Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by carter417
The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
1.0
Disclaimer: This review is not about the assemblage of facts/data as presented by the author. Rather this is a review of the writing and argument without regard to any underlying truth.
TLDR: The bottom line is this book is terribly written and poorly argued. Even in the introduction I was tempted to put the book down. While I encourage everyone to read and consider arguments that may differ from their own, please spare your brain this book.
Usually in a book that's trying to present an argument, I would expect the introduction to lay out why the argument is important, important to the author, or some broader context. While that was present in parts most of what I got was something to the effect of "even though I'm a democrat even I'm shocked by the extent of this corruption". That didn't endear me to the author at all, mostly because it's completely tangential to the argument. I don't care who you are unless you are making an argument on the basis of your expertise or experience. This author didn't appeal to those so we really don't need them here. These little interludes keep popping up in the book and don't add anything.
The word choice in this book is also common at best. That's surprising given that it's coming from a lawyer. For example
As for the argument itself, it's a terrible mishmash of an analytical argument and historical argument. I say it's terrible because these areas are almost treated separately and don't build on each other. Either a critical biography/history of Dr. Fauci and his work, or a colder argument about institutions violating their mission/ethics appropriate study protocols, would have made a more consistent book. Despite practicing the law, many of the arguments in the book where sophomoric regardless of and underlying facts or data. For example
I wanted to read a well argued book that pushes back on the common narrative. What I received in this one was a cash grab.
TLDR: The bottom line is this book is terribly written and poorly argued. Even in the introduction I was tempted to put the book down. While I encourage everyone to read and consider arguments that may differ from their own, please spare your brain this book.
Usually in a book that's trying to present an argument, I would expect the introduction to lay out why the argument is important, important to the author, or some broader context. While that was present in parts most of what I got was something to the effect of "even though I'm a democrat even I'm shocked by the extent of this corruption". That didn't endear me to the author at all, mostly because it's completely tangential to the argument. I don't care who you are unless you are making an argument on the basis of your expertise or experience. This author didn't appeal to those so we really don't need them here. These little interludes keep popping up in the book and don't add anything.
The word choice in this book is also common at best. That's surprising given that it's coming from a lawyer. For example
"Dr. Fauci’s calm, authoritative, and avuncular manner was Prozac for Americans besieged by two existential crises:"
. Existential... there's a word writers should really stay away from unless they know what it means. Or this little chestnut"This book will show you that Tony Fauci does not do public health;"
. Do?! The best word here is "do"? I think you can select a word that more definitely reflects your thoughts here.As for the argument itself, it's a terrible mishmash of an analytical argument and historical argument. I say it's terrible because these areas are almost treated separately and don't build on each other. Either a critical biography/history of Dr. Fauci and his work, or a colder argument about institutions violating their mission/ethics appropriate study protocols, would have made a more consistent book. Despite practicing the law, many of the arguments in the book where sophomoric regardless of and underlying facts or data. For example
"The groaning shelves that commercial pharmacies devote to zinc-based cold remedies attest to its extraordinary efficacy."
I was stunned to read that from somebody that has purportedly graduated from college. The availability of a thing has nothing to do with the efficacy of the thing. Reductio ad absurdum, my grocery store has two massive aisles to sell beer, because these aisles are bigger than the totality of the zinc stuff sold at the same store, alcohol must treat more things than zinc right? I'd go through more faulty reasoning but the above alone can stand as ample warning of what lies in these pages.I wanted to read a well argued book that pushes back on the common narrative. What I received in this one was a cash grab.