A deliberately misinformative book that purports to be factually accurate
594655
Oh, where to begin with this heap of libelous garbage?

I'll be reviewing the first edition of the book because it was the one I snatched up as a teenager after finding it in the free section of a used bookstore.  As an asexual young person eager to learn about the obsession that the other ninety-nine percent of the human population harbored, I thought that Reuben's well-known bestseller would serve its promised purpose.  The introduction asserted that no one could "live up to his human potential" without having an active, healthy sex life, which should have been my first hint that the author was writing with an agenda in mind.  I don't know what the more recent edition says about transsexuals, and, for personal reasons, I don't want to know.)

Well, it's been over forty years, and EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX: BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK has become more and more risible as more time passes.  From start to finish, EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX is a transparent attempt to convince the reader to practice vanilla-flavored marital intercourse to the exclusion of all other forms of sex.  The descriptions of the male and female sexual organs, as simple anatomy lessons, are exempt.  The chapter titled "Male Homosexuality" is particularly notorious for insisting that gay men are prone to anonymous hookups in public bathrooms, cannot live together lovingly ("The bitterest argument between husband and wife is a passionate love sonnet compared to the average conversation between a butch and his queen"), can be "cured" of their homosexuality by visiting psychiatrists, and, most bizarrely, get pleasure from penetrating themselves with foreign objects such as fruit and shot glasses.  The "Prostitution" chapter is similarly defamatory--it is the only section of the book that discusses female homosexuality, and asserts that the lesbians who become prostitutes do it to take the money of the men they despise and infect them with diseases.  Reuben bestows his blessing upon oral sex between a man and a woman but cautions them that they may have "emotional problems" if they prefer it to intercourse.  "The ideal sex act" adds procreation to pleasure and an emotional connection, according to him.  Yes, he actually uses the phrase "ideal sex act."  Plato may or may not be proud.  Modern readers will also note that the book is totally innocent of the concepts of fisting, lesbian sadomasochism, and heterosexual anal sex.

EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT SEX does offer some entertainment value: the "interviews" from medical clients who are obviously the author's inventions provide most of the laughs.  A prostitute visited in the daytime by a stingy john apparently dealt with him by saying, "What do you think this, the kiddie matinee?  You can come over here for half price but you only get half a screw!"  If you wish that your sex manuals of choice had the tone of judgmental sitcoms, this book may be to your liking.  Just put "Reproduction" from GREASE 2 on repeat, and you'll be all set for an evening of stern lectures against almost every conceivable sex act.  Otherwise, stay very, very far away from this thinly disguised propaganda.
3630971
This book is pseudoscience masquerading as the real thing. It is in the tradition of Plato's Atlantis, Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision, and any number of fantasies in between about cosmic catastrophes. Although lead author Richard Firestone writes well and has impeccable scientific credentials, in this book he becomes an advocate for the dark side of popular science. Some of the assertions in this book are reasonable, but many are not. Among this biggest howlers is the assertion that more than 100,000 of the elliptical depressions called the Carolina Bays are the result of recent cosmic impacts - impacts of a size that we know happen on Earth individually only once in several millennia. Alternatively, this book suggests that the Carolina Bays are the result of secondary impacts by ejecta from a single super impact that also created Hudson Bay. This impact, which they propose happened only 12,900 years ago, would thus have been much larger than the hit 65 million years ago that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Needless to add, no geologists have found any of signatures of impacts in Hudson Bay. Another weird notion is the assertion that mastodons living on Earth 34,000 years ago were exposed directly to a huge hypervelocity blast wave from a very nearby supernova, imbedding cosmic particles in their tusks. The issue of how these almost microscopic particles made it through the Earth's atmosphere without being slowed apparently does not worry them. Judging by other reviews posted here, a lot of non-scientists liked this book. I am again reminded of Velikovsky, whose work was highly praised by nonscientists but immediately rejected by scientists. If you want to read this book for entertainment as imaginative science fiction, fine, but don't confuse it with real science.
4697225
The author, Steve Altern, has two pages of acknowledgements attempting to lend credibility to the marine biology/science behind a prehistoric shark menacing present day coastal California.  What he should have done is to ask a Navy veteran about one of the book's characters, 'Mac'.  If he would have done so, he would have realized that not only is Mac a grossly inaccurate characterization of the 'rogue warrior' stereotype, he would have also learned a simple truth- the Navy did not fly AH-1 Cobra in Vietnam- the Marines did.  In fact, the only Cobras the Navy did fly were test models.  It is this lack of attention to detail, easily fixed beforehand, that drives the reader nuts.
2897263
I found this book unsatisfactory: it does not always substantiate its claims; it misrepresents certain facts, either deliberately or as a result of an excess of enthusiasm; and, in some instances, it relies on some evidence that has been shown to be fabricated. The saddest part about the emotionally-charged responses to this book is that so many people seem willing to insist on history AS THEY WISH IT TO BE, rather than as a fair reflection of verifiable facts.

