Scan barcode
kieranhealy's review against another edition
1.0
This book may have posed some legitimate questions. Is Anthony Fauci a bagman for the billion dollar pharmaceutical industry? What’s with Bill Gates’ absurd funding of WHO, how much control does he have and what does he stand to gain? Are medical journals complicit as mouthpieces for big pharma in order to keep relevant and publishing? Does this book answer them? I have no idea, because it is a massive gish gallop of hyperbole, poorly sourced declarative statements and terrible organization of the material.
Kennedy makes a series of bold statements. But he never adequately backs them up with actual data or even investigative journalism. For instance there is a claim that Fauci and Gates buried Hydroxychloroquine because of their “big stake” in Gilead (which made remdesivir). A quick look at the citation, and it’s a 2018 tax filing for the Gates Foundation, and the “big stake” is some stock holdings worth thousandths of either the foundation or Gilead (about 1/32,000 the and 1/76,000th respectively). None of which has anything to do with Fauci but he’s lumped in there anyway. This type of vague association goes on for hundreds of pages.
The citations are at times contradictory, backing up one point Kennedy makes while simultaneously refuting a point he made earlier in the chapter. Other times pointless, such as referencing an opinion piece or Kennedy’s own foundation. That kind of echo chamber referencing makes me distrust just about anything Kennedy might have to say. Also, sometimes he’s lazy. One citation was a study whose headline seemed to support Kennedy’s point about mask efficacy but in fact directly refutes it. At one point Kennedy cites a tweet as a source. A TWEET. I never thought Thomas Friedman would be topped for referencing Wikipedia for silly sources, but here we are. It reminds me of the time I bullshit some sources for an essay I wrote in college. Sadly for me, and a lesson I learned: Check the sources.
His promotion of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin over “barely tested” vaccinations is utterly preposterous on its merits. He demands better testing of vaccines but thinks HCQ and Ivermectin should be unleashed on the population without determining how effective it is beyond correlation data. Kennedy clearly has no idea or intention of learning about the process to get a vaccine past the FDA, and how difficult it is. (Just ask Merck, the leading vaccine pharma company, why they abandoned their Covid vaccine)
Kennedy constantly conflates unrelated topics. He never explains how an anti-parasitic works as an anti-viral medication. He seems to think all viruses are the same. Here’s a game: what’s the difference or similarity between a coronavirus, a rotavirus, a rhinovirus, Influenza, Measles, Smallpox and a vaccine? Kennedy doesn’t seem to know but thinks he does. It’s the equivalent of your dipshit buddy who just says “Trust me, man, I KNOW.”
But most egregious of all, Kennedy never clearly establishes the connections between Fauci, NIH, FDA, the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma. There is plenty of innuendo and suggestion. This is the purported reason behind this book. But he either doesn’t understand or care about how HHS organizational structure works and who controls what. He ignores the timeline of events, actual instances of cause and effect, and counter arguments. He makes claims that ignore basic logic, such as Fauci instituting lockdowns that caused detrimental effect around the world even though lockdowns started in Asia before Covid-19 ever reached American shores (also he never addresses the fact that Fauci has absolutely NO regulatory power, so the entire world MUST BE UNDER HIS SPELL or something). The book actually contains this amazing line: “While such a relationship does not prove cause/effect, it would be lunacy to simply ignore the reality and assume no relationship.” Kennedy wants you to ignore the fact he’s talking about a small sample size of one small country over a one week period, because you are insane if you question his rationale. I came to this book because I view things with a critical eye, and am then told that to treat this opus with a similarly critical eye makes me a lunatic. No thanks.
I have questions about Fauci’s stewardship of NIH. I have questions about Bill Gates and his motivations, and how much of it is truly philanthropy. I distrust big pharma immensely and am curious as to how we can lessen it’s influence in our medical care. But I certainly didn’t find any trustworthy answers in this book. Or if I did, they were buried under a mountain of nonsense.
Stay away from this waste of time unless you’ve already signed on to this line of “thinking” and then it doesn’t matter.
Kennedy makes a series of bold statements. But he never adequately backs them up with actual data or even investigative journalism. For instance there is a claim that Fauci and Gates buried Hydroxychloroquine because of their “big stake” in Gilead (which made remdesivir). A quick look at the citation, and it’s a 2018 tax filing for the Gates Foundation, and the “big stake” is some stock holdings worth thousandths of either the foundation or Gilead (about 1/32,000 the and 1/76,000th respectively). None of which has anything to do with Fauci but he’s lumped in there anyway. This type of vague association goes on for hundreds of pages.
