Basically what I took from this is that I hope I never get into an argument with Ben Goldacre bc he would TEAR ME TO SHREDS. WITH STATISTICS.

No but really it was a great (and incredibly nerdy) read and I’m never trusting any research presented in mainstream media ever again without reading the published paper. Also I am going to edit all my future papers as if Ben Goldacre is reading them. Also also I laughed a lot on public transport while reading this so y’know he’s doing something right. Enjoyed.

This was probably better than a three star but wasn't super ground-breaking for me so a three star rating it gets. Bonus points for how enjoyable this was though.

Collection of excellent pieces by Ben Goldacre (Bad Science, Bad Pharma) that were previously published on http://www.badscience.net. Recommended debunking - relentless and honest.

P42 "Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies Home Journal wrote: “There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”" http://www.badscience.net/2007/08/pink-pink-pink-pink-pink-moan/

P68 “We know so little about the ancient Woolworth stores,” he explains, “but we do still know their locations. I thought that if we analysed the sites we could learn more about what life was like in 2008 and how these people went about buying cheap kitchen accessories and discount CDs.” http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/voices-of-the-ancients/

P73 There’s something magical about watching patterns emerge from data http://www.badscience.net/2011/06/theres-something-magical-about-watching-patterns-emerge-from-data/

P178 Randomized Control Trials (RCT) are mentioned in the Bible, Daniel 1:12 'Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink
http://biblehub.com/daniel/1-12.htm

P306 Empathy's failure http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/empathys-failures/
The Scope-Severity Paradox: Why Doing More Harm Is Judged to be Less Harmful

The very best journalism from one of Britain's most admired and outspoken science writers, author of the bestselling Bad Science and Bad Pharma.

Have I heard of Ben Goldacre? I think so. Have I ever read his articles? Somehow, I haven't. Do I enjoy someone picking apart falsehoods in reporting and research? You betcha. So this collection was ridiculously enjoyable.

My background is journalism, and I have a lot of fundamental problems with misreporting of stuff. I've even boycotted the news after years of it being my background TV, so seeing Goldacre take science reporting in various forms and pick apart the inaccuracies was just good ol' nitpicking fun.

But beyond that, it's quite ridiculous the liberties taken by some academics, companies and journalists in some really serious topics. You take much of the press with a pinch of salt, but flat out lies is quite a surprise in a lot of cases.

This is a circular review. Basically, if you like someone tackling things head on when they're wrong, with a bit of sarcasm, but a whole load of knowledge and research behind their articles, then this is just great. If you like science, I daresay you'll find something to enjoy too. If you like getting lazily angry at the wrongs of the world, like papers who profit on lies, you'll find those boxes well and truly ticked. It's just very good, I think.

A bunch of very very short newspaper editorials which are all interesting individually but don't add up to anything and repeat themselves a lot.

This is a collection of Goldacre's columns in the Guardian (British Newspaper), but even if you are a regular reader of his column, this is worth getting so you can re-read them.
Goldacre's subject is those who misrepresent science for various reasons: a more exciting newspaper article, profit, ideology or carelessness.
The back cover cites The Daily Telegraph as saying ‘This is a book to make you enraged’ and it does exactly that. (There is some irony here as the Telegraph is a frequent target of Goldacre’s).
The reason for anger is the sheer scale of the bad reporting or downright mis-reporting of science, which is to say of those facts that we have the strongest grounds for believing, through sources which can have serious negative impact on our lives. If they are wrong, we will use products that are bad for us when they are supposed to be good, we will expose our children to needless illness and we will elect politicians whose actions will not lead to the results we expect.
I get most of my science from primary sources or at least university textbooks, so I was well aware of a good deal of misreporting. Until I started reading Goldacre, I had no idea of the extent. This should frighten you. He goes back to primary sources, often digging them out with much effort as the newspapers’ citation style is usually “scientists say...” and in many cases he tracks down the scientists who do the saying, only to find that they themselves deny ever having said any such thing.
On the other hand, I got a good deal of pleasure from the book. I learned a good deal of science as his language is very plain, so digestible at a much faster rate than journals written in the jargon of disciplines I don’t know that well, as well as having some humour and with an engaging story-telling style.
In summary, a book that is a pleasure to read, on an important topic that everyone is affected by and providing knowledge can help your daily life.

This was another thought provoking book from Ben Goldacre.

Unlike the previous two I read (Bad Science and Bad Pharma) this was a collection of articles that he had previously published articles he's blogged or written for The Guardian.

It did make me think about a lot of news articles I've read as they use spurious statistics to push a certain view.

I would definitely recommend to anyone who is interested in the facts behind the headlines.

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!

This collection of short writing by Ben Goldacre is mostly drawn from his Guardian Column, Bad Science, where he took apart stories in the media that were built on bad science, often repeatedly. I'm really impressed with Goldacre's work and the amount of time and effort he sometimes had to spend to get past obstructive companies (and sometimes journalists), to get to the original research (or contacting the researchers, if it wasn't available) and lay out not only his conclusions in a very readable manner, but also the process of science and why that's so important, as well as very patiently explaining the basics of epidemiology.

This explanation of how science works, with examples of bad science, forms the largest section of the book, but the range is huge, as you'd expect from having eight years of weekly columns to choose from, ranging from Susan Greenfield's continuing refusal to publish any research to back up her claims that computer games are bad for children to devices that supposedly detect bombs in Iraq.

The book is very readable, each article is fairly short and it's a good book for picking up in bits, or (as Goldacre calls it in the introduction), a statistics toilet book. I appreciate that he's moved on to other things now, but I do miss the Bad Science column. Especially after reading this book, I tend to treat any scientific or statistical claim made in the media with some suspicion. I've started to follow the NHS NHS Behind the Headlines blog which does some of the same things (but only for medicine). Of course this doesn't have the profile of a national newspaper but it's something.