Customer Reviews

Big Fat Liars: How Politicians, Corporations, and the Media use Science and Statistics To Manipulate the Public

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Part of my (non) retirement life is taking time to read again. I'm trying to expand my reading and read points of view that are beyond my comfort zone - books that I believe will have a point of view which is different from mine.

Big Fat Liars is one such book.

Chafetz feels we need to question everything. I agree with this point of view. It's so important to ask questions when people in authority or people who are "experts" tell you the "truth." What is the basis for the statement? Who else is paying you?

Unfortunately, Chafetz's need for questions doesn't extend to opinions that he supports. For example, on page 163 of the book it says

"Some people, the experts say, are genetically predisposed to have 'addictive personalities'; others may have been conditioned to be that way by their upbringing or by advertising."

Chafetz rightly questions who are the experts are that are making such statements? How did they arrive at their conclusions? These statements are current conventional wisdom, but are they correct?

However, Chafetz falls into his own unsupported conclusions when he states further down on the page,

"Yet it is well-established that many people with a family history of addiction, and an early environment shaped by it, do not become addicts...The 'environment' portion of the public health model as applied to addiction here falls entirely apart."

One may ask, "Well-established by whom?"

The next sentence says, "Moreover, many addicts quit, and most do so without expert help."

Again, from where does this data come?

There are many examples like this throughout the book.

Morris Chafetz is the president of the Health Education Foundation and comes with a long list of credentials. The book is worth reading because there are excellent points. It's a book that must be read carefully, however, because Chafetz falls frequently into the same trap he condemns.

I agree with Chafetz's basic premise. We must ask questions whenever someone tells us the "truth." We must also remember to listen carefully to the answer.

Some of the ideas in this book almost surely are mistaken - such as Dr. Chafetz' belief that AIDS is not caused by the HIV virus. Here he's following the lead of radical dissenter Duesberg. Since there have been a number of cogent refutations of this view, Chafetz loses some credibility early in his book. However, even on this score, he does proceed to raise a valid question. He says that in Africa, anyone showing any of the many symptoms associated with AIDS readily gets diagnosed with AIDS, even when there were no facilities to test for HIV. So it's possible that the AIDS epidemic in Africa may not be quite as horrific as broadcast. Many individuals diagnosed with it may actually be suffering from more readily treated ailments that produce some of the same initial symptoms as AIDS.

Dr. Chafetz challenges the reader with a variety of other contrarian views that might be at least partially correct. So don't be put off by the patches of foolishness. Keep reading.

Some of the popular ideas you will find being perhaps rightly challenged here, include:
The idea that smoke will trigger many people's allergies. Chafetz says there are no proven antigens in smoke, therefore a person can't be literally "allergic" to it. He believes people should own up to their feelings and simply say they don't like smoke. They shouldn't hide behind trumped up medical conditions.

The idea that second-hand smoke can kill wherever it is encountered. He challenges the establishment to make their indicting data on this issue readily available so that their failure to apply proper controls for other variables in their studies can be exposed. For example, children raised in large homes with smoking parents would by all logic be at less risk than children raised by smoking parents in cramped, unventilated quarters. But the studies don't make such distinctions. As the information gets published and filtered through the media, lawmakers are led to believe that anyone in any enclosure is equally likely to suffer damage if someone smokes in that area.

The idea that we are facing imminent global warming. Chafetz reminds the reader that as recently as the mid-1980's - there was much scientific certitude that we were facing global cooling - that we were in fact facing another ice age, He believes the scientists are losing credibility by predicting such divergent disasters, one right upon the heals of the other, backing up each successive claim with temperature trend charts. It seems these charts, like sections of the Bible, can be interpreted in diametrically opposite ways.

The idea that banning DDT was a uniformly good measure. Chafetz says that mosquitoes are proliferating as a result, spreading newer, more virulent strains of malaria.

