Bad Science

Oct 25, 2011 Petra X rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: medicine-science, psycho-neurology-crime

10-star book

Edit - I have edited the review as the book is now available in the US. Truly a worthwhile read, one up for us against big Pharma!

Until recently this book was not available in the US as books that attack big Pharma, alternative medicine gurus (especially the tv variety) and sacred cows like the MMR-Autism myth get sued just to stop publication even if there is no hope of winning the suit.

This is an important book and illuminates the part the media plays in the dissemination of info...more

31 likes · like · see review

Apr 12, 2011 Paul rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: modern-culture-innit

Beads that sparkle like a prism, snake oil for your rheumatism,
Calico and gingham for the girls.
Cast your eye on Dr. Borer’s patent-pending hair restorer,
guaranteed to grow hair on a billiard ball

Hands up who doesn't recognise which gender-bending musical those portentous words emanate from ?

Okay, it was Calamity Jane. You knew that, I know. Can't just be me whose mind is stuffed with the lyrical junk of six decades.

Onward to the review.

Ben Goodacre is the sworn foe of all modern-day medical mo...more Beads that sparkle like a prism, snake oil for your rheumatism,
Calico and gingham for the girls.
Cast your eye on Dr. Borer’s patent-pending hair restorer,
guaranteed to grow hair on a billiard ball

Hands up who doesn't recognise which gender-bending musical those portentous words emanate from ?

Okay, it was Calamity Jane. You knew that, I know. Can't just be me whose mind is stuffed with the lyrical junk of six decades.

Onward to the review.

Ben Goodacre is the sworn foe of all modern-day medical mountebanks, and there's a whole internet full of those around, more than you can shake a juju stick at, so he has a lot to do and he bounds out of bed each morning and rattles off his Guardian column about – let’s say – homeopathy and just how REALLY INSANE it is – then jumps in his E-Type Jag and straight to the airport where a plane is waiting to take him to Minnesota where the local tv station in St Paul is about to interview Dr Cleothilde Barnfather who is recommending everyone to take fishoil pills every day, but only particular ones enriched with antioxidants and infused with chlorophyll, yeah that’s right, only his own brand Barnfather Live Forever Fish Oil (tag line “they’re easy to swallow because they come from a fish”) – now then, brave Ben is about to reveal the author of the bestselling Fish Oil Will Enable You To Outlive Your Great-Grandchildren as none other than... (gasp)

Randy Merckenschlitzfer, failed used tumbledrier salesman and no doctor at all – his PHD was obtained through the post from some institution in Albuquerque which frankly no one has heard of including the janitor of the block of flats in which it is supposed to reside (Ben has checked) - hah! Take that! And that! Where’s your double-blind randomised clinical trial for your fishoil pills “Doctor Barnfather”, or should we say Randy? Oh, there never was one? How not surprised I am! Viewers, this guy is a FAKE.

Naturally, everyone goes on buying the fishoil pills and Randy buys another swimming pool, this one made in the shape of a haddock, and Ben Goodacre writes some even angrier columns about it and feels marginally better, just as Randy’s customers do.

Knockabout aside, this book exposes the shoddy thinking and egregious lust for non-existent breakthroughs, miracle cures and health horror stories which bedevil the British press and which are perpetrated by humanities graduates who do not understand scientific method or basic maths. Two are given the full treatment (the MRSA hospital superbug non-epidemic and the MMR-vaccine-causes-autism hoax) and many other rubbish claims are debated in a breezy manner which – alas – all sounds like preaching to the converted to me, and also scores uncomfortably high on the science-nerdometer for this English/Theology graduate.

There are graphs. You have been warned.
(less)

11 likes · like · see review

Oct 27, 2011 Nancy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Recommended to Nancy by: Petra X

Shelves: science, health

I've read about most of the topics covered in this book elsewhere, but Goldacre does a great job of teaching us to spot the failures of Big Pharma, alternative medicine and journalism. He does this in an entertaining way using ripped-from-the-headlines stories.

Last week I was in the mood to read some non-fiction so went to the shelves of one of my goodreads friends and made a list of her 5 star health and science books. Armed with that,I found several of those books at the library and have been...more

5 likes · like · see review

Feb 04, 2009 Deirdre rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: fromlibrary, non-fiction

An extension of his blog, this is a collection of basically rants about how science and statistics are abused by a variety of people. It also looks at faulty science behind some nutritionists and some of their dodgy "credentials". His emphasis is on making people question "facts" and double check the evidence.

