Panic Attack: Playing Politics with Science in the Fight Against COVID-19

by Nicole Saphier

“Follow the science” is what they said. “Follow our politics” is what they meant. 

In Panic Attack, nationally bestselling author and physician Nicole Saphier uncovers the hypocrisy and hysteria which has characterized so much of the American pandemic response. While journalists trumpeted the importance of following science to “flatten the curve,” they praised Governors Andrew Cuomo and Phil Murphy, who sanctioned ill-equipped nursing homes to take COVID-positive patients, leading to an enormous death spike for New York and New Jersey. Plus, the old guard medical establishment captured by Dr. Fauci proved to be far too rigid during a health care emergency. 

While some state legislators are still concealing accurate records of nursing home deaths, many others have made anti-science decisions regarding re-opening plans; all of which fuel distrust and civil unrest. Democrat mayors like Bill de Blasio openly admitted that their decisions to keep schools closed were fueled by a “social contract” with teachers (that teachers’ unions), despite hard science saying this would be harmful.

When anti-science measures are continuously implemented, the long-term consequences of such actions will likely stay with us for years to come. The pandemic has resulted in a failure of government, much of which is unavoidable in a unique disaster scenario. However, the rampant politicization of science, from the origin of the virus to the simple concept of wearing facemasks, has hopelessly muddied the water, divided the country, and knee-jerk anti-Trumpism made it all worse.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Audiobook

317 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 25, 2021

About the author

Nicole Saphier (born January 26, 1982) is an American radiologist and the director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Monmouth, New Jersey. She is well known for providing her opinions as a contributor on Fox News, Fox Business, and MSNBC.

(Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

DISCLAIMER: Dr. Saphier published her book PRIOR to all of the disclosures about Dr. Anthony Fauci and his ties with China and his previous knowledge of all things relating to the virus. Dr. Saphier’s comments regarding Dr. Fauci are not glowing but they are also not reflective of the man that I believe to be a fraud since the first days he was introduced to us as the “expert” on all things involving COVID-19 and the pandemic. For once my initial observations have proven to be spot on!

This is a very good book IF you want to hear both sides of the different arguments America and the World are now engaged in. Dr. Saphire puts forth her understanding of both sides to such things as the COVID-19, its origins, China and its failure to provide the world with a timely alert of the discovery of the disease, the World Health Organization (WHO), and Dr. Fauci and his medical and science cohorts. The book is all encompassing and everyone would benefit by reading it. My advice would be to read it, digest it and then you decide what you should think about the topics discussed. Her book may change the way you think about them. Did it change my mind? No but it did reinforce my belief that most of what we have been told about COVID-19 was based on faulty if not fraudulent information. You should know, I like this book! I also enjoyed reading Dr. Saphire’s first book, Make America Healthy Again. Both books are very deserving of being read.

The one thing that Dr. Saphire’s book may help the reader with is enabling the reader to make more information decisions as to what needs or should be done to live a health life in spite of the pandemic and virus. That is a good thing. It WILL introduce many readers to actual facts about the virus and its origins. It will also provide the reader with a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what scientists, doctors and politicians may say about the virus and why they might have said what they said. Skepticism is a good thing.

Who should read this book? Everyone; PERIOD!
Would I read it again? As more and more information is released regarding Dr. Fauci and China’s involvement in the creation and release of the COVID-19 virus, I may re-visit sections of Dr. Sahpire’s book for clarification and reference
Would I give it as a gift? ABSOLUTELY!!!

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars. This book explains the science of COVID-19 that largely got lost and misinterpreted because of politics. I appreciated Dr. Saphier's moderate perspective that was missing in the headline news. No matter which political side you are on, your views will probably be both validated and challenged at some point in the book. She critically discusses all the hot button topics related to the pandemic that were reported in ways to incite fear, confusion, and controversy. It was frustrating to see how politics were used to skew facts, fueling animosity and slowing progress. I appreciated her research, but didn’t agree with all of her opinions (she may put too much trust in the goodwill of people to make the right choices). Hopefully we have learned some important lessons for next time.

From the book:

-Mr. Rogers – “When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.”
-Power seems to lie in stirring up fear, strive for a more constructive power…the power inherent in truth
-The politicizing of science makes the job of scientific discovery much harder…influencing research and closing off important deliberations on the outcomes
-“Partisanship has lead people to think that they have all the answers, when what they really should have are questions.”
-The physicist Richard Feynman famously kept a notebook entitled: “Notebook of things I don’t know about.” …importance of an awareness of and curiosity about what we don’t know

[Audrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an excoriation of the politicization of the current Covid-19 pandemic. The author slams all sides of the political spectrum, so wherever you fall, you will probably be offended by something here. It’s often infuriating but strives to provide the actual science as it was known at the time of publication. (Obviously, new information is coming out all the time.) The author also covers China’s obfuscation and the WHO’s incompetence.

I think the best point she makes is that censoring information as an attempt to stop misinformation only foments conspiracy theories. The scientific process involves throwing out all the ideas and testing all of them. Suppressing information doesn’t help anyone, especially since a lot of information thought to be correct turns out to be wrong, and things considered wrong turn out to be true.

===============================

The politicizing of science makes the job of scientific discovery much harder. Not only does it influence important research, but it can also close off important deliberations on the outcomes. As the normal process, mixed with nefarious intentions, unfolded in front of the public eye, the entire course undermined public faith in science when the politics influencing it turned out to be wrong. Not to mention, while there is merit to clinical trials, we became increasingly aware of the endless suffering and excess death occurring from regulatory inaction and political influence.

Indeed, the rhetoric and the divisive mood in the United States during the current pandemic have been prone to sharp extremes, strong emotions, and chaos and violence that incite anxiety. Starting literal and figurative fires, resorting to violence, blaming deaths on political opponents, and demonizing people who disagree with them seem to have become default responses to handling the fear and anger provoked by uncertainty.

People had been told that the dictates of their own consciences, particularly with respect to religious obligations and nonurgent health concerns, did not matter in the face of the supposedly ironclad, unambiguous demands of science that they stay home. Americans understood the potential consequences and therefore complied. Yet, when the dialogue changed abruptly to involved explicit assurances from public officials that large gatherings weren’t really a problem as long as they were a certain type of protest, it was deeply frustrating.

Nothing could be more anti-scientific than pretending viruses respects moral and political principles, and that they won’t infect people who are protesting in the service of a good cause. Nonetheless, it quickly became evident that a two-tiered protocol was in order. If you were protesting, you could join all the large gatherings that you wanted. If, however, you wanted to go to church or hold a funeral for a loved one, you were out of luck. Americans were thus treated differently based not on science, but on a desire to promote some activities and prevent others without respect to the question of comparable medical risks posed by both.

The troubling truth is that we may be inclined to accept advice on the pandemic only from those whom we take to share at least some of our political and opinion commitments. This is a dangerous and disastrous tendency. While every profession has its bad apples, there are trustworthy doctors, public health officials, and yes, even some politicians on both sides of the political spectrum and in the middle, as well.

Misunderstanding what science can promise and deliver is what creates space for the politicization of science with respect to rhetoric. In that context, ignorance about how science works is dangerous but almost inevitable. Once ignorance fuels politicization, coloring basic research, governing its interpretation, and constraining clinical practice, it can turn fatal.

What should have been a simple public health initiative turned into a mockery of science and ultimately polarized communities. When people are being ridiculed for going to the beach or jogging alone in a park when not wearing a mask, and others are praised for their mask-wearing, even if doing so inappropriately or unnecessarily, people will feel like mask-wearing is nothing more than virtue-signaling nonsense.

We didn’t need a mandate. We didn’t need to be forced to stay home. We needed transparent education and advice on the potential benefit of such actions, even if the science was unclear. The concept of mask-wearing to lessen the spread is not too complex for people to understand, it has just been misconstrued. Telling people to try something that may help is too mundane and less emotionally satisfying than debating it out among perceived villains and heroes. Unfortunately, delaying preventive measures, even if wholly unproven, has penalties.