The idea that America is in the midst of an obesity epidemic. Chafetz says that the bar that qualified a person as being "obese" was lowered considerably in the U.S. in 1998, in order to bring us into conformity with other countries' standards. So thousands of people who weren't categorized as obese one day, fell under that heading the next day.

All in all, I think you'll find this a worthwhile book, if only it challenges you to talk back to Dr. Chafetz, bolstering your side of the arguments with something more than the night's grabbing news headlines. At the very least, Dr. Chafetz will fill the roll of Arsenio Hall. He will make you go "Hummmmmm."

The title of this book immediately appealed to me. In the information age, we have access to a multitude of resources with which to form opinions and conduct our lives. However, through rigid message control and selective sourcing, nuances (and even incongruent facts) of many current issues are completely obscured. It is easy to understand how painting an issue or policy as black and white makes it much simpler to promote or enact without having to consider its subtler, inconvenient aspects. Even more disturbing is the outright misuse or manipulation of evidence to promote an agenda for profit and power.

Science epitomizes rational thought and therefore is a very effective tool in appealing to a society that considers itself rational and intelligent. Many people who categorically disagree with a political position are at least willing to listen to scientific counter-arguments. And a strong scientific argument tends to hold a great deal of sway with those who have not yet formed an opinion on the subject.

Dr. Chafetz, in his brilliant preface, links the "corruption and misapplication of science and medicine" to the appropriation of power through a growing "paternalism in politics." By enacting more and more laws with a father-knows-best attitude, we as citizens, are continually deprived of our rights and therefore responsibilities. With fewer responsibilities, we become intellectually lazy and easier to manipulate and control -- the dumbification of America. Moreover, "the people that are told that they lack the skills needed to exercise responsibility will find no reason even to attempt to live responsible lives."

Unfortunately, with the exception of a few savvy insights, the next few hundred pages are little more than a drunken rant with passages that resemble a self-help book. Time after time, Dr. Chafetz uses isolated, and in some cases obscure, examples and follows them to erroneous conclusions.

For example, he lost me completely in his chapter on "Global Warming". Chafetz claims that a few doomsday scientists, with misguided theories in the sixties on global cooling, have somehow co-opted national discourse on climate change in pursuit of headlines and grant money. Does the author truly believe that these isolated scientists, acting for personal gain, have trumped the likes of GM (who could suffer from restrictions on emissions and decline in sales of their most profitable lines), Wall Street (that has billions invested in long-term ROI coal-burning power plants) and national economic policy in general (our trade imbalance with China could worsen if we unilaterally imposed CO2 controls)? The actual science becomes irrelevant if this is the author's logical "follow the money" conclusion.

Dr. Chafetz spends a great deal of time deriding the growing cabal of lawyers in this country. Certainly, frivolous lawsuits have done great harm to consumers in many ways: The quality of medical care has deteriorated from the need to cover the already exorbitant and rising cost of malpractice insurance. Manufacturers have been forced to pass legal and insurance costs onto consumers in the form of higher priced goods. In some cases, innovation has been stifled out of fears of potential misuse of new products and subsequent litigation. Furthermore, mercenary litigation represents a continued erosion of individual responsibility and self-respect.

Unfortunately, again, Chafetz continues on a misguided rant likening the ABA to some insidious secret society. I don't find a trade organization that sets ethics standards and, yes, promotes the industry particularly conspiratorial. Nor do I find it discomforting that the legislative branches of government -- where laws are made -- are disproportionately represented by lawyers. We don't grimace that the halls of academia are lined with PhD's or the upper echelons of business with MBA's. It is, after all, one of the vocations of the degree.

Finally, I was disappointed that the subtitle of the book, "How Politicians, Corporations, and the Media Use Science and Statistics to Manipulate the Public," turned out to be a complete misnomer. Even after reading the many pages dedicated to AIDS and addiction (not much science here), I don't understand how the public was manipulated or to what end politicians, corporations, or the media benefited. Moreover, unless the book jacket is referring to CBS or the New York Times, there is not one example of how corporations have used science to manipulate the public. In fact, Dr. Chafetz spends a chapter or two describing how corporations are victimized by aggressive lawyers without mention of science at all. Surely big business is not entirely saintly and devoid of research or statistics that would further its cause.

