21 of 29 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Big Pharma (Paperback)
This book can be summarised in a few lines.
Big Pharma's financial motivations do not lie easily with the public's wish for better and cheaper healthcare. An interesting point, but one that can be found in any industry: the industry tries to palm something off on you by telling you that it will be beneficial for you (although, as is covered in the book, pharma companies have to do this in a roundabout way because of restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising) when in fact it is nowhere near as beneficial as they made out - that new TV didn't transcend your viewing experience to a higher plain, did it? Obviously with pharmaceuticals this can be a slightly more critical situation, but I don't think such a point deserves to be padded out over over 250 pages; although maybe it would deserve to be if it was done well.
The standard of writing is poor (i've read catalgoues with more narrative skill) and the standing of proofing is just as bad. The same points are repeated two or three times within a chapter; acronyms are sometimes used two or three times before their meaning is fully expounded, and the author's massive reverence for Scrip does not carry much weight, however respected the magazine might be, because she used to work for them. If this book is supposed to be an objective documentation of the facts, why do I need to be told that Scrip is 'the pharmaceutical industry bible'?
There are some interesting things in here for someone who knows little about the business (hence the three stars, rather than two), but for anyone above the novice level this will provide little satisfaction.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-1 of 1 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 2 Feb 2010 09:54:17 GMT
C. C. Chivers says:
I've only read the first few pages of Big Pharma and had to put it down. I am in total agreement that this is very dry reading with a number of mistakes that should easily have been caught. Moreover, I was not impressed with the way the author seemed to condemn her father's choice of not taking pills as a sort of archaic attitude when the whole point of this book is about reducing the number of pills one is supposed to take. Not only that, she is obviously not aware of the side effects of statins or the benefits of cholesterol, as she promotes statins (who's side is she actually on?).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›