She advised better enforcement of the Cancer Act, to protect patients from unscrupulous providers, and said the government should stop subsidizing universities that cover alternative medicine in their curriculum.

Writing for The Guardian in February, Steven Poole described Suckers as a "vigorous polemic" against alternative medicine with the key theme that its practices (such as homeopathy and ear candling) are "not just stupid but dangerous.

[3] Natalie Haynes, writing in New Humanist, described the book as a "potted history of alternative medicine, as well as a thorough rebuttal of it, and her research is both fascinating and illuminating."

[4] Boyd Tonkin, then the literary editor for The Independent, called the book a "ferocious assault" on proponents of alternative medicine that was a "bracing tonic" but he criticized the tone of the writing for its "sneery arrogance that (as with the Ayurvedic tradition) can only bother to caricature its few substantial foes.

"[6] Simon Singh, co-author of Trick or Treatment?, said that although he shared Shapiro's "general skepticism" and found the book an "interesting read" he noted two weaknesses.