Scan barcode
jimbowen0306's review against another edition
5.0
In his previous book, Ben Goldacre looked at how people misunderstand or misinterpret science. It made depressing reading. becaause you had to wonder if people could misunderstand Science that badly.
This book kind of explains how people (and doctors in particular) can be mislead. It explains how pharmaceutical companies, and those that work with/liaise with them (journals, and government authorities for example) stretch boundaries so that their medicines can look as good as possible to those who read the data.
It's a depressing read. If it's true (and by the end of the book, you'll be so depressed that you'll be hoping at least some of it won't be), you're going to be so angry that you'll be left wondering what you can do next politically.
This book kind of explains how people (and doctors in particular) can be mislead. It explains how pharmaceutical companies, and those that work with/liaise with them (journals, and government authorities for example) stretch boundaries so that their medicines can look as good as possible to those who read the data.
It's a depressing read. If it's true (and by the end of the book, you'll be so depressed that you'll be hoping at least some of it won't be), you're going to be so angry that you'll be left wondering what you can do next politically.
agirlandherlibrarian's review against another edition
3.0
An eye opening and frankly disturbing read. A little theatrical from Ben but solid I think
seclement's review against another edition
4.0
This book provides a sobering account of a wide range of problems with the pharmaceutical industry. It isn't sensationalist nor is it conspiratorial - because it doesn't need to be. Goldacre does a brilliant job of outlining the problems, providing evidence to support his claims where possible, and noting where data is lacking. All of that is more than can be said of the industry he is writing about.
If you read and enjoyed Bad Science, you will probably notice that this book is not nearly as entertaining. It is still written in Goldacre's trademark style, i.e. very clear, concise, and witty. But it is also much longer (yes, I just said concise and longer - bear with me) because he is trying to deliver a much more in-depth analysis of a particular industry. With Bad Science he provided a broad survey of the quackery landscape, whereas Bad Pharma drills down into the bad behaviour of just one industry. The humour is still there in Bad Pharma, but it is darker, and the content even more depressing. At times deeply so.
What I have to commend most about this book is how it always sums things up with answers. I was always taught that you shouldn't complain about problems unless you've thought about solutions. Of course there will be disagreement with the solutions he proposes, and he doesn't outline every potential fix. But he provides more than enough material to start the conversation, and move from criticism to productive reform. I don't know if the book will have an impact, but I certainly hope it does.
If you read and enjoyed Bad Science, you will probably notice that this book is not nearly as entertaining. It is still written in Goldacre's trademark style, i.e. very clear, concise, and witty. But it is also much longer (yes, I just said concise and longer - bear with me) because he is trying to deliver a much more in-depth analysis of a particular industry. With Bad Science he provided a broad survey of the quackery landscape, whereas Bad Pharma drills down into the bad behaviour of just one industry. The humour is still there in Bad Pharma, but it is darker, and the content even more depressing. At times deeply so.
What I have to commend most about this book is how it always sums things up with answers. I was always taught that you shouldn't complain about problems unless you've thought about solutions. Of course there will be disagreement with the solutions he proposes, and he doesn't outline every potential fix. But he provides more than enough material to start the conversation, and move from criticism to productive reform. I don't know if the book will have an impact, but I certainly hope it does.
clairewilsonleeds's review against another edition
3.0
This had a lot of valuable knowledge and definitely some shocking info, but I think it was just a bad pick for me - too dense and things were repeated multiple times that I had already grasped some time ago.
jon_a's review against another edition
5.0
An excellent book. Goldacre lays out a very ugly picture of current evidence-based medicine. Using academic research and specific examples, he describes missing trial data, ineffective regulation, misleading pharmaceutical advertising campaigns, and many other aspects of the field that hurt both doctors and patients. Reading this book can really get you up in arms.
But then Goldacre goes farther and offers up a series of suggestions to help correct this situation. Suggestions for every layer, from patients to regulators and even to the pharmaceutical corporations themselves. Bad Pharma was not written just to provoke outrage, but actually bring about some change.
But then Goldacre goes farther and offers up a series of suggestions to help correct this situation. Suggestions for every layer, from patients to regulators and even to the pharmaceutical corporations themselves. Bad Pharma was not written just to provoke outrage, but actually bring about some change.