The citations are at times contradictory, backing up one point Kennedy makes while simultaneously refuting a point he made earlier in the chapter. Other times pointless, such as referencing an opinion piece or Kennedy’s own foundation. That kind of echo chamber referencing makes me distrust just about anything Kennedy might have to say. Also, sometimes he’s lazy. One citation was a study whose headline seemed to support Kennedy’s point about mask efficacy but in fact directly refutes it. At one point Kennedy cites a tweet as a source. A TWEET. I never thought Thomas Friedman would be topped for referencing Wikipedia for silly sources, but here we are. It reminds me of the time I bullshit some sources for an essay I wrote in college. Sadly for me, and a lesson I learned: Check the sources.
His promotion of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin over “barely tested” vaccinations is utterly preposterous on its merits. He demands better testing of vaccines but thinks HCQ and Ivermectin should be unleashed on the population without determining how effective it is beyond correlation data. Kennedy clearly has no idea or intention of learning about the process to get a vaccine past the FDA, and how difficult it is. (Just ask Merck, the leading vaccine pharma company, why they abandoned their Covid vaccine)
Kennedy constantly conflates unrelated topics. He never explains how an anti-parasitic works as an anti-viral medication. He seems to think all viruses are the same. Here’s a game: what’s the difference or similarity between a coronavirus, a rotavirus, a rhinovirus, Influenza, Measles, Smallpox and a vaccine? Kennedy doesn’t seem to know but thinks he does. It’s the equivalent of your dipshit buddy who just says “Trust me, man, I KNOW.”
But most egregious of all, Kennedy never clearly establishes the connections between Fauci, NIH, FDA, the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma. There is plenty of innuendo and suggestion. This is the purported reason behind this book. But he either doesn’t understand or care about how HHS organizational structure works and who controls what. He ignores the timeline of events, actual instances of cause and effect, and counter arguments. He makes claims that ignore basic logic, such as Fauci instituting lockdowns that caused detrimental effect around the world even though lockdowns started in Asia before Covid-19 ever reached American shores (also he never addresses the fact that Fauci has absolutely NO regulatory power, so the entire world MUST BE UNDER HIS SPELL or something). The book actually contains this amazing line: “While such a relationship does not prove cause/effect, it would be lunacy to simply ignore the reality and assume no relationship.” Kennedy wants you to ignore the fact he’s talking about a small sample size of one small country over a one week period, because you are insane if you question his rationale. I came to this book because I view things with a critical eye, and am then told that to treat this opus with a similarly critical eye makes me a lunatic. No thanks.
I have questions about Fauci’s stewardship of NIH. I have questions about Bill Gates and his motivations, and how much of it is truly philanthropy. I distrust big pharma immensely and am curious as to how we can lessen it’s influence in our medical care. But I certainly didn’t find any trustworthy answers in this book. Or if I did, they were buried under a mountain of nonsense.
Stay away from this waste of time unless you’ve already signed on to this line of “thinking” and then it doesn’t matter.
jhobble10's review against another edition
challenging
informative
medium-paced
3.75
For me, this was a very difficult book to review because it provides so many topics and examples to unpack, and is also a very polarizing subject. Some topics were presented/supported well and others lack credibility. Overall, I would give the book a positive grade because it substantially exposes an important central theme that there exists far too much conflict of interest between Big Pharma and the government when developing public health policy and pushing certain vaccines/medications. Whether you believe RFK or not on some of the finer details about vaccine risks or how effective Ivermectin is at treating Covid, after reading this I don't think it can be denied that the web of incentives, royalties, and profits between people like Fauci, Gates, and pharma companies have resulted a significant trauma to many groups of people. Kennedy's background in environmental law shines through in his detailed examination of regulatory capture and the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on public health policy.
There are certainly aspects of his arguments don't bode well for RFK. While he does highlight a lot of things that rightly should be fixed, several chapters of this book are basically conspiracy. He spends two chapters on Peter Duesberg's HIV denialism which is well refuted by the scientific community. Also, many of his sources are either biased or not peer reviewed. For example, His source that claims that the MMR vaccine causes 340% increase in autism is now retracted and the source author admitted he was disgruntled that his son has autism. The claim that vaccines with thimerosal causes 1000% increase in autism is from a non-peer reviewed source. There are dozens of these little statistical claims and debatable details that somewhat undermine the credibility of the book.