However, people don't have the time for a lot of this, and when you're offered a glimmer of hope people tend to take it. The placebo effect is explored here and he does admit that it works...more

4 likes · like · see review

Dec 28, 2012 Phase Reading rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The passion of Ben Goldacre on his topic of "Bad Science" is undeniable. This is a doctor with a bee in his bonnet, a snarky tone and no qualms about telling it like it is and whom he might offend. Undoubtedly, I imagine, most readers will be offended - scientists, researchers, naturopaths and other alternative "quacks", journalists, statisticians, university deans, nutritionists, Big Pharma, the average you and me - we all will get a swipe in Bad Science.

What I liked about this book was the mes...more The passion of Ben Goldacre on his topic of "Bad Science" is undeniable. This is a doctor with a bee in his bonnet, a snarky tone and no qualms about telling it like it is and whom he might offend. Undoubtedly, I imagine, most readers will be offended - scientists, researchers, naturopaths and other alternative "quacks", journalists, statisticians, university deans, nutritionists, Big Pharma, the average you and me - we all will get a swipe in Bad Science.

What I liked about this book was the message: Don't believe anyone about anything. You alone must adequately arm yourself with the knowledge and skills necessary to decide what you believe to be the truth. Be prepared to understand that the truth is probably going to be temporary. In this book, Goldacre provides the reader with the tools to make these decisions, however, I'd guess that without any shred of science background, you will be lost.

It's amazing to think that what the journalists and self-proclaimed experts state as Fact is usually no more than predigested and double distilled traces of (possible) truth. Why are we so credulous of this? It's mainly because science is better understood and accepted when delivered by a friendly interface (journalist, pseudo scientist) rather than a nerdy spectacle wearing professor. Heck, we believe celebrity endorsements and colourful advertisements! How many of us would read a peer reviewed scientific article to get information? Where can we find those anyway?? It's not hard to see why it's become this way.

On the negative side, Ben Goldacre is so passionate, that you get the sense that he was writing really fast because he has so much to convince you with, and you end up getting lost in his blizzard of examples. That's OK, there are some really astonishing things if you manage to cope with this bombardment. He uses humour to take the edge off his snarkiness, but I thought it made it worse. His tone is off-putting at times.

The biggest bomb is that some bad scientists only report their science work or reviews to the common denominator media or (heaven-help-us) the totally unregulated Internet and Facebook! This is because these are not open to peer review or properly regulated scientific scrutiny. In other words, any old BS can be made available to the masses. A lot of what the masses believe today is due to the irresponsible publishing activities of the pseudoscientist (and in some cases real scientists) and the journalists/media alike. Suddenly this becomes "The Truth". People ask why scientists are so old and fuddy duddy, why don't they keep up with the times? Well it's probably because they are busy having their studies properly reviewed to provide solid evidence before making grandstand statements. And that peer review process is likely to be arduous.
You need look no further than the chapter on the MMR Hoax. That was "Bad Science" in full blown badness. It starts with only 12 children in the original study!

And just because someone is called a "Doctor" how much do you know about this? Look up Gillian McKeith and Prof Patrick Holford and prepare to be let down. These people are influential and high profile. They carry responsibilities related to our health and wellbeing. Don't blindly believe what they say.

Without reading this book, I imagine my belief system would remain the same - to be cynical and skeptical of what is in broad-stream media reports, the pontificating of "experts" and even real doctors who challenge the mainstream view of things. Instead, after reading this book, I am even more cynical and skeptical. I will never take anything on face value. I have been armed with information to delve deeper if choose to. My axe has been sharpened.

I am a scientist myself, and this book has made me realise that how science is taught and reported is sorely inadequate and embarrassingly in need of a massive overhaul, so that true science, not bad science, will prevail.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Apr 02, 2011 Ken Robert rated it 5 of 5 stars

No one is spared in this delightfully infuriating tour of the myriad ways we can be duped by bad advice on health and medicine.

The author, Dr. Ben Goldacre, skewers alternative medicine quack jobs, data dithering drug researchers, scare mongering journalists, pinheaded politicians, and simple minded celebrities who would all gleefully sell us horse manure if we were willing to buy it.

And he does it with a flair for making the confusing understandable as well as entertaining.

Read this book and yo...more

3 likes · like · see review

May 30, 2012 Tamarah rated it 4 of 5 stars

Good, entertaining book. And given what I am going to save now that I stop buying omega-3 capsules for the kids, one of the best investments I've made.

The down-side is that it is very British. Goldacre ripped into British personages (McKeith) whom I had never heard of, and English news (Durham fish-oil trial, MSRA scare) which similarly were new to me. A lot of it was really criticism of the British press, which wasn't too relevant to me.

The new chapter on Rath, and the handling of HIV in South...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 01, 2010 godfrina rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: read-in-2010, non-fiction

Kluge Lektüre über den pseudo-wissenschaftlichen Nonsens der unsere Gesellschaft überflutet. Obwohl von dem Arzt und Psychiater Ben Goldacre (bekannt für seine Kolumne "Bad Science" - so auch der englische Originaltitel des Buches - in der britischen Zeitung "The Guardian") für Laien geschrieben, sind grundlegende naturwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse nicht von Nachteil, um alle Kapitel völlig zu durchblicken.

Das Buch befasst sich zwar vornehmlich mit der Situation im Vereinigten Königreich, das tut...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 23, 2012 Tania rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"...by the end of this book you'll have the tools to win - or at least understand - any argument you choose to initiate, whether it's on miracle cures, MMR, the evils of big pharma, the likelihood of a given vegetable preventing cancer, the dumbing down of science reporting, dubioud health scares, the merits of anecdotal evidence, the relationship between body and mind, the science of irrationality, the medicalisation of everyday life, and more."

The author not only show you what "bad science" is...more

3 likes · like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 Sonia Almeida rated it 4 of 5 stars

I really liked this book. He talks about something that I believed for a long time, but felt alone. Our science journalism sucks. They have no clue what they are talking about, and they don't really care. It is more important to make a nice sounding headline, than to really inform people.
So, all of us that really like science, but no longer work directly with it, feel like orphans, with few good places to search for reliable information. I loved this quote:
"meanwhile the nerds, the people who s...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 02, 2010 Katie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction-and-biography, read-in-2010

This book speaks to my critical nature! The conversational and personal tone make it very easy to read. I found the HIV/AIDS lack-of-treatment and vaccine scare chapters the most interesting because they provide very good talking points for my job. The author Dr. Goldacre asks people to exercise common sense and, above all, to trust science - not the sciencey-ness used in the marketing of everything from diet fads to homeopathic medicine and so on. This is a good read, if for nothing else, to re...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 28, 2011 Eva added it

Kindle highlights (with bad formatting):

“As it is a major component of blood, water is vital for transporting oxygen to the brain.” Heaven forbid that your blood should dry out.

Their special, proprietary, theatrical yawn will lead to “increased oxidation for efficient relaxed functioning.” Oxidation is what causes rusting. It is not the same as oxygenation, which I suppose is what they mean.

I’d like to submit to Bad Science my teacher who gave us a handout which says that “Water is best absorbed...more

1 like · like · see review

Mar 17, 2013 Darrell rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed

In his book, Bad Science, Ben Goldacre explains not only how medical psuedoscientists such as homeopaths and nutrition therapists get science wrong, but also how Big Pharma and journalists abuse science and its results. There is far too much good information in this book for me to summarize it all. Goldacre goes over the basics of how to conduct a scientific trial and why. He also points out where advocates of detox get it wrong, as well as a recent psuedoscience called Brain Gym which claims ch...more In his book, Bad Science, Ben Goldacre explains not only how medical psuedoscientists such as homeopaths and nutrition therapists get science wrong, but also how Big Pharma and journalists abuse science and its results. There is far too much good information in this book for me to summarize it all. Goldacre goes over the basics of how to conduct a scientific trial and why. He also points out where advocates of detox get it wrong, as well as a recent psuedoscience called Brain Gym which claims children in school learn better if they do things like wiggle their ears, touch their fingers together, and yawn in a certain way. He also points out deceptive claims made by cosmetic companies.

Homeopathy was created in the late eighteen century by Samuel Hahnemann. It's based on the belief that like cures like. Hahnemann's first remedy was taking cinchona bark to cure malaria because when he took cinchona bark himself, he thought it gave him malaria-like symptoms. However, this is really besides the point, because homeopathy also teaches that diluting a substances makes it more effective, thus homeopaths dilute their substances so much there's nothing left but water. Homeopathy is no different from taking placebo sugar pills, because homeopathic remedies are actually nothing but sugar pills.

The placebo effect is actually quite astonishing. Not only do placebos often improve patient's symptoms, but there was even a study in which the patients were told they were getting placebos and they still got better anyway. A placebo injection helps people better than a placebo pill, and even the color of the pill can effect patient outcomes. More time spent with a doctor and even simple words of encouragement can make a patient feel better without taking anything at all. There is a study in which maids lost weight simply because someone using sciency sounding language told them that maid work was good exercise.

The placebo effect works even better if your doctor doesn't know it's a placebo. Patients are more likely to get better if a doctor names their condition rather than saying they don't know what's wrong. The placebo effect has even been observed in animals. There was even one study in which a doctor gave nauseous women ipecac, a substance that should have made them more nauseous, but their symptoms actually improved just because he told them it would help.

