Ben Goldacre

Bad Science

Our health is a very important matter to us, so we naturally tend to take notice when we hear of possible breakthroughs in medicine, or new dangers to our well being. But how much weight should be give to such reports. If you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre then you will learn to be very wary about believing what you hear.

The media is the number one problem. Eager to come up with a story, they will be very selective in what they choose to report. Goldacre sees the link between MMR and autism as essentially a media hoax, for which there was never any substantial evidence. He also investigates more closely some of the 'experts' produced by the media, and finds that often their academic qualifications are not what they seem. Conventional medicine might seem to blind you with science, and to be influenced too much by big pharma, but this book shows that alternative medicine is also fond of 'sciencey' language (usually without any substance behind it) and is also often surprisingly profitable.

There's a worry, though, that if you try hard enough then it's possible to debunk anything. Goldacre seems to dismiss a 35% increase in cocaine use in schools much too easily. Mostly, though, the book does it's job very well, teaching you how to spot the media's misinformation in a readable and entertaining way.

Amazon.com info

Paperback 352 pages
ISBN: 0007240198
Salesrank: 438645
Weight:1.01 lbs

Published: 2008 Fourth Estate

Marketplace::Used from $10.98

Buy from Amazon.com

Amazon.co.uk info

Paperback 288 pages
ISBN: 000728487X
Salesrank: 116
Weight:0.66 lbs

Published: 2009 Harper Perennial

Amazon price £3.55

Marketplace:New from £2.94:Used from £2.00

Buy from Amazon.co.uk

Product Description
Guardian columnist Dr Ben Goldacre takes us on a hilarious, invigorating and informative journey through the bad science we're fed by the worst of the hacks and the quacks!

Product Description

Guardian columnist Dr Ben Goldacre takes us on a hilarious, invigorating and informative journey through the bad science we're fed by the worst of the hacks and the quacks!

Good try but weakly written **
As a scientist, the premise of this book is totally valid. Without a doubt there are many examples of bad science. This book validly picks up on some of these example, notably in the health area due to that being the area of speciality by the author. For myself, the book only raised a few new issues most having been known from other books. However, despite the books' validity on this topic, it was not a great read. Firstly, the writing was poor (the author is clearly a doctor and one wonders if the manuscript was typed from his doctors handwriting). Sentences were often too long, with poor conjunction, poor use of puncuation and repetation in places. (It seemed the book was prepared as separate chapters in times). It was a hard read in places just to read back to check what was being said. The author had definate positions (bias'?) in the book and ones wonders how this impacted on his examples he chose - despite this being one aspect he was critical of in the use of bad science. Clearly the author had more than a passing interest in sex (as do most people, me included). However, whether he used this to introduce some humor, I am not sure as it felt more 'seedy' than anything as it didn't, generally, relate to the topic when used. Furthermore, it feel like the author was being holier-than-thou in places, not just a crusade rather a righteouness of being right. There was not a lot of humility shown by the author and one wonders how far this separates him from the people he savagly critiques. Secondly, the biggest criticism is that his main focus is on four individuals. While the examples were valid, I was curious that the book effectively skips over the gross lack of science skills within large drug companies and other corporates. To me the author seemed to pick on the easy targets rather than try to bring attention to the larger corporations. In this, by the end of the book, I felt the author was being a 'bully', using selective examples. There are some big issues with corporate bad science that needed to be presented as equally, if not more, than these four people were. When corporates - and the media - were critiqued, it was very shallow and weak as they were presented as a group rather than specific entities. Finally, it was notable that little focus was applied to the internal failings of the science community iself. It is not without cause to consider that the authors feels science is somewhat near perfection (i.e. science has all the answers). In reality, many sciencists are myopic, selfish and self-serving, just wanting to publish articles rather than to ensure the broader integrity of science. The peer journal power structures reinforces this failure that the book did not adequately address, except in passing. Overall 2 stars, with a margin or error of +- half a star (at a 95% condfidence level).