Overall, I think Kennedy only has the public's best interest in mind when presenting his case, and if you find yourself defending Fauci, Gates, and pharma on some of these issues you need to reevaluate yourself. Did Fauci kill safe alternative medicine during Covid so that his vaccine could get Emergency Use Authorization? Yes. Did Big Pharma influence Fauci's behavior to capitalize on profit? Yes. Did Fauci run the Covid lockdowns with unconstitutional and scientifically unfounded dictates? Yes. Does Bill Gates control the WHO and global public health policy through immense "philanthropy" that enriches himself more at the expense of African countries? Yes. Does Big Pharma offload less-safe vaccines to African countries when they are decided to be too dangerous for Americans in order to maintain profits? Yes. Did NIAID run unethical studies on foster children with HIV without consent? Yes. Has the government been caught red-handed censoring dissenting opions of dozens of health care professionals, scientists, and doctors? Yes. These are all eye-opening aspects of public health systems that need to be talked about.
t_roth32's review against another edition
4.75
I was hesitant to put this on GoodReads considering how decisive this topic can be.
1. I am not anti-vaccine.
2. I do not consider myself part of any political party.
3. The title may be a bit hyperbole, as RFK makes a strong argument about the relationship between pharma, government, and media companies.
4. Follow the money.
awilsonmomof2's review against another edition
5.0
If only 10% of the findings of Mr. Kennedy Jr are accurate, then this a pretty condemning account. It is chockablock full of references (and while I looked at some, I did not look at all) and I want to thank the author for the time and research.
Hard to pick what is the most outrageous. Why do we not hear about Willowbrook State School? What of Joyce Ann Hafford? Why doesn't anyone say her name? And in case you have been living under a turtle shell (or only watching CNN) his chapter (really a book alone) on C-19 is worth your time.
Here are a few quotes that stood out to me (of many):
"The sacred doctor-patient relationship needs to be wrenched away from Anthony Fauci and the government/medical/pharma industrial complex."
"Science cost money and he who dispenses the money can control the science." Charles Ortleb
"Each rehearsal (Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, and Global Mercury) ends with the same grim punchline: the global pandemic is an excuse to justify the imposition of tyranny and coerced vaccination.....and coordinate the global dismantlement of democratic governance."
Hard to pick what is the most outrageous. Why do we not hear about Willowbrook State School? What of Joyce Ann Hafford? Why doesn't anyone say her name? And in case you have been living under a turtle shell (or only watching CNN) his chapter (really a book alone) on C-19 is worth your time.
Here are a few quotes that stood out to me (of many):
"The sacred doctor-patient relationship needs to be wrenched away from Anthony Fauci and the government/medical/pharma industrial complex."
"Science cost money and he who dispenses the money can control the science." Charles Ortleb
"Each rehearsal (Dark Winter, Atlantic Storm, and Global Mercury) ends with the same grim punchline: the global pandemic is an excuse to justify the imposition of tyranny and coerced vaccination.....and coordinate the global dismantlement of democratic governance."
alexandrabree's review against another edition
5.0
This book took me a little over a month to read, I had to keep stopping. Just to go stare into space and absorb what I had just read.
I love the citation method it is easy to go into the website and check the source material, and look for updates and / or corrections (that RFK.jr includes a space to find updates and corrections is an example of how open and scrupled the man is)
If you're giving this book less than a 2.5 stars, you should do some soul searching on how your politics is affecting your reasoning (as a non-American, I mention this often, because both sides of every debate seem to be rabid)
I highly recommend this book to everyone!!! It is a glimpse behind the curtain of big business, particularly big pharma, but also more widely government, as well as non-profits and other cronyism.
I love the citation method it is easy to go into the website and check the source material, and look for updates and / or corrections (that RFK.jr includes a space to find updates and corrections is an example of how open and scrupled the man is)
If you're giving this book less than a 2.5 stars, you should do some soul searching on how your politics is affecting your reasoning (as a non-American, I mention this often, because both sides of every debate seem to be rabid)
I highly recommend this book to everyone!!! It is a glimpse behind the curtain of big business, particularly big pharma, but also more widely government, as well as non-profits and other cronyism.
tree166's review against another edition
1.0
Opinions and beliefs are not facts.
This should go without saying but in 21st century America, people conflate them. Opinions are presented as fact.
Which is exactly what this book is all about. The author is a lawyer and congressman with no experience in the medical field or public health. He's on record as being against all vaccines, not just the Covid-19 vaccine, because he thinks they cause autism and various other common illnesses. The one study that showed a correlation between vaccines and autism has been discredited over and over again, and the doctor who performed the study has been stripped of his medical license. Anyone who still believes it does so out of willful ignorance.
So, on to this book - RFK Jr is extremely persuasive, which partly explains why people love this book so much. His writing style uses conjecture and suggestions to lead the reader to the conclusion he wants them to draw. A cursory glance at the author's sources proves that none of what he says is true. He uses information from his own anti-vax organization, which is just more of his opinions, to prove that the Covid vaccine is poison. He uses news stories and statements from early 2020, before Covid really appeared in the US, to prove that Fauci is lying. In reality, the statements changed as scientists and public health experts learned more about the virus, its effects, how it's transmitted, etc. Science isn't static. If it was we'd still think that disease is caused by ill humours and the galaxy revolves around Earth.
It really doesn't take an academic or investigative journalist to look at the information presented and draw the conclusion that the author is full of crap. People take his word as gospel because they want to, not because it makes any sense or has any basis in fact.
This should go without saying but in 21st century America, people conflate them. Opinions are presented as fact.
Which is exactly what this book is all about. The author is a lawyer and congressman with no experience in the medical field or public health. He's on record as being against all vaccines, not just the Covid-19 vaccine, because he thinks they cause autism and various other common illnesses. The one study that showed a correlation between vaccines and autism has been discredited over and over again, and the doctor who performed the study has been stripped of his medical license. Anyone who still believes it does so out of willful ignorance.
So, on to this book - RFK Jr is extremely persuasive, which partly explains why people love this book so much. His writing style uses conjecture and suggestions to lead the reader to the conclusion he wants them to draw. A cursory glance at the author's sources proves that none of what he says is true. He uses information from his own anti-vax organization, which is just more of his opinions, to prove that the Covid vaccine is poison. He uses news stories and statements from early 2020, before Covid really appeared in the US, to prove that Fauci is lying. In reality, the statements changed as scientists and public health experts learned more about the virus, its effects, how it's transmitted, etc. Science isn't static. If it was we'd still think that disease is caused by ill humours and the galaxy revolves around Earth.
It really doesn't take an academic or investigative journalist to look at the information presented and draw the conclusion that the author is full of crap. People take his word as gospel because they want to, not because it makes any sense or has any basis in fact.
laurapk's review against another edition
1.0
The second I read their appraisal over the so-called virulence of COVID 19, I knew beyond a doubt this is garbage propaganda. People are allowed to write and read what they want. That doesn't mean the author is free of being mocked for this garbage.
UPDATE: after reading the chapter on COVID-19 I can confirm that the Synopsis is an accurate representation of the book. Meaning, the whole book is primarily argumentative and factually incorrect or deceiving. I will NOT torture myself with the whole book. And I am aware that most of the people reading it are already convinced of something and only need confirmatory writing (this cannot be called evidence). This review is for those who have been directed to this piece of propaganda and don't know if they should invest their time. You shouldn't, but your time is yours to do what you wish with. Here are some interesting examples from the book to justify why I don't advice you to read it for information.
- The book cites incorrect sources to support false claims. E.g.: "He [Dr. Fauci] supported COVID jabs for previously infected Americans, defying overwhelming scientific evidence that post-COVID inoculations were both unnecessary and dangerous" I read those two sources the book cites. First, those articles were worried about how significant mutations in the new strains can allow the virus to avoid detection by the immune system (so yes, some worry about prolonged efficiency). The articles did NOT SUGGEST DANGERS TO HUMANS from the vaccines, on the contrary! They suggested people should receive additional vaccinations to protect against the new strains! This is not buried in the articles, for one of them it's in the 5 bullet summary of the abstract! You can't miss it. So there are only two explanations for this: either the author didn't read the articles and just plopped them in (bad writing), or he did read the articles and is maliciously distorting the truth (bad ethics).
