40 of 41 people found the following review helpful
An Outstanding Book to Explain How Science Works and How CAM Doesn't,
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Snake Oil Science: The Truth about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Kindle Edition)
R. Barker Bausell is a biostatistician who worked for the NIH's Complimentary Medicine Program, which was designed to test the efficacy of Contemporary and Aleternative Medicine (CAM). As a biostatistician, Bausell is the one who designs studies so that they are as fair and unbiased as possible. His big "beef" with CAM? That the less biased the study, the less effective CAM seems to be.
This book has several strenghts and several weaknesses. I will go into the strengths first.
First, while the book suggests that it is primarily about 'debunking' alternative medicines, the bulk of the book is spent talking about how effective studies are designed and different things that can undermine the validity of studies (small sample sizes, shoddy control/placebo treatments, attrition). In short, this book offers a VERY good explanation of how science works. (Only after explaining how good studies are designed does our author go on to suggest that most CAM studies are quite poorly designed.)
This book spends a lot of time talking about the 'placebo effect,' a large player in CAM research. The placebo effect is a (generally) psychological effect where the person experiences betterment SOLELY from having any kind of treatment at all (even a sugar pill). Our author's point with explaining the placebo effect is to suggest that well-designed CAM studies point to one conclusion: that most CAM treatments are only as effective as any other placebo (incorrectly performed accupuncture is as effective as 'legitimate' acupuncture, not because accupuncture works, but because the subject wants or expects it to work).
The author is very far from biased. Despite its outragous title, Snake Oil Science is not a 'gotcha' book written by a mean-spirited and fun-poking author. The discourse is very professional and fair. The author never 'slams' CAM, but only suggests that CAM has ALOT of work to do in order to prove itself, assuming that it can.
For those wanting a comprehensive discussion 'debunking' CAM treatments and remedies, this book - again, despite its title - will not be satisfying. The author, a biostatistician, spends so much time talking about how to design a good study, how to spot a bad one, and adding caveat after caveat, that only one (and a half) chapters really discuss what the research actually saya. Really, the book should have been subtitled, "A primer on the methodology of clinical studies."
For those who want a somewhat friendly and relatively non-academic read, this book probably is not it. The author certainly tries to bring it down to non-specialist language, but when talking about statistics, controls, variables, and confounds, technical jargon and dry verbiage ls unavoidable. While this book is certialy informative about how clinical trials are designed, the placebo effect, and explaining why most CAM studies are poorly and hastily done, it is a somewhat dry read.
So, there you have it. If you want to become more familiar with how the medical profession tests their treatments (and compare it to how CAM proponents 'test' their treatments) this is a very good and exciting book. If you are looking for a good old-fashioned Shermer and Randi style 'debunking' of CAM, there are several other books you are better to read than this one. (Try "Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts About Alternative Medicine.")
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 15, 2009 7:47:35 PM PST
Marcus Lewis says:
Thanks for your very well written review. I have moved this book to the top of my mental "to read" list.
Posted on Feb 8, 2010 11:07:36 AM PST
E. Walton says:
Thank you for this review. I've waded through so many simply saying "CAM works!" or "no it doesn't!", and I just wanted to know if the book is even the kind of thing I'm looking for. Thanks to you, I now know that there's probably too much "how to do research" and not enough debunking for my taste, and I can look elsewhere. So thanks.
Posted on Mar 8, 2010 11:24:53 AM PST
Edwardson Tan says:
That Bausell takes pains to explain the ins and outs of clinical trials, biases, placebo effect, etc. is among the best part of the book. It is not a weakness. On the contrary, it is among the best feature of this work.
I'm reading the book for the third time now and the first half of the book is the most important and educational for me. It provides readers the knowledge in evaluating and assessing and questioning any clinical study. Bausell equips the nonprofessional with critical thinking skills they need to peruse therapeutic claims.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 8, 2010 11:52:29 AM PST
Kevin Currie-Knight says:
I like the fact that he does this as well. I do not like that most of the book was devoted to it. My review did not highlight this discussion as a weakness in or of itself, but the fact that he devotes most of his time to it in a book advertised to be largely about something else.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›