What do you think?
Rate this book
Doctoring Data
Is coffee good for you? Will sausages kill you? Should you avoid sugar, fat, salt or all three? Booked your smear test yet? Checked your balls? Considering bariatric surgery? Are you taking statins like a good boy or girl?... Or should you just ignore this relentless bombardment of medical advice and remember that no one gets out alive.
With the same brilliance and humour that bowled us over in "The Great Cholesterol Con", Dr Kendrick takes a scalpel to the world of medical research and dissects it for your inspection. He reveals the tricks that are played to make minute risk look enormous. How the drug trials are hyped, the data manipulated, the endless games that are played to scare us into doing what, in many cases, makes the most money. After reading this book you will know what to believe and what to ignore. You'll have a much greater understanding of the world of medical research. A world in crisis.
With the same brilliance and humour that bowled us over in "The Great Cholesterol Con", Dr Kendrick takes a scalpel to the world of medical research and dissects it for your inspection. He reveals the tricks that are played to make minute risk look enormous. How the drug trials are hyped, the data manipulated, the endless games that are played to scare us into doing what, in many cases, makes the most money. After reading this book you will know what to believe and what to ignore. You'll have a much greater understanding of the world of medical research. A world in crisis.
296 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
124 people are currently reading
501 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
June 15, 2016
I'm not sure what to make of this one.
On the one hand, there were many good points about research that is controlled by corporate money, peer review that is designed to maintain the status quo (i.e., the research corporate money has bought). And I have to say, I was surprised at Kendrick's assertion that many of our medical guidelines are not premised on sound research (and many are actually more harmful than non-intervention, like some therapies involving statin drugs). And, further, that the ability to conduct sound research is prohibited by the accepted belief that the medical guidelines are true.
On the other hand, I was not sure at times if Kendrick was saying all medical research was flawed or too tightly controlled by Big Pharma. Also, he seems to make an argument that the lack of good research indicates that a therapy is not correct. My take would be that the lack of research would indicated that we don't know if the therapy is beneficial or harmful. And, finally, I was not convinced by Kendrick's assertion that you 'can't trust experts'. This may be true if you practice in the field - you have the tools to question the expert. For the rest of us, if the doctor says you need a treatment, I think it would be difficult to dismiss the expert advice. What would I base my disagreement on? Why even go for the advice in the first place? No, I'm with Kahneman - in areas where you don't have expertise, you are best to trust the consensus of the experts. Kendrick gives some good examples where this point of view might fail, but ...
Overall, I think Kendrick makes some compelling arguments about medicine, but I think the extrapolation of his concerns and general aphorisms about research to other areas of science may have been overreaching a bit.
On the one hand, there were many good points about research that is controlled by corporate money, peer review that is designed to maintain the status quo (i.e., the research corporate money has bought). And I have to say, I was surprised at Kendrick's assertion that many of our medical guidelines are not premised on sound research (and many are actually more harmful than non-intervention, like some therapies involving statin drugs). And, further, that the ability to conduct sound research is prohibited by the accepted belief that the medical guidelines are true.
On the other hand, I was not sure at times if Kendrick was saying all medical research was flawed or too tightly controlled by Big Pharma. Also, he seems to make an argument that the lack of good research indicates that a therapy is not correct. My take would be that the lack of research would indicated that we don't know if the therapy is beneficial or harmful. And, finally, I was not convinced by Kendrick's assertion that you 'can't trust experts'. This may be true if you practice in the field - you have the tools to question the expert. For the rest of us, if the doctor says you need a treatment, I think it would be difficult to dismiss the expert advice. What would I base my disagreement on? Why even go for the advice in the first place? No, I'm with Kahneman - in areas where you don't have expertise, you are best to trust the consensus of the experts. Kendrick gives some good examples where this point of view might fail, but ...
Overall, I think Kendrick makes some compelling arguments about medicine, but I think the extrapolation of his concerns and general aphorisms about research to other areas of science may have been overreaching a bit.
July 25, 2015
This book will make you question just about any scientific claim made. It certainly is though provoking around the subjects of cholesterol and statins. I will refer back to the chapter on relative and absolute risk the next time I'm ready any study results. Well worth a read and written just the way you'd expect a wry Scot to do.
January 8, 2018
Pro: Dr Kendrick has a strong voice. I know a lot of people who find him hilarious, and if you agree with his skepticism, the unadulterated scorn he directs to the medical establishment is appealing. What's more, he has obviously done his research. He parses studies well, lays out the problems with other people's analysis, and clearly expresses what he considers the failings of the field. He goes after issues like bad statistics and uses the cancer-field's attitude of 'We're all going to die. The only medical question is when?' like a bludgeon. He relates dry issues well, and finds metaphors in otherwise cryptic thinking. It's not that death or cancer are necessarily alien to normal people, but as a practicing doctor, he has a dry attitude that takes one to the other side of the clipboard. Dr. Kendrick's treatment-by-pushing-people-off-a-cliff is a concrete idea that brings the concept of total mortality to an accessible level without being unduly grim. Total mortality is inherently grim, but it's obvious that the medical field needs a good handle on it. The rest of us are probably well served by having some understanding of how they think.
Cons: In his fervor of contrarianism, Dr Kendrick falls from the path of logic and into hysteria. This is best examined through examples.
On page 189, Dr Kendrick first brings up the notion that HIV may not cause AIDS. (It is briefly noted earlier and later). He jumps from there to the treatment of AIDS via AZT, and does so in comparison with a previous treatment that killed people, 6 weeks bed rest after a heart-attack. The comparison is obvious.
Yet as he has noted before, AZT's failure to properly treat AIDS, or at the very least the failure of the medical establishment to properly study AZT's ability to treat AIDS, has no causal relationship with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS. For any number of reasons including, "AZT was so horribly toxic..." (pg 190), that the failure of AZT to treat AIDS isn't necessarily connected to the cause of the disease. Yet HIV may not cause AIDS was raised 189-195 and is always approached with the same bland, sweeping strokes that he uses the rest of the book to skewer. Dr. Kendrick's thoughts towards the HIV/AIDS controversy seem to be the exact same piecemeal process that he criticizes at length.
A serious examination of a medical science can't bring up the HIV/AIDS question, use it to indicate that people who criticize the common mentality are blackballed for being kooks, and then not provide a meaningful bit of support for his position that someone could question the establishment position without being a kook. Yet Dr Kendrick does, and that cheapens his entire argument. It becomes a screed against 'the establishment.' He has the same fervor as every dissatisfied youth on Earth claiming he could run the world better than the establishment if everyone just did things his way.
Dr Kendrick does this with vaccines, but again picks the fight sideways at the golden calf. He doesn't present any persuasive evidence that vaccines and autism are connected, and for such a controversial position in the medical field, ducks shouldn't dip a toe in that pond unless they're well in a row. He sort of does this with the German data, starting pages 223, but admits he cannot argue causation and then does. In his previous bits Dr Kendrick holds up comparative total mortality like a golden signpost. None of that appears in his vaccine section, and he doesn't talk about what diseases the vaccine issues are, how bad they are, whether the varying comparative mortality rates are higher, lower, or what. In short, the very things he attacks earlier, the cherry picking of numbers to support positions, he does in 223-228.
Neutral: Where Dr Kendrick excels is in the matter of Blood Pressure (BP) and BP treatments. This is obviously his area, and he knows his stuff. Even here he makes errors or equally possibly, fails to properly communicate his positions such that it appears he makes math errors.
On page 53 he begins a discussion of the null hypothesis that made my heart glad. He uses the MRC study which addresses his wheelhouse, BP, BP treatment, and death. Yet the table on page 55 shows 248 total deaths for those on the medication vs 253 for those on a placebo. 248 < 253. Therefore either that's a statistically insignificant result or the total mortality of the BP medications is less than the placebo, which stands in contrast to his argument. This difference in numbers does not seem to be well addressed.
Elsewhere Dr Kendrick attacks industry money in the medical field, and he seems to have points. A great deal of his arguments reduce to guilt by association. This is somewhat mitigated by his earlier and larger point that there isn't enough research done that isn't connected to industry money. There's an easy train of thought between them, though it lacks firm quantitative basis. His arguments about bias are well made and something worth looking into.
Ultimately it's not a bad book. The reading is easy, and I've yet to find a more accessible text on correlation vs causation, the null hypothesis, and the limitations of peer review. However Dr Kendrick loses points by allowing his skepticism lead him to unsubstantiated conclusions of his own, and a book that fundamentally consists of attacks on the established protocols of medicine for lack of substantiation cannot make the same errors. Maybe the only kooks could consider HIV not the cause of AIDS? I have no idea, and there was nothing in Doctoring Data that provided a firm, unarguable argument to start with.
Charitably, he might well be Einstein looking for a Grand Unified Theory. Einstein bit off too much to chew and never swallowed it. Uncharitably, he may be Joe Rogan talking psychedelics with an MD.
Three stars. Worth a read, worth thinking about, failed to persuade, deeply flawed.
Cons: In his fervor of contrarianism, Dr Kendrick falls from the path of logic and into hysteria. This is best examined through examples.
On page 189, Dr Kendrick first brings up the notion that HIV may not cause AIDS. (It is briefly noted earlier and later). He jumps from there to the treatment of AIDS via AZT, and does so in comparison with a previous treatment that killed people, 6 weeks bed rest after a heart-attack. The comparison is obvious.
Yet as he has noted before, AZT's failure to properly treat AIDS, or at the very least the failure of the medical establishment to properly study AZT's ability to treat AIDS, has no causal relationship with the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS. For any number of reasons including, "AZT was so horribly toxic..." (pg 190), that the failure of AZT to treat AIDS isn't necessarily connected to the cause of the disease. Yet HIV may not cause AIDS was raised 189-195 and is always approached with the same bland, sweeping strokes that he uses the rest of the book to skewer. Dr. Kendrick's thoughts towards the HIV/AIDS controversy seem to be the exact same piecemeal process that he criticizes at length.
A serious examination of a medical science can't bring up the HIV/AIDS question, use it to indicate that people who criticize the common mentality are blackballed for being kooks, and then not provide a meaningful bit of support for his position that someone could question the establishment position without being a kook. Yet Dr Kendrick does, and that cheapens his entire argument. It becomes a screed against 'the establishment.' He has the same fervor as every dissatisfied youth on Earth claiming he could run the world better than the establishment if everyone just did things his way.
Dr Kendrick does this with vaccines, but again picks the fight sideways at the golden calf. He doesn't present any persuasive evidence that vaccines and autism are connected, and for such a controversial position in the medical field, ducks shouldn't dip a toe in that pond unless they're well in a row. He sort of does this with the German data, starting pages 223, but admits he cannot argue causation and then does. In his previous bits Dr Kendrick holds up comparative total mortality like a golden signpost. None of that appears in his vaccine section, and he doesn't talk about what diseases the vaccine issues are, how bad they are, whether the varying comparative mortality rates are higher, lower, or what. In short, the very things he attacks earlier, the cherry picking of numbers to support positions, he does in 223-228.
Neutral: Where Dr Kendrick excels is in the matter of Blood Pressure (BP) and BP treatments. This is obviously his area, and he knows his stuff. Even here he makes errors or equally possibly, fails to properly communicate his positions such that it appears he makes math errors.
On page 53 he begins a discussion of the null hypothesis that made my heart glad. He uses the MRC study which addresses his wheelhouse, BP, BP treatment, and death. Yet the table on page 55 shows 248 total deaths for those on the medication vs 253 for those on a placebo. 248 < 253. Therefore either that's a statistically insignificant result or the total mortality of the BP medications is less than the placebo, which stands in contrast to his argument. This difference in numbers does not seem to be well addressed.
Elsewhere Dr Kendrick attacks industry money in the medical field, and he seems to have points. A great deal of his arguments reduce to guilt by association. This is somewhat mitigated by his earlier and larger point that there isn't enough research done that isn't connected to industry money. There's an easy train of thought between them, though it lacks firm quantitative basis. His arguments about bias are well made and something worth looking into.
Ultimately it's not a bad book. The reading is easy, and I've yet to find a more accessible text on correlation vs causation, the null hypothesis, and the limitations of peer review. However Dr Kendrick loses points by allowing his skepticism lead him to unsubstantiated conclusions of his own, and a book that fundamentally consists of attacks on the established protocols of medicine for lack of substantiation cannot make the same errors. Maybe the only kooks could consider HIV not the cause of AIDS? I have no idea, and there was nothing in Doctoring Data that provided a firm, unarguable argument to start with.
Charitably, he might well be Einstein looking for a Grand Unified Theory. Einstein bit off too much to chew and never swallowed it. Uncharitably, he may be Joe Rogan talking psychedelics with an MD.
Three stars. Worth a read, worth thinking about, failed to persuade, deeply flawed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 30, 2016
Despite a few flaws, Doctoring Data is an important book on the many ways medical and pharmaceutical research has been manipulated by either the cherry picking of data. or what borders on, and sometimes crosses the line of, fraud. Manipulations include undisclosed conflicts of interest, using relative values when absolute values are more meaningful, unregistered drug trials (i.e., the researchers don't declare their hypothesis until after the trials are started), and many more tricks of the statistical and financial trades. If you've ever wondered why studies that show that X reduces risk of cancer are so often followed by stories that X increases risk of the same cancer, then I recommend reading this book.
