To quote the first post:
My plan for this blog is to critique (and perhaps occasionally praise) the statistical methods used in current research articles. Sort of a post-publication statistical peer-review. Unfortunately, too few journals engage in quality pre-publication statistical review, so there should be no shortage of material. I'm going to be focusing on debunking research that seems implausible, poorly conducted, or just silly, especially research into so-called complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But anything is fair game!
My hope is that this format will provide some really good case studies for introducing or clarifying statistical concepts and methods. So, we'll have some fun, and maybe we'll learn a lesson or two along the way.
An admirable aim. The standard of the discussion seems to be of a level that will keep me reading.