What do you think?
Rate this book
Dark Winter: An insider’s guide to pandemics and biosecurity
In Dark Winter , world-leading epidemiologist Professor Raina MacIntyre navigates the past, present, and future of pandemics and biosecurity. MacIntyre examines the history of biological warfare (and why it is called the ‘poor man’s nuke’), Soviet and US bioweapons programs, developments in genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and catastrophic laboratory accidents. She also explores the COVID-19 pandemic and the heated debate around its origins, and shares the analysis she has conducted in trying to determine whether it’s a natural or unnatural pandemic. Looking ahead, MacIntyre outlines the future of genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and bioterrorism, and the national and global security needed to manage quantum changes in technology, along with how we might avoid future pandemics.
256 pages, Paperback
Published November 1, 2022
37 people are currently reading
204 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 11, 2023
Prof. MacIntyre chronicles a bleak history of man-made biosafety threats, including intentional and unintentional releases of biological agents. These mostly involved bacterial pathogens during the Cold War (e.g. Operation Sea-Spray and the Sverdlovsk Accident). She documents the failure of scientific experts in determining the cause of these outbreaks, and suggests that investigations are best conducted by law enforcement agencies (e.g. the FBI). The book also details extensive cover-ups by those with vested interests. She reports that these incidents have mostly involved highly trained professionals, rather run-of-the-mill terrorists, so argues that more scrutiny should be applied to scientists who have access to security sensitive biological agents. Her risk assessment of orthopoxviruses is chilling, and her work on face masks has been invaluable. The threats that Prof. MacIntyre outlines are very real, as are the historical examples of unnatural outbreaks that could've been so much worse. I doubt even most scientists would be aware of the true extent of these threats. I very much enjoyed this book, despite some disagreements and misgivings that it could contribute to toxic, anti-science conversations. The contention arises when these past events are used to make bold inferences on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Prof. MacIntyre seems to have constructed a victim narrative of being shouted down at any mention of a lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2, despite being published by the national broadcaster on the topic. While she and others have no doubt experienced vitriol for voicing this hypothesis, there are many credible arguments against it and in favour of a natural origin (and those promoting this view receive comparable harassment). Surely a natural origin should be the null hypothesis, and an unnatural origin would require compelling evidence? Instead, Prof. MacIntyre employs a ‘lab leak of the gaps’ argument. It’s true the natural origin theory is incomplete: the proposed intermediary host species for SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. No doubt efforts to understand the pandemic weren't helped by the market being cleared of live animals before investigators were granted access. However, there's no smoking gun for the lab leak hypothesis: no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in any lab pre-pandemic has been published. For what it’s worth, I agree with Prof. MacIntyre that a lab leak was plausible, and that some experts were too rash in wholly dismissing this hypothesis, especially in the early days. It remains possible, but is it likely? Most experts in phylogenetics and epidemiology argue that it's not, but Prof. MacIntyre is one of the few experts in the public eye hell-bent on propping up an unnatural explanation. She goes further than proposing it as a possibility and seems to suggest it as likely, without explicitly committing to this view.
Contrary to Prof. MacIntyre’s repeated assertions that scientists don’t consider unnatural origins, a panel of experts (assembled in the now-infamous ‘Fauci teleconference’) initially suspected that SARS-CoV-2 could be engineered and alerted intelligence agencies. These experts no longer promulgate this view. Why should we trust their initial assessment over their current one, given they’ve had more time to consider all available evidence? Were they beaten down by Dr. Fauci and other agents of the state? Until I see evidence of this, I'll take them at their word. After comprehensively putting forward her case of scientists failing to declare unnatural outbreaks throughout history, Prof. MacIntyre winks and nods at the reader while stating select talking points. Firstly, she ridicules the position that it’s a coincidence SARS-CoV-2 originated within somewhat close proximity to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (if 12 km across the Yangtze River can be considered ‘close’), which was known to carry out ‘gain-of-function’ research in bat coronaviruses (more on that later). However, she neglects to explain the significance of the outbreak centring on a live animal meat market, which housed a menagerie of cohabiting mammals from the illegal wildlife trade to be slaughtered and butchered on-site, which is exactly the environment in which one would expect spillover to occur. Indeed, this is the origin of the original SARS virus. If SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is it a coincidence that the first cases were traced to the Huanan Seafood Market, rather than a bustling supermarket or public transport station? She argues that not all early cases have been epidemiologically linked to the market (although, they've been geographically linked), but precisely zero of them have been linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any other lab. She also claims that one of the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13) was not reported until after the pandemic. Suspicious? Not really, as a gene sequence from this strain was included in a 2016 article as sample ID4991. Detractors contest this claim of mistaken identity, but why omit this explanation? Once again, Prof. MacIntyre is picking those cherries. The lab leak hypothesis has been investigated by intelligence agencies, and no evidence has been reported. Is it possible relevant details of a lab leak have been covered up by the Chinese and American Governments, and no whistle-blower has managed to break this silence? Sure, anything's possible. But on the balance of probabilities, most experts favour the natural origin.