Negative study results are rarely published, which can make weak, but positive, results seem more powerful. For example, let's say there are 20 large studies that show negative results and 5 small studies that show positive results. Journals often aren't interested in publishing negative results. The medical device and pharmaceutical companies funding many of these studies are even less interested in publishing negative results. A later meta-analysis of those 5 small, positive studies might then suggest an overwhelmingly positive result. And even when the results with negative studies are published, they often get thrown out of the meta-analysis on questionable grounds. Dr. Kendrick provides extensive detail on several such analyses.
Some of the more egregious claims that he rips into involve statins and cholesterol reduction. To begin with, scientific evidence to support the benefits of aggressive reduction of blood cholesterol levels is weak to non-existent, if not actually in opposition. But you would never know that from pharmaceutical ads and general media coverage of cholesterol. More and more evidence is suggesting that abnormal cholesterol levels are more commonly symptoms of other problems, and directly treating these symptoms doesn't impact the real problems.
On the downside, the book has a surprising number of typos, including many that should have been caught by a copyeditor. Also, while he does state that he is very much pro-vaccination, I believe he is too open to the dangerous ideas of questioning the values of vaccines. While I get it that we should be open minded and take a purely scientific approach to the benefits and potential downsides of vaccines, the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the benefits of vaccines and the extraordinary risk that anti-vaxxers impose on the lives of children and adults that we don't have to keep questioning proven results.
Negative study results are rarely published, which can make weak, but positive, results seem more powerful. For example, let's say there are 20 large studies that show negative results and 5 small studies that show positive results. Journals often aren't interested in publishing negative results. The medical device and pharmaceutical companies funding many of these studies are even less interested in publishing negative results. A later meta-analysis of those 5 small, positive studies might then suggest an overwhelmingly positive result. And even when the results with negative studies are published, they often get thrown out of the meta-analysis on questionable grounds. Dr. Kendrick provides extensive detail on several such analyses.
Some of the more egregious claims that he rips into involve statins and cholesterol reduction. To begin with, scientific evidence to support the benefits of aggressive reduction of blood cholesterol levels is weak to non-existent, if not actually in opposition. But you would never know that from pharmaceutical ads and general media coverage of cholesterol. More and more evidence is suggesting that abnormal cholesterol levels are more commonly symptoms of other problems, and directly treating these symptoms doesn't impact the real problems.
On the downside, the book has a surprising number of typos, including many that should have been caught by a copyeditor. Also, while he does state that he is very much pro-vaccination, I believe he is too open to the dangerous ideas of questioning the values of vaccines. While I get it that we should be open minded and take a purely scientific approach to the benefits and potential downsides of vaccines, the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the benefits of vaccines and the extraordinary risk that anti-vaxxers impose on the lives of children and adults that we don't have to keep questioning proven results.
September 6, 2017
This book is not only for medical profesionals, but for main public as well. Maybe you will not understand every medial aspect in it, but at least you will know HOW you can be played by big companies (Pharma, Food, etc.).
Great job doc! And thank you for this! I hope we do have a chance for better future...
Great job doc! And thank you for this! I hope we do have a chance for better future...
June 16, 2021
Das Buch wurde 2014 veröffentlich, lange vor Corona und dem von der Politik verursachten Evidenzdesaster. Die verwendeten Methoden sind aber die gleichen. Dass Buch erklärt, wie die Pharma ihre Studien und Daten frisiert durch die üblichen Propagandamethoden wie, nicht in den Zusammenhang einbetten oder einfach Informationen weglassen.
Die meisten Methoden sind einem so schon einmal irgendwo begegnet und es werden Beispiele verwendet, wo man selber mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auch reingefallen ist auf die allgegenwärtige mediale Pharmapropaganda.
Es beginnt mit dem Klassiker Hautkrebs und Sonne meiden. Was aber verschwiegen wird ist, dass das Hautkrebsrisiko ohnehin deutlich geringer ist, als das Brustkrebsrisiko/Prostatakrebsrisiko das durch Vitamin D deutlich gemindert wird. Man erkauft sich also eine Verringerung eines ohnehin geringen Risikos für tödlichen Hautkrebs mit einer deutlichen Erhöhung eines tödlicheren und häufigeren Krebs und das, indem man sich teils krebserregende Cremes auf die Haut schmiert.
Ein weiterer Klassiker ist, dass man sich in den Studien auf eine bestimmte Todesart konzentriert, wie die Verringerung des Todes durch Herzinfarkt und dabei komplett die Gesamtsterblichkeit ignoriert. Im besten Fall bleibt die Gesamtsterblichkeit gleich, das Medikament bewirkt also eigentlich nichts, außer, dass es die Todesart in eine andere Kategorie verschiebt. Es kann aber auch passieren, dass Firmen wie Berlin Pharma ein Blutdrucksenkendes Mittel auf dem Markt bringen, dass das Herzinfarktrisiko reduziert, aber gleichzeitig die Gesamtsterblichkeit erhöht. Das ist dann in etwa so, als wenn man die Krebssterblichkeit dadurch reduziert, dass man die Leute vorher vor ein Auto stößt, sie sind halt vorher an was anderem gestorben. Ein Klassiker in vielen Pharmastudien. Daher immer schön auf die Endpunkte achten.
Der Autor gibt einem grobe Leitlinien an die Hand, um zu prüfen, ob eine Studie was taugt und für einen selber von Relevanz ist (S. 57) Einfach mal an den aktuellen Coronaimfpstoffstudien anwenden…
Ist die Änderung der Gesamtsterblichkeit nicht genannt = Studie für die Tonne, den im besten Fall ist sie gleich geblieben und somit hat das Medikament keinen Effekt.
Ist die Gesamtsterblichkeit gleich geblieben = Medikament sinnlos, man lebt keinen Tag länger, man stirbt nur an was anderen.
Ist die Gesamtsterblichkeit gestiegen = Medikament nicht nehmen, weil tödlich.
You can only die one, of one thing (S. 52)
Traue niemandem, der behauptet, Leben zu retten. Leben kann man nicht retten, sondern nur verlängern. Kein Medikament macht unsterblich, sie bringen einen eher früher ins Grab.
