LYME DISEASE AND THE S.S. ELBRUS by Rachel Verdon
The good: The premise of this book is quite plausible, and all throughout its reading, the thinking reader–that is, the reader who has already been weaned off the mainstream media propaganda trough–will be thinking “yes, indeed, much of this makes sense indeed!” There is also obviously a lot of research that has gone into this book, and the author’s instinctive mistrust of any and all gov’t agencies is welcome and justified (again, but only for those readers who understand that the U.S. now has a propaganda system that would make Joseph Goebbels roll in his grave with envy and ecstasy).
The bad: The organizational structure of the writing is confounding: Text that is written by the author is difficult to discern from big blocks of text that the author is lifting and pasting from other sources because all the text is the same size and same format. Sure, the lifted and pasted source is cited, but it is not in any kind of proper block form and different size which would help to distinguish it easily from the author’s own words. Thus, the reader has difficulty getting into any kind of “rhythm” while reading this, because the reader always has to stop and check the citations to see if a certain block of text is from the author, or if the author is pasting another block of somebody else’s text in.
Another bad thing is that the author speaks much on vaccines without understanding that ALL vaccines are either NOT efficacious (at best) or are outright dangerous (at worst). Now THAT is a paradigm-shatterer that would be as radical to the author as her take on Lyme Disease no doubt is to almost every reader.
The author also relies on the work of John Loftus and Mark Aarons just a little too much, at the expense of understanding the true nature of the nation-state called The Vatican, and the true history of The Vatican’s Ratlines. Loftus and Aarons have done some good work; I’ve read them. But they don’t understand the geopolitical nation-state called the Vatican, a fact that is no doubt at least partially attributable to the fact that at least one of them is Roman Catholic.
The ugly: The author’s own writing style is habitually amateurish. She uses too many exclamation points at the end of too many hyperbolic, puerile interjections and pop-culture slanginess. It seriously detracts from the serious nature of her work.
Rating: Δ Δ