Página inicialGruposDiscussãoExplorarZeitgeist
Pesquise No Site
Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.
Hide this

Resultados do Google Livros

Clique em uma foto para ir ao Google Livros

Carregando...

Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks

de Ben Goldacre

MembrosResenhasPopularidadeAvaliação médiaMenções
2,847973,783 (4.15)125
While exposing quack doctors and nutritionists, bogus credentialing programs, and biased scientific studies, the author takes the media to task for its willingness to throw facts and proof out the window in its quest to sell more copies. He also teaches you how to evaluate placebo effects, double-blind studies, and sample size, so that you can recognize bad science when you see it.… (mais)
  1. 80
    Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine de Simon Singh (edwbaker)
  2. 50
    The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark de Carl Sagan (gward101)
  3. 20
    Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference de Cordelia Fine (wandering_star)
  4. 20
    Flim-Flam! Psychics, ESP, Unicorns and other Delusions de James Randi (MyriadBooks)
  5. 10
    Three Steps to the Universe: From the Sun to Black Holes to the Mystery of Dark Matter de David Garfinkle (nsblumenfeld)
    nsblumenfeld: Although they write about astronomy rather than medicine, the authors share Goldacre's interest in process and methodology as well as results; they make how we know what we know in the field a primary concern and are interested in giving their readers the tools to avoid pseudoscience and bogus "sciencey" claims.… (mais)
  6. 21
    Freakonomics de Steven D. Levitt (Rynooo)
  7. 00
    Counterknowledge: How We Surrendered to Conspiracy Theories, Quack Medicine, Bogus Science and Fake History de Damian Thompson (bertilak)
  8. 00
    The Duck That Won the Lottery: 100 New Experiments for the Armchair Philosopher de Julian Baggini (vguy)
    vguy: Goes into greater depth on a selected number of issues (eg Homeopathy, MMR vaccine). Helps one understand scientific method, specifically blind controlled randomised trials. For all that, an amusing and popular approach.
  9. 00
    Flat Earth News: An Award-Winning Reporter Exposes Falsehood, Distortion and Propaganda in the Global Media de Nick Davies (peter_vandenbrande)
  10. 00
    Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality de John Grant (nsblumenfeld)
    nsblumenfeld: Why does bad science get so much exposure?
  11. 00
    Yes, We Have No Neutrons: An Eye-Opening Tour through the Twists and Turns of Bad Science de A. K. Dewdney (bertilak)
  12. 00
    How We Know What Isn't So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life de Thomas Gilovich (preater)
  13. 00
    De cholesteroloorlog waarom geneesmiddelen zo duur zijn de Dirk Van Duppen (peter_vandenbrande)
Carregando...

Registre-se no LibraryThing tpara descobrir se gostará deste livro.

Ainda não há conversas na Discussão sobre este livro.

» Veja também 125 menções

Inglês (95)  Francês (1)  Espanhol (1)  Todos os idiomas (97)
Mostrando 1-5 de 97 (seguinte | mostrar todas)
I've been aware of Ben Goldacre for a while through his Bad Science column on the Guardian website. Just like his column his book is a very humorous but alarming look at the bad science used by various people and organisations. How companies, especially those in the Phara industry twist trials to suit them is something that surprised me quite a bit. I'd always been aware that trial data can be used in clever ways to show certain things but almost rigging trials is shocking. He also pokes a lot of fun and bile at Homeopathy, something which has landed him with several lawsuits.

The best part of the book for me is the section dedicated to two people in particular, Gillian McKeith & Patrick Holford. Both people are self acclaimed nutritional 'experts' who have made a lot of money giving advice. Holford has used data to prove that Vitamin C can be used to treat and cure various diseases including AIDS. This data came from 1 whack job scientist who has been discredited for his work. Gillian McKeith is also a nutritionalist who has made a lot of money giving advice under the title 'Doctor'. Goldacre points out that her qualifications are from an un-accredited establishment in the USA and that some of her advice is baseless. Its worth nothing that since Bad Science was published she no longer uses the title 'Doctor' after an advertising standard agency complaint.

The stand out aspect of this book for me is that it has a good light pace to it even when dealing with serious matters. At no point does it get bogged down in scientific details and everything is well explained. ( )
  Brian. | Jun 13, 2021 |
Witty, smart, funny, and much more serious than it seems. An unfortunate, real-world conclusion that despite his and many other scientific arguments, bad science wins out. ( )
  illmunkeys | Apr 22, 2021 |
very interesting and informative ( )
  zacchaeus | Dec 26, 2020 |
There's a couple places where his disdain for corporations overwhelms his objective skepticism and a few places where he goes off on tangents. However, overall, this provides a great overview of science vs. pseudoscience in accessible language, with excellent examples. I can see this being a good book for parents and students. Some might be put off my his snark but I could eat it with a spoon. ( )
  kaitlynn_g | Dec 13, 2020 |
Ben Goldacre is a medical doctor, which is why the bad science in this book is all biological, mostly related to health - it's what he knows about. It's also mostly what we hear about, in terms of science, from mainstream media such as newspapers, magazines and television, as he observes, with evidence.

Goldacre starts with the simplest ideas of how to conduct medical trials, introducing concepts such as control groups, blinding, double blinding and randomisation whilst demolishing the claims of various quacks and charlatans. As the book goes along the ideas do get more sophisticated but are always clearly explained and never really demanding of the intellect - and the exposure of malicious malpractise, fraud, incompetence, bogus experts with made up or bought qualifications and ignorant or malicious scaremongering go on - and on - and on!

Goldacre writes with humour but also and more powerfully with anger - there is barely contained rage hiding on almost every page and as I read on it was hard not to feel that rage, too - and fear and horror. The chapter about how the South African AIDS treatment policy was subverted from the use of anti-retroviral drugs to the promotion of vitamin pills is sickening. He also continually flatters the reader by saying he is clever and then going on to say that the concepts he is explaining are not difficult - which seems a little contradictory to me; if the concepts aren't difficult one isn't smart because one understands them.

By the way, he does believe his entire readership is male - but does the evidence back that up? No! Tut, tut, Dr. Goldacre! This illustrates a point not made in the book, which is very relevent; we are bombarded with advertising and PR claims and even the most determinedly, habitually sceptical of us will sometimes fail to see the wood for the trees. We cannot check every single claim made to us - am I going to check all of Goldacre's references? No. But I should do - why should I believe him more than the next guy or gal? Because he has nothing to gain? Not so! He makes a living in part by writing, so he is under a temptation to try to increase his sales by the same sensationalising techniques he accuses other journalists of. In the end you have to trust some-one - there's no escaping it - and sometimes you might make a wrong judgement about whom.

This can be quite subtle - a number of times Goldacre mentions methods employed by pharmaceutical companies to disguise the fact that SSRI anti-depressants are not much more effective than placebos. I once heard a woman (name forgotten) on a Radio 4 discussion program pushing an agenda of essentially claiming that depression is best treated by non-pharmaceutical therapies and is not different from sadness anyway. Her contention was that "anti-depressants do not work much better than placebos." This is wrong! "But Goldacre says in his book that's true!" you (may) cry! No, he doesn't. He says that SSRI anti-depressants appear not to work much better than placebos when all the available evidence is taken into consideration. Anti-depressents are not all SSRIs - there are SNRIs and tricyclics to my certain knowledge and most likely a number of other types. This woman was using the exposure of bad science on the part of pharmaceutical companies as her method of attempting to perpetrate bad science (and consequent misery, harm and possible deaths) on the general public! Trials comparing an SNRI drug with a number of SSRI drugs showed that the SNRI is more effective than the SSRIs. Trials on SSRIs show that they have more effect on more severely depressed people - in other words people who are not merely sad and actually need therapeutic intervention. The story of SSRI efficacy research is not over - we have discovered that we haven't yet asked the right questions about them. (Just to be absolutely clear - I do not disagree with Goldacre's statements about SSRI efficacy - as far as they go. More work needs to be done to elucidate just how depressed a person needs to be for prescription of antidepressant drugs to be a worthwhile therapy. I doubt he'd disagree with my view, either.)

So I discovered what this woman's fallacious claim was, months afterwards and fortuitously, because I simply do not have time to investigate every claim I'm exposed to. I can tackle many by applying logic and arithmatic, in my head and fairly quickly but problems arise when the only way to check is to read the original research.

This is also where Goldacre struggles; he concedes that attempting to improve the standard of scientific journalism or entirely eliminating the negative effects of the profit motive from pharmaceutical research are not practical goals. So what are we meant to do? Goldacre has a few fairly small suggestions at a policy level that look as if they should make a notable difference but ultimately he says - read my book - then check claims yourself, 'cos you'll know how. Post your findings on the net. He also says it doesn't matter if he only reaches a small number of people.

He's saying some is better than none, I suppose - and that if we each did a bit the total would be large - but here's the rub - should I trust what's being said on the badscience website - or should I check it out for myself? Because that regular poster might have a hidden agenda and false qualifications and PR company backing and pharmaceutical company stock.

So who are you going to trust and how are you going to decide?

Well, if you trust me (and I'm not claiming you should) buy this book and read it. Soon. ( )
1 vote Arbieroo | Jul 17, 2020 |
Mostrando 1-5 de 97 (seguinte | mostrar todas)
Você deve entrar para editar os dados de Conhecimento Comum.
Para mais ajuda veja a página de ajuda do Conhecimento Compartilhado.
Título canônico
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Título original
Títulos alternativos
Data da publicação original
Pessoas/Personagens
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Lugares importantes
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Eventos importantes
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Filmes relacionados
Premiações
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Epígrafe
Dedicatória
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
To whom it may concern
Primeiras palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Let me tell you how bad things have become.
Citações
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
The aim of this book is that you should be future-proofed against new variants of bullshit.
My aim here is by no means to suggest that antioxidants are entirely irrelevant to health. If I had a T-shirt slogan for this whole book, it would be: 'I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that'.
Últimas palavras
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
(Clique para mostrar. Atenção: Pode conter revelações sobre o enredo.)
Aviso de desambiguação
Editores da Publicação
Autores Resenhistas (normalmente na contracapa do livro)
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
Idioma original
Informação do Conhecimento Comum em inglês. Edite para a localizar na sua língua.
CDD/MDS canônico
Canonical LCC
While exposing quack doctors and nutritionists, bogus credentialing programs, and biased scientific studies, the author takes the media to task for its willingness to throw facts and proof out the window in its quest to sell more copies. He also teaches you how to evaluate placebo effects, double-blind studies, and sample size, so that you can recognize bad science when you see it.

Não foram encontradas descrições de bibliotecas.

Descrição do livro
Resumo em haiku

Capas populares

Links rápidos

Gêneros

Melvil Decimal System (DDC)

500 — Natural sciences and mathematics General Science General Science

Classificação da Biblioteca do Congresso dos E.U.A. (LCC)

Avaliação

Média: (4.15)
0.5
1 3
1.5 1
2 19
2.5 3
3 93
3.5 34
4 302
4.5 59
5 246

É você?

Torne-se um autor do LibraryThing.

 

Sobre | Contato | LibraryThing.com | Privacidade/Termos | Ajuda/Perguntas Frequentes | Blog | Loja | APIs | TinyCat | Bibliotecas Históricas | Os primeiros revisores | Conhecimento Comum | 164,484,009 livros! | Barra superior: Sempre visível