Good try but weakly written **

As a scientist, the premise of this book is totally valid. Without a doubt there are many examples of bad science. This book validly picks up on some of these example, notably in the health area due to that being the area of speciality by the author. For myself, the book only raised a few new issues most having been known from other books.

However, despite the books' validity on this topic, it was not a great read. Firstly, the writing was poor (the author is clearly a doctor and one wonders if the manuscript was typed from his doctors handwriting). Sentences were often too long, with poor conjunction, poor use of puncuation and repetation in places. (It seemed the book was prepared as separate chapters in times). It was a hard read in places just to read back to check what was being said.

The author had definate positions (bias'?) in the book and ones wonders how this impacted on his examples he chose - despite this being one aspect he was critical of in the use of bad science.

Clearly the author had more than a passing interest in sex (as do most people, me included). However, whether he used this to introduce some humor, I am not sure as it felt more 'seedy' than anything as it didn't, generally, relate to the topic when used. Furthermore, it feel like the author was being holier-than-thou in places, not just a crusade rather a righteouness of being right. There was not a lot of humility shown by the author and one wonders how far this separates him from the people he savagly critiques.

Secondly, the biggest criticism is that his main focus is on four individuals. While the examples were valid, I was curious that the book effectively skips over the gross lack of science skills within large drug companies and other corporates. To me the author seemed to pick on the easy targets rather than try to bring attention to the larger corporations. In this, by the end of the book, I felt the author was being a 'bully', using selective examples. There are some big issues with corporate bad science that needed to be presented as equally, if not more, than these four people were. When corporates - and the media - were critiqued, it was very shallow and weak as they were presented as a group rather than specific entities.

Finally, it was notable that little focus was applied to the internal failings of the science community iself. It is not without cause to consider that the authors feels science is somewhat near perfection (i.e. science has all the answers). In reality, many sciencists are myopic, selfish and self-serving, just wanting to publish articles rather than to ensure the broader integrity of science. The peer journal power structures reinforces this failure that the book did not adequately address, except in passing.

Overall 2 stars, with a margin or error of +- half a star (at a 95% condfidence level).

This Little Red Book Went To the Market....... *
So now we've got Quack Journalism. Very few religious institutions to my knowledge on this planet at present have liked the idea of human beings travelling to the stars and rediscovering their cosmic origins and their connections to their multidimensional selves because that'd mean the end of the State as we know it today. This holds particularly true for flat - earth mumbo jumbo , quack journalism and 'punk science'in general- litterary materialist theory as opposed to figurative interpretation. The fraud known as Bad Science is the latest failed attempt by the United States federal government to convince people of the importance of the continuance of the State. That is why this book and the book Voodoo History collapsed. Voodoo history was an attempt to portray human history from the United States federal governments'perspective , so let us get ourselves a little bit enlightened here. What does that mean? That entails basically that this author is no Fyodor Dostovetsky , no friend of the people. Authors that are friends of the people were hated in the 2000's because they were realistic. Artists who protested against mountaintop removal were hated because they were loyal to the communities they represented and because there were no community councils where people could report persons who had misbehaved to the local community. Independent authors were hated also and if you didn't have a BA honours degree from the Open College of the Arts it didn't matter if Leonardo Da Vinci didn't have one - you were still not an artist because the State didn't like you. Now it is the last days of the State and what does the State do during it's last days? It throws everything at those trying to expose it's flaws so that it won't have to face those flaws. It looks something like this - if you blow your feet off and blame it on Al Quaeda ,everyone believes you because you claim to be the United States federal government. But if you try to make money out of thin air and charge interests on it , you are told you can't do it , even though people have been calling it bussiness for centuries. Even though materialism and greed go hand in hand alongside capitalism , people have still not learnt anything from the banking collapse of Iceland or the present collapse of the New World Order. Instead , they learn from physical violence because war is a tool of biology and in a war , counterreaction is the best method available to defeat your enemy. When the enemy handles you over the information , you do not believe it if they told you they were your enemy in the first place , would you? No. This book is quack and so is it's author who's only trying to sell more quack to people the author thinks are guillable enough to take the quack seriously. For authors such as this care far more about fame and publicity than the truth , because for them , the truth is bad for bussiness. In fact , in a capitalist society the truth is bad for bussiness because fully informed people do not buy products from liars , particularly not quack journalists. We were taught a lot about such people as quack journalists during my high school psychology studies , and yet I permitted myself to be victimized by one individual claiming to be an Ashtar Commander who still claims so even today. I can unfortunately for the author's demand for being taken seriously not see any difference between that person's state , and that presumed 'Ashtar Commander's'obvious mental state. These stupid , dumbass fat flat earthers are all the same. They ate aspartame and they want others to eat it too. They didn't go to gymnastics and so they cover that up and tell everybody on their blog sites how thin they are and if anybody questions them they yell 'I'll call Uncle Sam'. If asked 'who believes you'? They take you to court and in some cases the court actually symphatizes with them. These people want us to believe , excuse me , that there is no such thing as energy when there are energy bills everywhere and when we have whole research fields known by such titles as classical mechanics and so on and which used to be known as physics in the 20th century. Just because your brain doesn't look exactly like mine will not convince me that you're crazy. That's why I find books like this to be basically worthless. I also find it sorry that there are no stricht laws which prevent the publications of nonsense that's designed to promote attacks against homeopaths and alternative healers. I knew a homeopath who failed to cure me. I took that as meaning that I had to go someplace else for a cure and I got my cure. Sometimes science doesn't make right decisions either. That is why I am not 'scientific' - from this author's 'scientific'perspective but rather common - sense oriented. I am all for alternative healing and I also support medicinal healing as well such as when people go to a doctor to have a broken leg. So what is to be told to the brave 14 year old boy who rescues a soldier during WWII and who doesn't give a damn whose side the soldier is on? Well the soldier is sick so the kid goes to a medicinal handbook to search for advise. Now what if the soldier would be rude and thank the kid by calling him a quack because he doesn't have a BA honours degree in bussiness or medicine? During war , your medical skills aren't questioned if you're proven to be worth of a medicinal expert on some medicinal issue. But after the war or before is a different story. This author knows that. One thing I have also observed about quack journalists and guys like Tony Blair is that they tend to gather around a circle of 20 to 35 or something people , usually 23 or 33 , who will be their 'confirmed witnesses'so that their lies can be continuously passed off as 'confirmed truth'. 'Because that alternative healer's method turned out not to work on that particular patients , I don't have to pay my energy bills'. Well good news Bill , don't do it then. What the bloody heck does alternative healing have got something to do with paying your energy bill? Absolutely nothing! So why are 'Bad scientists'trying to tell us or ask us to believe otherwise? The author of the book Messages was one of the biggest skeptics in his neighbourhood until he realized he had been an experiencer all his life - a communicator between the world of his cosmic family and the people he used to spend time with. But even that did not turn out to be enough to convince Bill that there is a connection between homeopathy and energy bills. Only a smack in the face and several punches into his body that will keep him on the hospital waiting for two whole weeks , unable to make a single move most of the time will do. Or something less dramatic. If these people come to you to haunt you because you're a homeopath whose treatment appears to have failed to cure that patient or this rabbit or this dog , don't run for the hills but FIGHT BACK! So I guess that must be the end of Ben Goldacre. One of them litterally sent me a message on [...] , asking me to believe that Satan was trying to tell me that the Earth is round and not flat! So I told the person that I thanked Satan for letting me know. It would have been far wiser for this funny gentleman mister Ben Goldacre to publish a Kindle book because that would have meant less waste of money and maybe portray himself as a clown on it's front cover. When guys like that talk to me they basically tell the same story - something which has been lied to them and which they decided to swallow hook , line and sinker. Intellectually incapable of comprehending the absolutely undeniable fact that the Earth isn't half , these people still go around preaching far - fetched nonsense in an attempt to re - ly , or lie psychopathologically in ways they will be unable to control for the rest of their lives until somebody they messed up with knocks at the door. I do like to read books by people or authors who say that they are skeptical on a particular topic and who go where the evidence takes them instead of shutting the door in it's face and telling everybody that they went somewhere. For a long time I used to think that I hated the United States Federal government without asking myself seriously what that really means - then I asked myself if I knew any of it's officials personally and then I saw that what was really going on was that we're all up against the same enemy and that enemy is not Ben Goldacre. Iceland and the United States are of course miles apart so I realized that what I really hated was the United States Federal Government's policies. We , the generation of that time witnessed the results of insane decision making in high positions of power and attempts to defend such decision making which resulted in such things as quack journalism. Ben Goldacre is just a fork in the road which is significantly small and whose size matters because that means you can pick the fork up and take it to the kitchen where it belongs. It's not my bussiness to prove to this person that there are psychic phenomena or to participate in an argument with him - that'd probably be the bussiness of a boxer or somebody else who'd know how to reply next time he goes froth mouthing personal insults. Then there is the fact that the information presented in books like this is often devoid of much diverse opinions - usually the author examines things uncritically and waits for the reader to pass by that notion and flip flop through the pages. There's nothing wrong in knowing how to cure somebody. The point is , if you've succeeded in curing the person then that is what counts , not whether or not you've got a BA honours degree in quack journalism. So , compared to Bad Science , we're all a manifestation of Infinite Awareness and Infinite Awareness doesn't have to be 'bad science'. It's just an expression , that's all.