So if fake doctors giving fake medicine actually do make people feel better through the placebo effect, what's the harm in complementary and alternative medicine? The harm comes when practitioners of CAM use things other than placebo. For example, people calling themselves "nutritionists" claim that antioxidants prevent cancer, even though scientific studies show that taking antioxidant supplements actually increases the risk of cancer. It was once thought that calcium supplements would help patients with osteoporosis, but it turned out calcium supplements increase the risk of heart attacks in older women. Antioxidants and calcium are good for you, of course, but taking too much vitamins can have unintended side effects and can be quite harmful.

Incorrect medical advise can be lethal. Dr. Spock wrote in his best selling book Baby and Child Care in 1946 that babies should sleep on their stomachs. This advise turned out to be wrong and resulted in thousands of crib deaths. Dr. Matthias Rath advised the government of South Africa to turn down free antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV because he claimed they contained "toxins" and were part of a conspiracy to commit genocide against the African people. He advised they use his vitamins instead, which he claims also cure cancer. His bad advice is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. This is why belief in alternative medicine is bad.

Many people take alternative medicine because they don't trust Big Pharma. That's certainly understandable, especially after reading all of the problems with Big Pharma in this book, however Goldacre also points out that Big Pharma owns most of the alternative medicine companies, so if you use alternative medicine to stick it to Big Pharma, they're laughing at you all the way to the bank. There may be problems with main stream medicine, but at least it's regulated so the problem get fixed over time.

Autism actually isn't on the rise, even though the diagnosis of autism is. This is partly due to a new condition called Asperger's Syndrome, which is a mild form of autism. This wasn't diagnosed in previous years, and in fact Goldacre doesn't think Asperger's Syndrome is a real condition. He says it's like diagnosing someone with mild dyslexia. People with Asperger's Syndrome don't really have anything wrong with them; they're normal people who just act a little quirky. Nevertheless, it has caused people to think that autism is on the rise when it really isn't and this leads people to look for a scapegoat.

The worst offenders of bad science are journalists, who publish misleading and incorrect information to sell papers. Because saying something is dangerous sells more papers than telling people something is safe, journalists cynically create panics instead of offering good medical information. For example, many newspapers incorrectly claimed that the Measles Mumps Rubella vaccine (MMR) causes autism. It actually doesn't, but because journalists scared people into not getting their children vaccinated, these nearly eradicated diseases are making a come back and some children are even dying from them. Ironically, Rubella can cause autism, so by telling people not to get vaccinated against it, the media is actually increasing the autism rate.(less)

like · see review

Feb 01, 2013 Alison Dellit rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

I got a lot out of Ben Goldacre's Bad Pharma, and was looking forward very much to Bad Science, which I'd have to say didn't meet my admittedly high expectations.

The book appeared more scattered than I expected - pulling out case studies of bad practice rather than the systematic approach of Bad Pharma. I learned a lot about the vitamin industry, for example, but without much idea of how this could be applied to other areas. Even the coverage of this is scattershot, focused on individual outrage...more

like · see review

Jan 28, 2013 Henry rated it 5 of 5 stars

A while ago I was in the London Borough of Waltham Forest where, for the third year running, I was a judge at a science debate competition. Teams of youngsters from secondary schools across the borough pitted their oratory, rhetoric and critical thinking skills against one another on a scientific issue of the day. In previous years we’ve covered nuclear power and climate change. On this occasion the house debated the pros and cons of stem-cell therapy. It’s a great day out for all concerned, and...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 01, 2012 Ashley Kennedy rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is a good book, and a good debunking of much "sciency" stuff that tries to masquerade itself as "scientifically proven." And which sadly apparently intelligent people fall into believing.

It particularly skewers homeopathy, nutritionists, Gillian McKeith, Patrick Holford and Matthias Rath. It then skewers Big Pharma for the incompleteness of the evidence it presents to doctors who then are then prescribing medicines with only part of the picture about their good and bad points. He's superb a...more

like · see review

Jul 03, 2012 Jim rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The has to be one of the most infuriating books I've read in years. That said I mostly liked it.

Ben Goldacre is a doctor who writes for a British newspaper called The Guardian. He mostly writes from the point of view of someone who challenges those "sciencey sounding claims" that people make about the products they make (and goes on to suggest what a more accurate claim would be).

The book is split into 2 sections. First he explains how scientists do research, how they interpret data, and how the...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 28, 2012 N.C. rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, science

This book serves as a holy book almost on how to be a good processor of information when it comes to science and statistics. It is extraordinary how we are given data that comes with the label 'science' and with a few numbers to represent stats and we take it as red. Goldacre tries to show us that we don't need to be mathematicians or scientists to be able to see what is bad science.