Those who wish to bash President Trump as anti-science, and praise Dr. Fauci for being the face of science, or conversely, bash Dr. Fauci and praise President Trump, both need to ask themselves, who is wrong if they are saying the same thing? Is Dr. Fauci lying when he says that “there really isn’t difference” between their statements or is President Trump lying when he says “I agree with the doctor”? To be sure, Dr. Fauci and President Trump have disagreements on any number of matters, but this particular question does not seem to have been one of them.

Strangely, as federal officials encouraged loosening of medical licensing and practicing restrictions, the same caregivers were being restricted by state governments from being able to prescribe medications to their patients. In many instances, state governments threatened physicians with loss of licensure, fines, and even jail time if they prescribed HCQ to treat their COVID-19 patients.

The HCQ controversy has shown us that the most highly credentialed doctors at the most esteemed academic institutions in collaboration with revered journals are capable of spreading unverified data. Especially if it conforms with the latest political fad: disagreeing with whatever Donald Trump says.

Unfortunately, the polarized environment prohibits logical scientific debate; rather, the media, legislators, and pundits spend more time trying to discredit anyone with the “contrarian” view of a hypothetical benefit to hydroxychloriquine as being “anti-science.”

The removal of the videos by tech tyrants without thoughtful discussion and acknowledgment confuses the public about these drugs. Americans are now away of the medication, and the censoring of those who support it incites conspiracy ideologies and outrage. Physicians, patients, and all people alike should be trusted to have a free exchange of ideas with the right to debate them. Censorship compounds such issues.

Perhaps it seems that people actually do a better job taking care of themselves than when the government steps in, at least in terms of keeping their families safe. One thing that has emerged quite clearly throughout this entire crisis is that what reliably positively and negatively affects the case count is largely based on what individuals choose to do, not what they are told to do.

A University of Chicago study estimated that more than three-quarters of unemployed workers were entitled to receive more in benefits than they had been paid to work. How much more? An average of 45 percent more in unemployment benefits than when they had been working. And this was in addition to the $1,200 per adult and $500 per child that went out to everyone earning less than $99,000 (CARES Act).

During a time when people were needing health care the most, the relief packages guaranteed free care for patients with COVID, but what about those who lost their insurance as a direct result of the lockdown? Not only did they lost their job from lockdown efforts attempting to protect people from getting COVID, but now they lost their health insurance while still only the people with COVID were being made a priority. What about everyone else? An Urban Institute report from mid-September, utilizing 2020 Census Bureau data, calculated that of the roughly 3 million people under the age of 65 who had lost employer-based insurance between May and July, 1.4 million found coverage elsewhere—most through Medicaid—and 1.9 million became newly uninsured. Rather than helping the newly unemployed with medical costs or job search tools, allotted money went to the hospitals caring for COVID patients and to large universities such as Harvard with massive endowments, yet middle Americans were tossed by the wayside. The average American was being forgotten in this global crisis. While the physical health of avoiding a virus seemed to be the only priority, the prolonged shutdowns caused other aspects of our national state of health to perish.

Government officials and hospital administrators should not be allowed to place red tape between physicians and their patients. We have spent decades scrutinizing medical literature, academic studies, and clinical practice to equip ourselves with enough information to make appropriate decisions for our patients regarding what is best for their care. The last person who needs a say in patient care is someone who has not taken the Hippocratic Oath.

Doctors, scientists, and other experts have been battling such anti-vaccine movements for decades. The dichotomy produced from legislators, media, and even presidential candidates who claim to follow the science while also suggesting a vaccine approved by the FDA would not be trusted was infuriating. More than that, it is perilous, leading us away from the overarching goal of herd immunity, saving lives, and exiting the devastating pandemic.

