Doctoring the Data (book review)

"Think of a number between one and ten. Add 10, then double it. Now take away 7 and take the square root of that. What's your answer? Five? Wonderful! Excellent! Right, so it's agreed, 'Five a Day' is our recommendation?".


Now, that is not actually how the Five-a-Day dogma for fruit and vegetable consumption came about (or at least, I don't think so), but it may as well have been. A lot of the numbers that are recommended to us by health and science experts - cholesterol levels, alcohol consumption, BMI -, which we are sure must have received weighty consideration, are simply plucked arbitrarily from the air.


This is the theme of the final chapter of Dr Michael Kendrick's "Doctoring the Data". He covers ten subjects in all, revealing to us the unreliability of modern medical science; in some areas, it has hardly advanced since the Middle Ages, when innovators like Galileo were silenced by the Church, as they innocently challenged orthodoxy.


When we read statistics in newspapers and journals, are we aware of their significance? For example, why is the difference between "relative" and "absolute" risk important? This is the subject of Kendrick's first chapter. He looks also at policies and decision-making in medicine, showing us why they are often unreliable. Science is stuck in a rut, from which only brave souls, who are willing to question the Establishment, can free us.


Another driving factor in the doctoring of data is money. University research departments are very dependent on grants. Those who fund the grants for research may not appreciate the "wrong" results, so some adjustment has to be made. This may not be downright lying, but data can be gently masssaged and presented in a different way. which is intentionally deceitful. Those who do not comply find their grants "put on hold" or their department moved to a dingy basement, never to be seen again.


Pharmaceutical companies are experts in submitting data in the most flattering light. Persuading the medical profession of the efficacy of their drugs yields multi-million pounds profits and they are very generous in rewarding those who promote and support their products.


If we think that early scientists and philosophers had a difficult time turning over ideas of their time, the situation is no less serious today. Only the Inquisitors have changed. But how can science progress if free thinking is not allowed? That is the subject of chapter 8, Challenges to the status quo are crushed - and how!


Other chapters include; Doctors can seriously damage your health (as I found myself with statins), Things that are not true are often held to be true, Lives cannot be saved; we are all going to die and Reducing numbers does not equal reducing risk.


If you read the health sections of newspapers or are currently under medication for any reason, this is a book that you should read. Kendrick doesn't tell us what to do or what to think. He sets out his case and encourages us to make our own decisions, after being informed.


Today, I heard a weekly BBC radio programme - More or Less - which examines statistics used in the media. Coincidentally, the programme was reviewing the recent news that "more people under 40 in the U.K. are suffering strokes". Discuss!


Look below to hear programmes again:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd