Customer Reviews
I was warned about my blood pressure when this was recommended to me... - By: Bz, 11 Oct 2008 
... & I soon realised how apt that warning was !
I agree with most of the comments made by others - well, the 4- & 5-star commentators. Whilst reading the book, a number of thoughts passed through my mind, ranging from 'idiots running the asylum' to 'Emperor's New Clothes' .. many of which have appearedin others' comments here.
Yes, it should be compulsory reading for voters / MPs / Euro MPs / News Editors ( the Press, the BBC & other TV stations). Copies should be circulated to all schools.....in fact, anyplace where the 'balance' should be restored.
You see, I have paid for the errors referred toin this excellent book (indirectly, I know - but then so have we all!)
No, I haven't studied any particular 'history'in depth, what's the point if you are diggingin the wrong place ? ( This is not a personal attack on a 2-star reviewer .. I'm trying to emphasise that well-placed propaganda is difficult to spot)
The Epilogue is a brilliant summary of a compelling book. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
Nullius in Verba - By: spiritus, 26 Sep 2008 
As someone who studied the history of BSEin great detail I can assure you that the public 'scare' was based not on journalistic sensationalism but very hard science. The scientific evidence of the transmissibility of prion diseases across species barriers had been uniquivocally established by that time. That fact was carefully kept from the publicin order to safeguard the beef industry. By whom? Senior officials responsible for public safety. Disinformation was advocated among senior officials with respect to the scientific evidence. It is amply documented. I know an organic butcher who pioneered the sale of organic meat many years ago before the supermarkets stocked it. During the BSE crisis he was visited by menin suits who gently advised him not to talk to his customers about it. "They'll soon forget about it" they told him. That may sound hard to believe & one of those annoying conspiracy theories. The point is that you should not take anyone's word for or against such important things.
The motto of the Royal Society is 'Nulliusin Verba' which means 'Don't take anyone's word for it'. I agree that we must not rely on journalists to tell us the truth. That is especially true today because journalists are often not allowed to tell the truth by their editors. No, we mustn't let journalists dictate the public debate. We must stop relying on journalists & do something quite extraordinary - we must find the truth out for ourselves. That sentiment layin the hearts of those men who took their partin that revolution of thoughtin the seventeeth century that we today call the scientific revolution. It was the seed that culminatedin the Enlightenment & its concept of the autonomously thinking common man who played his rolein the political process. Without being armed with knowledge & exercising our reason (a skill that must be practised), it is not possible to fulfil one's duty as a citizen. At least any respectable concept of citizenship promoted since the eighteenth century. The history of BSE is a sordid affair where the lack of public accountability of thosein government reached a grotesque level. Butin order to know this or whether what a journalist says is true or not (or whether he/she is asking the right questions), the only way you can truly appease your anxiety is to go & look at the evidence yourself. With the internet you have that capability. If you take your worldview from the broadsheets & the BBC you will be tossed hither & thither by those forces (men of wealth & power) who are determining the limits of public discourse. You won't find the real truthin those sources because there is an agenda which those news agencies must conform to. You will find more intelligent & informed remarks from the man on the street. In the mass media you have this so-called 'elephantin the room' phenomenon. Glaring truths which are conveniently ignored.
The intelligent sector of the population are doing their own research with independent media. They are learning the truth for themselves. Unfortunately they are stillin a minority with respect to critical mass. The worldview of most people is formed by the public relations industry & the so-called security agencies (actually they are the greatest threat to security) who create mythsin the public mind which are uncritically transmitted by the 'liberal free press'. That is not good for democracy. It is not good for the people of Iraq & Afghanistan or indeed the many heroin addicts that have been created as a result of the revivial of opium productionin Afghanistan when the Taliban had successfully eradicated all such production prior to the invasion of the coalition forces. Afghanistan is the world's leading producer of heroin now & you still read evenin the left of centre newspapers that such & such an officialin the Afghani administration is thinking of another way of 'tackling the problem' without mentioning that 'We', that is to say, the 'security agencies' (funded with taxpayers money) & large corporations of Britain & the United States are heavily involvedin the production & trafficking of heroin. "What a load of twaddle!", you may say, because, I agree, it is simply too ridiculous to be true. But is it true? There you must find out for yourselves. And the point is that people don't bother to find out whether such things are true. That is the big problemin the final analysis.
