What do you think?
Rate this book
Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates
Since early 2020, masks have been promoted by experts and implemented as mandates by politicians in an attempt to slow the spread of COVID-19…but a thorough examination of the data shows they’ve failed.
Masks have been a ubiquitous and oft-politicized aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic. Years of painstakingly organized pre-pandemic planning documents led public health experts to initially discourage the use of masks, or even insinuate that they could lead to increased rates of spread.
Yet seemingly in a matter of days in spring 2020, leading infectious disease scientists and organizations reversed their previous positions and recommended masking as the key tool to slow the spread of COVID and dramatically reduce infections.
Unmasked tells the story of how effective or ineffective masks and mask mandate policies were in impacting the trajectory of the pandemic throughout the world.
Author Ian Miller covers the earliest days of the pandemic, from experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci contradicting their previous statements and recommending masks as the most important policy intervention against the spread of COVID, to the months afterward as many locations around the globe mandated masks in nearly all public settings.
With easy-to-understand charts and visual aids, along with detailed, clear explanations of the dramatic shift in policy and expectations, Unmasked makes the data-driven case that masks might not have achieved the goals that Fauci and other public health experts created.
Masks have been a ubiquitous and oft-politicized aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic. Years of painstakingly organized pre-pandemic planning documents led public health experts to initially discourage the use of masks, or even insinuate that they could lead to increased rates of spread.
Yet seemingly in a matter of days in spring 2020, leading infectious disease scientists and organizations reversed their previous positions and recommended masking as the key tool to slow the spread of COVID and dramatically reduce infections.
Unmasked tells the story of how effective or ineffective masks and mask mandate policies were in impacting the trajectory of the pandemic throughout the world.
Author Ian Miller covers the earliest days of the pandemic, from experts such as Dr. Anthony Fauci contradicting their previous statements and recommending masks as the most important policy intervention against the spread of COVID, to the months afterward as many locations around the globe mandated masks in nearly all public settings.
With easy-to-understand charts and visual aids, along with detailed, clear explanations of the dramatic shift in policy and expectations, Unmasked makes the data-driven case that masks might not have achieved the goals that Fauci and other public health experts created.
232 pages, Paperback
Published January 20, 2022
39 people are currently reading
139 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
February 5, 2022
Ian Miller's book is convincing, empirical, objective, and well-written (though, like so many new books, it is not particularly well edited/proofread). He recounts the general consensus pre-spring 2020 on the efficacy (or lack thereof) of masking the general public to prevent the spread of respiratory viruses. He considers the stated reasons (or lack thereof) for the change in the recommendations of authorities. Using some of the well-known graphs he has assembled demonstrating curves, he compares and contrasts geographical areas to each other and argues that seasonality and other facts had far more to do with rising cases, hospitalizations, and deaths than masking, which did not prevent seasonal surges. He also demonstrates that the removal of restrictions did not result in increases in spread. He chastises the media for their dishonesty (it is no longer bias). The book is current through roughly mid-2021. I almost docked it a star for the graphics, which has source citations that are difficult to read due to resolution and size. Also, Miller gives short shrift to the issue of population density. One of his most convincing charts, contrasting less-masked Orange County, CA with Los Angeles County (which has a lower population density), is omitted. Despite these omissions, the book is worthwhile, important, objective, and convincing.
June 10, 2022
In 2020 and 2021, humanity ran one of the largest experiments in the history of science: billions were subjected to COVID mask mandates. It's left us with a lot to discuss - such as the catastrophic damage they did to the social and linguistic development of an entire generation - but one question stands above all: did they even work? Did mask mandates - which were never a feature of any country's pre-existing pandemic plans - do anything whatsoever to achieve their stated goals?
At this point it's incredible that the question still needs asking. The total failure of COVID mask mandates should be obvious by now to anyone with basic powers of observation, but if you've spent the last two years covering your eyes and ears as well as your air-holes, please bash yourself over the head with a copy of Unmasked. In this short book, Ian Miller crunches the numbers from dozens of countries and all fifty U.S. states and, with page after page of graphs and data, conclusively shows that which barely needed proving: mask mandates don't work. They didn't make a difference. They didn't achieve anything. They're worthless. They're useless. They're ineffective. They didn't slow the spread. They didn't flatten the curve. They failed. They expired. They have ceased to be. They're bereft of use. They should be an ex-policy.
Stop me if I'm being repetitive. I'm not sure what I'm hoping to achieve, as I'm under no illusion that the people who need to read this book will go anywhere near it. You can't reason with cults, and it's not like the Branch Covidians to let pesky things like "evidence" get in the way of their desire to control people. Even as I write this in the 27th month of "two weeks to flatten the curve", some U.S. counties are reinstating their moronic mask mandates for the umpteenth time. What's the mantra this time, that "real masking has never been tried"? Those who scream the loudest about "following The Science!!!!" have proven repeatedly that they don't.
To historians reading this in the distant future: I'm sure you're aghast at how stupid and irrational humanity has been acting lately, but please don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us knew. Some of us knew.
At this point it's incredible that the question still needs asking. The total failure of COVID mask mandates should be obvious by now to anyone with basic powers of observation, but if you've spent the last two years covering your eyes and ears as well as your air-holes, please bash yourself over the head with a copy of Unmasked. In this short book, Ian Miller crunches the numbers from dozens of countries and all fifty U.S. states and, with page after page of graphs and data, conclusively shows that which barely needed proving: mask mandates don't work. They didn't make a difference. They didn't achieve anything. They're worthless. They're useless. They're ineffective. They didn't slow the spread. They didn't flatten the curve. They failed. They expired. They have ceased to be. They're bereft of use. They should be an ex-policy.
Stop me if I'm being repetitive. I'm not sure what I'm hoping to achieve, as I'm under no illusion that the people who need to read this book will go anywhere near it. You can't reason with cults, and it's not like the Branch Covidians to let pesky things like "evidence" get in the way of their desire to control people. Even as I write this in the 27th month of "two weeks to flatten the curve", some U.S. counties are reinstating their moronic mask mandates for the umpteenth time. What's the mantra this time, that "real masking has never been tried"? Those who scream the loudest about "following The Science!!!!" have proven repeatedly that they don't.
To historians reading this in the distant future: I'm sure you're aghast at how stupid and irrational humanity has been acting lately, but please don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us knew. Some of us knew.
April 25, 2022
Unmasked is an excellent recap of the information surrounding the use of masks during the COVID pandemic. The author cites many studies and other information that provide that masks do not work to prevent the virus COVID. The author uses a lot of technical details but explains them in an easily understood way. Unmasked is a great book and resource for anyone interested in the failed use of masks during this pandemic.
February 1, 2022
A book filled with data showing the experts turned out to be wrong and refuse to update the science, wether out naivety or blind allegiance to their own narrative.
Chart after chart compares countries, regions, states, and counties, in a State, end up showing no matter the mask policy (mandate, no mandate, or mixture) they all followed extremely similar trajectories. I’m the majority of areas, no mask policies seem to have done better.
The author even shows how multiple studies or proclamations that mask worked, failed to make the above comparisons. They also failed to go back and change their studies or proclamations once cases began spiking again with no change in the policies that seemingly worked.
Masking as a solution should be buried in the dustbin of history. Just as the author notes that it had been already sidelined, as having no statistically significance, in studies about similar pandemic scenario war games that predicated masks wouldn’t help. Somehow though the heads of CDC, NIH, Fauci, and other National Science bodies tossed out all their own data for a mask works and found masks as better than a vaccine. Sometimes within a day or two or telling fellow colleagues a mask wouldn’t help.
It’s a good eye opening afternoon read.
—
Book could use another scan from an editor though. Chapter one is rough and repeats itself quite a bit. Also, a few grammatical errors in other chapters.
Chart after chart compares countries, regions, states, and counties, in a State, end up showing no matter the mask policy (mandate, no mandate, or mixture) they all followed extremely similar trajectories. I’m the majority of areas, no mask policies seem to have done better.
The author even shows how multiple studies or proclamations that mask worked, failed to make the above comparisons. They also failed to go back and change their studies or proclamations once cases began spiking again with no change in the policies that seemingly worked.
Masking as a solution should be buried in the dustbin of history. Just as the author notes that it had been already sidelined, as having no statistically significance, in studies about similar pandemic scenario war games that predicated masks wouldn’t help. Somehow though the heads of CDC, NIH, Fauci, and other National Science bodies tossed out all their own data for a mask works and found masks as better than a vaccine. Sometimes within a day or two or telling fellow colleagues a mask wouldn’t help.
It’s a good eye opening afternoon read.
—
Book could use another scan from an editor though. Chapter one is rough and repeats itself quite a bit. Also, a few grammatical errors in other chapters.
February 5, 2022
Ian has produced many graphs with details from experts regarding masking & case rates. He compiles all of that work he's shared freely on Twitter with commentary regarding the futility of mask mandates impacting the Covid-19 curves. While masks (of any type) have been pushed for way too long the specifics on what studies have shown and what has happened IRL shows the experts have been wrong consistently. The data is there with the sources cited.
March 2, 2022
"Follow the science" is a super cute slogan for signs in the front yards of the self righteous. You probably know who I'm talking about about; you've seen them driving around in their cars by themselves while wearing a mask. As for me, I will actually follow the science. This book lays it out plain and simple with facts and data. We have wasted two years with this silliness. Never again.
February 18, 2022
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored-Aldous Huxley
December 30, 2022
This book is a bullshit statistical analysis of mask mandates. It was very easy to tear apart - which I did.
September 5, 2022
Ian Miller työryhmineen pureutuu kasvomaskien tehottomuuteen ja niiden käyttämisen pakottamiseen maailmanlaajuisesti lännestä itään. Tieteeseen luottamisesta ”trust the science” ja tartuntakäyrien loiventamisesta (”flatten the curve”) on tullut tutkimustuloksiin perustumatonta hokemista, jollaista on käytetty tehokkaasti kansalaisten painostamiseen. Voimakkaassa suostuttelussa on käytetty jatkuvalla syötöllä asiantuntijoiden (”listen to experts”), median ja poliitikkojen viestiä, että maskien käyttö pelastaisi ihmishenkiä, ja sitä on ryyditetty aggressiivisella pelkopornolla ja anekdoottien revittelyllä.
Kirja on jaoteltu kymmeneen lukuun, ja alkuun päästään taustoittamalla, miten ennen on menetelty maskien suhteen erilaisissa epidemioissa, ja sitten seuraavat koronatoimet ja niiden tarkempi analysointi sekä vertailu Yhdysvaltain osavaltioiden kesken. Kansainvälisissä tartuntatilastoissa ei myöskään voida osoittaa naamavaippojen juuri toimineen, ja vertailukohtana käytetään usein Ruotsia, jossa lähinnä vain suositeltiin ruuhka-aikoina busseissa ja metroissa maskien kumilenkkien virittelyä korvalehtiin.
Varsinkin Kaliforniaa ja Floridaa vertaillaan sekä tarkemmin dataa Yhdysvaltojen eri osavaltioiden välillä. Tilastojen perusteella yhdessätoista republikaanisenaattorin johtamassa osavaltiossa ei ollut lainkaan maskienkäyttöpakkoja, ja silti kuolleisuustilastot olivat alhaisempia kuin himopakottajilla. Seitsemällä oli alempi kuin keskiarvo, ja neljällä hieman sen päälle. Siten tilastojen perusteella ei voi tehdä johtopäätöksiä, että maskit vaikuttaisivat positiivisesti korreloiden taudin fataalisuuden ehkäisemiseen.
Kun lähdetään tutkailemaan kasvomaskien käyttösuosituksia tai -pakkoja aikaisempien influessavirusaaltojen ehkäisyssä, tekijät huomasivat, ettei sellaisia ollut ollenkaan. Anthony Faucikin (CDC) sanoi vielä alkuvuodesta 2020, ettei ole mitään järkeä kävellä julkisesti maskit päässä ja ettei ole tieteellisiä todisteita niiden hyödyllisyydestä. Fauci vielä epäili tuolloin, että naamareista on enemmän haittaa kuin hyötyä käyttäjilleen. Andrea Lerner (NIAID) komppasi Fausia vahvasti väittämällä (,minkä koko tiedeyhteisö tosin tiesikin), etteivät kasvonaamarit olleet ennenkään vähentäneet influenssan kaltaisten sairauksien levittämistä.
Kevään 2020 kuluessa ääni muuttui kellossa, ja keksittiin, että oireettomat taudinkantajat ovatkin paha uhka ja että maskit ”oikeasti” suojaavat, mutta tutkimustietoa nimenomaan koronasta ei vielä ollut saatavilla. Miller on analysoi suppeasti myös tanskalaistutkimusta samaiselta vuodelta, ja siinä päädyttiin tulokseen, etteivät kirurgiset maskit vähentäneet SARS-CoV-2-infektioita. Silti joissakin maissa (kuten tsekeissä) terveysministerit ovat tempaisseet hokemia, kuinka merkittävästi maskit ovat vähentäneet koronainfektioita. Unkarikin kelpaa (Taiwanin ja Israelin ohella) esimerkiksi, jonka mukaan ankarat maskipakot ovat johtaneet merkittävästi pahempiin tuloksiin kuin verrokki-Ruotsissa.
Aika ajoin myös influenssa-aallot iskevät hanakammin ihmisiin, ja toisina vuosina sellaisia ei juurikaan ole. Myös tätä osattiin käyttää hyödyksi propagandassa, ja Miller nostaa jälkeen Faucin päätelmiä esille. Faucin mukaan maskipakot aiheuttivat sen, etteivät influenssa-aallot vaivanneet edes Australiassa. Tavallista koko koronapandemiassa (ja myös Millerin aineistossa) on ollut, epäeettinen tieteistäminen eli päätelmien peukalointi, jolloin hypoteeseja testataan ja johtopäätöksiä mukautetaan pitkälti tulosten perusteella.
Kansalaisten harhaanjohtamisessa Miller nostaa erityisesti Kalifornian ja sen senaattorin Gavin Newsomin, joka on vakuutellut vuosia (hänenkin) poliittisten koronaratkaisujen perustuvan nimenomaan tieteeseen eikä suinkaan poliittisten päämäärien ajamiseen. Vastakohta löytyy Floridasta ja sen republikaanijohtajasta Ron DeSantiksesta, eli Floridassa on toimittu lähestulkoon päinvastoin. Tuloksia voi itse kukin vertailla taulukoista ja (ylikuolleisuus)tilastoista, miten tartunnat ja kuolemat poikkeavat toisistaan. Moni amerikkalainen onkin äänestänyt jaloillaan karistanut Kalifornian tomut autonsa renkaista ja muuttanut Froridaan, jossa elinkeinonharjoittajien sulkutilat ovat olleet toista luokkaa kuin länsirannikolla. Myöskään koululaisia ei pakotettu etäopiskeluun eikä mitään yleisiä maskipakkojakaan ole järkätty.
Loppukaneettina voisi todeta, että Millerin vertailut CDC:n tilastoista ja laskelmista maanlaajuisesti osoittavat täydellisen yhteyden puutteen erilaisten maskikäytäntöjen välillä yhteydessä korkeampaan koronakuolleisuuteen. On vielä hyvä muistaa, ettei hoitohenkilöstö leikkaussalissakaan käytä maskia influenssan leviämisen ehkäisemiseen, vaan sen tarkoitus on estää taudinaiheuttajien joutumista avoimiin leikkaushaavoihin. Tutkimusten mukaan kirurgiset maskit ovat tehottomia tässäkin tarkoituksessa – eli parempi on jäädä flunssaisena suosiolla kotiin paranemaan.
Kirja on jaoteltu kymmeneen lukuun, ja alkuun päästään taustoittamalla, miten ennen on menetelty maskien suhteen erilaisissa epidemioissa, ja sitten seuraavat koronatoimet ja niiden tarkempi analysointi sekä vertailu Yhdysvaltain osavaltioiden kesken. Kansainvälisissä tartuntatilastoissa ei myöskään voida osoittaa naamavaippojen juuri toimineen, ja vertailukohtana käytetään usein Ruotsia, jossa lähinnä vain suositeltiin ruuhka-aikoina busseissa ja metroissa maskien kumilenkkien virittelyä korvalehtiin.
Varsinkin Kaliforniaa ja Floridaa vertaillaan sekä tarkemmin dataa Yhdysvaltojen eri osavaltioiden välillä. Tilastojen perusteella yhdessätoista republikaanisenaattorin johtamassa osavaltiossa ei ollut lainkaan maskienkäyttöpakkoja, ja silti kuolleisuustilastot olivat alhaisempia kuin himopakottajilla. Seitsemällä oli alempi kuin keskiarvo, ja neljällä hieman sen päälle. Siten tilastojen perusteella ei voi tehdä johtopäätöksiä, että maskit vaikuttaisivat positiivisesti korreloiden taudin fataalisuuden ehkäisemiseen.
Kun lähdetään tutkailemaan kasvomaskien käyttösuosituksia tai -pakkoja aikaisempien influessavirusaaltojen ehkäisyssä, tekijät huomasivat, ettei sellaisia ollut ollenkaan. Anthony Faucikin (CDC) sanoi vielä alkuvuodesta 2020, ettei ole mitään järkeä kävellä julkisesti maskit päässä ja ettei ole tieteellisiä todisteita niiden hyödyllisyydestä. Fauci vielä epäili tuolloin, että naamareista on enemmän haittaa kuin hyötyä käyttäjilleen. Andrea Lerner (NIAID) komppasi Fausia vahvasti väittämällä (,minkä koko tiedeyhteisö tosin tiesikin), etteivät kasvonaamarit olleet ennenkään vähentäneet influenssan kaltaisten sairauksien levittämistä.
Kevään 2020 kuluessa ääni muuttui kellossa, ja keksittiin, että oireettomat taudinkantajat ovatkin paha uhka ja että maskit ”oikeasti” suojaavat, mutta tutkimustietoa nimenomaan koronasta ei vielä ollut saatavilla. Miller on analysoi suppeasti myös tanskalaistutkimusta samaiselta vuodelta, ja siinä päädyttiin tulokseen, etteivät kirurgiset maskit vähentäneet SARS-CoV-2-infektioita. Silti joissakin maissa (kuten tsekeissä) terveysministerit ovat tempaisseet hokemia, kuinka merkittävästi maskit ovat vähentäneet koronainfektioita. Unkarikin kelpaa (Taiwanin ja Israelin ohella) esimerkiksi, jonka mukaan ankarat maskipakot ovat johtaneet merkittävästi pahempiin tuloksiin kuin verrokki-Ruotsissa.
Aika ajoin myös influenssa-aallot iskevät hanakammin ihmisiin, ja toisina vuosina sellaisia ei juurikaan ole. Myös tätä osattiin käyttää hyödyksi propagandassa, ja Miller nostaa jälkeen Faucin päätelmiä esille. Faucin mukaan maskipakot aiheuttivat sen, etteivät influenssa-aallot vaivanneet edes Australiassa. Tavallista koko koronapandemiassa (ja myös Millerin aineistossa) on ollut, epäeettinen tieteistäminen eli päätelmien peukalointi, jolloin hypoteeseja testataan ja johtopäätöksiä mukautetaan pitkälti tulosten perusteella.
Kansalaisten harhaanjohtamisessa Miller nostaa erityisesti Kalifornian ja sen senaattorin Gavin Newsomin, joka on vakuutellut vuosia (hänenkin) poliittisten koronaratkaisujen perustuvan nimenomaan tieteeseen eikä suinkaan poliittisten päämäärien ajamiseen. Vastakohta löytyy Floridasta ja sen republikaanijohtajasta Ron DeSantiksesta, eli Floridassa on toimittu lähestulkoon päinvastoin. Tuloksia voi itse kukin vertailla taulukoista ja (ylikuolleisuus)tilastoista, miten tartunnat ja kuolemat poikkeavat toisistaan. Moni amerikkalainen onkin äänestänyt jaloillaan karistanut Kalifornian tomut autonsa renkaista ja muuttanut Froridaan, jossa elinkeinonharjoittajien sulkutilat ovat olleet toista luokkaa kuin länsirannikolla. Myöskään koululaisia ei pakotettu etäopiskeluun eikä mitään yleisiä maskipakkojakaan ole järkätty.
Loppukaneettina voisi todeta, että Millerin vertailut CDC:n tilastoista ja laskelmista maanlaajuisesti osoittavat täydellisen yhteyden puutteen erilaisten maskikäytäntöjen välillä yhteydessä korkeampaan koronakuolleisuuteen. On vielä hyvä muistaa, ettei hoitohenkilöstö leikkaussalissakaan käytä maskia influenssan leviämisen ehkäisemiseen, vaan sen tarkoitus on estää taudinaiheuttajien joutumista avoimiin leikkaushaavoihin. Tutkimusten mukaan kirurgiset maskit ovat tehottomia tässäkin tarkoituksessa – eli parempi on jäädä flunssaisena suosiolla kotiin paranemaan.
August 8, 2022
This is a rather exhaustive look into if masking had any effect at controlling the spread. The tl;dr is that it didn't.
The slightly longer version is that we had a very strong understanding going into the pandemic that masking would not be effective at controlling the spread. All the "experts" said as much. Then all of a sudden the narrative flipped and now masks are a panacea. So politicians, and main stream media basically got fully on board and pushed the "mask or death" narrative. In effect a worldwide actual experiment was conducted, and there is enough variation in what Countries and US States actually did, and when they did it, that we can pretty conclusively say masks don't work to control the spread of air born viruses.
One good thing about this book is that it mostly sticks to the main premise, doesn't deviate into motives of those who are making incorrect statements, or the politics of who made decisions for or against mandates.
Although I do wish that all of those who jumped on the "follow-the-science" mask mandate bandwagon would givea mea culpa. You were wrong, at least admit it, or why should anyone believe when you give you next piece of advice.
The slightly longer version is that we had a very strong understanding going into the pandemic that masking would not be effective at controlling the spread. All the "experts" said as much. Then all of a sudden the narrative flipped and now masks are a panacea. So politicians, and main stream media basically got fully on board and pushed the "mask or death" narrative. In effect a worldwide actual experiment was conducted, and there is enough variation in what Countries and US States actually did, and when they did it, that we can pretty conclusively say masks don't work to control the spread of air born viruses.
One good thing about this book is that it mostly sticks to the main premise, doesn't deviate into motives of those who are making incorrect statements, or the politics of who made decisions for or against mandates.
Although I do wish that all of those who jumped on the "follow-the-science" mask mandate bandwagon would givea mea culpa. You were wrong, at least admit it, or why should anyone believe when you give you next piece of advice.
March 26, 2023
Not a perfect book at all, but it is such an important contribution to the discussion about the pandemic, that I have to give it 5 stars.
Could have used some extra proofreading and editing. Sometimes it makes the same points over and over. Even though some of those are very strong, they lose their luster somewhat with the repetition. The print in some of the charts is minuscule, especially the bar graphs comparing death rates in different states or countries. Very, very difficult to read.
The most significant parts are direct comparisons between states or countries with similar demographics and/or geographic location, but different pandemic measures. The most amusing parts are quotes from authorities or media put in the context of what was going on at the time and what happened afterwards. A lot of egg on some faces, but the media flat-out ignored it.
Could have used some extra proofreading and editing. Sometimes it makes the same points over and over. Even though some of those are very strong, they lose their luster somewhat with the repetition. The print in some of the charts is minuscule, especially the bar graphs comparing death rates in different states or countries. Very, very difficult to read.
The most significant parts are direct comparisons between states or countries with similar demographics and/or geographic location, but different pandemic measures. The most amusing parts are quotes from authorities or media put in the context of what was going on at the time and what happened afterwards. A lot of egg on some faces, but the media flat-out ignored it.
June 16, 2022
You weren’t going to save grandma!
We all knew the mask mandates were a joke. The problem was they used strawman arguments to silence those of us who knew the ineffectiveness of masks during this time. We all suffered, but mostly our children suffered. It’s a shame that our leaders and doctors would speak such blatant lies in order to accomplish what exactly? I’m not sure how to recover the trust lost fire medical community and our government alphabet agencies during this farce. The response to the pandemic was far greater and devastating than any of the actual illness and death that came from the actual illness. Great read. Too bad those who are believing The lies will never read it.
We all knew the mask mandates were a joke. The problem was they used strawman arguments to silence those of us who knew the ineffectiveness of masks during this time. We all suffered, but mostly our children suffered. It’s a shame that our leaders and doctors would speak such blatant lies in order to accomplish what exactly? I’m not sure how to recover the trust lost fire medical community and our government alphabet agencies during this farce. The response to the pandemic was far greater and devastating than any of the actual illness and death that came from the actual illness. Great read. Too bad those who are believing The lies will never read it.
March 18, 2022
While I agree with the author’s conclusions, it is not the most exciting book to read, especially if you’ve been listening to the Tom Woods Show for the past two years. I was hoping the author would focus more upon studies, but he only devoted a few chapters to them and did not delve into detail. Also, it has the most uninformative footnotes I’ve seen and the charts didn’t label the year in them for clarity. A valuable contribution, but I think it could have been better.
Want to read
January 29, 2022From the author of all those charts on Twitter that show that masks don't work.
March 4, 2023
So many great charts. Compelling evidence on the uselessness of mask mandates.
April 4, 2023
pretty poorly written, but good data and amusing graphs.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews