It proves difficult even for regulatory authorities and official advisory bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, to unearth unfavourable data from company-sponsored trials. The blame lies not only with the pharmaceutical companies, but also with journal editors, who judge that reports showing no significant benefit of a treatment compared with placebo do not deserve journal space. It is well recognized that negative or unfavourable clinical trials results are much less likely to be published than positive findings. The main target in the Goldacre cross-hairs is nondisclosure of data, particularly data from clinical trials.

To the question of style, we will – as Goldacre himself so often says, to keep his readers hooked – come back later. These are tales of secrecy, dishonesty, bribery and corruption that make for a compelling read, couched in prose reminiscent of scandalous revelations in the tabloid press. Goldacre chooses his targets well and shoots at them with well-documented examples, some of them truly shocking, many of them uncovered only after persistent and tenacious probing of reluctant sources. Ben Goldacre's book, Bad Pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients, is the latest of several books and articles in recent years to level criticisms at the way the pharma industry and regulatory authorities operate criticisms that need to be taken seriously, revealing faults that need to be corrected.

Bad pharma goldacre