Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks - Softcover

Goldacre, Ben

 
9780865479180: Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks

Inhaltsangabe

Have 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.

Die Inhaltsangabe kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.

Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Ben Goldacre is a doctor and writer. His first book Bad Science was an international bestseller, and has been translated into twenty-five languages. He lives in London.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Bad Science

Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma FlacksBy Ben Goldacre

Faber & Faber

Copyright © 2010 Ben Goldacre
All right reserved.

ISBN: 9780865479180
Table of Contents
Title Page

PREFACE
1 - MATTER
DETOX AND THE THEATER OF GOO
IF IT’S NOT SCIENCE, WHAT IS IT?
2 - BRAIN GYM
3 - THE PROGENIUM XY COMPLEX
4 - HOMEOPATHY
WHAT IS HOMEOPATHY?
THE DILUTION PROBLEM
I DEMAND A FAIR TRIAL
BLINDING
RANDOMIZATION
META-ANALYSIS
5 - THE PLACEBO EFFECT
THE PLACEBO ON TRIAL
WHAT THE TREATMENT LOOKS LIKE
WHAT THE DOCTOR SAYS
PLACEBO EXPLANATIONS
MORE THAN MOLECULES?
AN ETHICAL PLACEBO?
6 - THE NONSENSE DU JOUR
THE FOUR KEY ERRORS
PROBLEMATIZING ANTIOXIDANTS
7 - NUTRITIONISTS
8 - THE DOCTOR WILL SUE YOU NOW
9 - IS MAINSTREAM MEDICINE EVIL?
THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
10 - WHY CLEVER PEOPLE BELIEVE STUPID THINGS
RANDOMNESS
REGRESSION TO THE MEAN
THE BIAS TOWARD POSITIVE EVIDENCE
BIASED BY OUR PRIOR BELIEFS
AVAILABILITY
SOCIAL INFLUENCES
11 - BAD STATS
THE BIGGEST STATISTIC
CHOOSING YOUR FIGURES
COCAINE FLOODS THE PLAYGROUND
OK, BACK TO AN EASY ONE
BEATING YOU UP
LOCKING YOU UP
LOSING THE LOTTERY
12 - THE MEDIA’S MMR HOAX
VACCINE SCARES IN CONTEXT
ANDREW WAKEFIELD AND HIS LANCET PAPER
THE STORY BEHIND THE PAPER
THE PRESS COVERAGE BEGINS
AUTISM
LEO BLAIR
WHAT WAS IN THESE STORIES?
THE EVIDENCE ON MMR
SCIENTIFIC “EVIDENCE” IN THE MEDIA
WHAT THEY DIDN’T TELL YOU
OLD DISEASES RETURN
AND ANOTHER THING
BEN GOLDACRE BAD SCIENCE
PRAISE FOR BAD SCIENCE
NOTES
FURTHER READING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INDEX
Copyright Page
1MATTER

I spend a lot of time talking to people who disagree with me—I would go so far as to say that it’s my favorite leisure activity—and repeatedly I meet individuals who are eager to share their views on science despite the fact that they have never done an experiment. They have never tested an idea for themselves, using their own hands, or seen the results of that test, using their own eyes, and they have never thought carefully about what those results mean for the idea they are testing, using their own brain. To these people “science” is a monolith, a mystery, and an authority, rather than a method.

Dismantling our early, more outrageous pseudoscientific claims is an excellent way to learn the basics of science, partly because science is largely about disproving theories, but also because the lack of scientific knowledge among miracle cure artistes, marketers, and journalists gives us some very simple ideas to test. Their knowledge of science is rudimentary, so as well as making basic errors of reasoning, they rely on notions like magnetism, oxygen, water, “energy,” and toxins—ideas from high school-level science and all very much within the realm of kitchen chemistry.

DETOX AND THE THEATER OF GOO

Since you’ll want your first experiment to be authentically messy, we’ll start with detox. Detox footbaths have been promoted uncritically in some very embarrassing articles in the New York Daily News, the Telegraph, the Mirror, The Sunday Times (London), GQ magazine, and various TV shows. Here is a taster from the New York Daily News: it’s a story about Ally Shapiro, a fourteen-year-old who went to a “detox” center run by Roni DeLuz, author of 21 Pounds in 21 Days: The Martha’s Vineyard Diet.

“The first day I did it,” says Shapiro, “the water was completely black by the end.” By day three, twenty minutes in the footbath generated a copper-colored sludge—the color of the flushed buildup from her joints related to arthritis, DeLuz explained. The hypothesis from these companies is very clear: your body is full of “toxins,” whatever those may be; your feet are filled with special “pores” (discovered by ancient Chinese scientists, no less); you put your feet in the bath, the toxins are extracted, and the water goes brown. Is the brown in the water because of the toxins? Or is that merely theater?

One way to test this is to go along and have an Aqua Detox treatment yourself at a health spa, beauty salon, or any of the thousands of places they are available online, and take your feet out of the bath when the therapist leaves the room. If the water goes brown without your feet in it, then it wasn’t your feet or your toxins that did it. That is a controlled experiment; everything is the same in both conditions, except for the presence or absence of your feet.

There are disadvantages with this experimental method (and there is an important lesson here—that we must often weigh up the benefits and practicalities of different forms of research, which will become important in later chapters). From a practical perspective, the “feet out” experiment involves subterfuge, which may make you uncomfortable. But it is also expensive: one session of Aqua Detox will cost more than the components to build your own detox device, a perfect model of the real one.

You will need:

  • One car battery charger
  • Two large nails
  • Kitchen salt
  • Warm water
  • One Barbie doll
  • A full analytic laboratory (optional)

This experiment involves electricity and water. In a world of hurricane hunters and volcanologists, we must accept that everyone sets their own level of risk tolerance. You might well give yourself a nasty electric shock if you perform this experiment at home, and it could easily blow the wiring in your house. It is not safe, but it is in some sense relevant to your understanding of MMR, homeopathy, postmodernist critiques of science, and the evils of big pharma. DO NOT BUILD IT.

When you switch your Barbie Detox machine on, you will see that the water goes brown, due to a very simple process called electrolysis; the iron electrodes rust, essentially, and the brown rust goes into the water. But there is something more happening in there, something you might half remember from chemistry at school. There is salt in the water. The proper scientific term for household salt is “sodium chloride”; in solution, this means that there are chloride ions floating around, which have a negative charge (and sodium ions, which have a positive charge). The red connector on your car battery charger is a “positive electrode,” and here negatively charged electrons are stolen away from the negatively charged chloride ions, resulting in the production of free chlorine gas.

So chlorine gas is given off by the Barbie Detox bath, and indeed by the Aqua Detox footbath, and the people who use this product have elegantly woven...

„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.

Weitere beliebte Ausgaben desselben Titels