There is irrefutable evidence of large-scale Japanese atrocities in China, including in Nanjing. Their probable scale and the motivations for the actions of those involved are discussed in many reputable history books. Iris Chang's volume, however, does not contribute much to our understanding; its main effect has been to comfort existing prejudices, on both sides of the controversy, and fuel a lot of ugly and irrational commentary.
4822129
There are several factual inaccuracies throughout. Page 28 states "And blabla", seems like a non-existent proof reader missed that one...
1599703
I have now read this book entirely. One of the things he writes is: "I'm completely confident that I can prove there's no such thing as the laws of physics". I recognise this for the arrogantly-expressed rubbish that it is. I still observe such significant inconsistencies and plain errors / assumptions that I believe the potential reader should be warned of. However, my original comments based upon exerpts from the book still stand.

Firstly, he makes assumptions and misinterpretations concerning the effects of the Sun and the Solar System. He suggests that there is some unmeasurable 'wave of energy' generated by the planets having some kind of impact upon our own reality on Earth, and goes on to enter the field of the unbelievable error when he writes that the orbital paths of the planets have a far greater effect upon radio signals than does the Suns' 22 or 11-year cycle, [of which records have been kept since 1849 in Zurich]. It is also not the direct effect of magnetic solar activity that affects radio signals, as he suggests, it is known to be the UV and x-ray emissions that affect the Earths' atmospheric layers that cause these effects. In other words, radiation.

Secondly, he bases many of his points throughout the book on astrology rather than scientific facts, far too many to go into in a review so short as this but noteworthy nevertheless as it is coupled with his belief in some dire 'Secret' that Governments know about but do not tell the public. If you're looking for a good collection of facts, you are wrong in reading this book. If your interests are in ESP, the unmeasurable and undefinable aspects of astrology, the indefensable, conspiracies and U.F.O.'s then here is your entertainment.

Thirdly there are a number of demonstrations of his own lack of knowledge - he doesn't know the effectivity of a Faraday Cage - his is made of lead which is a far inferior conductor as well as being heavy whereas silver-plated copper would be the practical choice of metal.

Bara assumes that the Suns' temperature must be far higher if it is effectively a nuclear power source (20 million degrees C) as opposed to it's measured apparent temperature of around 6 million degrees; he also suggests that in [his] reality the Sun is simply an 'Energy Portal'...
The fact is even here on Earth our nuclear power stations may typically produce if uncontrolled a far greater deal of energy than is required or even desired: that is why there are 'control rods' in the reactor to regulate its activity, and nothing states that similar materials in the Sun also don't affect the amount of nuclear activity and hence its temperature.

This list goes on (and on...)

Whilst I could carry on with more examples of misinterpretation, inconsistencies and lack of reality. it would be far too long for a review of this kind.

