At times, I found the good doctor's manner a bit overbearing and holier-than-thou. But perhaps that is simply a sign that this is not the best book to be the first one of his I read. After all, this is a collection of his weekly editorials, and so are meant to be picking the holes in other peoples' arguments or reporting.
Many of his points are spot on, and I overall agreed with most of the points made.
The concluding article "made" it for me, in that it very clearly elucidated his issues with the current methods of reporting science, and why it matters so much to him. ( )

More interesting than I expected. I like what he's trying to accomplish and his explanation of his intention for the book are extensive and clear. And he does a good job narrating the book himself,..thank goodness. ( )

I love Ben Goldacre for making good science accessible. He champions good methodology and defends us against really bad science and medicine.
Please read his other books first and then read this. It would make it a lot easier for me to be friends with you.

This one is not the place to start on your journey of good science. It is a collection of articles he wrote for the Guardian. Worth a read but only after you have read [b:Bad Science|3272165|Bad Science|Ben Goldacre|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327251503s/3272165.jpg|3308349] ( )

A whole book full of the authors 2-4 page newspaper/magazine articles. Not terribly specific and rather vague. I feel rather annoyed with myself for buying this book instead of borrowing it first. ( )

This selection of Goldacre's journalism touches on many alarming things, but possibly the most alarming is to realise how long it is since he stopped writing his "Bad Science" column in the Guardian — 2011! Where does the time go?

It is a testament to his skill as a writer that I remembered a very large proportion of these pieces from when I first read them in the Guardian or on his blog. But it was nice to come back to them, and to discover a few other pieces that were new to me, including things he published in the BMJ, the introduction to a government report on using evidence-based research in teaching, a prize-winning essay about treatment of heroin addiction from his college days and — rather unexpectedly — the foreword to the official guidebook of the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway.

The general themes are what you would expect: tireless evangelising for scientific method, criticism of incompetent or sensationalist science journalism, and a certain amount of amused baiting of homeopaths, nutritionists, magnetism purveyors, and other kinds of quacks. But the main point is always to help us to get a critical understanding of how (medical) scientists go about doing research, and why it matters that they do it correctly and openly. Anyone who reads Goldacre's columns (or his previous books) is in a better position to ask the right questions of a newspaper piece that starts "Scientists have..." — I suspect there are quite a few working scientists who've brushed up their knowledge of experiment design after seeing him point out other people's mistakes, as well! ( )