My absolute favourite chapter is the one devoted to Gillian McKeith which is not insulting towards the woman but d...more

like · see review

Jun 19, 2012 Holmes rated it 4 of 5 stars

Rarely do we find a scientist so aggravated that he has to publish a book solely to name and shame others. But Goldacre is more than justified in doing this in his crusade against bad science - nay, it should be "bad filth wearing science's clothing".

From homeopathy to quacky pills, from media nonsense to pseudoscience fakes, Goldacre launches his tireless attacks and punches holes in all things that go against honest science. The amount of dirt that he digs up is unbelievable. I shudder at the...more

like · see review

Feb 29, 2012 Dekks rated it 3 of 5 stars

Excellent book that I think everyone should read, I don't consider myself to be a particular naive person, and I'm not a conspiracy nut whatsoever, but at the same time am under no illusions about Big Pharma. That said, it was a real eye opener to see just how biased and flawed some of the medical studies were and that very reputable medical journals regularly publish findings and studies that should be very suspect to the professional scientist.

The only problem with this book, and why I only ga...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 11, 2012 Lee Penney rated it 3 of 5 stars

I’ve had the paperback of this for some time, but never got around to more than the first few pages (I seem to start a lot of books which now lay abandoned around the house) and so bought it as an audiobook. Even then getting through it seemed to take a long time.

I believe in Goldacre’s aim, which is to highlight the poor reporting of science stories in the media and draw attention to the lack of evidence behind many of the claims made by supposed ‘health professionals’ and the media alike (who...more I’ve had the paperback of this for some time, but never got around to more than the first few pages (I seem to start a lot of books which now lay abandoned around the house) and so bought it as an audiobook. Even then getting through it seemed to take a long time.

I believe in Goldacre’s aim, which is to highlight the poor reporting of science stories in the media and draw attention to the lack of evidence behind many of the claims made by supposed ‘health professionals’ and the media alike (who are too often taken in by these ‘health professionals’). It’s a noble aim that has been carried out in his column for The Guardian and he has a whole website dedicated to debunking quackery.

This book, though, may not be his finest hour. While it starts off amusing (and informative) enough (and not a little Dave Gormanesque in style) it descends into what seems like non-stop-ranting about some of Goldacre’s pet hates, which include everything from homeopathy, to nutritionists (a non-restricted term, anyone can claim to be one), to Brain Gym, via MRSA and MMR and includes a couple of chapters on people such as Gillian McKeith and Patrick Holford (I have left off their titles as Goldacre points out they don’t really warrant them, Goldacre’s dead cat has some qualifications in common with McKeith, for example).

In the end it seems to drop into repetitive lambasting that highlights the media is lazy, doesn’t do any fact checking and is quite willing to print any press release they’re handed, doubly so if it provides a juicy headline. He points out how media savvy ‘experts’ and companies play the game to get us to believe them, because once it’s in the press, we all seem to believe it. In short, it’s a book that could have done with a lot more editing.

What he doesn’t do, however, is provide you with an easy way to defend yourself against the sort of rubbish the media spouts when it comes to science. Most of his research to disprove the claims involved what sounds like a lot of digging through medical journals and papers and interviews. Most of us can’t manage that when scanning an article at lunch or hearing a news story on the radio while eating our breakfast. I’m still not sure about the various control-grouped, placebo-tested, randomised methods needed to produce statistically significant results (or how to figure that out from raw data).

What he doesn’t seem to be doing is calling for legislation that any scientific claims need to be backed up with evidence. I would say we could use something like the Advertising Standard Agency, but as there already is a Press Complaints Commission, which should be responsible for this, self-regulation clearly isn’t working!

It’s not a total waste, however, it definitely has made me more critical when reading/watching/hearing a science-related story. I’m now looking for any signs of supporting evidence and I’ve pretty much adopted the stance of disbelief until further proven. But then I was fairly switched on before, so I wasn’t the hardest sell. How do you convince the millions of others who do still believe the press?

As I said, due to the repetition and endless soap-boxing, the book just seems to drag. Maybe I could suggest a ‘lite’ version. Cut it down to probably 25% of the size, add in some more pictures and I think the book would be able to reach a wider audience (how about a kids version?) and therefore have a greater impact. Otherwise, while a thoughtful read, you can probably abandon it after three or four chapters and not really miss much. If you decide to stay the distance, be prepared for a monotonous affair.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Nov 21, 2011 Cat rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: reviewed

I read this for two reasons: first it was a damaged copy from the shop, going nowhere but to the large pulping machine in the sky and secondly, I needed to read something to help me get my head around critiquing research fast. I've done a lot of research critiquing in the past in my previously life with the NHS. But I needed a brush up for university and this was perfect in many ways. It takes the shit out of stats and makes them friendly. I particularly liked the writing around Big Pharma and j...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 20, 2011 Andrew rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, popular-science

Bad Science is a book mostly about all those people who use fake science to sell you something. It concentrates on medical matters as the author is a doctor, although I am pretty sure the same problems can be found anywhere where there is money to be made. He concentrates in particular those whose advice might even prove harmful to your health, let alone your pocket.

Who knew that the antioxidents were not good for you for instance? Assuming you trust this author that is. And I guess that is the...more Bad Science is a book mostly about all those people who use fake science to sell you something. It concentrates on medical matters as the author is a doctor, although I am pretty sure the same problems can be found anywhere where there is money to be made. He concentrates in particular those whose advice might even prove harmful to your health, let alone your pocket.

Who knew that the antioxidents were not good for you for instance? Assuming you trust this author that is. And I guess that is the main problem with a book like this; it is just one voice of reason among the hoards of frauds, and most people would struggle to tell that his message is the right one, when it is being drowned out by the charismatic confidence-tricksters. I think he may be preaching to the converted.

Mr. Goldacre doesn’t like homeopaths, self-styled nutritionists, drug companies or the media. From the evidence in this book that seems fair enough, but he does seem to have a rather unjustified dislike of ‘humanities graduates’ too, which seems a little harsh maybe. You don’t need a science education to analyse a newspaper article properly; I had to do it in my History GCSE! Even a media studies graduate should be able to manage that.

The book is divided into many chapters, each about specific health scares or complementary therapies. It makes slightly depressing reading really, despite its upbeat tone, and by the end of it you come away thinking that all newspaper editors should be sacked (at the very least), as they appear to be conspiring to confuse us all, and even harm us. I have to admit that the problem hadn’t really occurred to me before, so it was a bit of a wake up call for me. The scale of public ignorance seems staggering though, and I wonder if the author himself is not making exaggerated claims? People can’t be that bad at spotting when it is fake science, can they? Do they really believe that when that bird from Friends says ‘here comes the science bit’ that it is really science? Sigh.

The book is thought provoking and written in a clear, easy to read manner. Recommended – especially to those who think that a pill from a ‘health’ store will solve all their problems.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Sep 28, 2011 Greg Stoll rated it 2 of 5 stars

Bad Science is a book that I should have liked more than I did. He basically looks at a bunch of different pseudo-medical fads (detox baths, homeopathy, etc.) and explains that there's no real science to back them up by looking at the studies they cite and tearing them apart. He also writes a bit about the placebo effect, which is often not corrected for in said studies. Then he goes on to discuss more ways that studies are poorly conducted, and takes the media to task (rightfully so) for their...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 05, 2011 Berenice rated it 5 of 5 stars

Book Group summary: Although we were all shocked and disturbed at the Bad Science out there, we didn't have a bad word to say about the book. It was really eye-opening to realise how far individuals and companies are prepared to go to back up unrealistic and, in some cases, dangerous claims about their lotions and potions. More shocking still is the way the media supports the quacks while distorting and misreporting the results of genuine science research and trials.

The problems this causes to o...more

like · see review

Jun 08, 2011 Lcbogota rated it 4 of 5 stars

The aim of this book is that the reader shall be future-proofed against new variants of bullshit (p.88). With sardonic wit, Goldacre takes aim at the pseudoscience touted in the media that backs up all sorts of farcical claims. From "detox" systems that have no effect on the body but assuage the guilty mind, to the breathtaking lack of substantiation for homeopathic medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in general, to high-end cosmetics that imply miracles and contain all sor...more The aim of this book is that the reader shall be future-proofed against new variants of bullshit (p.88). With sardonic wit, Goldacre takes aim at the pseudoscience touted in the media that backs up all sorts of farcical claims. From "detox" systems that have no effect on the body but assuage the guilty mind, to the breathtaking lack of substantiation for homeopathic medicine and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in general, to high-end cosmetics that imply miracles and contain all sort of impressive sounding ingredients (but that don't truly claim to do anything, because legally these claims would be indefensible), to nutritionism, another field that is big on claims and short on evidence

He makes a rigorous defense of the scientific method because the method demands accountability and control of variables, in order to test what it purports to test. This is where most popular science and layman's science falls short. Quite frankly, we mere members of the public have little interest is carefully assessing testing methods, we want to know the results. It is precisely our lack of interest in the nuts and bolts and how the testing was put together that makes us vulnerable to false claims.

Goldacre wryly notes the religious overtones that accompany to many health claims. Some "detox" programs are basically purification "rituals" (with the emphasis on ritual, rather than purification). "In what we call the Developed Western World, we seek redemption and purification from the more extreme forms of our material indulgence: we fill our faces with drugs, drink, bad food, and other indulgences, we know it's wrong, and we crave ritualistic protection from the consequences…Like so much of the nonsense in bad science, "detox" pseudoscience isn't something done to us, by venal and exploitative outsiders; it is a cultural product, a recurring theme, and we do it to ourselves" (p.14).

Other cures are simply based on faith: "I believe that homeopathic medicine works, therefore it cures me." As with all instances of faith, "true believers" often become incensed when the grounds for their faith is challenged. Their objections are not limited to moral outrage, vitamin magnate Matthias Rath sued Goldacre for libel for challenging Rath's claims that vitamins can cue cancer, and that AIDS does not exist and that "Antiretroviral drugs were poisonous and a conspiracy to kill patients and make money" (p.133). Goldacre laments that this campaign of misinformation has cost so many lives.

This is not to say that the medical and pharmaceutical establishment does not make mistakes. In fact, he recounts in detail how pharmaceutical producers have gone to great lengths to play up the benefits of their products while withholding or distorting evidence about adverse outcomes (p.149). It is telling that drug companies spend 14% of their budget on R&D, and 31% on marketing and administration (p.150).

The final section on the book deals with "The Media's MMR Hoax" that arose based on a now-debunked 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield. Goldacre concludes that studies that have looked at the MMR vaccine and incidence of autism have not found any causal link. The scandal, however, was hugely successful because it used emotional engagement through first person testimonials. By suggesting that there might be a link between autism and the vaccine, it preyed on people's fear and guilt about potentially doing unintentional harm to their child.

One key piece of information that I will take away from this book is that the Cochrane Collaboration produces systematic summaries of the research literature on health care research (p. 57). Meaning that whenever the purveyor of some miracle cure is claiming that "no research has been done," Cochrane just might have compiled that research.
http://www.cochrane.org/

The site, however, is not exhaustive. For example, a friend recently sent me an email about DCA (dichloroacetate) as a cure for cancer. Cochrane does not address it.

These kinds of stories pop up in the media all the time and people get worked up about them. Often times the headlines are misleading when journalists go for impact over accuracy (by stating figures in terms of relative risk instead of giving natural frequencies, p. 187). Goldacre notes that science stories printed in the mainstream media are often not written by science journalists, thus increasing the risk of getting the information wrong.

Last week, for example, the media were all over the story about how cell phones increase risk for brain cancer. The fact that brain cancer rates have remained stable while cell phone use has increased exponentially, is somewhat of a mystery. Not being able to separate the fact from the fiction can be dangerous for your health.(less)

1 like · like · see review

May 09, 2011 Gordon rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is a very good book about very bad science. The author is a British physician, psychiatrist and journalist who writes both a blog (www.badscience.net) and a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper in the UK.

Goldacre's focus, not surprisingly, is the form of bad science that that thrives so riotously in the field of medicine and health -- including everything from homeopathy to food supplements to anti-vaccination nuttiness to Brain Gym. Common to all these forms of bad science is an aversi...more This is a very good book about very bad science. The author is a British physician, psychiatrist and journalist who writes both a blog (www.badscience.net) and a weekly column for The Guardian newspaper in the UK.

Goldacre's focus, not surprisingly, is the form of bad science that that thrives so riotously in the field of medicine and health -- including everything from homeopathy to food supplements to anti-vaccination nuttiness to Brain Gym. Common to all these forms of bad science is an aversion to the practices of real science. Real scientists, he says, do the following: they take pains to design good clinical research trials (randomization, double-blind, and all that), expose their research to critical review by their peers, publish their results (and make their methodology and data openly available for scrutiny), use sound statistical methods, interpret their results in an unbiased fashion, and correct their errors when they're proven wrong. At least, that's the ideal. And Goldacre is both a practical guy and very much of a scientific idealist. Medicine is a frustrating place for people with scientific ideals -- although the rampant chicanery of the medical world does provide wonderful grist for his journalistic mill.

Two villains who stand out from the rest of the pack in this pack are Andrew Wakefield and Matthias Rath.

Wakefield is of course the British doctor, now defrocked, who spread the hoax that Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccination causes autism. This finding was based on a tiny study of 12 British children, whose parents had come to him specifically because they suspected an MMR-autism link and had heard that he could help them prove it. He himself was paid a very large sum of money to serve as an expert witness in the lawsuits subsequently launched by the parents of 11 of these children. The study was badly flawed in design, ambiguous in its data results, and very small in scale, but none of these problems prevented the good doctor from calling a press conference and announcing that MMR was dangerous and that parents should stop having their children vaccinated with it. The British press went wild with the story, vaccination rates dropped quickly, and, unsurprisingly, infection rates of M, M and R rose correspondingly quickly. Children died. Soon, a backlash began to mount against Wakefield. He relocated his operation to Texas, and the same story began to play out again on a new continent. From Austin to Marin County to backwoods Idaho, parents became convinced their children were being put in danger by MMR and stopped vaccinating them. Predictable results followed, and once again the backlash mounted. Matters weren't helped for Wakefield when the British medical authorities stripped him of his license to practice medicine. The hoax is losing much of its momentum now, but a lot of damage has already been done and will take years to reverse.

