RE: 'Is it worth getting this book, if you already have Freakonomics?'

Verlaine76 — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:44:03 GMT

This book has a very different focus from Freakonomics, it's really about how particular interest groups (particularly pharmacological companies, alternative medicine practitioners, newspapers, PR companies and, for some odd reason, humanities graduates) distort and misrepresent science for their own nefarious ends. It really could have been called "Bad Medicine" (though that *would* evoke Bon Jovi) as understandably Dr Goldacre focuses almost entirely on medical science. There's little or nothing in here for example on global warming, nuclear power, particle physics, string theory, evolution vs. creationism etc. It's like Richard Dawkins' recent writing in the sense that it's a very good read with lots of useful insights (I think better than Freakonomics in this regard) if you can get past the rather frequent bursts of ill temper and the sometimes preening tone.

Reply to this post.

'Is it worth getting this book, if you already have Freakonomics?'

MHS — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:36:21 GMT

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of EverythingA lot of people complain that some books repeat what other better books say much more clearly. Is this the case?

Reply to this post.

Replies to 'Is it worth getting this book, if you already have Freakonomics?' in Amazon.co.uk Customer Discussions

RE: 'Is it worth getting this book, if you already have Freakonomics?'

'Is it worth getting this book, if you already have Freakonomics?'