He's writing a book about an industry that everyone loves to hate. Few people question a book when it agrees with their preconceived views.
His core argument is extremely simple: If you conduct any sort of medical research, you have a moral duty to publish all anonymised data associated with that research, promptly and in full. There is absolutely no reason why that should not also be a legal duty.
I'd like to see specific examples of issues that Goldacre gets wrong, as I see his work recommended by a lot of astute doctors and medical researchers, and I'd especially appreciate you making the effort, for the community here, to link to the "critical reviews of Goldacre's work" that have public-visible links that you most recommend. I'm willing to hear you out, but please give those of us reading along in this discussion more to follow up on.
I've seen some critical reviews that are just nonsense. I don't want to spend time wading through nonsense, but I realise that maybe he's made mistakes, so I'd welcome curated suggestions.
This is a good critique of only one aspect of Goldacre's book, but it's a good one.
However, since was written by a former pharma exec, I'm sure people will dismiss it without reading it.
I read the article and the various replies from Goldacre and the author, including Goldacre's post of the passage in question. I find Goldacre far more persuasive.
LaMattina claims that Goldacre is cherry-picking data, and gives his presumably best example. But this example isn't "data"; it's Goldacre explaining the conclusions of a govenmental report about an incident where 6 experimental subjects nearly died. In writing about science for the general public, you need to give examples. This seems like a fine example for people to understand why a culture that promotes publishing everything could save lives.