The book admirably suggests that we should take more responsibility for our actions as a matter of self-respect and preservation of our rights. Also, we should examine the scientific and statistical justifications of policy and legislation much more skeptically. However, it often degenerates into an incoherent diatribe on the author's pet issues.

What a fantastic, beautiful piece of work. His ideas (and vast amount of references) about the tobacco industry and Congress, about obesity and individualism, physicians and self-respecting autonomous patients, drugging school-kids for ADHD, and so many other topics are real and refreshing. He quotes from Mark Twain, The New York Times, and Fortune Magazine, to The British Medical Journal and other scientific publications and and inserts them in perfect locations as transitions to the modern-day congressional sneakiness we all assume is occuring, but don't really know how. Well, he gives facts, numbers, dates, EVIDENCE. Written by a Physician with experience in these fields and especially in the field of Public Health, you can be sure that the information is reliable, and if you disagree, that's great, because you shouldn't agree with *everything* you read anyway! This book will make you see how you're being lied to in every facet of this life from the media to politicians to quack physicians.
You can easily finish reading this book in one weekend, as he leads you to places you never noticed existed, and the trip is great!

Chafetz entire premise is that social groups try to exert power over people by manipulating them in various ways. Ironically, Chafetz's book is just one more example of that manipulation. Though Chavetz claims his book is based on research and scientific evidence, he continually lauds typically Conservative causes (without any supporting evidence) while denigrating those that are historically Liberal. If that weren't irritating enough, he cites very few actual sources and instead says things like "What harm can drilling in ANWR do?" In fact, the conclusion of his ANWR rambling is "Think about that, next time you see high gas prices at the pump." Very scientific. Sounds more like marketing to me. If Chavetz were truly interested in science, he would provide comparative studies of the impact that other drilling sites have had on natural areas, instead of giving us empty rhetoric. Science should be based on a collection of all available evidence and not simply that which fits your hypothesis. Unfortunately, Chavetz seems to have forgotten that. He attempts to cast doubt on the origin of HIV/AIDS by citing a lone researcher's dissent. Are we to believe that the majority of the scientific community is so sensitive to criticism they they merely jumped on an erroneous bandwagon to avoid ridicule? Hogwash. Chavetz is right about one thing: We all need to think for ourselves so that we can recognize politically-motivated drivel like this when we see it.

In some ways, this book is brilliant in that Chafetz uses his own limited knowledge and facts to support his claims. Unfortunately, the "not-so-brilliant" part is that in doing so, he is guilty of the exact things he bemoans in Chapter 1 -- "The Danger of Generalization".

As an educator (of science primarily) I was disappointed with his lack of evidence or references for most of his claims and generalizations in the early chapters, such as":

- p. 81 - (regarding ADD, ADHD in children) "There is debate in scientific circles whether these diseases even exist." -- this can be said of ANY scientific theory, disease or research findings. The question should be what is the evidence used by both sides of this "debate". Other examples he includes are on the use of DDT, HIV causing AIDS, global warming (or not), and so on.

- (same page) "It cannot pass without mention that one reason students might be bored and angry is that teachers, who appear to owe their allegiance to teachers unions rather than children they are supposed to be teaching, are on average doing a pretty poor job, if the controversies surrounding standardized tests are any indication. But it's easier to force pills down a kid's throat than it is to force competency from the throat of a teacher."
... Oh, where to start with this paragraph alone!!! It is laden with numerous generalizations, accusations, stereotypes and flat out inflated commentary (pun intended). He seems to forget that parents also have a say, a much larger one, in what medication a child takes or doesn't take (hopefully) and that to portray all people of any occupation, race, age, or other descriptor displays an obvious lack of tack &/or effort on his part as a "researcher", "expert" or "author".

