3 ms·
That's not the "top liked review", throwaway. It only got two stars. It's at the top of the list because it is the most recent. He's just complaining about W
by wombatmobile 6y ago
That's not the "top liked review", throwaway. It only got two stars. It's at the top of the list because it is the most recent. He's just complaining about Whitaker's sarcastic style. In fact, that reviewer goes on to say "So much of this book, though, is true that it boggles my mind how easily Mr. Whitaker could have toned down his sarcasm".
- throwaway_pdp09 6y agoReally? Emacs to the rescue: 46 likes · Like · see review 36 likes · Like · see review 26 likes · Like · see review 25 likes · Like · see review 13 likes · Like · see review 13 likes · Like · see review 11 likes · Like · see review 10 likes · Like · see review 10 likes · Like · see review 9 likes · Like · see review 7 likes · Like · see review 7 likes · Like · see review 6 likes · Like · see review 6 likes · Like · see review 6 likes · Like · see review 5 likes · Like · see review 4 likes · Like · see review (edit: shortened for space but it is so ordered in full)
- wombatmobile 6y agoOK. But I'm not sure of the source of the reviews or the qualifications/interests of the reviewers. I just linked to goodreads in a hurry since you asked for an indication of the synopsis, which is fair enough. Whilst Whitaker's tone does get polemic at times, that's because his conclusions are evidence based, and this is a public health crisis, on a similar scale to the opioids crisis in USA, and corrupt in the same way that tobacco corrupted the medical industry for a time. Whitaker presents references to the studies and he does seem to have made sustained, energetic efforts to research this subject exhaustively.