This Little Red Book Went To the Market....... *

So now we've got Quack Journalism. Very few religious institutions to my knowledge on this planet at present have liked the idea of human beings travelling to the stars and rediscovering their cosmic origins and their connections to their multidimensional selves because that'd mean the end of the State as we know it today. This holds particularly true for flat - earth mumbo jumbo , quack journalism and 'punk science'in general- litterary materialist theory as opposed to figurative interpretation. The fraud known as Bad Science is the latest failed attempt by the United States federal government to convince people of the importance of the continuance of the State. That is why this book and the book Voodoo History collapsed. Voodoo history was an attempt to portray human history from the United States federal governments'perspective , so let us get ourselves a little bit enlightened here. What does that mean? That entails basically that this author is no Fyodor Dostovetsky , no friend of the people. Authors that are friends of the people were hated in the 2000's because they were realistic. Artists who protested against mountaintop removal were hated because they were loyal to the communities they represented and because there were no community councils where people could report persons who had misbehaved to the local community. Independent authors were hated also and if you didn't have a BA honours degree from the Open College of the Arts it didn't matter if Leonardo Da Vinci didn't have one - you were still not an artist because the State didn't like you. Now it is the last days of the State and what does the State do during it's last days? It throws everything at those trying to expose it's flaws so that it won't have to face those flaws. It looks something like this - if you blow your feet off and blame it on Al Quaeda ,everyone believes you because you claim to be the United States federal government. But if you try to make money out of thin air and charge interests on it , you are told you can't do it , even though people have been calling it bussiness for centuries. Even though materialism and greed go hand in hand alongside capitalism , people have still not learnt anything from the banking collapse of Iceland or the present collapse of the New World Order. Instead , they learn from physical violence because war is a tool of biology and in a war , counterreaction is the best method available to defeat your enemy. When the enemy handles you over the information , you do not believe it if they told you they were your enemy in the first place , would you? No. This book is quack and so is it's author who's only trying to sell more quack to people the author thinks are guillable enough to take the quack seriously.
For authors such as this care far more about fame and publicity than the truth , because for them , the truth is bad for bussiness. In fact , in a capitalist society the truth is bad for bussiness because fully informed people do not buy products from liars , particularly not quack journalists. We were taught a lot about such people as quack journalists during my high school psychology studies , and yet I permitted myself to be victimized by one individual claiming to be an Ashtar Commander who still claims so even today. I can unfortunately for the author's demand for being taken seriously not see any difference between that person's state , and that presumed 'Ashtar Commander's'obvious mental state. These stupid , dumbass fat flat earthers are all the same. They ate aspartame and they want others to eat it too. They didn't go to gymnastics and so they cover that up and tell everybody on their blog sites how thin they are and if anybody questions them they yell 'I'll call Uncle Sam'. If asked 'who believes you'? They take you to court and in some cases the court actually symphatizes with them. These people want us to believe , excuse me , that there is no such thing as energy when there are energy bills everywhere and when we have whole research fields known by such titles as classical mechanics and so on and which used to be known as physics in the 20th century. Just because your brain doesn't look exactly like mine will not convince me that you're crazy. That's why I find books like this to be basically worthless. I also find it sorry that there are no stricht laws which prevent the publications of nonsense that's designed to promote attacks against homeopaths and alternative healers. I knew a homeopath who failed to cure me. I took that as meaning that I had to go someplace else for a cure and I got my cure. Sometimes science doesn't make right decisions either. That is why I am not 'scientific' - from this author's 'scientific'perspective but rather common - sense oriented. I am all for alternative healing and I also support medicinal healing as well such as when people go to a doctor to have a broken leg. So what is to be told to the brave 14 year old boy who rescues a soldier during WWII and who doesn't give a damn whose side the soldier is on? Well the soldier is sick so the kid goes to a medicinal handbook to search for advise. Now what if the soldier would be rude and thank the kid by calling him a quack because he doesn't have a BA honours degree in bussiness or medicine?
