Enjoyed flicking through this collection of articles over the holidays. Dr Goldacre has a very cutting and dry wit and is merciless at cutting down, seemingly, everyone. His brand of pop science is important to cut through the crap for average readers, particularly given he publishes so regularly in a large magazine, but I also found, at times, he used the same aggressive black-and-white good-vs-bad journalism he accused others of doing. Definitely fun regardless!

Collection of Ben Goldacre’s from the Guardian. Very interesting read specially if you’re interested in scientific studies that turn out to be not very scientific!

Fantastic writing; Ben Goldacre expresses himself superbly in these short essays - but I missed the level of (sometimes obsessive) detail in his longer writing.

Being a collection of columns the book is quite variable in terms of quality and as such isn't as satisfying as his other books. The best columns are excellent but there's quite a bit of meh in there as well which drags down the rating overall.

How you feel about this book will depend on how you feel about Ben Goldacre. It's basically a collection of his writings over the years.

On the one hand, I am in awe of how much energy he has. He's been fighting misinformation for years and every time I finish one of his books, it leaves me miserable at what people can get away with. I'm also relieved that there are people like Dr Goldacre out there debunking this crap.

On the other hand, I also find his writing to be irritatingly smug.

As a collection of short articles, this was a jollier and more digestible book than Bad Pharma. It still left me feeling both disappointed at the state of science journalism and annoyed at having been lectured in nuggets of snark for the few days it took me to read.

There are some inclusions - such as an evangelical piece trying to get teachers on board with creating opportunities for research in education - that seemed out of place among the rest of the material, which mostly comprises articles from his column in the Guardian.

Ben Goldacre is good at calling people out on their shoddy numbers, but I feel he loses objectivity when there is a moral component to an argument. He puts forward his opinion on ethical issues in the same strident fashion as he does with facts, asserting his own opinion as the only reasonable stance on a myriad of issues.

For example, he is quite happy to present shoddy evidence to support pornography where sperm is collected. The most relevant of the studies he presented as evidence in support of porn only had 19 patients in it and arguably used a surrogate outcome, seeing as the question would be Does pornography in this setting increase the chances of a successful pregnancy? Other evidence was either carried out in animals or didn't use "no pornography" as a control.

There's a willingness to overlook the inadequacy of the evidence when it backs up his own position. Maybe if he wasn't so aggressively pedantic when assessing evidence others use it would be easier to ignore.

(I want to point out that I haven't decided what my opinion is on the NHS providing porn. Maybe a B.Y.O arrangement would be more satisfactory for everyone?)

Dr Goldacre's everyone-who-doesn't-agree-with-me is either a) an idiot, b) a moron or c) stupid approach can sometimes be fair enough when it comes to refuting definite facts, but you simply can't apply the same attitude where there is a difference in moral priorities. You won't find any nuanced discussion of ethics or philosophy in these articles.

He is, however, good at debunking nonsense claims and pointing out why a lot of what we hear reported day to day is complete tosh. He's very smart with figures, in a way that makes my poor qualitative head spin.

Personally, although Ben Goldacre is obviously an important voice in the fight for rationality, I find his know-it-all manner alienating and now that I've read three books by him, I don't feel the need to buy any more.

Fun columns on bad science and bad journalism as well as a few insights into evidence based medicine with some interesting take-away-ideas on how to apply those principles to teaching and how not to.

Overall liked it, really interesting. Wouldn't recommend for reading in big chunks tho because of the format and it being lots of little pieces its difficult for one big sitting