Perhaps her boldest claim is the implicit suggestion that the Omicron variant was genetically engineered from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The Omicron variant emerged in sub-Saharan Africa, most likely acquiring its numerous mutations during replications within immunocompromised hosts. The unnatural origins hypothesis falls down using her suggested framework of investigating the outbreak as one would a crime. What was the motive of spreading a variant of a currently circulating pandemic virus? If it was an unintentional release, from which African lab did it escape? No answers to these obvious questions are provided. This is another contradictory hypothesis for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 put forth by Prof. MacIntyre. She suggests that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology or possibly from the high-security Vector Institute in Russia during the 2019 explosion. Subsequently, the engineered Omicron variant was released in either a bioterrorism event or unspecified lab leak. Which of these theories is true? All of them? I’m going with none of them, and default to the natural origin (null) hypothesis, until such time as more compelling evidence comes to light. According to Prof. MacIntyre’s implicit suggestions, experts holding this position are comparable to doctors who promoted cigarettes. In short, share her view, or you are either idiotic or morally corrupted. That’s how science works, right?
Prof. MacIntyre unconvincingly reckons the risk of unnatural pandemics to be higher than that of natural ones, using rudimentary probability calculations from limited empirical data. The probability of a natural pandemic is calculated from their incidences throughout history (every 10 to 40 years). She compares this with the unspecified ‘high’ probability of a lab leak or bioterrorism event (given the 100% probability that these pathogens already exist in labs). In her article published in Military Medicine, she ludicrously suggests this probability could be 100%. Even if a lab accident or intentional release were to occur (denoted as K), why is it assumed that there is a 100% chance of this resulting in a pandemic when the book documents many cases in which they have not? The probability of natural pandemic is reckoned to be around 2.5% per year, whereas the probability of an unnatural pandemic is seemingly 100% per infinity (which is the probability of most things per infinity). Why isn’t the probability of an unnatural pandemic calculated in the same manner? Could it be that the only pandemic of likely unnatural origin mentioned is the 1977 Russian flu, which would equate to one unnatural pandemic in the 90 years scientists have been culturing human viruses (and longer for bacteria)? Using this logic, the probability of a natural pandemic is therefore at least 2.5 times higher than that of an unnatural one. So why is unnatural spread weighted so heavily? Perhaps the risk will increase over time with the advent of gene editing and synthetic biology, as argued in this book, but so will the risk of natural pandemics due to many factors (e.g. climate change, increasing population density, habitat encroachment, intensive animal agriculture, etc.). There may be more to this risk assessment, but as presented in this book and her article, it’s very clumsy, and I’d like to see this work checked by a mathematician.
Prof. MacIntyre broadly denounces so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research without going into the nuances of the various forms this could take or its potential benefits. Certainly, there should be concern raised against scientists who seek to deliberately amplify the pathogenicity of already dangerous pathogens or to synthesise new pathogens of unknown pandemic potential. Regulations are not keeping up with scientific advancements, and international oversight remains elusive. However, should all cases in which pathogenicity of a virus is enhanced be viewed in the same light? For instance, the gain-of-function research carried out in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology with partial funding from the NIH investigated the pandemic potential of various SARS-CoV-1-like viruses circulating in Asian bats. Chimeras of SARS-CoV-1 viruses were constructed with these spike proteins, and these were used to infect human cell lines and challenge humanised mice. The resulting chimeras ‘gained the function’ of human infectivity compared with the background viruses. The upshot is that this ‘gained’ function likely already exists in the naturally occurring viruses, which was useful information for pandemic preparedness. This research was published, and the resulting chimeras are not closely related to SARS-CoV-2, so could not have been the origin of the pandemic. Could unpublished research have produced the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2? Once again, we have left evidence behind and find ourselves in the realm of speculation. There is an argument to be made that the same assessment could have been arrived at from molecular docking predictions, which would've negated biosafety hazards. It's also worthwhile acknowledging that there have been alarming reports of biosafety lapses in coronavirus research labs worldwide, so this is still a valid concern separate from the pandemic. Prof. MacIntyre’s insistence that the COVID-19 pandemic is the result of poor biosafety measures is damaging to this discourse. If SARS-CoV-2 didn’t escape from a lab (which it didn’t), would that mean biosafety and biosecurity aren’t as important as she claims?