Needless to say, I didn't traverse much farther into the book than here -- perhaps I missed some key redirecting points later on??? (please tell me I did!)

The reason for 2 stars vs. only 1 was that this book is an important topic for discussion and (real) debate. The fact that we as citizens, need to realize that all media and messages are created by humans -- all of whom have some sort of agenda, allegiance and/or experiences -- making everything subject to critical thought, judgment and discourse. As citizens, we need to do all we can to be sure that the people in decision-making positions (politicians, administrators, business execs, etc.) are critical thinkers with the willingness and ability to see both/all sides of an issue BEFORE making life-altering decisions.

Other than the last chapter - "The Only Expert is You", its too bad Chafetz does a very poor job conveying this valuable message that he describes on p.49, "Statistics, science, correlation-as-cause: All are tools, and, like all tools, they can be misused -- accidentally sometimes, or deliberately by those who have something to gain from doing so." I consider this book a "misused tool" in which Chafetz is unfortunately gaining from thanks to its publication. This is one more reason to rejoice in public libraries -- another $20 saved!

Lastly, the notion of "correlation-as-cause" is probably one of the biggest misconceptions about science that the general public has (as well as some "science experts", sadly.) Chris Mooney addresses this much better in his book, "The Republican War on Science" - and he does a lot better research than did Mr. Chafetz!

We all know the adage "statistics lie, and liars use statistics".

Morris Chafetz has spent his life misusing statistics and science to suit his needs and fill his pockets. During the 70's he worked for the NIAAA, and in the 80's and 90's he worked as a paid consultant for the alcohol industry hiding his earnings in the Health Education Foundation, a bogus non-profit he created to use as a tax shelter.

MorriS Chafetz has not been directly involved in medicine or research since the 1960's, which he fails to mention in his book. The "solid evidence" he quotes to contradict mainstream thought, trying to expose what he considers lies behind today's big issues, are simply newspaper clippings that support his view that he has clipped from daily papers. Though trained as an MD, he does not seem to have enough thought process to analyze studies from reputable journals, and never bothered to actually look up the studies he critiques. While he states taht he is encouraging readers to look through the money-motivated façade of statistics and government controls and return to a strong attitude of personal responsibility, he is in real life a player in that field. His personal fortune comes from alcohol industry retainer fees. Using the credibility associated with the title of "MD" and "Former Directory of NIAAA," he testified in court cases as an expert on alcolism issues. What the plaintiffs and court didn't know was that he was being paid by America's leading distillers, including over $75,000 per year by Anheuser Busch alone, to make similar statements he made in his book: misusing statistics and science to serve his needs, even when he did not believe for a moment what he was saying.

Statistics, Science and Correlation-as-cause: All are tools, and, like all tools, they can be misused -- accidentally sometimes, or deliberately by those who have something to gain from doing so." This book a deliberately "misused tool" used to gain another dollar. He may or may not believe a word that he has written; but that is not an incentive to not get $19.36 from you.

Save your time and your money.

While I like the overall premise of the book, that we are mislead by government and corporate statistics, the author fails to provide the slightest shred of evidence and falls into the same trap he accuses others of doing. In addition, it is obvious from early on that the author has an agenda and isn't so much trying to prove the title as to convince the reader to switch to the author's point of view.

The author tackles a number of subjects, all of which come across as personal pet peeves of the author. On nuclear power he states we should switch to it; after all, nobody has ever been proven of being injured by nuclear power generation. For proof he cites Three Mile Island, while totally ignoring the damage from Chernobyl. He believes we should drill for oil in ANWR, since it would do little environmental damage, but derides the use of alternative energy as being dangerous to the environment.

Overall, the book fails on a number of levels. From lack of proof, to rambling and repetition, this book is not even a good read. I would suggest checking out of the library if you're interested. Don't waste the money.