He professes to know a great deal, I am of the opnion that he posesses the inverse of that amount.
-- F.C.T. Gale.
1665092
The book is fun to read.  Overall the book is OK, but there are some issues.  The most obvious and clearly objective issues relate to the maps:

Page 58 has a map that indicates that there was a place in the middle of Nicaragua called Fort San Juan, which is not discussed in the text so it isn't evident why anyone bothered to place it on the map.  However, there was no such place in the middle of Nicaragua.  There is an interesting place in Nicaragua on the San Juan River at the southern border of Nicaragua called the Fortaleza del Castillo de la Inmaculada Concepcin, which is very interesting in the history of pirates.  The story of the castillo is much more interesting than many of the other things in the book.

The map on page 132 labels Nicaragua as Honduras.

The map on page 156 indicates that Belize is located where Bluefields, Nicaragua is located.  There are arrows on the map to and from this falsely labeled Belize.  One doesn't know whether the arrows are correct and the label is wrong or whether both the arrows and the label are wrong.  There is text that goes with the location in question, which also indicates that the place in question is Belize.  Belize is not even next to Nicaragua.  In fact, it is not next to any country that is next to Nicaragua.  Does this really matter?  Maybe not to most people, but it certainly does matter to anyone who has lived in Nicarauga or Belize and especially to anyone who has lived in Bluefields, which has Dutch piracy in its history and which history would have been a valuable addition to the book.

Because of these errors in the maps, it is evident that the facts in the book were not checked carefully and so the credibility of the book as a whole is called into question in spite of the otherwise good reputation of the author.

Although there are picture credits in the book, there are no references.
2181046
Why would the writer of a "complete history" and a "work of non-fiction" about Kalaupapa and the history of leprosy in Hawaii choose a photo of the Amalfi Coast in Italy as its cover?  This is indicative of the accuracy of the entire book.  There are errors in fact as well as in speculation, of which there is a great deal.  Documentation of many key events is poor, confusing or non-existent.  In addition, Mr. Tayman's frequent use of the term "leper" is encouraging current-day use of this highly objectionable term.  Readers should know that those of us who have spent years researching the history of leprosy in Hawaii and worked with Kalaupapa National Historical Park and the residents of Kalaupapa on developing educational materials, have serious concerns about this book, having found numerous inaccuracies and significant omissions of the important role of key figures, notably the Hawaiian Royal Family and Mother Marianne Cope and the Sisters of St. Francis who have consistently worked at Kalaupapa since 1888.  With the exception of the end of the book that talks about four of the remaining residents of Kalaupapa (three of whom asked to be removed from the book because of its overall sensationalism), the book focuses largely on the perspectives of Caucasian men, at the expense of many outstanding women and the Hawaiian people and their families, for whom great love was always more important than fear.
710727
I enjoyed this book, and of course it portrayed a dark and disturbing review of North Korea's prison camps. Unfortunately, as the author reveals in the book's forward, much of the material of the book as it was presented in interviews from the main character later turned out to be false. It was difficult to enjoy the book, knowing that it had been published despite the fact that the author and his publisher knew that much of the material was falsified, exaggerated, or left out. Please don't misunderstand - I can't even begin to imagine how traumatized the main character must have been by his experience, and I'm sure I would have a very warped sense of right and wrong and be willing to lie to protect myself if I had experienced half of what he did. However, I feel that the fact that the account has later been partially rescinded should be made clear to anyone who wants to buy the book. I hope the author will publish an updated edition that can be "enjoyed" for the important piece of non-fiction it should be.
4538468
I disagree with the one poster's assertion that it offers "few facts".  For a work of fiction, it actually contains quite a number of facts (though I understand the quote often attributed to Pope Leo X both in this book and elsewhere is misattributed).

If you're a gung-ho, believe it all (or most) Christian, you wouldn't like this kind of book anyway ... and could have guessed that you wouldn't by reading the description of the book.
4386165
I began reading this book in my free time at the beginning of the semester because it seemed interesting enough, and I wanted to learn something new. I have never studied psychology, but I have studied history, and thought it might be interesting to read about historical figures from a different perspective.

There are more than a few historical inaccuracies and ridiculous assumptions which Dr. Ghaemi presents as fact in order to affirm his thesis (ex: "Lincoln clearly empathized with slaves..."). I managed to overlook those until the chapter about FDR (Ch. 10), where because of my fascination with FDR, and Dr. Ghaemi's ridiculously blatant disregard for fact-checking, I had to stop reading.

The straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that twice (as far as I read), Dr. Ghaemi referred to "Hot Springs, Georgia". The town is called Warm Springs, and it is an actual town in Georgia where FDR owned a home, land, and where he died. This is a basic historical fact that one could confirm with a simple Google search, at yet, Dr. Ghaemi and his editors managed to overlook the existence of an entire town! That's like someone writing a book about the Civil War and deciding to refer to the burning of Hotlanta!

If you can't get simple historical facts straight, then you probably shouldn't be writing a book with any historical claim. Write fiction.
3100565
This book should be read as a fictional book. What it says about Nash equilibrium and how it proves that "Adam Smith was wrong" is simply wrong. Moreover, the whole mantra of conspiracy around the Nash equilibrium is simply a lie. Nash equilibrium is at the core of the developments of General Equilibrium theory (by Arrow and Debreu), which are the foundations of competitive market properties, etc. I am pointing this very specific example of something that is simply wrong in the book to show how from very tiny silly things the author developed a story of several chapters (as far as I remember, the first two chapters deal with economic theory). More importantly, Nash equilibrium something that the author should know given his background in economics. I can only reach one conclusion: either Graziano is an ignorant, a lier or a crazy person. You choose.

I suppose that in every claim the author does there must be a universe of lies and innacuracies such as the one I described above.
2367552
This book does and excellent job of countering the realms of misinformation and bogus studies that are put out by big-money corporate elites who have become addicted to cheap labor.  Chapter 2 deals with the lie that there is an American STEM worker shortage. Chapter 3 deals with a number of myths including the false argument that, on average, H-1B workers create jobs for native workers. Regarding this, it mentions an oft-quoted study that asserts that "2.62 MORE JOBS are created for U.S.-born workers for each foreign-born worker in the U.S. with a U.S. STEM graduate degree." At http://econdataus.com/claim262.htm , are listed numerous sources, including many in the federal government, which repeat this number. What I find a bit shocking is that it appears that NOBODY bothered to fact-check this number. If you just shift the time studied by two years, the 2.62 jobs gained becomes 1.2 jobs lost. It will be a positive if this book simply educates people that, just because a number is in a study with an economist's name on it, doesn't make it so. Studies need to be replicated and peer-reviewed by people on both sides of the debate. Finally, the book gets into the flow of big money that is driving this false narrative.
399600
As one of the unfortunate people who was inaccurately portrayed in this book, I must caution readers about its overall veracity. Mr. McWilliams goes beyond mere interpretation of events, and ventures soundly into the realm of blatant falsehood. He describes himself as an emotionally battered victem, while carefully omitting his own role as a liar and a manipulator. As someone who advocates for the equal treatment of persons with disabilities, I do not object to a blind individual's right to carry a weapon that he or she has been trained to safely use. My objection is in the lack of appropriate psychological screening that must exist in the state that has allowed Mr. McWilliams to carry a weapon. In short: if you're looking for a tabloid-style narrative that appears to have been written from a bitter and vengeful vantage point, this is the book for you. Just don't believe everything you read.
2311692
I've been looking for a good book on paleo nutrition to recommend to my clients since my favorite - Neanderthin - has gone out of print. Someone on my blog suggested this one and the reviews looked good, so I bought it. When I first started reading I thought I'd found a good source, but then I came across numerous assertions that were either incorrect or unsubstantiated. And then came the blizzard of unprioritized details.

