Customer Reviews
Important and informative, but smug and disorganised - By: G. Bache, 04 Dec 2008 
I think this book is important & I'm glad I've read it. I certainly learnt a few things about medicine & the media from it. It's also easy to read & occasionally amusing. Unfortunately, I found the author self-important & smug, & the book's organisation chaotic. (No index!!!)
He has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about "humanities graduates". A very similar paragraph blaming them for many of the ills of media science appears several timesin the book, & comes across as a personal prejudice rather than anything he has tried to measure & evaluate.
What's worse, he rails against their assumption that anything they don't understand must be easy to do, & then reveals that he doesn't understand the literary supplementin his newspaper, but it seems to him that the point is to refer to as many Russian authors as possible to show how clever you are. The world could do with more (*mutual*) understanding between the sciences & humanities & this is scarcely the way to build it.
It would be easier to form an overall impression of media health scares if he could separate out & play down hoaxes that have only occurredin the tabloids. The revelation that The Sun & The Daily Mail are economical with the truth when it doesn't suit the story is probably not news to most of the people likely to read the book. I personally am much more worried about the smaller number of cases where the broadsheets get it wrong. However, these are perhaps less easy to make fun of.
I would also link up the part of the book where he describes the ideal clinical trial & ridicules those who get it wrong with the part where he reveals that all trials are problematic & ridicules those who are too quick to criticise them over minor issues: it would then be easier to form a balanced impression of this subject.
If you feel you're being conned by scare stories . . . . - By: Damaskcat, 04 Nov 2008 
I bought this book because I thought it would be a good idea to have an antidote to all the scare stories we readin the media. I was not disappointed. The descriptions of how trials & research should be done were excellent & easy to read & understand. It really helps to counteract the headlines & shows you how to work out the facts behind the stories. The book is worth its price for the chapter on the placebo effect alone & if you wanted to know what happened to the MMR controversy you can find outin this book. Very interesting reading.
Should be a standard School text book - By: Realist, 03 Nov 2008 This is not just a good read but also a really important subject - dumbing down of media led science reporting. I'll be giving it to some school age students for Christmas to encourage them see how science fact can be spunin papers/TV etc to give sensation led copy. I was lucky: I had an excellent science teacherin school (1970s - 80s) & was inspired to find out the background for myself behind every popular science or medical story. Great book.
Superb - Make sure you read this book - By: I could be Mr. Burns? Excellent!, 24 Oct 2008 Bad Science cuts through the spin & misinformation we all read every dayin newspapers & see on the TV regarding health issues. Ben explains how the high status given to science has been stolen by a variety of pseudo-scientific concepts like homeopathy & nutritionists. The media is taken to task for its sensation seeking headlines that help to create problems like the recent MMR hoax. Particularly amusing is Ben's explanation of journalist ignorance - "Unskilled & unaware of it". Mainstream medicine is also examined, & the placebo effect explained. Bens style of writing is very clear & easy to follow, at the end of this book you will be well informed about health issues & feel like spreading the truth with a missionary zeal. This is a very important book.
Yes, but... - By: Mildred, 24 Oct 2008 
A book for cynical critical people, of whom I am one with much sympathy for his mission. After reading it, I feel even more cynical about almost everything I readin the media, but, unfortunately, also about this author. I didn't find it particularly funny, the written style was very clumsy; he came over as just as egotistical as the so-called experts he criticised. And considering he is so critical of others' referencing, it is a pity his is so inconsistent - could he not have used straight Harvard throughout, which is comprehensive & recognisable to most people who have ever had to write an essay?