During war , your medical skills aren't questioned if you're proven to be worth of a medicinal expert on some medicinal issue. But after the war or before is a different story. This author knows that. One thing I have also observed about quack journalists and guys like Tony Blair is that they tend to gather around a circle of 20 to 35 or something people , usually 23 or 33 , who will be their 'confirmed witnesses'so that their lies can be continuously passed off as 'confirmed truth'. 'Because that alternative healer's method turned out not to work on that particular patients , I don't have to pay my energy bills'. Well good news Bill , don't do it then. What the bloody heck does alternative healing have got something to do with paying your energy bill? Absolutely nothing! So why are 'Bad scientists'trying to tell us or ask us to believe otherwise? The author of the book Messages was one of the biggest skeptics in his neighbourhood until he realized he had been an experiencer all his life - a communicator between the world of his cosmic family and the people he used to spend time with. But even that did not turn out to be enough to convince Bill that there is a connection between homeopathy and energy bills. Only a smack in the face and several punches into his body that will keep him on the hospital waiting for two whole weeks , unable to make a single move most of the time will do. Or something less dramatic. If these people come to you to haunt you because you're a homeopath whose treatment appears to have failed to cure that patient or this rabbit or this dog , don't run for the hills but FIGHT BACK! So I guess that must be the end of Ben Goldacre. One of them litterally sent me a message on [...] , asking me to believe that Satan was trying to tell me that the Earth is round and not flat! So I told the person that I thanked Satan for letting me know. It would have been far wiser for this funny gentleman mister Ben Goldacre to publish a Kindle book because that would have meant less waste of money and maybe portray himself as a clown on it's front cover. When guys like that talk to me they basically tell the same story - something which has been lied to them and which they decided to swallow hook , line and sinker. Intellectually incapable of comprehending the absolutely undeniable fact that the Earth isn't half , these people still go around preaching far - fetched nonsense in an attempt to re - ly , or lie psychopathologically in ways they will be unable to control for the rest of their lives until somebody they messed up with knocks at the door.
I do like to read books by people or authors who say that they are skeptical on a particular topic and who go where the evidence takes them instead of shutting the door in it's face and telling everybody that they went somewhere.
For a long time I used to think that I hated the United States Federal government without asking myself seriously what that really means - then I asked myself if I knew any of it's officials personally and then I saw that what was really going on was that we're all up against the same enemy and that enemy is not Ben Goldacre. Iceland and the United States are of course miles apart so I realized that what I really hated was the United States Federal Government's policies. We , the generation of that time witnessed the results of insane decision making in high positions of power and attempts to defend such decision making which resulted in such things as quack journalism. Ben Goldacre is just a fork in the road which is significantly small and whose size matters because that means you can pick the fork up and take it to the kitchen where it belongs. It's not my bussiness to prove to this person that there are psychic phenomena or to participate in an argument with him - that'd probably be the bussiness of a boxer or somebody else who'd know how to reply next time he goes froth mouthing personal insults. Then there is the fact that the information presented in books like this is often devoid of much diverse opinions - usually the author examines things uncritically and waits for the reader to pass by that notion and flip flop through the pages. There's nothing wrong in knowing how to cure somebody. The point is , if you've succeeded in curing the person then that is what counts , not whether or not you've got a BA honours degree in quack journalism. So , compared to Bad Science , we're all a manifestation of Infinite Awareness and Infinite Awareness doesn't have to be 'bad science'. It's just an expression , that's all.