This book is a mix of good information with misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation. In some ways, a book that gets the facts partly right is even more dangerous than one that gets nothing right. The parts it gets right lend credence to the parts it gets wrong.

One statement early in the book caught my attention because I'd never heard it before, and I've read extensively about paleo nutrition. The author was explaining how we know that humans evolved eating mostly meat, and she says, "We have spent 90-95% of the last 500,000 years locked in the grip of mostly ice and snow via the Ice Age, with only the briefest cool periods of reprieve, when edible plant life might have grown over a significant portion of this planet." There was no reference to substantiate this statement, so I researched it.

I discovered it's just plain wrong - we absolutely have NOT spent 90-95% of the last 500,000 years locked in the grip of ice that could not support plant life. It *is* true that we evolved eating a diet composed predominantly of meat, but the evidence is not a mythical Ice Age. We know this is so through other means, which I talk about in a blog post I wrote on what constitutes good nutrition [...].

The Ice Age error is just one small example of misinformation, and arguably a minor one since we did evolve eating mostly meat, but it made me wonder how much of the other information the book presents as fact has no basis in reality. I can't trust the author's journalistic integrity; there's no fact-checking.

The other main problem with the book is the voluminous, unprioritized detail. It does not differentiate between facts supported by solid evidence versus hypotheses supported by thin evidence. Nor does it distinguish between nutrition principles that have an enormous impact on health versus those whose impact is relatively trivial. (This is a common fault among nutrition writers, and I address this, too, in my blog post on nutrition myths and facts.)

For example, the book talks about the dangers of scrambled eggs (versus soft-cooked) and electromagnetic radiation from wireless internet. Assuming, for the moment, that these assertions are true, are they as much a threat to health as excessive quick-digesting carbs and omega-6 fatty acids? I don't think so! The book would be much more helpful as a guide to behavior if it set some priorities.

People trying to improve their diet should start with changes that are well-documented to have a large impact on health - changes important enough that if people do only that, they'll have helped themselves significantly. Then once they've got that down, they may choose to work on refinements. As it stands, the voluminous detail is overwhelming. No one could go from bagels in the morning to following all the advice in this book, and the changes people select to make may not be the most important.

Sheryl Canter
Author, "Normal Eating for Normal Weight"
normaleating.com
1755651
Hubbert's Peak by Deffeyes is an interesting book on petroleum geology and exploration.  Unfortunately, the title of the book was on the impending oil shortage.  After several chapters on petroleum geology Deffeyes finally discussing the supposed main topic of the book almost as an afterthought.  There were numerous factual errors in the book that diminish the author's credibility.  For example, hydrocarbon generation can only be explained by decomposition energies in the range of 14kcal/mole. This is nonsensical and reflects literature references from the 1970's that were shortly thereafter proven incorrect.  In addition citing an activation energy without the corresponding Arrhenius constant makes the value entirely nonsensical. Please remember that it is a rate equation.  Also Shell has a lot of produced hydrocarbons from source rocks with less than 8% TOC, which Deffeyes cites as their supposed minimum organic richness; I imagine the ExxonMobil crowd enjoyed the inaccuracy of these statements since Deffeyes since many of his "facts" were laughable.  If this book had been reviewed for publication in a scientific journal, most of the "facts" cited would have not gotten by reviewers and as a paper would have been subjected to a complete rewrite.  This book should have been reviewed by someone with technical competence prior to publication.  Retitle the book, please, to reflect the actual content.  I gave the book to a lay person so they could understand a bit about the oil business (told them to ignore my written comments by many of the "facts").
1135062
This presentation provides factual evidence that textbook writers are intentionally lying to children about evolutionary concepts that have been proven wrong for over one hundred years. Never-the-less the authors continue repeating the same lies in each new edition of the textbook.