- Regarding the claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine can help with COVID: 1) part of my extended family refused vaccination and took apple-flavored Ivermectin instead. They have had multiple cases of COVID per person already, one ended up in the hospital for one day with pulse-ox below 90% (very low), some have had long COVID symptoms that lingered for months, including neurological and respiratory ones. I took 4 jabs and had one case of COVID for the first time this year. Infection cleared in one week, I had fatigue and brain fog for another weak, some coughing for one additional week and that was it. I never took Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for COVID, and I weathered the COVID symptoms with only ibuprofen and some imodium (for the digestive symptoms). 2) A colleague of mine worked with Ivermectin and explained to me how it works: it kills the cells lining the intestine. So people are suggesting you take a drug that kills your cells, while the virus is already killing those same cells. 3) I'm attaching two articles that look at multiple studies and existing data. They reach the conclusion that these above mentioned 2 drugs are not, according to our current data, effective against COVID:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33475900/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
- The book cites early WHO and Wuhan experts saying that COVID19 is unlikely to be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. It ignores however that the situation changed with newer strains and just pretends new data never emerged. There is also strong emphasis on the idea that diseases aren't usually spread by asymptomatic patients. Here is a list of diseases that are spread routinely by asymptomatic infected people: typhoid, HIV, the flu, tuberculosis, chlamydia, chicken pox, measles, Epstein-Bar virus (the one that causes mono). So MANY OF THE MOST COMMON viruses and at least some of the bacteria are transmissible when the person is asymptomatic. Can you see a problem with spreading lies about asymptomatic carriers?
- The author lingers (and meanders) quite a bit around the argument for using or not using masks. He intersperses his writing with correct facts: the initial advice was not to wear masks as they were not believed to be effective, which was later changed to a mask mandate, which was later changed to advise against cloth masks and highly recommended N95 masks. This is all presented as Dr. Fauci lying, when in reality Dr. Fauci repeatedly said that, as this is a new virus, medical advice will change as our knowledge about the virus and transmission improves. The book glances over the fact that evidence still strongly suggests that an infected person wearing a high quality mask reduces viral transmission; this was clearly explained by multiple doctors as the main reason to wear a mask! It's a community effort, not a selfish "I don't want to be infected" effort. This book then proceeds to claim a whooping 25 articles saying that masks have negative effects. I laughed out loud. Twenty-five is pitifully small. Also, I'm waiting for those articles talking about the injury people experienced from COVID mask mandates. I'm still waiting. Further proof is in the medical personnel: doctors and nurses wearing masks during surgery, sometimes for hours and hours on end, day after day, year after year, do not end up with cripling medical conditions from wearing masks.
After 14 years of experience working in the lab, I cannot stomach this stupid book. The passages that have flooded the internet are factually wrong, the passages I read are factually wrong, and the synopsis is already a big flag.
If you read it for information: don't forget, garbage in, garbage out. If you're a historian or journalist reading it to document our desperate sorry rise in conspiracy theories: wow, I'll buy you a beer, this must be hard stuff to read and stay sane. I couldn't do it.
PS: For those foaming at the mouth about the initial review, sorry to tell you Goodreads never once tried to take it down. As the review clearly stated what it used for its conclusion, there was no misleading information. You have the right to believe anything you want and read anything you want, even if that book is full of lies or misconstrued events. You are NOT allowed to silence the people who point out the MANY INACCURACIES, FALSITIES AND PURE ARGUMENTATIVE PHRASES CLAIMING TO BE FACTUAL. Welcome to free speech. Peace and get a life. I also strongly suggest practicing Mindfulness as a way to lower your blood pressure and increase your enjoyment of life.
UPDATE: after reading the chapter on COVID-19 I can confirm that the Synopsis is an accurate representation of the book. Meaning, the whole book is primarily argumentative and factually incorrect or deceiving. I will NOT torture myself with the whole book. And I am aware that most of the people reading it are already convinced of something and only need confirmatory writing (this cannot be called evidence). This review is for those who have been directed to this piece of propaganda and don't know if they should invest their time. You shouldn't, but your time is yours to do what you wish with. Here are some interesting examples from the book to justify why I don't advice you to read it for information.
