Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks

Top positive review

61 people found this helpful

Science for non-science people

ByE. Fieldson October 13, 2010

Full disclosure: I am an ex-English major who hasn't taken a science class since high school. When I started reading this book (I got my copy when it was released in England), I was scared that I wouldn't be able to follow along. But I was SO WRONG- this book really gets beneath the pseudo-science (and flat out WRONG science claims) and explains everything in such a relaxed, simple, and intuitive way, I never had a problem. I learned so much from this, and I had considered myself pretty well informed BEFORE I read the book! This should be mandatory reading for ANYONE who is anti-vaccination, or pro-homeopathy. Brilliant stuff. (His blog is great too!)

Top critical review

See all 24 critical reviews›

62 people found this helpful

We're on the same side Mr. Goldacre.

ByAnthony Fischettion June 15, 2011

We're on the same side Mr. Goldacre.
That being said, I was a little disappointed in the way the author presents the subject. For example, his knocking of homeopathy and charlatan "science" frequently devolves into ad hominem. This is wholly unnecessary; we have the upper hand because science is on our side. Additionally, the author's style of writing is abrasively arrogant, which, is distracting. Most importantly, though, this book does little to promote critical thinking skills. The author spoon-feeds us the secret to the "magic" of those ludicrous detox foot pads without properly explaining why it sounds fishy, and the consequences of taking similar products' claims on its word. The reader may be left skeptical of homeopathy and the like (a good start) but lack the ability to personally assess *why* its claims are bogus and the science behind it.

Overall, however, the book was a interesting read. The reason I had to give 3.5 stars is the subject matter is *so* important that I have to hold this work to a very high standard. If you're interested in the *value* of skepticism and how to apply it generally, might I suggest "The Demon-Haunted World" (Sagan)? If you want to learn more about how statistics can be misleading... well, I'm currently reading "How To Lie With Statistics" (Huff) and a review is forthcoming.

Sort by:

Filter by:

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-8 of 8 reviews(2 star). Show all reviews

Potentially great subject gets mediocre spokesman

Bymichaelon February 19, 2012

Format: Paperback

Upfront, I am a sucker for books with this sort of title and content. Just get me started on the errors in thinking that abound, and I can go for as long as the refreshments and good company hold out.

So maybe it was a case of me not liking my own medicine.

What is good about the book? He shows that in matters of science:
1) Things are probably more complicated than the media makes it
2) You have to be skeptical of any scientific report - whether it is from a university, a pharma company, a acupuncturist, or even your mother
3) Be very careful about any statistical statements
4) A lot of sham medicine has been and is being perpetrated

That's about it. And it is very good to have someone take the time to present arguments and examples from the real world to back up those warnings.

What I found unsatisfying about the book? His tone. He doth protest too much, repeatedly telling us that he does not have axes to grind, or that he is level-headed, objective, and only strictly presenting the truth. The number of times he bashes Homeopathy and all the idiots who follow it made me want to go out and get a Homeopathy treatment and get better, just to spite him. I did plenty of page flips through sections where he was on a tear, looking for when the vitriol cooled and he would get back to some facts.

He says outright that before 1934 doctors were useless. Wow. For a book that warns against making claims without empirical substantiation, that is a pretty strong statement. He lumps all other forms of medicine, throughout all time, into the useless bucket. And all humanity who has practiced or received medicine before 1934 in the West into the idiot bucket. So I kept waiting for him to balance his rants with the facts about his implicitly superior profession of conventional medicine. He holds up the fact that doctors recently proved that smoking causes most lung cancer (and makes no mention of why this only started happening after WWII.) He implies that antibiotics have saved many lives.

He bravely admits that only 15% of existing conventional medical treatments are based upon statistical evidence that show benefit. Another wow. So what is it exactly that is so superior about our evidence based medicine compared to mumbo-jumbo, voodoo (quoting here) quacks if 85% of our treatments are based upon...nothing?

I do appreciate his attempt to stay focused on the topic of critical thinking, and evidence-based claims. But there is a big gap in the exposition that would justify his self-proclaimed superiority.

--Michael Clarage

1414 comments66 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

"I could go on"... and he does, and does and...

ByD. Lippon March 11, 2012

Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

As a scientist, I read the book with some interest in learning more, but honestly found the author's attitude very tough to take. The writing was poor, bordering on a screed in tone. I don't disagree with the lack of scientific integrity in those he's writing about, but I do take issue with how he expresses himself. Ben seems to have a huge ego that he just cannot temper with any sense of scientific detachment and analysis, oftentimes by name calling the opposition and in doing so, turning off the reader and anyone who is simply searching for the truth.

Ben is simply singing to the choir.

It's unfortunate because the book would be more useful if it simply spoke to the facts, using them to educate the uninitiated reader in the power of the scientific method. I should have been tipped off by the subtitle of the book. If you think the cover is over the top and serves to promote stereotypes, take this as a sign.

11 comment28 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

Repetitive and obvious

ByCYon April 2, 2013

Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

The subject showed promise but I found it repetitive and to a certain extent patronizing. Abandoned the book after reading 60%. Maybe one day I will finish.

0Comment4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

A Bit Boring!

ByMary M. Hareon March 31, 2013

Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase

Kept repeating the same information. Stopped being interesting about half way through the book. Lost me with some of the statistical methods.

0Comment2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

Bad science for the beginners

ByMr. Muumion November 22, 2012

Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase

The book is best to read if you are not familiar with the whole range of bad science, if you have read any books on this topic it overlaps them and does not provide you much. I must however say that I have read better books about the same topic and this one is at best mediocre in comparison.

22 comments3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

Disappointing for a nonbeginner

ByD. Leon March 8, 2011

Format: Paperback

This book is clearly written for the beginner who lacks basic statistical understanding. He states that in his introduction yet I still wanted to go ahead and see what Ben brought to the table in terms of how he breaks down statistics and what Pseudoscience he actually covers.

I was disappointed that he didn't explore multiple studies per chapter or go in depth into specific examples like quoting directly and then showing the statistical errors.

I was disappointed he didn't get into more interesting debates like cholesterol and saturated fat affecting heart disease as I would have loved to see him counter Anthony Colpo's The Great Cholesterol Con.

What earns this review a 2 was a poor chapter that attacked the AIDS denialists, not their science. I thought this was called "BAD SCIENCE', yet he didn't refute once the denialist view that HIV does not cause AIDS. Instead it seemed to me that he thought it was so well known that HIV causes AIDS, that nobody needed convincing that the other viewpoint was wrong. Well I am interested in the debate but I was left with only attacks on character. Even going to his website and trying to find specific problems with the denialist's theories left me almost emptyhanded
If you can help, WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?

In the end he does relay the important message: This world is full of people who will do what it takes to make that $$$.

55 comments12 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNo

An interesting screed.

ByRoger H. Thompsonon July 19, 2013

Format: Paperback

I could only get through half of this book before the acid tone got to me. I'm no fan of homeopathy and found some of his illustrations on the ridiculousness of it to entertaining. I should have expected that being a columnist for The Guardian his viewpoint might be a bit skewed, but whole pages devoted to class warfare were too much. I also find that for one so keen to debunk the claims of Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he (from what I read on his website) is a warmist. I would have expected him to have seen through the philostigen of our time.