Scan barcode
shashanks's review against another edition
4.0
Wish such books were more widely read,it would improve our understanding of the inherent human fallacies,propagandist publications and shady(or not so shady) monetary underpinnings of 'new findings'.Bad science can be your guide to good science in life.
angus_mckeogh's review against another edition
4.0
Great book by a medical doctor and science journalist on the problems with quacks, misinformation, and big pharma in his profession. A big section on homeopathy which doesn’t hold much of a stake in the American medical establishment thankfully. A lot about how to read, interpret, and critique scientific journal articles. Statistics. And then another huge section on the MMR vaccine scare, the media’s involvement, and of course the dearth (3 papers all with Wakefield as an author- the main paper having 12 subjects in the “experiment” and the other two papers having demonstrable and false information) of evidence (and corruption) behind Wakefield’s claims and the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the safety of vaccines which of course received no coverage from the mainstream media. But of course the genie is out of the bottle at this point and the anti-vaccine groups in public cannot be shown they’re wrong. Also in this vein there was a history of anti-vaccine sentiment which was very interesting for anyone who believes all this nonsense started with MMR.
aadkatti007's review against another edition
5.0
One of the most interesting and important books I have read yet, Bad Science discusses how the reporting of science and health related issues by the media and talks about topics such as the placebo effect, the MMR vaccine scandal and alternative medicine. Goldacre goes through chapter by chapter and explains health fads- ranging from Aqua Detox Baths (tested by a home-made Barbie Detox Bath!) all the way to vitamin pills that claim to cure AIDS and HIV.
One of the things I loved about the book was how Goldacre filled his book with sarcasm and humorous jokes, which made reading it enjoyable, whilst also exposing the truths behind modern day “science”. For someone considering a career in medicine, this book is of immense value as it takes you behind the scenes of the big pharmaceutical companies and helps you to distinguish between the badly conducted studies (namely the ones that cherry-pick data or blackmail authors who disprove the success of certain drugs) and the good ones. The use of simple terms mean that this book is a great introduction to anyone interested in research science or psychology and the some specialist terms included help readers get used to the jargon used in scientific papers, without having to read them yourself.
One of the chapters called ‘The Progenium XY Complex’ (my favourite chapter) is also an eye-opener for anyone interested in the cosmetics industry- it discusses how actually eye-cream claiming to change your genetic make-up actually contains (and I paraphrase here) ‘cooked and mashed up vegetable protein,’ which when the cream dries, contracts and tightens on your skin, causing the taut, unpleasant sensation (whilst also smoothing out finer wrinkles). It also talks about the other ingredients used, the way labels are made, and how companies trick you into thinking science is something incredibly complex and full of equations (when it isn’t really), to earn money.
‘Bad Science’ is particularly relevant to the 4 pillars of medical ethics, as it delves into the topic about the presentation of data, and how the media misrepresents “science” (that is, claims about health without proper evidence-based references). Goldacre proves his case that quackery (health fraud), and the funding and distributing unscientific remedies are unethical- by allowing patients to take alternative medicine instead of trial-based drugs, you could be aggravating their condition, or denying them of the chance of recovery, which would be causing harm to a patient. Furthermore, the practice of selling products to customers who smoke or are obese is not ‘morally neutral’, as it gives them the idea that ‘expensive potions’ have a greater value and do better good than exercising more or eating a higher proportion of green vegetables. However, allowing patients to choose the form of treatment they think best (whether it is scientific or not) allows them to have autonomy, which is equally important as beneficence.
Overall, this book was fantastic, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in psychology, science research or just some fun, and I look forward to reading Goldacre’s other book ‘Bad Pharma’!
wowza this might be the first time i've posted an acc book review that's not some half-assed nonsense lol
One of the things I loved about the book was how Goldacre filled his book with sarcasm and humorous jokes, which made reading it enjoyable, whilst also exposing the truths behind modern day “science”. For someone considering a career in medicine, this book is of immense value as it takes you behind the scenes of the big pharmaceutical companies and helps you to distinguish between the badly conducted studies (namely the ones that cherry-pick data or blackmail authors who disprove the success of certain drugs) and the good ones. The use of simple terms mean that this book is a great introduction to anyone interested in research science or psychology and the some specialist terms included help readers get used to the jargon used in scientific papers, without having to read them yourself.
One of the chapters called ‘The Progenium XY Complex’ (my favourite chapter) is also an eye-opener for anyone interested in the cosmetics industry- it discusses how actually eye-cream claiming to change your genetic make-up actually contains (and I paraphrase here) ‘cooked and mashed up vegetable protein,’ which when the cream dries, contracts and tightens on your skin, causing the taut, unpleasant sensation (whilst also smoothing out finer wrinkles). It also talks about the other ingredients used, the way labels are made, and how companies trick you into thinking science is something incredibly complex and full of equations (when it isn’t really), to earn money.
‘Bad Science’ is particularly relevant to the 4 pillars of medical ethics, as it delves into the topic about the presentation of data, and how the media misrepresents “science” (that is, claims about health without proper evidence-based references). Goldacre proves his case that quackery (health fraud), and the funding and distributing unscientific remedies are unethical- by allowing patients to take alternative medicine instead of trial-based drugs, you could be aggravating their condition, or denying them of the chance of recovery, which would be causing harm to a patient. Furthermore, the practice of selling products to customers who smoke or are obese is not ‘morally neutral’, as it gives them the idea that ‘expensive potions’ have a greater value and do better good than exercising more or eating a higher proportion of green vegetables. However, allowing patients to choose the form of treatment they think best (whether it is scientific or not) allows them to have autonomy, which is equally important as beneficence.
Overall, this book was fantastic, and I would recommend it for anyone interested in psychology, science research or just some fun, and I look forward to reading Goldacre’s other book ‘Bad Pharma’!
wowza this might be the first time i've posted an acc book review that's not some half-assed nonsense lol
willbefunorelse's review against another edition
4.0
For the full review (including, fair warning, a brief sidestep into something slightly political, but trust me when I say that it's brief and actually proves the point both I and Dr. Goldacre are attempting to make), follow the link to That's What She Read.
charlie072's review against another edition
3.0
very informative. started off really funny, but got a bit preachy towards the end. i flew through the scientific chapters of the book, but slowed down at the more sociological and philosophical parts — felt like it just started to put folk with an interest in science on a pedestal, both intellectually and morally. anyways did learn a lot and enjoyed for the most part