Whenever you have an M.D. pontificating on scientific method and statistics, you know you're in Wonderland. Physicians think they know everything, but among the many, many things that a medical school education does not teach are methodology and applied statistics. Medical researchers get a PhD in biochemistry. The PhD is the research degree.

Still, anyone can be right. Or they can be wrong. Chafetz's refrain in this book is that no amount of empirical evidence of A being followed by B proves that A causes B. It only shows a correlation between A and B, and correlation is not the same as cause. Everyone knows and agrees with this. Chafetz, however, claims that "researchers . . . have come to use the two almost interchangeably." (p. 137). This is garbage nonsense. No professional researcher uses the two interchangeably. Nor do they confuse the two. Unlike Chafetz, they know also that science never attains certainty. Science deals in weight of evidence. When the weight of evidence reaches a certain level, the hypothesis of cause-effect is considered supported to a certain degree.

All this sounds very abstract. What does it matter? It matters because Chafetz, for one thing, uses this argumentation to attack the accepted conclusion that smoking is hazardous to your health and that breathing secondhand smoke is hazardous to your health. Even though the weight of evidence is so overwhelming that legislatures have even been willing to buck the powerful tobacco lobby to establish smoke-free zones, Chafetz insinuates that we've all been had.

Note that nowhere does he state that smoking is safe. He knows that if he did, he would have ZERO evidence to support his statement. He says the evidence does not add up to certainty, says that we've all been lied to, etc. etc. The SUGGESTION, of course, is that smoking is safe. Many readers will take it that way. This is how this book could endanger the health of people inclined to smoke and the health of those poor souls who live with them.

Chafetz even attacks the use of correlation. As is well known, there are irrelevant correlations (p. 136). From this, Chafetz jumps to the (unstated) conclusion that ALL correlations are irrelevant: a mistake in elementary logic. On page 138, Chafetz betrays an ignorance of the use of control groups and randomization. He concludes with the outlandish remark: "You are the one who needs to try to measure risks" (p. 157). If teams of scientists all over the world who have been measuring the risks for the last 40 years can't provide sufficient evidence, how are "you" going to do it? This is asinine.

Chafetz does not confine his wisdom to cigarette smoking, but shows that the weight of evidence has not added up to certainty on a number of other popular issues as well. This is easy to do, since weight of evidence NEVER amounts to certainty. But weight of evidence can mount up so high as to make it insane to refuse to heed its warnings.

Chafetz even has a go at terrorism. "The fact is, if we are terrified, the terrorists will have achieved their goal" (p. 237). We all have to die sometime, he says, so, we should stop being worried. Right. Thanks, Doc. Earth to Chafetz: The terrorists are trying to do a lot more than scare us. They intend to kill us, torture us, enslave us (sorry, convert us), etc.

"The world is richly populated with those who would use what little we know or pretend that we know to gain power over us."

A critique on government and institutions. I disagree with some of his perceptions (and book title), but this does not distract from his main focus. His words are sensible, refreshing and humorous at times. He brings up excellent points and raises important and interesting issues. Further study resources are offered. Chafetz's life work is alcohol abuse, which he discussed in his chapter on addiction. The final chapters are a rap up and a workable philosophy: The recipe for life--"we each do more than our share"

"The unexamined life is not worth living."-----------------Socrates

Morris tackles political correctness, unfairness, victims, addiction, "global warming", frivolous lawsuits, the cigarette debacle, the increasing numbers and power of lawyers and the creation of the nanny state.

"Stealing the ideas and words of one person is plagiarism; stealing from many people is research"---------------Wag (gossip)

It's about making our own choices; learn to discern, to question. "Positive conservationalism [is] turning into negative environmentalism." Some would believe freedom is self destructive, we must turn over our power to the experts; they know what's good for you. The government routinely diverts around the constitution and the amendments through bribes, leading to lost rights and inferior products. How far is going to far? The truth may not be what it seems.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."------------------C.S. Lewis

Wish you well
Scott