Despite the frequent admonitions that our course must be defined by “science,” there have been times where coherence was lacking regarding all facets of the pandemic. As we have already discussed, people tried to turn the use of Hydroxychloriquine into a scandal due to the lack of RCT studies supporting is, but didn’t blink an eyelash about using ventilators and canceling non-emergency medical care, actions that were also unsupported by RCT studies. Science was trotted out when it seemed a convenient weapon to bash opponents and ignored the rest of the time. The implications for the November 2020 presidential election were never far from view.

In the particularly egregious case of the lack of transparency regarding New York state’s treatment of people who live in long-term care facilities, and the negligence of drawing conclusions from unverifiable data in large academic journals, we can hope that justice will be done. While initial actions by legislators and researchers may have been genuine attempts to follow the science and control the contagion, eventually the lines blurred and the concept of follow the science evaporated. There has not been a shortage of blunders in the response to SARS-CoV-2, but public denialism and malfeasance are not major contributors; rather, it is the weaponization of a public health crisis to invoke panic in an election year that resulted in the greatest consequences, which will be felt for years to come.

The reality is that the science sometimes backs one partisan position, and another time, the opposite one. But it’s become clear that many politicians, for partisan reasons, are resigned to sticking with bad policies instead of admitting when they are wrong. School closures went ahead in the face of science, which said reopening was reasonably safe. This worsened the situation for parents. Overly harsh lockdowns were far less effective and far more destructive than limited, targeted approaches. When the science confirmed all of this, politicians stuck their heads in the sand.

The costs of school closures are high, both for children and parents. A Brown University study found that spring 2020 school closures resulted in a significant loss of educational progress, with children estimated to attain only 63 to 68 percent of the gains in reading proficiency made during a normal school year, and 37 to 50 percent of gains in mathematics.

Were the risks of opening the schools high enough to justify the cost of creating mental illness? Did the science actually support the initial school closings and the continued closure or was it done out of fear? While we can expect drastic measure to be taken early on in a crisis out of an abundance of caution, to necessitate continued action, we need the science to prove its worth.

Against the best available general scientific advice, school systems across the country chose not to reopen to in-person schooling in the fall. Why would they do this when they knew going to school for children is so much more than just the fundamental basics of education? Rather, it’s learning conflict resolution and socialization skills, and building the necessary relationships that will shape our country’s future.

The newly appointed CDC director, Dr. Walensky, said “There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen, and that safe reopening does not suggest teachers need to be vaccinated in order to open safely.” This comment was based on growing evidence showing mask-wearing and physical distancing allowed children to safely return to school, especially as suicides and suicide attempts were increasing in our youth. Yet the White House did not support Dr. Walensky in her comments, despite the entire campaign trail saying they would “follow the science”; rather they said she was “speaking in her personal capacity.” But is anyone surprised by the White House’s parting ways with their own experts to support the teachers’ union when, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, President Biden received more than $232,000 in political donations from them for the 2020 elections? This in addition to the nearly $150 million donated from individuals associated with the education field, according to OpenSecrets.org.

Teachers organized protests and waved melodramatic signs with slogans like “How can I teach your child if I am dead?” Why did teachers believe they were the only ones risking their wellness to work during the pandemic? Who gave them permission to embrace special victimhood? ... The majority of educators who test positive for COVID-19 are not exposed to the virus while at school or from the children they are caring for, but rather from their own home and social exposures. That is an inconvenient truth for the narrative that claims cruel anti-science right-wingers want to send teachers to risk their lives to teach in-person. ... The science has shown few school outbreaks occurring across the world and lower transmissibility among young children, but this was ignored by our decision-makers leading to further inequalities between socioeconomic classes.

There was a strong case to be made that those hurt by the virus and by the economic shutdown needed help. However, to put this point mildly, the effort could have been better targeted to help those most impacted by the pandemic. Instead, federal checks were showered on favored institutions and sent out in bulk to the population in general, many of whom had suffered no ill effects whatsoever. Meanwhile, those who were placed at risk by their job or profession—one thinks, for example, of course, of doctors and health workers, but also of bus and truck drivers, and staff at local stores and restaurants—often received little in the way of additional support.

