Scan barcode
lifepluspreston's review against another edition
4.0
The Doctor Who Fooled The World by Brian Deer--This largely unprecedented examination of what be of the most miscited studies in medical history is jaw-dropping yet matter of fact both in scope and in what it reveals. Deer has been on the medical investigative journalism beat for years, uncovering stories about Big Pharma and biotech hucksters alike. But his examination of Andrew Wakefield and his infamous Lancet study claiming a link between the MMR vaccine regimen and autism is incredibly comprehensive. Deer exposes, for example, Wakefield's compromised approach from the start, which went carefully hidden for years. Deer writes with barely-contained disdain about Wakefield, who he views as intentionally and maliciously pulling the wool over desperate parents' eyes time and time again for decades, with Deer's conclusions, proven out time and time again in court, still explained away by Wakefield's most vocal champions. I knew from mainstream coverage of the Lancet study that the conclusions drawn from such a small sample size shouldn't be trusted, I didn't realize that they were so woefully compromised from the get-go. Very frankly, even the publication of this thorough a takedown of a figure who has proven to be extraordinarily litigious attempting to protect his fraudulent claims seems to demonstrate its own veracity. Thumbs up.
kjx's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.0
Brian Deer is a tad smug but the book is absolutely compelling.
davebob3's review against another edition
4.0
The comprehensive chronicle of Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent Lancet report. It's rough and depressing but compelling reading. Some of the details are amazing, in terrible ways.
My biggest complaint about this book is the author feels the need to describe how people look, which is not really a point of interest to me in a book like this.
My biggest complaint about this book is the author feels the need to describe how people look, which is not really a point of interest to me in a book like this.
shanaqui's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
4.0
I've always felt that Andrew Wakefield was a murderer -- growing up with my mother, who is a doctor, I'm not sure any other opinion was possible. As someone who's now studying for a degree in infectious diseases, I feel it even more. So my comment on picking up Brian Deer's account of Andrew Wakefield's fraud, The Doctor Who Fooled the World, was that it was surely going to raise my blood pressure.
It did, of course. The very beginnings of Andrew Wakefield's fraud could have been, possibly even were, an honest attempt to look into a hypothesis. But then money got involved, big money, and he saw his name writ in lights -- and he wanted it so badly. He still wants it, and he'll do anything for it: that is apparent in all his actions.
It doesn't help that I don't think (from Deer's account anyway) that Wakefield really understood the science that he was having others do for him. He latched onto theories suggested for him by non-scientists, and tried to make them true by force of will, altering the evidence until it suited his purposes. It also likely wasn't helped by other people around him, convinced by his charisma, trying to get him the results he wanted.
This is why we start out with a null hypothesis. We go in assuming that we're wrong, and it requires clear evidence that meets criteria that suggest it didn't happen by chance in order to change our minds. Even then, even when we're got a likelihood of P = 0.05, that's still a chance that we got this result by chance (to be accurate, P = 0.05 means that there's a 5/100 = 1/20 chance that the observed result arose by pure chance). Deer doesn't go into the depths of whether Wakefield had a null hypothesis, or what his P-values looked like, but the rest of his descriptions inspire no confidence, along with the fact that he refused to conduct a proper, blinded trial when it was offered to him on a silver platter.
If you're a scientist, you don't say no to the chance to run a fully funded study that will prove or disprove your theory -- not unless you think there's a significant chance you're wrong, and you want to make money out of the ambiguity that you might just be right.
Deer discusses all kinds of ways in which Wakefield created and perpetuated his fraud, and also some of the human impact thereof. It's a journalist's point of view, so sometimes the scientific detail I crave isn't there, but it's explained well and clearly for a layperson. It's difficult to say I enjoyed this, but it was valuable.
I don't think it would convince anyone who isn't already willing to be convinced, unfortunately, but if someone's on the fence, it might help.
It did, of course. The very beginnings of Andrew Wakefield's fraud could have been, possibly even were, an honest attempt to look into a hypothesis. But then money got involved, big money, and he saw his name writ in lights -- and he wanted it so badly. He still wants it, and he'll do anything for it: that is apparent in all his actions.
It doesn't help that I don't think (from Deer's account anyway) that Wakefield really understood the science that he was having others do for him. He latched onto theories suggested for him by non-scientists, and tried to make them true by force of will, altering the evidence until it suited his purposes. It also likely wasn't helped by other people around him, convinced by his charisma, trying to get him the results he wanted.
This is why we start out with a null hypothesis. We go in assuming that we're wrong, and it requires clear evidence that meets criteria that suggest it didn't happen by chance in order to change our minds. Even then, even when we're got a likelihood of P = 0.05, that's still a chance that we got this result by chance (to be accurate, P = 0.05 means that there's a 5/100 = 1/20 chance that the observed result arose by pure chance). Deer doesn't go into the depths of whether Wakefield had a null hypothesis, or what his P-values looked like, but the rest of his descriptions inspire no confidence, along with the fact that he refused to conduct a proper, blinded trial when it was offered to him on a silver platter.
If you're a scientist, you don't say no to the chance to run a fully funded study that will prove or disprove your theory -- not unless you think there's a significant chance you're wrong, and you want to make money out of the ambiguity that you might just be right.
Deer discusses all kinds of ways in which Wakefield created and perpetuated his fraud, and also some of the human impact thereof. It's a journalist's point of view, so sometimes the scientific detail I crave isn't there, but it's explained well and clearly for a layperson. It's difficult to say I enjoyed this, but it was valuable.
I don't think it would convince anyone who isn't already willing to be convinced, unfortunately, but if someone's on the fence, it might help.
katherinejanewright's review against another edition
Deer's research is invaluable, and without him Wakefield might really have gotten away with it, but my goodness, I just cannot stand his prose style. It's like every sentence is a newspaper headline. A shame, I've seen so many documentaries by Deer and based on his work that I'd been looking forward to this but it just doesn't gel with me. YMMV, of course
thewargrave's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
4.0
whatthesquids's review
dark
informative
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
Might be a bit hard to follow if you're not familiar with events, but well worth it.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Child abuse, Medical trauma, and Pandemic/Epidemic