The Book Vipers discussion

The discussion thread is now open. Spoilers are allowed on this thread. Don't read on if you haven't finished the book. Can you also unclick the 'Add to my update feed' people don't see your comments in their home screen.

Just finished this. It was a stonking read and fortunately done in a humorous style or I'd have blown a gasket in righteous indignation!
My review is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Ah, Gillian McKeith. Forgotten about her totally since Goldacre took her down by buying his cat a membership of her 'professional' nutritionist organisation for 60 dollars! Read that in his columns avidly at the time. Wonder what she's up to these days? Peddling her nonsense in the US?

The chapter on Matthias Rath is downright horrific :(

I finishes this afternoon and gave it three stars, I did like the fact that it was a book that both my husband and I could read together and discuss, they are quite thin on the ground!


I am glad that I read it, it gave me a lot to think about and to my shame it has changed the way that I will read " science" reports in the papers. However the tone of the book grated with me. I gave it three stars.

This is my review.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Posted about this in the no-spoilers thread. I said: Just finished and he wound me up even more by the end! It's a shame as the messages within are so good. But it's all wrapped in 'my words will teach you to understand science data, unless you're a humanities grad, in which case you're too dim to follow it'. Sigh!

Similarly to Nikki, the author's tone has rather spoilt a good message for me. It's a bit repetitive and I wish it had been structured slightly differently - the more interesting cases were at the back after a few waffly chapters.

I'm glad I read it because it has opened my eyes. But I don't think I'd read this author again.

Sorry, I'm very late reading this - nearly finished! I agree with those of you who have commented on the tone; it felt at times as if I was being harangued (and I'm on his side!)
I was especially interested in the information about antioxidants not only not being beneficial but being linked with an increase in cancers among those who took it as a supplement. In fact I was pretty stunned as surely it's still the common wisdom that antioxidants are 'good'?
An anecdote: A few years ago I had an elderly dog with arthritis. The vet prescribed non-steroidal anti-inflammatories but also wanted to sell me glucosamine. I asked if there was any evidence that this could help and the reply was 'no, but it can't do any harm' !! I declined (and the NSAI drug worked very effectively.)

As if vets bills weren't eye-watering enough, Joy!

I was in Holland & Barrett (a health store for non-UKers) and looking at the rows of bottles wondering what the hell half of it was FOR. The bottles never say explicitly, mostly because they can't I guess.

Helen and Joy, I just got around to reading this recently and largely agree with your comments. Lots of interesting and eye opening information, but the first few chapters were a bit boring and the writing style repetitive and annoying at times. I skim read some sections, but overall glad to have read this. I'm unsure whether I'd try some of his other books, but probably not.