Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Book review: Bad Pharma

blogs.law.harvard.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 47 posts

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#31

Post by ZoFreX »

aaron695 wrote: post #13

Having read the book, this review I would say is very misrepresentative. The actual book is very good and a definite read. But this article seems to have spun it into a conspiracy theory. This is the opposite of why I liked the book in the first place, it explains how bad(For consumers) things happen due to systems not conspiracies. Also how things are not bad, just could be much better. Many examples are how mistake…

> it explains how bad(For consumers) things happen due to systems not conspiracies

That's one of the things I like most about Goldacre - he's very calm and measured compared to many people involved in these debates.

To anyone that liked Bad Pharma: I can really recommend "Bad Science" as well, which is similar but broader. In particular it has some very interesting information about "alternative" medicine and its relationship to "big pharma". He also has a great blog: http://www.badscience.net/ and occasionally gives talks - do go, if you ever get a chance to hear him speak.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#32

Post by jpatokal »

PM_Tech wrote: post #27
vixin wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he writes what he thinks; as a longtime reader of PG's blog I've not noticed any agenda. He's also been reading Piketty's Capital and tearing P's thesis to bits.

I very much doubt anyone can tear Piketty to bits. At all. Not without a book of comparable size and research time invested.

Try reading his blog then. He's not rebutting it word for word, of course, but he makes it fairly obvious there are some rather large and often fundamental holes in Piketty's arguments:

http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2014/06/17/book-review-pi...

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#33

Post by PM_Tech »

jpatokal wrote: post #32
PM_Tech wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt anyone can tear Piketty to bits. At all. Not without a book of comparable size and research time invested.

Try reading his blog then. He's not rebutting it word for word, of course, but he makes it fairly obvious there are some rather large and often fundamental holes in Piketty's arguments: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2014/06/17/book-review-pi...

No I am good thanks. I will just discount it. I don't consider a blog post a suitable way to analyse the magnum opus of an economist of the stature of Piketty.

EDIT : Curiousity got the better of me. I read the review of Capital.

I stopped at this line -

"Here are some ideas, some taken from my 2009 economic recovery plan for the U.S."

The author is a supremely talented electrical engineer. Stick to that instead of whining "No one listened to my economics ideas."

Last time I checked, economists don't post blogs claiming no one is listening to their ideas about microprocessors or front end development.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#34

Post by PM_Tech »

rjsw wrote: post #29
PM_Tech wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt anyone can tear Piketty to bits. At all. Not without a book of comparable size and research time invested.

His tl;dr of it is "Piketty is jealous".

The best tl;dr I have ever read. You are totally accurate. That is exactly what Greenspun is claiming. :-)

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#35

Post by tomelders »

Karellen wrote: post #3

That's a review? There's almost no criticism, or even considered discussion, of the book at all . He's just copied and pasted sections that he thinks are important or interesting, and called it a day. Not that there's anything wrong with quoting sections of a work that you think are worthy of spreading to a wider audience (assuming proper attribution), but IMNSHO it's a bit disingenuous to call QFTing a "review". (FW…

Is a review the same as a critique? I'm not so sure, but I do kind of agree with you, it did feel a little thin on the ground. That said, I'm now going to read this book, so it "reviewed" it enough to help me the reader make a decision.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#36

Post by teekert »

"We’re nearly 30 years into Prozac Nation. The pills are cheap and published research shows that they work well. Is everyone cheerful?"

What a dumb argument, this makes me not want to read this book.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#37

Post by pessimizer »

bayesianhorse wrote: post #20
pessimizer wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On the issue of efficiency of Prozac or similar drugs, sometimes the explanation is that they simply work and you know it if you have taken them. I hear the same thing about the power of prayer and Reiki.

Turns out, medication tends to work with much more people than prayer or Reiki... Drugs seem to work much more reliably.

I wasn't referring to any comment about "medication" or "drugs" in general, but to a comment about Prozac and similar drugs. When you study them, they absolutely don't work better than the pre-SSRI antidepressants, and neither of them work much better than placebo. When you don't study them and just know that they work because you have taken them, they work just as well as prayer and Reiki.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#38

Post by pinaceae »

a bit of a weird review. mixes trial design, which is international, with inherent US issues like the ok to advertise prescription drugs.

i postulate that pharma is actually working, better than a lot of other industries. pharma has a working patent system that balances the need for profit and expiration dates (see the recent patent cliff that wreaked havoc, in a good way, on the entire industry). it has to scientifically prove that their products actually work and don't kill people in obvious ways.

you think trials are easy? look at how many products fail in phase 2 and 3 studies. you think the industry likes pissing away all that money? you have the FDA, but then also the various EU country hurdles - where they might approve your product, but not cover it due to insignificant benefits over older products.

HIV is under control, Hep C is cured. Certain cancer survival rates are way better than 25 years ago. Your chances of survival into old age are going up all the time. You can bone your wife at 70, any time you want.

While big bad pharma attempts to cure cancer, for massive profits, other industries create sugar drinks and chat apps. BioTechs are the ultimate start ups, try creating a complex molecule/protein and prove it does something significant. I'll take Genentech over Facebook, anytime.

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#39

Post by driverdan »

This is the kind of content we want on the front page of HN? A "review" that is nothing more than content copied out of the book with a few paragraphs introducing each copied section, for a book that has been out for almost a year and a half?

If you want to read some real reviews of Bad Pharma a quick search will find you these:

http://davidhealy.org/not-so-bad-pharma/

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/oct/17/bad-pharma-ben-...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/bad-pharma-a-manifesto-t...

Goldacre's blog, Bad Science, also talks a lot about the book and the topic: http://www.badscience.net/category/big-pharma/

Re: Book review: Bad Pharma

#40

Post by Tyrannosaurs »

PM_Tech wrote: post #34
rjsw wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His tl;dr of it is "Piketty is jealous".

The best tl;dr I have ever read. You are totally accurate. That is exactly what Greenspun is claiming. :-)

As comment goes that sounds suspiciously like an ad-hominem attack rather than an actual criticism of the substance of the argument.
Post reply on HN