Who can you trust? ****
This is a very nice book in which the author shows us how easily we can be tricked these days. He opens our minds to not trust everything we are said on TV, news or any other midia. This is important, chiefly due to the pletora of bad emails we receive in the era of the Internet. Although the author seems to be well intended all the time, one must judge some of this thoughts. But, most important, the book teaches us to be careful at the information we get and how we should check all the astonishing data we get that affects us. To be honest, I don't agree with all opinions the author wrote in the book, but it's definitely a very good option to let us know how science is (or may I write "should be") carried out and how we can protect ourselves from all the social engineering that companies' (and governments') marketing areas target us daily through advertisements. It's really worth reading and after you start reading it, you can hardly stop before finishing the whole book.

Who can you trust? ****

This is a very nice book in which the author shows us how easily we can be tricked these days. He opens our minds to not trust everything we are said on TV, news or any other midia. This is important, chiefly due to the pletora of bad emails we receive in the era of the Internet.
Although the author seems to be well intended all the time, one must judge some of this thoughts. But, most important, the book teaches us to be careful at the information we get and how we should check all the astonishing data we get that affects us.
To be honest, I don't agree with all opinions the author wrote in the book, but it's definitely a very good option to let us know how science is (or may I write "should be") carried out and how we can protect ourselves from all the social engineering that companies' (and governments') marketing areas target us daily through advertisements.
It's really worth reading and after you start reading it, you can hardly stop before finishing the whole book.

Fantastic book ruined for the Kindle ***
This is a book I would dearly love to see made part of the school curriculum, and required reading for journalists and broadcasters the world over. Such is its import and impact upon health reporting, critical thinking, and enabling the reader to understand what health information they are receiving and how to analyse what they are being told. However, the Kindle version is missing all the many diagrams, tables and graphs that the text refers to quite regularly. Not only is this omission not mentioned anywhere prior to purchase, the text itself doesn't seem to have been cleaned after the exclusion. Ben Goldacre is one of my personal heroes for the work he does both professionally and skeptically, and I think this is one of the most important non-fiction books made generally available and understandable to the public, but it's a disappointment as an ebook. I'd buy it if it was on sale for under $5, but otherwise I recommend the print edition for the full picture, so to speak.

Fantastic book ruined for the Kindle ***

This is a book I would dearly love to see made part of the school curriculum, and required reading for journalists and broadcasters the world over. Such is its import and impact upon health reporting, critical thinking, and enabling the reader to understand what health information they are receiving and how to analyse what they are being told.

However, the Kindle version is missing all the many diagrams, tables and graphs that the text refers to quite regularly. Not only is this omission not mentioned anywhere prior to purchase, the text itself doesn't seem to have been cleaned after the exclusion.