Immer schön auf die Nullhypothese achten und ob sie wirklich widerlegt wird. Wird gerne mal vergessen = Studie für den Müll. (S. 54)
Wenn man SEHR viele Probanden braucht, um einen Effekt zu erziehen, diese Studie dann auch noch lange Zeit läuft und man dann auch noch Statistik braucht, um zu zeigen, dass man überhaupt einen Effekt hat = Medikament und Studie für den Müll (S. 55), denn das Medikament hat einen kaum messbaren Effekt und ist somit für jeden Patienten uninteressant.
„There are many people with an agenda out there, and they will ruthlessly torture statistics until they get the answer they want out of them.” (S. 61)
Und wenn so einem “Experten” widersprochen wird, dann wusste schon Thucydides „When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagrreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason.” – Einfach mal auf Coronaexperten anwenden…
Und wenn jetzt jemand behauptet, so was gibt es nicht, der soll einfach mal emcainide und flecainide googeln (hat wohl um die 600.000 Menschen getötet, bis es jemandem aufgefallen ist) oder Vioxx oder Actos (Takeda).
Richtig spannend wird es, wenn klinische Studien eine nicht wirklich bewiesene Hypothese als finalen Endpunkt verwenden. Auch wenn es unglaublich scheinen mag, bis heute gibt es keinen Beweis, dass hohe Blutfette das Herzinfarktrisiko erhöhen, ganz im Gegenteil, Studien deuten aktuell eher in die gegenteilige Richtung, dennoch werden Statine verschrieben, deren Nutzen nicht belegbar ist (außer due Pharmaeigene Studien, unabhängige Studien können das irgendwie nicht). Aktuell wird dieses Spiel gerade mit einem Alzheimerimpfstoff gespielt. Wirklich bewiesen, was Alzheimer auslöst ist nichts. Aber man geht fest davon aus, dass ein gewisses Protein, … Naja.
Ein weitere gerne offensichtlich ignorierte Tatsache ist, dass Menschen mit leichten Übergewicht und einem BMI von 25-30 die längste Lebenserwartung haben (S. 121). Sogenannte Normalgewichtige sterben noch früher als dicke Menschen mit einem BMI von 30-35. Kommt immer wieder so raus, widerspricht aber den Fachgesellschaften, daher traut sich keiner das laut auszusprechen, weil das Dogma halt ein anderes (und falsches) ist.
“Do I really believe that we are heading for some sort of totalitarian state, where dissent against the medical “experts” will be punishable by imprisonment? Well, yes, I do.” (S. 129)
Auch das Ioannidiszitat wirkt prophetisch in der Coronaplandemie „Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. “ (S. 139)
“Rule two: The angrier an expert becomes, the more likely they are to be wrong (when the flak is at its greatest you know you are nearing the target). An angry expert is a wrong expert.” (S. 141)
„Arguably, the current ascendancy of medical technology is just such a manifestation of social idealism. War is peace: ignorance is strength: freedom is slavery – and now we have the latest example Orwellian doublespeak… Health is disease.” (S. 177) „Annoyingly trivial diseases can be turned from something mild into life threatening monsters, and so it goes.” (S. 178)
Die Schweinegrippe wird auch in diesem Buch behandelt und die Schäden durch Pandemrix. Die Wiederholung der Ereignisse steht nun in DEUTLICH größerem Rahmen global an. In diesem Zusammenhang erinnert der Autor S. 153 an die Geneva Declaration, auf die er schwören musste.
„Trust yourself to understand what is being said. If you cannot, it is not you – it is them.“ (S. 181)
“When you are trying to twist reality through 180 degrees, language ends up strangled to death gasping its last breath on the floor.” (da waren do so ein paar Wortungetüme unterwegs in Sachen Coronagesetzgebung, die keinen linguistischen Sinn ergaben….)
Schon hier erkennt man einiges, was in der Corona Plandemie passiert ist. Die Gründe dafür sind leider auch Klassiker:
„The simple fact is that, in order to help others, most people believe that taking action, any action, is a far better option than doing nothing – almost no matter what the chance of success may be.” (S. 185).
Das führt zur tödlichen Triade:
1. The need to do something/anything
2. Grabbing the simple/easy hypothesis too early.
3. Being so certain you hypothesis is correct you don’t so any study to prove that it is beneficial – you just get on with it.
Aktuelle Beispiele: Lockdown (durch viele Studien ist der Nutzen widerlegt und der Schaden belegt), Masken (durch Studien Nutzen nicht belegbar, aber Schaden), Coronaimpfungen (siehe oben, crappy Studien, schlechte finale Endpunkte….).
„To every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” (S. 198)
Um die tödliche Triade zu vermeiden immer schön nachdenken ob:
1. Does the idea seem very simple? Is it intuitive? Does it seem like common sense? (If so beware).
2. How, and why, did it start being done? (Just because something is universally accepted as “best practice”, there is no reason to believe that it is beneficial).
3. Ask yourself the key question. Was a randomized controlled study ever done before the activity first started? (Was, indeed, a study of any kind ever done?)
Das Buch wirft ein unschönes Licht auf das, was 2020/21 so passiert ist und passiert. Nichts Neues im Westen und die Pharma hat ihren schlechten Ruf zu Recht, die ändert sich nie.
Die meisten Methoden sind einem so schon einmal irgendwo begegnet und es werden Beispiele verwendet, wo man selber mit großer Wahrscheinlichkeit auch reingefallen ist auf die allgegenwärtige mediale Pharmapropaganda.
Es beginnt mit dem Klassiker Hautkrebs und Sonne meiden. Was aber verschwiegen wird ist, dass das Hautkrebsrisiko ohnehin deutlich geringer ist, als das Brustkrebsrisiko/Prostatakrebsrisiko das durch Vitamin D deutlich gemindert wird. Man erkauft sich also eine Verringerung eines ohnehin geringen Risikos für tödlichen Hautkrebs mit einer deutlichen Erhöhung eines tödlicheren und häufigeren Krebs und das, indem man sich teils krebserregende Cremes auf die Haut schmiert.
Ein weiterer Klassiker ist, dass man sich in den Studien auf eine bestimmte Todesart konzentriert, wie die Verringerung des Todes durch Herzinfarkt und dabei komplett die Gesamtsterblichkeit ignoriert. Im besten Fall bleibt die Gesamtsterblichkeit gleich, das Medikament bewirkt also eigentlich nichts, außer, dass es die Todesart in eine andere Kategorie verschiebt. Es kann aber auch passieren, dass Firmen wie Berlin Pharma ein Blutdrucksenkendes Mittel auf dem Markt bringen, dass das Herzinfarktrisiko reduziert, aber gleichzeitig die Gesamtsterblichkeit erhöht. Das ist dann in etwa so, als wenn man die Krebssterblichkeit dadurch reduziert, dass man die Leute vorher vor ein Auto stößt, sie sind halt vorher an was anderem gestorben. Ein Klassiker in vielen Pharmastudien. Daher immer schön auf die Endpunkte achten.
Der Autor gibt einem grobe Leitlinien an die Hand, um zu prüfen, ob eine Studie was taugt und für einen selber von Relevanz ist (S. 57) Einfach mal an den aktuellen Coronaimfpstoffstudien anwenden…
Ist die Änderung der Gesamtsterblichkeit nicht genannt = Studie für die Tonne, den im besten Fall ist sie gleich geblieben und somit hat das Medikament keinen Effekt.
Ist die Gesamtsterblichkeit gleich geblieben = Medikament sinnlos, man lebt keinen Tag länger, man stirbt nur an was anderen.
Ist die Gesamtsterblichkeit gestiegen = Medikament nicht nehmen, weil tödlich.
You can only die one, of one thing (S. 52)
Traue niemandem, der behauptet, Leben zu retten. Leben kann man nicht retten, sondern nur verlängern. Kein Medikament macht unsterblich, sie bringen einen eher früher ins Grab.
Immer schön auf die Nullhypothese achten und ob sie wirklich widerlegt wird. Wird gerne mal vergessen = Studie für den Müll. (S. 54)
Wenn man SEHR viele Probanden braucht, um einen Effekt zu erziehen, diese Studie dann auch noch lange Zeit läuft und man dann auch noch Statistik braucht, um zu zeigen, dass man überhaupt einen Effekt hat = Medikament und Studie für den Müll (S. 55), denn das Medikament hat einen kaum messbaren Effekt und ist somit für jeden Patienten uninteressant.
„There are many people with an agenda out there, and they will ruthlessly torture statistics until they get the answer they want out of them.” (S. 61)
Und wenn so einem “Experten” widersprochen wird, dann wusste schon Thucydides „When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagrreeable, he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason.” – Einfach mal auf Coronaexperten anwenden…
Und wenn jetzt jemand behauptet, so was gibt es nicht, der soll einfach mal emcainide und flecainide googeln (hat wohl um die 600.000 Menschen getötet, bis es jemandem aufgefallen ist) oder Vioxx oder Actos (Takeda).
Richtig spannend wird es, wenn klinische Studien eine nicht wirklich bewiesene Hypothese als finalen Endpunkt verwenden. Auch wenn es unglaublich scheinen mag, bis heute gibt es keinen Beweis, dass hohe Blutfette das Herzinfarktrisiko erhöhen, ganz im Gegenteil, Studien deuten aktuell eher in die gegenteilige Richtung, dennoch werden Statine verschrieben, deren Nutzen nicht belegbar ist (außer due Pharmaeigene Studien, unabhängige Studien können das irgendwie nicht). Aktuell wird dieses Spiel gerade mit einem Alzheimerimpfstoff gespielt. Wirklich bewiesen, was Alzheimer auslöst ist nichts. Aber man geht fest davon aus, dass ein gewisses Protein, … Naja.
Ein weitere gerne offensichtlich ignorierte Tatsache ist, dass Menschen mit leichten Übergewicht und einem BMI von 25-30 die längste Lebenserwartung haben (S. 121). Sogenannte Normalgewichtige sterben noch früher als dicke Menschen mit einem BMI von 30-35. Kommt immer wieder so raus, widerspricht aber den Fachgesellschaften, daher traut sich keiner das laut auszusprechen, weil das Dogma halt ein anderes (und falsches) ist.
“Do I really believe that we are heading for some sort of totalitarian state, where dissent against the medical “experts” will be punishable by imprisonment? Well, yes, I do.” (S. 129)
Auch das Ioannidiszitat wirkt prophetisch in der Coronaplandemie „Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. “ (S. 139)
“Rule two: The angrier an expert becomes, the more likely they are to be wrong (when the flak is at its greatest you know you are nearing the target). An angry expert is a wrong expert.” (S. 141)
„Arguably, the current ascendancy of medical technology is just such a manifestation of social idealism. War is peace: ignorance is strength: freedom is slavery – and now we have the latest example Orwellian doublespeak… Health is disease.” (S. 177) „Annoyingly trivial diseases can be turned from something mild into life threatening monsters, and so it goes.” (S. 178)
Die Schweinegrippe wird auch in diesem Buch behandelt und die Schäden durch Pandemrix. Die Wiederholung der Ereignisse steht nun in DEUTLICH größerem Rahmen global an. In diesem Zusammenhang erinnert der Autor S. 153 an die Geneva Declaration, auf die er schwören musste.
„Trust yourself to understand what is being said. If you cannot, it is not you – it is them.“ (S. 181)
“When you are trying to twist reality through 180 degrees, language ends up strangled to death gasping its last breath on the floor.” (da waren do so ein paar Wortungetüme unterwegs in Sachen Coronagesetzgebung, die keinen linguistischen Sinn ergaben….)
Schon hier erkennt man einiges, was in der Corona Plandemie passiert ist. Die Gründe dafür sind leider auch Klassiker:
„The simple fact is that, in order to help others, most people believe that taking action, any action, is a far better option than doing nothing – almost no matter what the chance of success may be.” (S. 185).
Das führt zur tödlichen Triade:
1. The need to do something/anything
2. Grabbing the simple/easy hypothesis too early.
3. Being so certain you hypothesis is correct you don’t so any study to prove that it is beneficial – you just get on with it.
Aktuelle Beispiele: Lockdown (durch viele Studien ist der Nutzen widerlegt und der Schaden belegt), Masken (durch Studien Nutzen nicht belegbar, aber Schaden), Coronaimpfungen (siehe oben, crappy Studien, schlechte finale Endpunkte….).
„To every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” (S. 198)
Um die tödliche Triade zu vermeiden immer schön nachdenken ob:
1. Does the idea seem very simple? Is it intuitive? Does it seem like common sense? (If so beware).
2. How, and why, did it start being done? (Just because something is universally accepted as “best practice”, there is no reason to believe that it is beneficial).
3. Ask yourself the key question. Was a randomized controlled study ever done before the activity first started? (Was, indeed, a study of any kind ever done?)
Das Buch wirft ein unschönes Licht auf das, was 2020/21 so passiert ist und passiert. Nichts Neues im Westen und die Pharma hat ihren schlechten Ruf zu Recht, die ändert sich nie.
September 29, 2025
I love this book. It's insightful and challenging, but written in a quippy manner that makes it such an easy read. Genuinely want to buy 20 copies to start giving it as a gift to all my friends bc I do think everyone should read this book.
