Originally rejected by the London Review of Books, this post details why Ben Goldacre’s ‘Bad Pharma’ plays right into the hands of. ‘Bad Science’ hilariously exposed the tricks that quacks and journalists use to distort science, becoming a , copy bestseller. Now Ben Goldacre puts the . Bad Pharma (4th Estate, ) is my book about the misuse of evidence by the pharmaceutical industry, especially the way that negative trial data goes missing .
|Published (Last):||22 December 2004|
|PDF File Size:||20.95 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Return to Book Page. Preview — Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. In reality, those tests are often profoundly flawed. Ben Goldacre shows that the true scale of this murderous disaster fully reveals itself only when the details are untangled. He believes we should all be able to understand precisely how data manipulation works and how research misconduct on a global scale affects us.
This is the pharmaceutical industry as it has never been seen before. Hardcoverpages. Published February 5th by Farrar, Straus and Giroux first published Goodreads Choice Award Nominee for Nonfiction To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Bad Pharmaplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Nov 12, knig rated it it was amazing Shelves: This is the MOST appalling, horrific, mind-numbing expose on the current state of medicine I had never hoped to see, or know, or be a part of.
You ever go to the doctor? Maybe you expect the doctor, as the specialist, to be able to diagnose and treat you accordingly. I know I do: I go in with my ailments and I lik Stop Press: I go in with my ailments and I like to come out with prescriptions, even better, prescriptions that work.
But what exactly is going on behind the scenes? And how do I even begin? You might as well prescribe your own medicines: The reasons he has no real accurate knowledge are many, but here are the best: However, they are not required to submit the results of ALL the trials they undertake. Basically, a pharma company can submit ANY result it chooses. What are the regulators doing in all of this? Nothing, they are on the side of the pharmacological industry. More on that later.
A new product is licensed. So, how good is it?
Bad Pharma: A Manifesto to Fix the Pharmaceutical Industry
Well, no one knows because, you see, drugs are not tested against best in breed, but against placebo, or, in other words, the litmus test is is this drug better than pgarma at all? So fine, it might be better than nothing at all, but how does it compare against other drugs on the market for the same condition? It might actually be worse than every other drug on the market, but no one, not even the doctors know. It might not even be better than nothing at all, even be killing people, literally, but foldacre one knows: Remember the seven adverse trials that were swept under the carpet?
Sure, Goldacre gives several examples.
Bad Pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients
Paroxetine prescribed off label for children, and antiarithmic drugs amongst others. So what exactly does the doctor know? Whatever the pharma company reps decide to phadma him.
Its as simple as that. How accurate are the reps? Well, I feel physically sick just thinking about it. The chapter is very explicit. Where are the regulators in all of this? Various reasons are proffered for this: Honestly I can go on forever, but the bottom line is this: View all 20 comments.
Dec 05, Scott rated it did not like it Shelves: Currently reading this but not so sure how much more I can take. There is some decent information here. The title is absolutely true. Drug companies are businesses and multibillion dollar corporations are not ethical paragons.
They do not publish studies that make their drug look bad or even “as good as. Sometimes legit journals want the most interesting “this changes everything” articles rather than another “dog bites man” article to boost Currently reading this but not so sure how much more I can take.
Sometimes legit journals want the most interesting “this changes everything” articles rather than another “dog bites man” article to boost readership.
The problem with this book is that it is a combination of fact, hyperbole, and omission, not unlike the drug companies themselves.
Why such overuse of superlatives when simply presenting and explaining the data should be convincing enough. The omissions are that most if not all physicians heavily distrust any pharmaceutical-sponsored or presented paper. Research that is used as evidence-based treatment is peer-reviewed by other researchers and physicians and statisticians for any possible flaws or oversights in conclusions.
There are few things physicians enjoy more than disproving other physicians when it comes to the Truth, as far as science and data are concerned. It’s practically the second commandment. Most docs are well versed and tested in statistics. They look at sample size s of people in your study is better than you and grandmasample location cultural lifestyles are not alikeas well as outside interests or sponsorships and the number-crunching itself. Any self-respecting researcher or physician can answer that question – because we want to find the BEST treatment for a patient regardless of which drug company it hurts.
FUCK the drug companies and all the stat-fudgers and quacks. It’s far from a perfect system. There are always charlatans and opportunists when money is involved. The system does indeed need to change, I just wonder if it can with so many hands in the pot. But for this author to give the constant impression that EVERY drug is a scam, EVERY paper out there is bought and paid for, is disingenuous at best, and the exact charlatanry the author purports to expose at worst, and he’s making quite the profit himself.
I honestly want to like this book more. I want the facts sifted from the subjective miasma in its pages, so I can tell my patients the facts and not just “read Ben Goldacre’s book. View all 5 comments.
Dec 18, Becky rated it really liked it Shelves: I read Goldacre’s book Bad Science very recently, and I enjoyed it so much that I decided to not go for my usual buffer period between very similar books and just jump right into Bad Pharma. And they are very similar books, though this one is actually longer, for all that it is more specialized in one area of badness. There was a lot of overlap between the two, which is to be expected, I guess, because Goldacre IS a doctor, and lives in this world.
I didn’t really mind the rehash though, because I read Goldacre’s book Bad Science very recently, and I enjoyed it so much that I decided to not go for my usual buffer period between very similar books and just jump right into Bad Pharma.
I didn’t really mind the rehash though, because it gave me a second chance to think about it and absorb the info. I listened to both of these books on audio, and this almost felt like a continuation of the first book, especially because the reader was the same for both.
One thing that I did appreciate was, during his section on bad trials, he mentioned outright fraud, one area where I felt was overlooked in Bad Science. It’s a brief mention, but it is its own section, as it should be. Because fraud is everywhere, and even in peer-reviewed science, and systematically reviewed science, it still happens. I also liked how this book got into some of the non-science badness of the pharmacological industry – advertising and politics and bribery and ultimatums and the like.
What I was surprised about though, was that all of this affected the UK, which I stupidly, I guess thought wouldn’t have that issue because of their National Health Service.
We don’t have government run healthcare here in bdn US and no, the Affordable Care Act doesn’t count and there’s so much bullshit surrounding this industry that it boggles the mind. I’m still waiting on those Death Panels though. I have a few suggestions for useless people who could go on the list.
Anyway, I’m not trying to go into a political ramblerant here because I am the first one to admit that I don’t know nearly enough about it.
I just brought that up because I thought that America, with its allowing advertising and its lack of enforced pahrma would be the exception, but it seems like this shit goes on all over. There go my plans of moving to Europe if I get sick.
Or if certain other nightmare events come to pass next year. I can’t say that this is a very light-hearted set of books, but I think that they are absolutely worth reading. I like that Goldacre provides some ways that things could be improved, though it seems very unlikely that any of his recommendations would actually be put into place, because then that would mean that some people would lharma a whole lot of money, and that’s just not how this shit works.