- The book cites incorrect sources to support false claims. E.g.: "He [Dr. Fauci] supported COVID jabs for previously infected Americans, defying overwhelming scientific evidence that post-COVID inoculations were both unnecessary and dangerous" I read those two sources the book cites. First, those articles were worried about how significant mutations in the new strains can allow the virus to avoid detection by the immune system (so yes, some worry about prolonged efficiency). The articles did NOT SUGGEST DANGERS TO HUMANS from the vaccines, on the contrary! They suggested people should receive additional vaccinations to protect against the new strains! This is not buried in the articles, for one of them it's in the 5 bullet summary of the abstract! You can't miss it. So there are only two explanations for this: either the author didn't read the articles and just plopped them in (bad writing), or he did read the articles and is maliciously distorting the truth (bad ethics).
- Regarding the claims that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine can help with COVID: 1) part of my extended family refused vaccination and took apple-flavored Ivermectin instead. They have had multiple cases of COVID per person already, one ended up in the hospital for one day with pulse-ox below 90% (very low), some have had long COVID symptoms that lingered for months, including neurological and respiratory ones. I took 4 jabs and had one case of COVID for the first time this year. Infection cleared in one week, I had fatigue and brain fog for another weak, some coughing for one additional week and that was it. I never took Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for COVID, and I weathered the COVID symptoms with only ibuprofen and some imodium (for the digestive symptoms). 2) A colleague of mine worked with Ivermectin and explained to me how it works: it kills the cells lining the intestine. So people are suggesting you take a drug that kills your cells, while the virus is already killing those same cells. 3) I'm attaching two articles that look at multiple studies and existing data. They reach the conclusion that these above mentioned 2 drugs are not, according to our current data, effective against COVID:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33475900/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34318930/
- The book cites early WHO and Wuhan experts saying that COVID19 is unlikely to be transmitted by asymptomatic carriers. It ignores however that the situation changed with newer strains and just pretends new data never emerged. There is also strong emphasis on the idea that diseases aren't usually spread by asymptomatic patients. Here is a list of diseases that are spread routinely by asymptomatic infected people: typhoid, HIV, the flu, tuberculosis, chlamydia, chicken pox, measles, Epstein-Bar virus (the one that causes mono). So MANY OF THE MOST COMMON viruses and at least some of the bacteria are transmissible when the person is asymptomatic. Can you see a problem with spreading lies about asymptomatic carriers?
- The author lingers (and meanders) quite a bit around the argument for using or not using masks. He intersperses his writing with correct facts: the initial advice was not to wear masks as they were not believed to be effective, which was later changed to a mask mandate, which was later changed to advise against cloth masks and highly recommended N95 masks. This is all presented as Dr. Fauci lying, when in reality Dr. Fauci repeatedly said that, as this is a new virus, medical advice will change as our knowledge about the virus and transmission improves. The book glances over the fact that evidence still strongly suggests that an infected person wearing a high quality mask reduces viral transmission; this was clearly explained by multiple doctors as the main reason to wear a mask! It's a community effort, not a selfish "I don't want to be infected" effort. This book then proceeds to claim a whooping 25 articles saying that masks have negative effects. I laughed out loud. Twenty-five is pitifully small. Also, I'm waiting for those articles talking about the injury people experienced from COVID mask mandates. I'm still waiting. Further proof is in the medical personnel: doctors and nurses wearing masks during surgery, sometimes for hours and hours on end, day after day, year after year, do not end up with cripling medical conditions from wearing masks.
After 14 years of experience working in the lab, I cannot stomach this stupid book. The passages that have flooded the internet are factually wrong, the passages I read are factually wrong, and the synopsis is already a big flag.
If you read it for information: don't forget, garbage in, garbage out. If you're a historian or journalist reading it to document our desperate sorry rise in conspiracy theories: wow, I'll buy you a beer, this must be hard stuff to read and stay sane. I couldn't do it.
PS: For those foaming at the mouth about the initial review, sorry to tell you Goodreads never once tried to take it down. As the review clearly stated what it used for its conclusion, there was no misleading information. You have the right to believe anything you want and read anything you want, even if that book is full of lies or misconstrued events. You are NOT allowed to silence the people who point out the MANY INACCURACIES, FALSITIES AND PURE ARGUMENTATIVE PHRASES CLAIMING TO BE FACTUAL. Welcome to free speech. Peace and get a life. I also strongly suggest practicing Mindfulness as a way to lower your blood pressure and increase your enjoyment of life.