The story with Matthias Rath was even worse in its consequences. Rath is a German food supplements entrepreneur who made a fortune peddling his vitamin potions, initially in Europe and North America. At that point, Rath's impact on public health was pretty much harmless, however overblown his claims of the miraculous health benefits of his pills may have been. However, matters became serious when Rath decided to enter the South African market, found himself an influential South African lawyer as his business partner, and managed to convince the government that, just as that government already suspected, AIDS was really a Western hoax. The real problem was simply a lack of vitamins! So the government abandoned its already lukewarm support for proven retroviral treatments, Rath sold lots of pills, and hundreds of thousands of South Africans who might have lived were condemned to unnecessary deaths.

Goldacre tells his story well. He has a light touch yet manages to explain complex topics -- such as research design, placebo effects and statistical analysis -- remarkably clearly. It's not often that a quick read like this one is so satisfyingly meaty. Strongly recommended.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Mar 01, 2011 T. Edmund rated it 5 of 5 stars

Apologies for the spoiler (never quite sure what constitutes a spoiler in non-fiction) but this book is best explained by one of the many hilarious/head-against-brick-wall insights found within.

- you'll always find the science reporting in newspapers (and other mass medias) dummed down, however notice that the financial, sports and literature sections are not thusly treated -

Bad Science is pretty much about what it says its about. In perhaps a similar vein to "The Republician War on Science" Gol...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 02, 2011 Austin rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: science

Goldacre is a physician in the UK who has dedicated himself, through his column in The Guardian, to combating pseudoscience - particularly in health care. He starts the book by making some pretty well-worn arguments against homeopathy and other alternative medicine. That said, he does a much better job than most because he sets up his standards for proof of efficacy in a very thorough and well-organized way. In the process, he comes to the best description I've come across so far of what makes a...more

2 likes · like · see review

Dec 03, 2010 Julie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: business-and-society

Bad Science is a fascinating book. Goldacre, a British medical doctor, bemoans the lack of scientific literacy in the public -- why is it that homeopaths and other alternative therapies can flourish despite evidence, why nutritionists tout one fad diet after another with great success, and how quack doctors can come to prominence and cause real harm. This book is an attempt to inject some basic scientific literacy into its readers, with clear, concise language and great deal of wit.

Goldacre star...more Bad Science is a fascinating book. Goldacre, a British medical doctor, bemoans the lack of scientific literacy in the public -- why is it that homeopaths and other alternative therapies can flourish despite evidence, why nutritionists tout one fad diet after another with great success, and how quack doctors can come to prominence and cause real harm. This book is an attempt to inject some basic scientific literacy into its readers, with clear, concise language and great deal of wit.

Goldacre starts with the more easily-debunkable claims of alternative practitioners who leech out "toxins" using foot baths (hint: it involves electricity, salt water, and iron nails... and no "toxins"). From there, he moves on to the homeopath industry to show what's needed to produce good methodology in a paper, stuff like randomization, blinding, and proper controls. He tackles the nutrition and pharmacology industries, showing how you can misrepresent your results (ignore people who drop out, play with the baseline, play with the statistics, etc.) and how the media routinely dumb down or sensationalize certain stories while ignoring others. There's a fascinating chapter on the placebo effect (more complex than you might think) and a cautionary chapter on the MMR-vaccine / autism media debacle.

Through it all, Goldacre is quick to point out that he's not against sensible eating, or people taking (or not taking) pills, or medical interventions. His constant refrain in the book is, "It's a bit more complicated than that." What he is against is the alternative medicine industry and media's portrayal of science as something highly difficult to understand, something that exists in a black box. Goldacre asserts that sensible, intelligent, motivated people can understand science, and the media's dumbing down (and the alternative medicine industry's "science-y sounding" papers) aren't helping anyone, especially in an age when so many of our decisions ultimately come down to understanding science.

I think this is a wonderful introductory book for laypeople who may have (like me) forgotten most of their high school science.(less)

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: Bad Science
avg rating	preview: Bad Science Goodreads rating: 4.11 (8743 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3272165-bad-science?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1327251503l/3272165.jpg[/img][/url] [url=https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3272165-bad-science?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Bad Science by Ben Goldacre[/url]

Bad Science

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (26)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Ben Goldacre

Books by Ben Goldacre

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Bad Science

Quotes from Bad Science