I've just finished this book today and thought I'd post my thoughts somewhere I recently read another book by the same author (Ben Goldacre), "Bad Science". Different people might prefer either book. I found "Bad Pharma" more informative; I didn't feel I learned as much from "Bad Science". However, if one is fairly new to lots of issues regarding medical trials and how they are reported, perhaps "Bad Science" might be useful to read first before moving on to "Bad Pharma" which focuses on more of the details. I think it could be useful if some ME and CFS activists (and the like) read "Bad Pharma" to help them understand issues regarding trials and the problems there can be in how they are reported (or misreported) and the evidence base for therapies. A lot of the issues people have brought up about the PACE Trial and how it was reported are touched upon in the book. One doesn't need to know any statistics or any of the natural sciences (physics, chemistry or biology) to read it that I recall (certainly not much). The language didn't seem difficult to me though I suppose it might challenge people who didn't have a reasonable literacy level. This links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma it a Wikipedia summary of it. However, Wikipedia summaries of topics can sometimes be more dense than trying to read info elsewhere. That's to say, the book itself takes many pages to explain points. There are also 258 reviews on Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patients/dp/0007350740 if people want to read what others say on it.