January 22, 2020
This book should be required reading for both medical students, currently practicing doctors and the general public. Dr. Kendrick's first book ("The Great Cholesterol Con") on the fallacy of the cholesterol hypothesis was very good, but this one is beyond brilliant. It basically tells you that you should trust no one, but always be skeptical, think for yourself and trust your own good judgement instead of trusting "experts" or Key Opinion Leaders. Medical research nowadays is quite often of poor quality, data are doctored to suit the prevailing dogma and experts are often biased, they are easily corrupted by Big Pharma and are consequently untrustworthy. This is why Dr. Kendrick gives you 10 tools to help you establish the truth for yourself:
- Association does not mean causation
- Lives cannot be saved; we’re all going to die
- Relative mountains are made out of absolute molehills
- Things that are not true are often held to be true
- Reducing numbers does not equal reducing risk
- Challenges to the status quo are crushed – and how!
- Games are played and the players are…
- Doctors can seriously damage your health
- Never believe that something is impossible
- ‘Facts’ can be, and often are, plucked from thin air
Dr. Kendrick reveals the tactics most frequently used by statisticians and other experts to manipulate the original and "unpromising" data from studies in order to produce sensational headlines that scare the wits out of the lay reader and make doctors issue harmful guidelines. He questions some deeply rooted ideas and turns your world upside down. He uses solid evidence to support his claims and the more you read, the more terrified you become. Nevertheless, "Doctoring Data" is a must read.
- Association does not mean causation
- Lives cannot be saved; we’re all going to die
- Relative mountains are made out of absolute molehills
- Things that are not true are often held to be true
- Reducing numbers does not equal reducing risk
- Challenges to the status quo are crushed – and how!
- Games are played and the players are…
- Doctors can seriously damage your health
- Never believe that something is impossible
- ‘Facts’ can be, and often are, plucked from thin air
Dr. Kendrick reveals the tactics most frequently used by statisticians and other experts to manipulate the original and "unpromising" data from studies in order to produce sensational headlines that scare the wits out of the lay reader and make doctors issue harmful guidelines. He questions some deeply rooted ideas and turns your world upside down. He uses solid evidence to support his claims and the more you read, the more terrified you become. Nevertheless, "Doctoring Data" is a must read.
June 8, 2015
Refreshing to see an honest, straight forward doctor
Dr. Kendrick divulged the dirty tricks used by the pharmaceutical companies to make you think that their products are wonder drugs and that everyone should be taking them. It is sad to think that the medical establishment values money more than saving lives or as Dr. Kendrick likes to say postponing death.
More doctors need to stand up against these practices. It is also important for everyone as consumers of healthcare to be aware of the bias and gamesmanship of medical research.
Stand up for yourselves and tell the doctors how you want to receive healthcare. We do not work for them; they are supposed to work for us.
For anyone to believe that vaccinations are not potentially harmful, they would have to be terribly misinformed. I can't believe that the benefits from vaccines outweigh the risks.
Anyhow, Doctoring Data is a great book, very informative and a must read if you care about your and your families well-being.
Dr. Kendrick divulged the dirty tricks used by the pharmaceutical companies to make you think that their products are wonder drugs and that everyone should be taking them. It is sad to think that the medical establishment values money more than saving lives or as Dr. Kendrick likes to say postponing death.
More doctors need to stand up against these practices. It is also important for everyone as consumers of healthcare to be aware of the bias and gamesmanship of medical research.
Stand up for yourselves and tell the doctors how you want to receive healthcare. We do not work for them; they are supposed to work for us.
For anyone to believe that vaccinations are not potentially harmful, they would have to be terribly misinformed. I can't believe that the benefits from vaccines outweigh the risks.
Anyhow, Doctoring Data is a great book, very informative and a must read if you care about your and your families well-being.
December 22, 2017
I don't agree with all of his conclusions, and Dr. Kendrick definitely carries his own biases into this book, but it is definitely thought-provoking (if not frightening).
February 2, 2019
A. Dry eye opening book to the way people think about their health and the medical field
I want to begin this review by mentioning that I am not in the medical profession. I am a curious soul that has been looking for answers on health, fitness, and diet. In my research I came across this book and dove right in. The outcomes have been significant for me.
I want to focus on his main point discussing the ambiguity of the medical profession and the additional corruption that has been in effect for numerous decades (maybe centuries). Though I do not work in the profession I can draw clear parallels to my industry. Nowadays startups and technology are moving at an incredible rate in response to the rapid development and abundance of resources. This issue is present everywhere and the biggest take away for me is to continue challenging the status quo and seeking the right response. I continue to hear that right and wrong does not matter as long as we continue to execute and I am not necessarily keen on this. The issue with my hesitation is that I too will be left behind if I do not follow the flow of the river.
So thank you Dr. Kendrick for providing your best effort at releasing statistics, studies, case studies, and your interpretation. I believe your book should be read by any curious soul looking to fight for what is right.
I wish you luck in your efforts and I will do the same on my end.
I want to begin this review by mentioning that I am not in the medical profession. I am a curious soul that has been looking for answers on health, fitness, and diet. In my research I came across this book and dove right in. The outcomes have been significant for me.
I want to focus on his main point discussing the ambiguity of the medical profession and the additional corruption that has been in effect for numerous decades (maybe centuries). Though I do not work in the profession I can draw clear parallels to my industry. Nowadays startups and technology are moving at an incredible rate in response to the rapid development and abundance of resources. This issue is present everywhere and the biggest take away for me is to continue challenging the status quo and seeking the right response. I continue to hear that right and wrong does not matter as long as we continue to execute and I am not necessarily keen on this. The issue with my hesitation is that I too will be left behind if I do not follow the flow of the river.
So thank you Dr. Kendrick for providing your best effort at releasing statistics, studies, case studies, and your interpretation. I believe your book should be read by any curious soul looking to fight for what is right.
I wish you luck in your efforts and I will do the same on my end.
May 12, 2017
This book is not an easy read but it raises many valid concerns about the medical "industry". He raises many concerns about the many ways that medical research is backed by the pharmaceutical industries, which leads to the proliferation of unnecessary drug prescriptions. He also discusses how many drug treatments are not based on actual testing, just on "logical" assumptions. Another consideration is how many doctors are not thoroughly trained in how to analyze experiments (nor do they likely have the time) so decisions are based on poor experiments.
I've read a lot of books about the flaws in scientific experiments and this one raised a few new issues for me like the fact that most drugs are unlikely to 'cure' your disease but will just delay your death. And a doctor may receive money from a pharmaceutical company, but donates it to charity. However, the charity is likely a bit of a scam charity designed to promote a pharmaceutical companies interests - and the doctor is then paid by the charity so the money goes full circle. (Be wary of medical charities - some are not so charitable.)