We are susceptible to all sorts of manipulation by those who set the agenda - men of immense wealth & power who determine what the public shall & shall not hear & what they shall talk about at work & at home. Our protection against this is to not rely on journalistic hearsay or on the editorial comments of the broadsheets but on our own God-given powers of reason. The author's of this book stand somewhat precariously on this point. The institutionalisation of reason is science. Science has developed methods by which hypotheses are subjected to rigourous examination before assessments are made as to whether those hypotheses are true. With respect to BSE & global warming (to take two examples from this book) independent scientists all over the world have reached the same conclusions. On that basis we have knowledge about these matters.
So, I agree with the authors that we must think for ourselves but the authors' choices of examples are rather suspect. Global warming & the trasmissibility of prion diseases across species barriers are, according to the results of scientific investigation, now taken to be scientific facts. Naturally these things are a nuisance with respect to our investments but no amount of lobbying can alter what science knows to be true. We should not be susceptible to waves of hysteria but equally so we should not compromise with respect to the truth. Those whose wealth depends on their income from the oil industry do not want people to believein global warming. They do not want the combustion engine to be phased out as is very much a necessity if we wish to avert catastrophe.
The public should take a far greater interestin what public servants are doing with their money. They should try to see beyond appearances & not take the assurances of politicians as satisfactory.
Always question the data and/or evidence - By: A. O. AKEMU, 08 Sep 2008 
We are all familiar with recent media-driven hysteria such as foot-and-mouth disease, BSE/madcow disease, dioxin poisoningin Belgium, child-abusein the UK etc. The question is, what is the anatomy & the psychosis of such scares? What drives scaresin today's enlightened, Post-religious modern Western society?
In this riveting book, Christopher Booker & Richard North take a deeper look into recent scares & reveal an intriguing pattern:
- The scare is usually based on genuine concern that some chemical/bacteria or phenomenon has endangered human life
- Thereafter, the evidence for the scare is blown out of proportion
- The media get on board & without bothering to check the evidence drive a mass hysteria campaign
- Various interest groups get on board on one side of the argument or the other. (They authors call them 'resisters' & 'pushers')
- The pushers - usually scientists - do allin their power to frustrate the legitimate views of dissenters, including ad hominem attacks
- Politicians, who don't want to seem out of touch, respond disproportionately
- The result is overkill & ruined lives.
The authors do an excellent job of dissecting the evidencein past scares such as asbestos poisoning, salmonella & BSEin the UK to reveal a disturbing pattern of behaviour on the part of scientists, governments & the media.
However, Messrs North & Brooke are less exacting when they describe the HIV/AIDS epidemic & the Millennium Bug "scares". As an African, I beg to differ that HIV is a not a scare. What do you call disease that wipes out the productive class of a developing country? One can argue that it is precisely because the Millennium Bug & HIV received so much attention ( that they were resolvedin the first place (at leastin the West).
The book's epilogue, for my money, is perhaps the best part of the book. The authors attempt to explain why modern society has become susceptible to mass hysteria. They conclude that mass hysteria is only an expression of man's deeply-ingrained religous instinct. Since modern society has demystified religion, people need other righteous causes; they need to define the 'goodies' & the 'baddies' & need to stand up for a cause. Now, what cause is worthier than saving the planet from the greed of global capitalism or saving children from Satan-worshipping parents?
Fortunately, mass hysteriain our modern society, unlike religion's transcendental claims, is still amenable to scientific evidence. Therefore, the evidence will eventually undermine the basis for the hysteria. Alas, it may do so after countless lives have been ruined & billions of dollars wasted. The current global warming debate, therefore, is one to watch.
In conclusion, this book is an excellent reminder to always question the evidence. It deserves my 4 stars.
Are we following the herd on this one? - By: T. Maycock, 21 Aug 2008 I had high hopes for this one, but having dug behind some of the statistics it seems that the authors are also guilty of pushing scare stories. For example, data on salmonella infections/deaths is presented on page 45. The authors make the point that the number of deaths at the time of the crisis is less thanin 1982. What is not stated is that 1982 appears to be something of an aberration, the highpoint of some 30 years data (data available from Hansard - Written Answers).
In other places the narrative is overly dramatic. A Professor, criticisedin the book, is said to have rushed to an outbreak. How can the urgency be proved? Were speeding tickets incurred? We are not told.
It's still an interesting subject, but read with some caution.
Fascinating - By: W. Henderson, 23 Jul 2008 Really fascinating & persuasive book describing the real stories behind many scares such as BSE, salmonella, asbestos & now global warming... Cant recommend it enough for people who want a deeper understanding about the realities of the world.
