free download ↠ eBook or Kindle ePUB ´ Malcolm KendrickHow they thinkCons In his fervor of contrarianism Dr Kendrick falls from the path of logic and into hysteria This is best examined through examplesOn page 189 Dr Kendrick first brings up the notion that HIV may not cause AIDS It is briefly noted earlier and later He umps 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 obviousYet 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 AIDSissue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS any number of reasons
Including AZT Was SoAZT was so horribly toxic pg 190 that the 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 HIVAIDS controversy seem to be the exact same piecemeal process that he criticizes at lengthA serious examination of a medical science can t bring up the HIVAIDS uestion 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 uestion 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 ust did things his wayDr 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 eually 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 addressedElsewhere 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 uantitative 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 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 MDThree stars Worth a read worth thinking about failed to persuade deeply flawed This book will make you uestion ust 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 ust the way you d expect a wry Scot to do. Ials 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. Prising number of typos including many that should have beenToxic Pg 190 TheHorribly Toxic Pg 190
Caught By A Copyeditor Also While He Does State Thatby a copyeditor Also while he does state that is very much pro vaccination I believe he is too open to the dangerous ideas of uestioning 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 uestioning proven results A
Dry eye opening book to the way people think about theireye opening book to the way people think about their and the medical fieldI 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 "that has been looking for answers on fitness and diet In my research I came across this book and dove right in The outcomes have been significant for meI 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 uo 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 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 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 uo ie 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 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 trueOn 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 uestion 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 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 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 uestion 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. R that no one gets out aliveWith 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 tr. 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 ust 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
one raised a few new issues for me like the fact that drugs are unlikely to cure your disease but will ust delay your death And a doctor may receive money from a pharmaceutical company but donates it tothis one raised a few new issues for me like the fact that
However the charity 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 This book should be reuired 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 udgement instead of trusting experts or Key Opinion Leaders Medical research nowadays is uite often of poor uality data are doctored to suit the prevailing dogma and experts are often biased they are easily corrupted by Big Pharma and are conseuently untrustworthy This is wh Refreshing to see an honest straight forwardCharity However The Charity
DoctorDr Kendrick Divulged TheKendrick divulged the 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 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 researchStand 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 usFor 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 risksAnyhow Doctoring Data is a great book very informative and a must read if you care about your and your families well being 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 ob doc And thank you for this I hope we do have a chance for better future 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 meaningful unregistered drug trials ie the researchers don t declare their hypothesis until after the trials are started and many 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 bookNegative study results are rarely published which can make weak but positive results seem 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 uestionable grounds Dr Kendrick provides extensive detail on several such analysesSome of the 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 evidence is suggesting that abnormal cholesterol levels are commonly symptoms of other problems and directly treating these symptoms doesn t impact the real problemsOn the downside the book has a sur. 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 ust ignore this relentless bombardment of medical advice and remembe.