Summary Of Bad Science By Ben Goldacre

When I had first opened Ben Goldacre’s book “Bad Science”, I did not know what was to be expected. Know that I have read and assessed the book I feel as though I have read something that has given me the confidence to voice my opinion and have concrete evidence to support my arguments about how some things claim to have scientific proof and to the

That being said, fish oils, vitamins, detox, and brain gym are all bullshit creations that should not be sold to the public. Now, I say this only after having read Bad Science, because these techniques are criticized and challenged by Ben Goldacre. I have learned that some detoxification methods are bogus and can be disproven in my very own kitchen, and I don’t have to be an accredited university

“Homeopathy is perhaps the paradigmatic example of an alternative therapy… its proponents are clear that the pills will make you better, when in fact they have been thoroughly researched, with innumerable trials, and have been found to perform no better than placebo.” (Goldacre, 31)
When I read this I was astounded. I thought to myself “did he just say that the pills I have been taking throughout my life to relieve pain would have worked no better than if I had taken a placebo sugar pill?” and that is exactly what Goldacre proves after illustrating the importance of the placebo and nocebo effect, blind testing and randomization in the process of fair clinical testing. In addition, the issue of regression to the mean was also added as an important factor to again ensure ‘fair clinical testing’. The author begins evaluating and rather harshly analyzing the claims of one German doctor named Samuel Hahnemann. Saying that there are “obvious problems with his system” (Goldacre, 23) adding on the notion and effects of placebo on the patients he had used to develop certain remedies over the years. However, he manages to come up with the notion that homeopathy may still have psychological benefits on patients, and further studies could be acquired on the subject. He emphasizes on the tone and manner in which a diagnosis is given to a patient, it could positively or negatively effect the hopefulness of a patient and ultimately they’re prognosis on the substance they

This notion was presented by Dr. Gillian Mckeith who Goldacre described as a “clinical nutritionist” posing in laboratories, surrounded by test tubes, and talking about diagnosis and molecules. A picturesque normally associated with accredited scientists. In spite of this image Goldacre views here as being a “ menace to the public understanding of science” (Goldacre, 115). He begins to tackle the misconception of ‘oxygenating your body’ through foods such as spinach; it simply does not make sense. How can something you eat, that is digested in your bowels somehow be linked to oxygen, which is linked to our respiratory system in our lungs? He graphically explains that even if somehow by some miracle you really did start to produce oxygen that it would still be impossible to absorb a significant amount through your bowels. This simple explanation quickly and simply discredits all off McKeiths mistaken claims through scientific evidence. How could we be so stupid into believing these sort of