Ben Goldacre is one of my personal heroes for the work he does both professionally and skeptically, and I think this is one of the most important non-fiction books made generally available and understandable to the public, but it's a disappointment as an ebook. I'd buy it if it was on sale for under $5, but otherwise I recommend the print edition for the full picture, so to speak.

Brilliant book, but not on Kindle *****
Brilliant book. Although evidence based medicine is part of my everyday work, I found some new insights and perspectives. I don't now, if all the stuff about the bad journalism is a specific problem of the british press, but I doubt it. The only solution - sapere aude (Dare to think). The only setback, but that is not Mr. Goldacres fault, the Kindle-Version has no graphs in it. In some chapters the text refers to tables or figures but they are just not there. And here in Europe it is even more expensive than the paperback. (This is not the first E-Book, where I am really annoyed by this problem. I am starting to get quite disappointed with my reader. But that's another topic. Please excuse my far from perfect english, but I'm not a native speaker.)

Brilliant book, but not on Kindle *****

Brilliant book. Although evidence based medicine is part of my everyday work, I found some new insights and perspectives. I don't now, if all the stuff about the bad journalism is a specific problem of the british press, but I doubt it. The only solution - sapere aude (Dare to think).
The only setback, but that is not Mr. Goldacres fault, the Kindle-Version has no graphs in it. In some chapters the text refers to tables or figures but they are just not there. And here in Europe it is even more expensive than the paperback. (This is not the first E-Book, where I am really annoyed by this problem. I am starting to get quite disappointed with my reader. But that's another topic. Please excuse my far from perfect english, but I'm not a native speaker.)

Funny? Frightening, more like. *****
I didn't see the humour that others have seen in the book. For me, the picture it paints is too frightening to be funny. While we of the rational persuasion already dismiss obvious nonsense such as homeopathy, it is considerably more disturbing to read about the malpractices of mainstream pharmaceutical companies. Also very informative are the sections dealing with the quality of medical reportage. In short, there isn't any. The misuse of statistics is explained wonderfully, and I now feel much better-equipped to see through misleading journalism. The misuse of percentages, for example, I see all the time in articles. Previously only my sceptical sense protected me but thanks to Goldacre's book I understand the maths behind this misrepresentation of figures. I wonder if the few people who gave this a one-star review have been hit in a painful area by the book's scathing condemnation of quackery.

Funny? Frightening, more like. *****

I didn't see the humour that others have seen in the book. For me, the picture it paints is too frightening to be funny. While we of the rational persuasion already dismiss obvious nonsense such as homeopathy, it is considerably more disturbing to read about the malpractices of mainstream pharmaceutical companies.

Also very informative are the sections dealing with the quality of medical reportage. In short, there isn't any. The misuse of statistics is explained wonderfully, and I now feel much better-equipped to see through misleading journalism. The misuse of percentages, for example, I see all the time in articles. Previously only my sceptical sense protected me but thanks to Goldacre's book I understand the maths behind this misrepresentation of figures.

I wonder if the few people who gave this a one-star review have been hit in a painful area by the book's scathing condemnation of quackery.

Everyone should read this book *****
Whether you're a doctor or whatever, if you ever look at the news you should read this book. It's changed the way I look at the world, read the news much more sceptically, and can analyse reports and even scientific articles, and pick apart their methodologies more systematically than I was taught in medical school. I especially enjoyed the chapters on quack nutritionists.

Everyone should read this book *****

Whether you're a doctor or whatever, if you ever look at the news you should read this book. It's changed the way I look at the world, read the news much more sceptically, and can analyse reports and even scientific articles, and pick apart their methodologies more systematically than I was taught in medical school. I especially enjoyed the chapters on quack nutritionists.

