• Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks See large image

    Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks (Paperback) By (author) Ben Goldacre

    Hard to find title available from Book Depository

    $11.81 - Save $3.19 21% off - RRP $15.00 Free delivery worldwide Available
    Dispatched in 3 business days
    When will my order arrive?
    Add to basket | Add to wishlist |

    Also available in...
    CD-Audio $31.37

    DescriptionHave you ever wondered how one day the media can assert that alcohol is bad for us and the next unashamedly run a story touting the benefits of daily alcohol consumption? Or how a drug that is pulled off the market for causing heart attacks ever got approved in the first place? How can average readers, who aren't medical doctors or Ph.D.s in biochemistry, tell what they should be paying attention to and what's, well, just more bullshit? Ben Goldacre has made a point of exposing quack doctors and nutritionists, bogus credentialing programs, and biased scientific studies. He has also taken the media to task for its willingness to throw facts and proof out the window. But he's not here just to tell you what's wrong. Goldacre is here to teach you how to evaluate placebo effects, double-blind studies, and sample sizes, so that you can recognize bad science when you see it. You're about to feel a whole lot better.


Other books

Other people who viewed this bought | Other books in this category
Showing items 1 to 10 of 10

 

Reviews | Bibliographic data
  • Full bibliographic data for Bad Science

    Title
    Bad Science
    Subtitle
    Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks
    Authors and contributors
    By (author) Ben Goldacre
    Physical properties
    Format: Paperback
    Number of pages: 288
    Width: 137 mm
    Height: 206 mm
    Thickness: 23 mm
    Weight: 272 g
    Language
    English
    ISBN
    ISBN 13: 9780865479180
    ISBN 10: 0865479186
    Classifications

    Nielsen BookScan Product Class 3: T8.0
    B&T Book Type: NF
    BIC E4L: SCI
    B&T Modifier: Region of Publication: 01
    B&T Modifier: Academic Level: 05
    BIC subject category V2: PDA
    DC21: 500
    DC22: 500
    Warengruppen-Systematik des deutschen Buchhandels: 26100
    BISAC V2.8: SCI075000
    B&T Modifier: Subject Development: 94
    Ingram Subject Code: SE
    Libri: I-SE
    B&T Merchandise Category: SCI
    B&T General Subject: 710
    B&T Modifier: Continuations: 10
    Abridged Dewey: 500
    B&T Approval Code: A50450000
    LC subject heading:
    BISAC V2.8: SCI080000
    LC subject heading: , ,
    LC classification: Q172.5.E77 G65 2010
    LC subject heading:
    Edition statement
    Reprint
    Publisher
    FABER & FABER
    Imprint name
    FABER & FABER
    Publication date
    10 December 2010
    Publication City/Country
    New York, NY
    Review quote
    "Ben Goldacre is exasperated . . . He is irked, vexed, bugged, ticked off at sometimes inadvertent (because of stupidity) but more often deliberate deceptions perpetrated in the name of science. And he wants you, the reader, to share his feelings . . . There's more here than just debunking nonsense. The appearance of 'scienceiness' the diagrams and graphs, the experiments (where exactly was that study published?) that prove their efficacy are all superficially plausible, with enough of a "hassle barrier" to deter a closer look. Dr. Goldacre (a very boyish-looking 36-year-old British physician and author of the popular weekly "Bad Science" column in "The Guardian") shows us why that closer look is necessary and how to do it . . . You'll get a good grounding in the importance of evidence-based medicine . . . You'll learn how to weigh the results of competing trials using a funnel plot, the value of meta-analysis and the Cochrane Collaboration. He points out common methodological flaws . . . 'Studies show' is not good enough, he writes: 'The plural of "anecdote" is not data.'" --Katherine Bouton, "The New York Times""British physician and journalist Ben Goldacre takes aim at quack doctors, pharmaceutical companies and poorly designed studies in extraordinary fashion in "Bad Science." He particularly loathes (most) nutritionists, especially Scottish TV personality Gillian McKeith. To prove that her American Association of Nutritional Consultants membership isn't so impressive, Goldacre describes registering his dead cat Hettie for the same credentials online. Goldacre shines in a chapter about bad scientific studies by writing it from the perspective of a make-believe big pharma researcher who needs to bring a mediocre new drug to market. He explains exactly how to skew the data to show a positive result. 'I'm so good at this I scare myself, ' he writes. 'Comes from reading too many rubbish trials.'" --Rachel Saslow, "The Washington Post""Ben Goldacre, a British p