I've read a lot of books about the flaws in scientific experiments and this one raised a few new issues for me like the fact that most drugs are unlikely to 'cure' your disease but will just delay your death. And a doctor may receive money from a pharmaceutical company, but donates it to charity. However, the charity is likely a bit of a scam charity designed to promote a pharmaceutical companies interests - and the doctor is then paid by the charity so the money goes full circle. (Be wary of medical charities - some are not so charitable.)
January 1, 2018
This is an outstanding book. Dr. Kendrick is not only brilliant, humorous, easy-to-understand, but he is level-headed. Using good common sense (something sorely lacking in medicine today) he explains how we are an overtreated society and how that overtreatment can and does do harm. He explains statistics and research in such a way that anyone can comprehend what he is saying. If you can read this book with an open mind and not react harshly to his reasoning (due to the indoctrination of the pharmaceutical industry), you will be able to make the best decisions concerning your medical care. God bless Dr. Kendrick for his bravery and his logical approach to life and health. Challenge your doctors on their treatment methods. Having been hurt by the wrong medicine and still suffering the side effects despite no longer taking the medication, I can tell you that not everything a doctor says is true. Do your research which is easier to do in today's world with the internet than ever before. There is no excuse for not protecting yourself from, yes, even your physician.
April 24, 2023
I was already skeptical of the medical profession and their claims that we all need to take various medications because our blood tests had shown various levels of substances which they claim are detrimental to our health.
No doctor has been able to justify to me why a blood glucose level of 48 means that I have type 2 diabetes but 47 is fine or was fine now they have invented pre diabetes as a condition.
I retired some years ago with none of the conditions I now apparently have and I am fitter than I was at 60.
This book has in many ways confirmed my skepticism. He asks the same questions I have been asking and getting no answers. He is able to show evidence which may mean I am on the right track.
I am happy to be guided by experts and indeed have two replacement hips which were recommended by experts but I am unable to get genuine information on various medical matters which concern me. I intend to continue my research but an pleased to see a member of the medical profession has the same concerns.
No doctor has been able to justify to me why a blood glucose level of 48 means that I have type 2 diabetes but 47 is fine or was fine now they have invented pre diabetes as a condition.
I retired some years ago with none of the conditions I now apparently have and I am fitter than I was at 60.
This book has in many ways confirmed my skepticism. He asks the same questions I have been asking and getting no answers. He is able to show evidence which may mean I am on the right track.
I am happy to be guided by experts and indeed have two replacement hips which were recommended by experts but I am unable to get genuine information on various medical matters which concern me. I intend to continue my research but an pleased to see a member of the medical profession has the same concerns.
October 3, 2018
This book was, arguably, one of the best scientific writings I have ever read! Though it was a (emotionally) difficult read, I think it should be required reading for everyone, scientist or not. This book was witty and beautifully written with accurate and concise analysis of data. Moral of the story, question the experts! Your judgement is, for the most part, more accurate than the opinion leaders!
May 11, 2019
This book should be required reading before you even think about taking medicine for a chronic disease. Western medicine reigns supreme when it comes to emergency treatment but more and more people, including current and former editors of the most respected medical journals in the world, are coming to realize how slanted, biased and downright misleading medical research has become, and how harmful many of the 'accepted treatments' can be. This was an eye-opening book that is designed to make us look twice an all the medical commercials that tell us how much better we would be if we only took this or that latest drug. The author exposes the myriad ways that reports can be manipulated, and I was dismayed by how often this is done. A must read especially for baby-boomers who have suffered the most from ill-advised, slanted medical information for our entire lives and are now entering the 'golden years' being encouraged by television commercials and many family physicians to take more and more medications that are often unnecessary and sometimes actively harmful.
February 19, 2022
Don't believe everything you read, medical articles true is.
Today the practice of medicine is adversely effected by money flows. We can start with Statin drugs. Take them for 40 years and add less than two months to your lifespan. And then their are medical procedures, such as so called evidence based medicine! Today big pharmaceutical companies control the drug trials and have tremendous influence on the agency's that are to oversee them. Dr. Kendrick tells you why.
Today the practice of medicine is adversely effected by money flows. We can start with Statin drugs. Take them for 40 years and add less than two months to your lifespan. And then their are medical procedures, such as so called evidence based medicine! Today big pharmaceutical companies control the drug trials and have tremendous influence on the agency's that are to oversee them. Dr. Kendrick tells you why.
July 29, 2025
This book is a must-read. It gives insight into how we are fooled. Using fear, leaving out important factors, how pharmas manipulate us. After having an adverse reaction to a widely prescribed drug that the doctor seemed very unhappy about me stopping. It proved that the drug was the thing making me unwell, People need to know what is going on, how historical data has changed and makes the parameters smaller so they can medicate more people and how those who fight back are villified.
February 6, 2020
A book that many people should read
This book talked about how some people in research manipulate data to sell drugs or to verify their beliefs. Many researchers ignore data they don't agree with. I am glad I read this book. It was very informative and helped me understand that much of what we hear about medical studies is misrepresented to us.
This book talked about how some people in research manipulate data to sell drugs or to verify their beliefs. Many researchers ignore data they don't agree with. I am glad I read this book. It was very informative and helped me understand that much of what we hear about medical studies is misrepresented to us.
April 21, 2021
A very interesting new perspective on analyzing clinical data and dogmas that control the minds of our doctors and as a result us.
Lately I encountered some very surprising cases of people that were told to watch their cholesterol when it was still under 200 with high HDL. I believe it won’t be long before I’ll look into Dr Kendrick other materials.
Lately I encountered some very surprising cases of people that were told to watch their cholesterol when it was still under 200 with high HDL. I believe it won’t be long before I’ll look into Dr Kendrick other materials.
November 9, 2017
This book is a must read for anyone who is confused by conflicting information on health issues. In fact, really everyone should read it. He explains how scientific studies are often manipulated to serve the interests of corporations.
July 17, 2019
Amazing book illustrating how many of the mainstream publications especially in the field of medicine are patently wrong. Some being fabricated specifically with agendas, nominally the public good when in reality the almighty dollar.
September 6, 2019
Thought provoking read. The Dr de bunks a lot of the myths surrounding health data and the play on words to make you believe the “facts” they want to win.
Proves statins are a waste of time and money but the pharmaceutical companies want to sell them so doctor the data.
Proves statins are a waste of time and money but the pharmaceutical companies want to sell them so doctor the data.
July 13, 2022
Everyone should read this book
I wish I had known this information decades ago. Excellent information. Well researched. Hilariously funny. Who knew a medical book could be un-put-downable?