Bad Book. Bad Author. Good Snooze. Zzzzz... *
The biggest pile of tosh and the most idiotic, boring and stupidly written 36 pages I have read this year! He uses the same method of "marketing" and "insufficient explanation" that he accuses the industry of doing, in order to make you believe what he preaches. Some of what he says sound absolutely spot on but he's such a know-it-all, my opinion is so much better because I am a man of science, that he loses his argument. "I am such a nice guy, here to save you all from you ignorance and the industry is such a bunch of haters who want to become rich out of your stupidity" seems to be his motto. Although 12 pages will set you in a deep sleep (good point!), it is not the type of sleep I recommend. Only for deep insomniacs!

Bad Book. Bad Author. Good Snooze. Zzzzz... *

The biggest pile of tosh and the most idiotic, boring and stupidly written 36 pages I have read this year!
He uses the same method of "marketing" and "insufficient explanation" that he accuses the industry of doing, in order to make you believe what he preaches.
Some of what he says sound absolutely spot on but he's such a know-it-all, my opinion is so much better because I am a man of science, that he loses his argument. "I am such a nice guy, here to save you all from you ignorance and the industry is such a bunch of haters who want to become rich out of your stupidity" seems to be his motto.
Although 12 pages will set you in a deep sleep (good point!), it is not the type of sleep I recommend. Only for deep insomniacs!

Science Literacy *****
The weekly Bad Science colum in the Gardian newpaper have become my essential read for the week. In this book Ben Goldacre goes further to expand on some his best articles. Taking apart the detox myth,and sticking ear candles where they really belong. Gillian McKeith gets an entire chapter, and I suspect the next edition will have her twitter rant as well. You can learn how the UK MRSA scare started in a garden shed, how it's good that the Drug companies can't advertise direct to the public (as they can in the US), and how Fish oil is not much different from Snake oil. Read it, and then give it to your teenager.

Science Literacy *****

The weekly Bad Science colum in the Gardian newpaper have become my essential read for the week. In this book Ben Goldacre goes further to expand on some his best articles. Taking apart the detox myth,and sticking ear candles where they really belong.
Gillian McKeith gets an entire chapter, and I suspect the next edition will have her twitter rant as well.
You can learn how the UK MRSA scare started in a garden shed, how it's good that the Drug companies can't advertise direct to the public (as they can in the US), and how Fish oil is not much different from Snake oil.

Read it, and then give it to your teenager.

Okay considering the hype ***
I initially saw the glowing reviews and couldn't wait to buy this book. Yes I did learn a lot about medicine, media and scientific papers, not to mention Gillian McKeith! But I did find some of the writing dragging on and on a bit which does get boring at times. I already knew like most about the health scares in the tabloids so when he did mention the broadsheets turning a blind eye he should have focused on that more. What annoyed me though was the fact he mentions "humanities graduates" and the way they somehow believe anything and everything and can't look at things objectively, like only "academics" are unbiased and intelligent enough to possibly understand any science paper/research/story. This is somehow supposed to explain why we end up with bad science in the first place. Well as a journalist he should know it's not the lack of understanding of science and credentials that gets these stories published, rather a duty to each medias' bias and political view. Instilling fear and bad news pays! Go ask a dumb humanities graduate!

Okay considering the hype ***

I initially saw the glowing reviews and couldn't wait to buy this book. Yes I did learn a lot about medicine, media and scientific papers, not to mention Gillian McKeith!
But I did find some of the writing dragging on and on a bit which does get boring at times. I already knew like most about the health scares in the tabloids so when he did mention the broadsheets turning a blind eye he should have focused on that more.
What annoyed me though was the fact he mentions "humanities graduates" and the way they somehow believe anything and everything and can't look at things objectively, like only "academics" are unbiased and intelligent enough to possibly understand any science paper/research/story.

This is somehow supposed to explain why we end up with bad science in the first place. Well as a journalist he should know it's not the lack of understanding of science and credentials that gets these stories published, rather a duty to each medias' bias and political view. Instilling fear and bad news pays! Go ask a dumb humanities graduate!