that we launch today: we have assessed, and then ranked, all the biggest drug companies in the world, to compare their public commitments on trials transparency. regular readers will be familiar with this ongoing battle . in medicine we use the results of clinical trials to make informed treatments about which treatments work best; but the results of clinical trials are being routinely and legally withheld from doctors, researchers, and patients. this is a problem for industry sponsored trials, and for trials funded by governments and charities. so what did we find ? the results on the individual companies are important, but we also came across some fascinating patterns. while companies superficially have commitments to register and report clinical trials, in reality, there are often huge gaps in their policies, with many failing to include past trials (trials on the medicines we use today) and trials on off-label uses or unlicensed medicines, which are both important. we also found a huge range of commitments, which is exactly what audits are good for: identify who’s doing well, and who’s doing badly, so that everyone can learn from the best players. lastly, as we went along we collected some fascinating examples of problematic policies, ambiguous language, inconsistent commitments, odd exclusions, and so on. overall this audit was a huge project, and we hope it will be widely used. you can see which companies are the best, and the worst. if you’re a researcher trying to get information on a trial from a company, you can use this to determine whether a company are breaching their commitments. if you’re an ethical investor (at the alltrials campaign we have a network of dozens, covering €3.5t trillion of investments) you can use this to guide your activist investment choices. the full methods and results can be read, for free, in the paper . but we’ve also built a nice interactive website with mysociety (coming soon) to make the data more accessible. we think this is an important aspect of communicating results and making them useful, and used, and we’re keen for feedback on the site. coming next, we have ranked the policies of non-industry trial funders, and that paper will land shortly. we also have some great new and improved projects launching soon where we track the performance of institutions, rather than their promises: the proportion of their completed trials for which they have shared results. meanwhile, you can read more about the battle for unreported clinical trials at alltrials.net . onward! meaningful transparency commitments: the who joint statement from trial funders july 26th, 2017 by ben goldacre in , publication bias | no comments » by now i hope you all know about the ongoing global scandal of clinical trial results being left unpublished, and of course our alltrials campaign . doctors, researchers, and patients cannot make truly informed choices about which treatments work best if they don’t have access to all the trial results. earlier this year, i helped out with a world health organisation project to get non-industry clinical trial funders signed up to making better policies on transparency. this bmj editorial (sorry, i’m late posting it, published last month!) describes the new commitments, and why this commitment is more convincing than previous vaguer statements. read the rest of this entry » how many epidemiologists does it take to change a lightbulb? february 1st, 2017 by ben goldacre in | no comments » robin ince just asked if i know any epidemiologist lightbulb jokes. i wrote this for him. how many epidemiologists does it take to change a lightbulb? we’ve found 12,000 switches hidden around the house. some of them turn this lightbulb on, some of them don’t; some of them only work sometimes; and some of them work sometimes, but twenty years after you flick them. some of the switches only work, sometimes, twenty years later, if one of the other switches is flicked too (and at the right time). in any case the wiring’s rusty, everything’s completely different in the house next door, and by the way there are lots of people selling spare bulbs who tell lies about houses, switches, and fingers. we can change the lightbulb, but i’m not sure that’ll stop you dying from cancer in this metaphor. “transparency, beyond publication bias”. a video of my super-speedy talk at ije. october 11th, 2016 by ben goldacre in | no comments » people often talk about “trials transparency” as if this means “all trials must be published in an academic journal”. in reality, true transparency goes much further than this. we need clinical study reports , and individual patient data, of course. but we also need the consent forms , so we can see what patients were told. we need the analytic code , so we can see exactly how the data were analysed. we need access to post-publication peer review , so we can see what design flaws others have identified. and we don’t just need these things to be publicly available, in some form or another: we ideally need them to be available as open data , freely shareable and re-usable, which is a very different kettle of ballpark. and then, of course, we need this data to be used, which means we need to think about building tools that make it useful . finally, we can’t just whine about the world not being as we would wish it to be, or write academic papers describing the problem: we need a practical theory of change, and a set of clear strategies that will deliver greater transparency. this is my talk at the international journal of epidemiology conference , 2016. it takes 29 minutes of your life, at speed: i hope you find it useful. you should totally watch this entire day of the ije conference october 7th, 2016 by ben goldacre in | no comments » today marks the end of an era. the international journal of epidemiology used to be a typical hotchpotch of isolated papers on worthy subjects. occasionally, some were interesting, or related to your field. under shah ebrahim and george davey-smith it became like nothing else: an epidemiology journal you’d happily subscribe to with your own money, and read in the bath. read the rest of this entry » an audio interview with the conversation, on smashing the walls of the ivory tower october 3rd, 2016 by ben goldacre in | no comments » the conversation is a great media outlet, because it’s run by academic nerds, but made for everyone. i had a nice time chatting with them last week: we discussed transparency, data sharing, statins, research integrity, risk communication, culture shift, academic activism, and why we should kick through the walls of the ivory tower. caution: contains nerds! theconversation.com/speaking-with-bad-pharma-author-ben-goldacre-about-how-bad-research-hurts-us-all-65800 sarepta, eteplirsen: anecdote, data, surrogate outcomes, and the fda september 30th, 2016 by ben goldacre in | 5 comments » the duchenne’s treatment made by sarepta (eteplirsen) has been in the news this week, as a troubling example of the fda lowering its bar for approval of new medicines. the fda expert advisory panel decided not to approve this treatment, because the evidence for any benefit is weak; but there was extensive lobbying from well-organised patients and, eventually, the fda overturned the opinion of its own panel. there have been calls for paper retractions , and so on. this is not the first time we’ve seen peculiar activity around the treatment. read the rest of this entry » the cancer drugs fund is producing dangerous, bad data: randomise everyone, everywhere! september 28th, 2016 by ben goldacre in | 6 comments » there are recurring howls in my work. one of them is this: in general, if you don’t know which intervention works best, then you should randomise everyone, everywhere. this is for good reason: uncertainty costs lives, through sub-optimal treatment. wherever randomised trials are the right approach, you should embed them in routine clinical care. this is an argument i’ve made, with colleagues, in endless different places. new diabetes drugs are approved with woeful data, small numbers of patients in trials that only measure blood tests, rather than real-world outcomes such as heart attack, renal failure, or death: so let’s roll out new diabetes treatments in the nhs through randomised trials. we rely on observational studies to establish whether tamiflu reduces complications of pneumonia: that’s silly, we can do trials , and we should. statin treatment regimes in widespread use have never been compared head-to-head , using real-world outcomes such as heart attack, stroke, and death: so let’s embed randomised trials as cheaply as possible in routine clinical care (we’ve done two pilots , to document the barriers). this week a dozen colleagues and i published yet another application of this basic, simple principle, as an editorial in the bmj . the cancer drugs fund is being marketed as a way to generate new knowledge: but in reality, the data that will be collected is weak, read the rest of this entry » taking transparency beyond results: ethics committees must work in the open september 23rd, 2016 by ben goldacre in | 2 comments » here’s a useful paper we’ve just published in the bmj, documenting problems in transparency around approval processes for randomised trials. there’s a basic rule in clinical research: you’re only supposed to do a trial comparing two treatments when you really don’t know which one is best, otherwise you’d be knowingly randomising half your participants to an inferior treatment. despite this, it’s already known that trials are sometimes conducted where one group get a substandard treatment. we wanted to find out how ethics committees come to approve such trials. read the rest of this entry » « older entries stuff about dr ben goldacre … and upcoming public talks … book me to speak books … bad pharma … what you can find here … audio and video … the shop i love them archives december 2017 july 2017 february 2017 october 2016 september 2016 march 2016 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 april 2015 february 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 july 2014 june 2014 march 2014 january 2014 december 2013 october 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 october 2012 september 2012 june 2012 april 2012 march 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 september 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 april 2011 march 2011 february 2011 january 2011 december 2010 november 2010 october 2010 september 2010 august 2010 july 2010 june 2010 may 2010 april 2010 march 2010 february 2010 january 2010 december 2009 november 2009 october 2009 september 2009 august 2009 july 2009 june 2009 may 2009 april 2009 march 2009 february 2009 january 2009 december 2008 november 2008 october 2008 september 2008 august 2008 july 2008 june 2008 may 2008 april 2008 march 2008 february 2008 january 2008 december 2007 november 2007 october 2007 september 2007 august 2007 july 2007 june 2007 may 2007 april 2007 march 2007 february 2007 january 2007 december 2006 november 2006 october 2006 september 2006 august 2006 july 2006 june 2006 may 2006 april 2006 march 2006 february 2006 january 2006 december 2005 november 2005 october 2005 september 2005 august 2005 july 2005 june 2005 may 2005 april 2005 march 2005 february 2005 january 2005 december 2004 november 2004 october 2004 september 2004 august 2004 july 2004 june 2004 may 2004 april 2004 march 2004 february 2004 january 2004 december 2003 november 2003 october 2003 september 2003 august 2003 july 2003 june 2003 may 2003 april 2003 february 2003 july 2002 january 2000 january 1007 meta register log in rss comments rss valid xhtml xfn

URL analysis for badscience.net

https://www.badscience.net/2005/06/
https://www.badscience.net/2014/03/
https://www.badscience.net/category/media/itv/
https://www.badscience.net/2017/12/evidence-to-house-of-commons-sci-tech-select-committee-on-research-integrity/
https://www.badscience.net/2005/02/
https://www.badscience.net/category/hi-fi/
https://www.badscience.net/category/teaching-resources/
https://www.badscience.net/category/subgroup-analysis/
https://www.badscience.net/category/badpharma/
https://www.badscience.net/category/africa/
https://www.badscience.net/2005/05/
https://www.badscience.net/2012/04/
https://www.badscience.net/category/screening/
https://www.badscience.net/category/anecdotes/
https://www.badscience.net/2010/12/
amazon.co.uk
journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk

Whois Information

Whois is a protocol that is access to registering information. You can reach when the website was registered, when it will be expire, what is contact details of the site with the following informations. In a nutshell, it includes these informations;

Domain Name: BADSCIENCE.NET
Registry Domain ID: 94870491_DOMAIN_NET-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.directnic.com
Registrar URL: http://www.directnic.com
Updated Date: 2016-12-28T07:09:39Z
Creation Date: 2003-02-11T22:22:49Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-02-11T22:22:49Z
Registrar: DNC Holdings, Inc.
Registrar IANA ID: 291
Registrar Abuse Contact Email:
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone:
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited
Name Server: NS1.POWWEB.COM
Name Server: NS2.POWWEB.COM
Name Server: NS3.POWWEB.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: https://www.icann.org/wicf/
>>> Last update of whois database: 2017-08-04T13:42:17Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.

TERMS OF USE: You are not authorized to access or query our Whois
database through the use of electronic processes that are high-volume and
automated except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or
modify existing registrations; the Data in VeriSign Global Registry
Services' ("VeriSign") Whois database is provided by VeriSign for
information purposes only, and to assist persons in obtaining information
about or related to a domain name registration record. VeriSign does not
guarantee its accuracy. By submitting a Whois query, you agree to abide
by the following terms of use: You agree that you may use this Data only
for lawful purposes and that under no circumstances will you use this Data
to: (1) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission of mass
unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations via e-mail, telephone,
or facsimile; or (2) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes
that apply to VeriSign (or its computer systems). The compilation,
repackaging, dissemination or other use of this Data is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of VeriSign. You agree not to
use electronic processes that are automated and high-volume to access or
query the Whois database except as reasonably necessary to register
domain names or modify existing registrations. VeriSign reserves the right
to restrict your access to the Whois database in its sole discretion to ensure
operational stability. VeriSign may restrict or terminate your access to the
Whois database for failure to abide by these terms of use. VeriSign
reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

The Registry database contains ONLY .COM, .NET, .EDU domains and
Registrars.

  REGISTRAR DNC Holdings, Inc.

SERVERS

  SERVER net.whois-servers.net

  ARGS domain =badscience.net

  PORT 43

  TYPE domain

DOMAIN

  NAME badscience.net

  CHANGED 2016-12-28

  CREATED 2003-02-11

STATUS
clientDeleteProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited
clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited

NSERVER

  NS1.POWWEB.COM 65.254.254.135

  NS2.POWWEB.COM 65.254.254.134

  NS3.POWWEB.COM 65.254.254.135

  REGISTERED yes

Mistakes

The following list shows you to spelling mistakes possible of the internet users for the website searched .