I wish I had known this information decades ago. Excellent information. Well researched. Hilariously funny. Who knew a medical book could be un-put-downable?
May 6, 2024
I will take second looks at all medical recommendations
I’ve always been a skeptic about most things and this book has verified much of my skepticism, especially concerning the medical area.
I’ve always been a skeptic about most things and this book has verified much of my skepticism, especially concerning the medical area.
November 7, 2018
Excellent!! So much to think about!!
Read
September 27, 2019610.72 K337 2014
August 21, 2025
“If you’re off out for a takeaway already and you never pick this book up again you have just read the more important message, and you can ‘take away’ the message that association does not mean causation. If you do this, your life will be the richer, and simpler, for it. And probably longer as well.”
“The most resilient parasite is an idea.”
“Apart from creating diseases, and inexorably narrowing the boundaries of health, another great way to expand the market is talk up the dangers of existing and well established diseases.”
“The most resilient parasite is an idea.”
“Apart from creating diseases, and inexorably narrowing the boundaries of health, another great way to expand the market is talk up the dangers of existing and well established diseases.”
December 3, 2015
‘Cholesterol lowering may change what is written on your death certificate, but it won’t change the date.’
I decided to take time out from Booker reading to read the latest book from Macclesfield GP, Malcom Kendrick. His last book was entitled ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’, where he took aim at the perceived medical wisdom that lowering your cholesterol was good for you.
In this latest book he aims wider and tries to:
alert readers to look beyond the headline and surface of any medical claim to find the evidence behind the claim
association does not mean causation: Just because something is associated with a condition/diseases is not the same as saying it causes or automatically results in that condition/disease.
recognise the difference between relative and absolute risk in claims: “If the absolute risk is hidden away, then you can confidently assume that it is so vanishingly small that the authors chose not to highlight it, as it would significantly weaken their message.”
beware of the words: words ‘lives saved’, or any version thereof: “You cannot save a life, all you can do is delay death.’ You will also know that anyone who combines the words ‘saved’ and ‘life’, or any version thereof, with regard to a clinical trial, is no longer a scientist. They have effectively – if unconsciously – become a drug salesperson. However academic they may claim to be.”
look for the mortality effect: does treatment ‘cure’ a supposed symptom but shorten your life? If it does not state the mortality effect it is because it was negative.
This is a highly entertaining read, with views on cancer screening, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity, mastectomies, and high cholesterol and more – and how the expert opinion and guidelines on all of these have been formed, fascinating. Even covering my favourite – the old fashioned method of moving the goal posts:
“Narrowing the boundaries of ‘normal’ is a technique used in many different areas of medicine. When I graduated in medicine, a high cholesterol was 7.5 mmol/L. Then it became 6.5, then 5.5, now it is 5. Or 4, if you have had a heart attack or stroke. In the latest US guidelines ‘optimal’ cholesterol level for healthy people is 4.4 mmol/L (In US units this is 170 mg/dl). By driving the definition of high cholesterol ever downwards, we have reached the point where more than 85% of people now have a ‘high’ cholesterol level, which needs to be lowered. This is fine so long as you do not question the inherent nonsense that the vast majority of the population can possibly have a dangerously high level of something. Ever come across the concept of ‘average’ guys?”
The most interesting claim/fact in the book? “in no statin study done has there been an impact on overall mortality in women. None, ever.”
I apologise for picking out Cholesterol based data but as one of those with ‘high’ cholesterol, and not having read his previous book, these were of particular interest to me. But a lot of the hard evidence for claims made in relation to some of the other highly diagnosed and prescribed medicine areas are also demonstrated to be equally flimsy, or at least enough that you should do your own research and digging before being blindly corralled into taking a handful of pills for the rest of your life.
Good read.
I decided to take time out from Booker reading to read the latest book from Macclesfield GP, Malcom Kendrick. His last book was entitled ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’, where he took aim at the perceived medical wisdom that lowering your cholesterol was good for you.
In this latest book he aims wider and tries to:
alert readers to look beyond the headline and surface of any medical claim to find the evidence behind the claim
association does not mean causation: Just because something is associated with a condition/diseases is not the same as saying it causes or automatically results in that condition/disease.
recognise the difference between relative and absolute risk in claims: “If the absolute risk is hidden away, then you can confidently assume that it is so vanishingly small that the authors chose not to highlight it, as it would significantly weaken their message.”
beware of the words: words ‘lives saved’, or any version thereof: “You cannot save a life, all you can do is delay death.’ You will also know that anyone who combines the words ‘saved’ and ‘life’, or any version thereof, with regard to a clinical trial, is no longer a scientist. They have effectively – if unconsciously – become a drug salesperson. However academic they may claim to be.”
look for the mortality effect: does treatment ‘cure’ a supposed symptom but shorten your life? If it does not state the mortality effect it is because it was negative.
This is a highly entertaining read, with views on cancer screening, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, obesity, mastectomies, and high cholesterol and more – and how the expert opinion and guidelines on all of these have been formed, fascinating. Even covering my favourite – the old fashioned method of moving the goal posts:
“Narrowing the boundaries of ‘normal’ is a technique used in many different areas of medicine. When I graduated in medicine, a high cholesterol was 7.5 mmol/L. Then it became 6.5, then 5.5, now it is 5. Or 4, if you have had a heart attack or stroke. In the latest US guidelines ‘optimal’ cholesterol level for healthy people is 4.4 mmol/L (In US units this is 170 mg/dl). By driving the definition of high cholesterol ever downwards, we have reached the point where more than 85% of people now have a ‘high’ cholesterol level, which needs to be lowered. This is fine so long as you do not question the inherent nonsense that the vast majority of the population can possibly have a dangerously high level of something. Ever come across the concept of ‘average’ guys?”
The most interesting claim/fact in the book? “in no statin study done has there been an impact on overall mortality in women. None, ever.”
I apologise for picking out Cholesterol based data but as one of those with ‘high’ cholesterol, and not having read his previous book, these were of particular interest to me. But a lot of the hard evidence for claims made in relation to some of the other highly diagnosed and prescribed medicine areas are also demonstrated to be equally flimsy, or at least enough that you should do your own research and digging before being blindly corralled into taking a handful of pills for the rest of your life.
Good read.
December 10, 2015
I have read a number of books related to health and the pharmaceutical industry and am very familiar with this subject. However, it is always good to read again to help keep it at the forefront of your mind. It's too easy to fall into the traps set by modern medicine. A very good book on the subject. I do like the doctor's sense of humor, but, sometimes he gets me off track with it. I like humor, but maybe not quite so much.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews