<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who Says Dishonesty Doesn&#8217;t Pay?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rangelmd.com/2010/01/who-says-dishonesty-doesnt-pay/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rangelmd.com/2010/01/who-says-dishonesty-doesnt-pay/</link>
	<description>Because opinions are like sphincters. Everybody has one.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:45:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Who Says Dishonesty Doesn&#39;t Pay? &#124; RangelMD.com &#124; Health News</title>
		<link>http://rangelmd.com/2010/01/who-says-dishonesty-doesnt-pay/comment-page-1/#comment-161</link>
		<dc:creator>Who Says Dishonesty Doesn&#39;t Pay? &#124; RangelMD.com &#124; Health News</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 02:25:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rangelmd.com/?p=165#comment-161</guid>
		<description>[...] original post here: Who Says Dishonesty Doesn&#039;t Pay? &#124; RangelMD.com   Share and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] original post here: Who Says Dishonesty Doesn&#39;t Pay? | RangelMD.com   Share and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liz Ditz</title>
		<link>http://rangelmd.com/2010/01/who-says-dishonesty-doesnt-pay/comment-page-1/#comment-154</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz Ditz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rangelmd.com/?p=165#comment-154</guid>
		<description>Good job on pulling out Wakefield&#039;s scandalous pay.  I believe the total compensation is even higher as his house may have been purchased by TH backers.


One of my blogging habits is to collate pro and con posts on a particular issue.  

One reason to do is that each blog has its own set of commenters and often the comments reveal aspects of the issue previously not considered elsewhere.

Today&#039;s issue is the UK&#039;s General Medical Council&#039;s ruling on Andrew Wakefield.

I&#039;ve included this post in the list.

The list can be found at

&lt;a href=&quot;http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html&lt;/a&gt;

It will be interesting to see the blog responses over the next few days.  Currently the &quot;Andy Wakefield is a hero of science and will be vindicated&quot; posts stand at 15; the &quot;GMC findings are correct.  Good science is eventually self-correcting&quot; posts stand at 54.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good job on pulling out Wakefield&#8217;s scandalous pay.  I believe the total compensation is even higher as his house may have been purchased by TH backers.</p>
<p>One of my blogging habits is to collate pro and con posts on a particular issue.  </p>
<p>One reason to do is that each blog has its own set of commenters and often the comments reveal aspects of the issue previously not considered elsewhere.</p>
<p>Today&#8217;s issue is the UK&#8217;s General Medical Council&#8217;s ruling on Andrew Wakefield.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve included this post in the list.</p>
<p>The list can be found at</p>
<p><a href="http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html" rel="nofollow">http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2010/01/andrew-wakefield-dishonesty-misleading-conduct-and-serious-professional-misconduct.html</a></p>
<p>It will be interesting to see the blog responses over the next few days.  Currently the &#8220;Andy Wakefield is a hero of science and will be vindicated&#8221; posts stand at 15; the &#8220;GMC findings are correct.  Good science is eventually self-correcting&#8221; posts stand at 54.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