There are many naturally occurring pathogens that are known to have catastrophic pandemic potential but are nevertheless studied by scientists under appropriate biosafety conditions (e.g. BSL-4). Should research into these pathogens cease out of fear of their pandemic potential? Or should it continue precisely because of their pandemic potential? After all, all these pathogens, even those released by humans, ultimately originated from nature. So, if this research were to cease, would we find ourselves with our pants down when one of these pathogens eventually spreads beyond an epidemic? Also, consider that pathogens routinely gain functions in nature, and even extensive genetic engineering could be replicated naturally, given enough time and the right selection pressures. The main protection against lab leaks is the correct use of appropriate biosafety measures, rather than broad bans on gain-of-function research outright. After all, would it really be so preferable for a natural strain of a pathogen to be released from a lab, rather than an engineered one? I understand enhancement of pathogenicity could make a big difference to the ensuing outbreak, but the key point here is that a pathogen would be released from a lab when it shouldn't have been. Let’s instead focus our attentions on improving biosafety and biosecurity worldwide, both within labs and without. I understand that getting into the weeds of this debate in a book aimed at laypeople might have been overkill, but I worry that readers will come away with the conviction that any research that can be labelled as ‘gain-of-function’ is, by definition, dangerous and morally wrong.
Prof. MacIntyre’s goal of empowering the People with information is a double-edged sword. While more information is generally for the public good, misinformation serves no one (except for those profiting from it). Publicists of science like Prof. MacIntyre should be more careful when writing and speaking for a lay audience, as they are, by definition, not trained to properly synthesise this information. If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that people should be humbler in their assessments of their own capabilities. There were certainly missteps from experts throughout the pandemic, but the record has shown that the public shouldn’t turn to non-experts as their saviours. The average Joe (Rogan) cannot fix a computer or pilot an aircraft, and nor can he accurately interpret scientific data. It is true that researchers, like every other human, are not perfect and some have malicious intentions. On the other hand, there is the enduring trope of the evil scientist, which is held by a concerningly large portion of the public and leads them to view scientists as non-persons. Perhaps the most egregious form of this demonisation is directed at Dr. Fauci. This hatred has resulted in the octogenarian having to be accompanied by security on his daily walks due to credible threats to his life. Prof. MacIntyre has garnered unfair criticism for her views, but so has every scientist speaking out during the pandemic, mostly from anti-vax conspiracy theorists. There is even a chapter on this in the book. There is a balance to be struck here, and I don’t believe anything should be hidden from the public. However, I think this book errs too far on the ‘distribute controversial information willy-nilly’ side at times.
Apart from all this, I highly enjoyed the book. It thoroughly covers biosafety and biosecurity, which are not often broached in mainstream publications.
Prof. MacIntyre seems to have constructed a victim narrative of being shouted down at any mention of a lab leak hypothesis for SARS-CoV-2, despite being published by the national broadcaster on the topic. While she and others have no doubt experienced vitriol for voicing this hypothesis, there are many credible arguments against it and in favour of a natural origin (and those promoting this view receive comparable harassment). Surely a natural origin should be the null hypothesis, and an unnatural origin would require compelling evidence? Instead, Prof. MacIntyre employs a ‘lab leak of the gaps’ argument. It’s true the natural origin theory is incomplete: the proposed intermediary host species for SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. No doubt efforts to understand the pandemic weren't helped by the market being cleared of live animals before investigators were granted access. However, there's no smoking gun for the lab leak hypothesis: no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 in any lab pre-pandemic has been published. For what it’s worth, I agree with Prof. MacIntyre that a lab leak was plausible, and that some experts were too rash in wholly dismissing this hypothesis, especially in the early days. It remains possible, but is it likely? Most experts in phylogenetics and epidemiology argue that it's not, but Prof. MacIntyre is one of the few experts in the public eye hell-bent on propping up an unnatural explanation. She goes further than proposing it as a possibility and seems to suggest it as likely, without explicitly committing to this view.
Contrary to Prof. MacIntyre’s repeated assertions that scientists don’t consider unnatural origins, a panel of experts (assembled in the now-infamous ‘Fauci teleconference’) initially suspected that SARS-CoV-2 could be engineered and alerted intelligence agencies. These experts no longer promulgate this view. Why should we trust their initial assessment over their current one, given they’ve had more time to consider all available evidence? Were they beaten down by Dr. Fauci and other agents of the state? Until I see evidence of this, I'll take them at their word. After comprehensively putting forward her case of scientists failing to declare unnatural outbreaks throughout history, Prof. MacIntyre winks and nods at the reader while stating select talking points. Firstly, she ridicules the position that it’s a coincidence SARS-CoV-2 originated within somewhat close proximity to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (if 12 km across the Yangtze River can be considered ‘close’), which was known to carry out ‘gain-of-function’ research in bat coronaviruses (more on that later). However, she neglects to explain the significance of the outbreak centring on a live animal meat market, which housed a menagerie of cohabiting mammals from the illegal wildlife trade to be slaughtered and butchered on-site, which is exactly the environment in which one would expect spillover to occur. Indeed, this is the origin of the original SARS virus. If SARS-CoV-2 leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is it a coincidence that the first cases were traced to the Huanan Seafood Market, rather than a bustling supermarket or public transport station? She argues that not all early cases have been epidemiologically linked to the market (although, they've been geographically linked), but precisely zero of them have been linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or any other lab. She also claims that one of the closest known relatives of SARS-CoV-2 (RaTG13) was not reported until after the pandemic. Suspicious? Not really, as a gene sequence from this strain was included in a 2016 article as sample ID4991. Detractors contest this claim of mistaken identity, but why omit this explanation? Once again, Prof. MacIntyre is picking those cherries. The lab leak hypothesis has been investigated by intelligence agencies, and no evidence has been reported. Is it possible relevant details of a lab leak have been covered up by the Chinese and American Governments, and no whistle-blower has managed to break this silence? Sure, anything's possible. But on the balance of probabilities, most experts favour the natural origin.
Perhaps her boldest claim is the implicit suggestion that the Omicron variant was genetically engineered from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain. The Omicron variant emerged in sub-Saharan Africa, most likely acquiring its numerous mutations during replications within immunocompromised hosts. The unnatural origins hypothesis falls down using her suggested framework of investigating the outbreak as one would a crime. What was the motive of spreading a variant of a currently circulating pandemic virus? If it was an unintentional release, from which African lab did it escape? No answers to these obvious questions are provided. This is another contradictory hypothesis for the origins of SARS-CoV-2 put forth by Prof. MacIntyre. She suggests that it leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology or possibly from the high-security Vector Institute in Russia during the 2019 explosion. Subsequently, the engineered Omicron variant was released in either a bioterrorism event or unspecified lab leak. Which of these theories is true? All of them? I’m going with none of them, and default to the natural origin (null) hypothesis, until such time as more compelling evidence comes to light. According to Prof. MacIntyre’s implicit suggestions, experts holding this position are comparable to doctors who promoted cigarettes. In short, share her view, or you are either idiotic or morally corrupted. That’s how science works, right?
Prof. MacIntyre unconvincingly reckons the risk of unnatural pandemics to be higher than that of natural ones, using rudimentary probability calculations from limited empirical data. The probability of a natural pandemic is calculated from their incidences throughout history (every 10 to 40 years). She compares this with the unspecified ‘high’ probability of a lab leak or bioterrorism event (given the 100% probability that these pathogens already exist in labs). In her article published in Military Medicine, she ludicrously suggests this probability could be 100%. Even if a lab accident or intentional release were to occur (denoted as K), why is it assumed that there is a 100% chance of this resulting in a pandemic when the book documents many cases in which they have not? The probability of natural pandemic is reckoned to be around 2.5% per year, whereas the probability of an unnatural pandemic is seemingly 100% per infinity (which is the probability of most things per infinity). Why isn’t the probability of an unnatural pandemic calculated in the same manner? Could it be that the only pandemic of likely unnatural origin mentioned is the 1977 Russian flu, which would equate to one unnatural pandemic in the 90 years scientists have been culturing human viruses (and longer for bacteria)? Using this logic, the probability of a natural pandemic is therefore at least 2.5 times higher than that of an unnatural one. So why is unnatural spread weighted so heavily? Perhaps the risk will increase over time with the advent of gene editing and synthetic biology, as argued in this book, but so will the risk of natural pandemics due to many factors (e.g. climate change, increasing population density, habitat encroachment, intensive animal agriculture, etc.). There may be more to this risk assessment, but as presented in this book and her article, it’s very clumsy, and I’d like to see this work checked by a mathematician.
Prof. MacIntyre broadly denounces so-called ‘gain-of-function’ research without going into the nuances of the various forms this could take or its potential benefits. Certainly, there should be concern raised against scientists who seek to deliberately amplify the pathogenicity of already dangerous pathogens or to synthesise new pathogens of unknown pandemic potential. Regulations are not keeping up with scientific advancements, and international oversight remains elusive. However, should all cases in which pathogenicity of a virus is enhanced be viewed in the same light? For instance, the gain-of-function research carried out in collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology with partial funding from the NIH investigated the pandemic potential of various SARS-CoV-1-like viruses circulating in Asian bats. Chimeras of SARS-CoV-1 viruses were constructed with these spike proteins, and these were used to infect human cell lines and challenge humanised mice. The resulting chimeras ‘gained the function’ of human infectivity compared with the background viruses. The upshot is that this ‘gained’ function likely already exists in the naturally occurring viruses, which was useful information for pandemic preparedness. This research was published, and the resulting chimeras are not closely related to SARS-CoV-2, so could not have been the origin of the pandemic. Could unpublished research have produced the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2? Once again, we have left evidence behind and find ourselves in the realm of speculation. There is an argument to be made that the same assessment could have been arrived at from molecular docking predictions, which would've negated biosafety hazards. It's also worthwhile acknowledging that there have been alarming reports of biosafety lapses in coronavirus research labs worldwide, so this is still a valid concern separate from the pandemic. Prof. MacIntyre’s insistence that the COVID-19 pandemic is the result of poor biosafety measures is damaging to this discourse. If SARS-CoV-2 didn’t escape from a lab (which it didn’t), would that mean biosafety and biosecurity aren’t as important as she claims?
There are many naturally occurring pathogens that are known to have catastrophic pandemic potential but are nevertheless studied by scientists under appropriate biosafety conditions (e.g. BSL-4). Should research into these pathogens cease out of fear of their pandemic potential? Or should it continue precisely because of their pandemic potential? After all, all these pathogens, even those released by humans, ultimately originated from nature. So, if this research were to cease, would we find ourselves with our pants down when one of these pathogens eventually spreads beyond an epidemic? Also, consider that pathogens routinely gain functions in nature, and even extensive genetic engineering could be replicated naturally, given enough time and the right selection pressures. The main protection against lab leaks is the correct use of appropriate biosafety measures, rather than broad bans on gain-of-function research outright. After all, would it really be so preferable for a natural strain of a pathogen to be released from a lab, rather than an engineered one? I understand enhancement of pathogenicity could make a big difference to the ensuing outbreak, but the key point here is that a pathogen would be released from a lab when it shouldn't have been. Let’s instead focus our attentions on improving biosafety and biosecurity worldwide, both within labs and without. I understand that getting into the weeds of this debate in a book aimed at laypeople might have been overkill, but I worry that readers will come away with the conviction that any research that can be labelled as ‘gain-of-function’ is, by definition, dangerous and morally wrong.
Prof. MacIntyre’s goal of empowering the People with information is a double-edged sword. While more information is generally for the public good, misinformation serves no one (except for those profiting from it). Publicists of science like Prof. MacIntyre should be more careful when writing and speaking for a lay audience, as they are, by definition, not trained to properly synthesise this information. If the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it’s that people should be humbler in their assessments of their own capabilities. There were certainly missteps from experts throughout the pandemic, but the record has shown that the public shouldn’t turn to non-experts as their saviours. The average Joe (Rogan) cannot fix a computer or pilot an aircraft, and nor can he accurately interpret scientific data. It is true that researchers, like every other human, are not perfect and some have malicious intentions. On the other hand, there is the enduring trope of the evil scientist, which is held by a concerningly large portion of the public and leads them to view scientists as non-persons. Perhaps the most egregious form of this demonisation is directed at Dr. Fauci. This hatred has resulted in the octogenarian having to be accompanied by security on his daily walks due to credible threats to his life. Prof. MacIntyre has garnered unfair criticism for her views, but so has every scientist speaking out during the pandemic, mostly from anti-vax conspiracy theorists. There is even a chapter on this in the book. There is a balance to be struck here, and I don’t believe anything should be hidden from the public. However, I think this book errs too far on the ‘distribute controversial information willy-nilly’ side at times.
Apart from all this, I highly enjoyed the book. It thoroughly covers biosafety and biosecurity, which are not often broached in mainstream publications.
December 30, 2022
This is a book that lays out the dangers of lax biosecurity (pandemics, bioterrorism, biowarfare) and challenges governments to step up before it's too late. As I write in my review for the Saturday Paper: "By the time you finish reading, you may not want to leave the house – or, if you are a “high-value” individual, touch the doorknobs inside it." (https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/c...)
March 2, 2023
Sets out a history of bioterrorism and bio security (that’s when government does violence on its own citizens) and updates us on tech developments. The most interesting bit was that unnatural pandemics are rarely considered possible. A useful book but needs editing - it’s repetitive and full of first person ‘I told you so’ moments. I liked having McIntyre as a public commentator during the pandemic but did we need a book on what she’s researched when we should instead go to the research? The dark winter btw is ignorance - govt and science dumbing down messages and not democratizing knowledge.
June 17, 2023
This book was okay. It talks about pandemics and the responses of people and governments.
It is quite scientific, and encourages people to examine science carefully and be careful of the vested interests in science (and conflicts of interest). But it fails to discuss the greed/economic connection (big pharma exploiting people and pushing drugs on people purely for profits) and sadly it pushes the idea that humans should all get vaccines, and all be forced to wear masks and take chemicals/drugs.
The book should have considered an alternative view and discussed the idea that humans do not need to put chemicals into their bodies. There was no mention of consent in science, and that it is wrong to coerce/force people to take drugs (particularly experimental drugs). It is very unethical to push chemicals/drugs onto humans and the side effects can be quite horrific.
People should not be forced to take any chemicals or drugs (as outlined in the UN Charter of Human Rights people should not be forced to take medical treatment or drugs - see article 7 ICCP).
It is quite scientific, and encourages people to examine science carefully and be careful of the vested interests in science (and conflicts of interest). But it fails to discuss the greed/economic connection (big pharma exploiting people and pushing drugs on people purely for profits) and sadly it pushes the idea that humans should all get vaccines, and all be forced to wear masks and take chemicals/drugs.
The book should have considered an alternative view and discussed the idea that humans do not need to put chemicals into their bodies. There was no mention of consent in science, and that it is wrong to coerce/force people to take drugs (particularly experimental drugs). It is very unethical to push chemicals/drugs onto humans and the side effects can be quite horrific.
People should not be forced to take any chemicals or drugs (as outlined in the UN Charter of Human Rights people should not be forced to take medical treatment or drugs - see article 7 ICCP).
November 24, 2022
Raina MacIntyre became a household name in Australia as the pandemic began to build up steam. She's a respected scientist with many credentials to her name.
This book was an eye opener. People who know me, know that I've read widely on the Covid-19 pandemic, and also widely in general. But this book demonstrated to me, how much more there is to learn about the complex, and incredibly important, areas of biosecurity and pandemic response.
It also reminded me that it's easy to be partisan when we don't like what we're hearing.
The book itself is not a fluid read in parts, but the information within it is gripping, fascinating, and in some cases deeply concerning. And it's that information, from an impeccable source, which is described in a 'warts and all' style that kept me turning the pages avidly.
If you've ever wondered about biosecurity and the experts whose job it is to protect us, then this book is a must read.
This book was an eye opener. People who know me, know that I've read widely on the Covid-19 pandemic, and also widely in general. But this book demonstrated to me, how much more there is to learn about the complex, and incredibly important, areas of biosecurity and pandemic response.
It also reminded me that it's easy to be partisan when we don't like what we're hearing.
The book itself is not a fluid read in parts, but the information within it is gripping, fascinating, and in some cases deeply concerning. And it's that information, from an impeccable source, which is described in a 'warts and all' style that kept me turning the pages avidly.
If you've ever wondered about biosecurity and the experts whose job it is to protect us, then this book is a must read.
July 12, 2024
There are snippets of an interesting book here, and I'm sure the author has many interesting stories to tell, but the main interest seems to be settling scores.
Time and again a topic leads to the author giving her view, then railing against others in the field who disagree with her - a "mob", a "gang", "vicious", "hysterical", government puppets, self-interested, blind, etc. Indeed, they're even unsubtly compared to Nazis. At least one attack was unintentionally amusing, mocking those on the "biosecurity gravy train" - apparently without irony, in a commercial book centred on hyping up biosecurity threats.
She may well be in the right on most of the topics, and there may be some entirely justified bitterness where she suffered negative consequences for her stance on them, but the way it is expressed detracted from the points being made and turned it into a tough read.
Time and again a topic leads to the author giving her view, then railing against others in the field who disagree with her - a "mob", a "gang", "vicious", "hysterical", government puppets, self-interested, blind, etc. Indeed, they're even unsubtly compared to Nazis. At least one attack was unintentionally amusing, mocking those on the "biosecurity gravy train" - apparently without irony, in a commercial book centred on hyping up biosecurity threats.
She may well be in the right on most of the topics, and there may be some entirely justified bitterness where she suffered negative consequences for her stance on them, but the way it is expressed detracted from the points being made and turned it into a tough read.
June 30, 2025
An informative and eye-opening overview of pandemics, with a lean towards explaining how many pandemics have unnatural origins and that humanity is often reluctant to anticipate or even consider those threats. The author is clearly a subject matter expert and offers unique insight into many outbreaks, particularly the COVID response.
I would love to give it 5 stars, but the writing just seemed a bit unstructured and could have gone into far more detail to make it really stand out.
I would love to give it 5 stars, but the writing just seemed a bit unstructured and could have gone into far more detail to make it really stand out.
January 4, 2023
Scariest book I have ever read. Always had reservations but now firmly do not trust, biotech's, pharmaceuticals, government and wary of experts. Excellent reasoning as to why Covid was a lab release.
Really describes how whistleblowers and reasoned alternate explanations from true experts are ignored in favor of the status quo.
Really describes how whistleblowers and reasoned alternate explanations from true experts are ignored in favor of the status quo.
March 19, 2023
My highest compliment is that it reads like crime fiction. Equally fascinating and scary. But I also read David Quammen’s excellent book Spillover which predated COVID-19 but practically predicted it. Whatever the origins of COVID-19, we can do better in both prevention & management of future threats.
March 19, 2023
This book is informative work written in an academic writing style, introducing biological and chemical warfare, terrorism, nature and unnatural virus and bacteria by making a few examples occur globally. It is just perfect timing for me to read it as I try to understand the context of all these stories related to COVID-19 including the COVID origin investigation and gain-of-function debate.
July 2, 2025
An interesting account of biological weapon use and threats. Much let down by the tone of “I told you so” and “They never listened to me, they actively excluded me” COVID: my part in its downfall. Some of it is factually incorrect or speculative. I guess we need contrary and challenging voices and Rania is certainly one.
November 29, 2022
The author exposed many biosecurity problems unknown to the public around the world and in Australia. She highlighted the risks of virus leaks from research labs, and potential coverups by vested interest groups including the scientific communities and governments. She also pointed out the systemic problems in monitoring and control of epidemics, including the failures in public policies.
It is insightful and eye-opening. I can understand why the author received many hostile reactions from the governments and science communities. However her positive view of China’s COVID zero policy, which has disproportional negative impacts on China’s economy and people’s well-being, indicates that her views on how to best manage public safety against bio-security risks may need to be better balanced with other competing priorities in economic and social wellbeing across all sectors of the society.
It is insightful and eye-opening. I can understand why the author received many hostile reactions from the governments and science communities. However her positive view of China’s COVID zero policy, which has disproportional negative impacts on China’s economy and people’s well-being, indicates that her views on how to best manage public safety against bio-security risks may need to be better balanced with other competing priorities in economic and social wellbeing across all sectors of the society.
January 25, 2023
This is sobering reading and not for the faint of heart. That said, particularly now in 2023, it should probably be “required” reading before voicing thoughts on the current global pandemic on social media.
April 7, 2023
Good book if a bit repetative. She did reinforce the need for those who are professional crime investigators to investigate potential crimes. Not just those judged as experts in the relevant field. Also appreciated various historical examples of biocrimes.
November 19, 2022
Everybody who can read should read this. Urgently.
November 21, 2022
3.5 stars
December 31, 2022
This is a must-read, a cold splash of water!
January 9, 2023
This was very interesting and a little bit terrifying. A good read for anyone interested in epidemiology and how pandemics occur.
April 4, 2023
A book I'll be recommending to people
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews