What was the five errors of fact part? I just finished the book and had an oddly similar reaction in which it seemed incredibly well-researched and all the film stuff was correct as far as I could tell, but then it hit a different area I know something about and was spectacularly wrong.

That is, I absolutely believe that someone who has an unexplained seizure and wakes up blind with no clear cause would be told that the blindness is psychosomatic and the lack of anything appearing on tests proves that. But the doctor is presented as being essentially correct, when the more obvious explanation is that either the seizure caused brain damage through oxygen deprivation, or the seizure and blindness are both symptoms of a neurological (not psychological) problem. Not all brain issues appear on tests, or at least not tests done while the patient is alive.

Otherwise I thought it was very good, though not as scary as I had expected.