Data has shown that lockdowns do have some positive effects, but the main problems are when politicians create arbitrary rules, flout their own regulations, or impose harsher and harsher restrictions under the science-free principle that harsher must be better. ... Micromanagement through haphazard rules does more to fray public trust than practically anything else.

Social-distancing measure reduced person-to-person contact by about 50%, likely saving over 60,000 lives, while harsher shelter-in-place and business closure rules reduced contact by only an additional 5%. Rather than validating draconian lockdown orders, the latest economic research on COVID-19 suggests shelter-in-place measures in particular, may have done more harm than good. ... “To socially distance or not to socially distance” is actually not the question. The question should be, what policies actually make sense?

The possibility of objectively using information on tradeoffs between costs and benefits became ever more difficult. Always hovering in the background was the knowledge that the economic consequences of the shutdowns would hurt the prospects of the Republicans and help those of the Democrats, and that the issue of the management of the pandemic would weigh heavily. The coverage of both health and economic consequences became more and more clearly politicized. Political parties are not competent to pronounce upon the question of whether a given scientific issue is “settled.” ... That is not how science works. It doesn’t exist to generate claims that politicians and officials can use to back up their policy preferences. Science can’t be hostage to the political lust for easy answers and quick fixes. ... And, by the same token, political devices, such as election cycles, shouldn’t be used to influence decisions regarding public health that should depend upon science.

Reopening measures should be aggressively pursued once a locality has successfully slowed the rate of new infections, hospital is manageable, and effective outpatient testing is in place. This was achieved early in the crisis, yet lockdowns remained. As the second wave approached, the country was restless and suffering. Still the lockdowns remained.

Experts are in a unique position to explain why conspiracy theories are wrong, but if they refuse to answer questions, it doesn’t help the cause of science. We need to have these conversations. If experts don’t speak to these issues, people will turn to conspiracists. Sadly, what has occurred within the United States is that people are designated as being anti-science, or even promoting Sinophobia, if they question information from China and the natural spillover theory.

The truth is, we don’t know what happened yet. We don’t know for certain where the virus originated or how it evolved to become a human pathogen. Today, there is still no definitive evidence to prove or disprove much of the theories, and it is dangerously divisive to dismiss people as anti-science who still have questions. ... For now, there are probabilities and a few strange coincidences—but coincidence is not proof.

CONTINUED IN COMMENTS

[Ted Daniels · Rating 2 out of 5]

I realized at the outset that the author and I are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. Her bio identifies her as a regular guest anchor for Fox News Channel, and the book opens with a denigration of a Kamala Harris campaign speech as an example of a politician politicizing science.

My first thought was to take the book back to the library, but instead I decided to plow ahead and try to keep an open mind. She is of course correct that the coronavirus became highly political in an election year. She opines that the Democrats have falsely staked out their claim as the "party of science", to the exclusion of the Republicans. (Let's hope that her next book is not about climate change.) She singles out several governors and leaders (all Democrats) who she feels mismanaged the pandemic in their states. Andrew Cuomo gets lambasted repeatedly. Republican governors? Not one mention. All those speeches and statements Trump made minimizing the extent of the risk and belittling the public health experts. Apparently Dr. Saphier's research failed to uncover any of that.

She devotes an entire chapter to face masks, and the mixed messages we initially received from the experts. Her conclusion is that "The moment public health officials were aware of sustained spread within the United States...the message of risk reduction by mask-wearing should have been hammered into the American people and maybe we could have avoided much of the controversy and the need for mandates." It would seem like this would be a good place in the book to mention that President Trump and many of his Republican colleagues continued to belittle the use of face masks, making a political wedge issue of personal freedom vs. public safety. Again, Dr. Saphier chose not to go there.

The book tries to make the case that the available science did not support closings and lockdowns, and that they were enacted solely for political advantage. One case she cites really had me scratching my head. Apparently a senior health official in Los Angeles was quoted as saying she didn't anticipate opening the schools until after the election, in early November." Dr. Saphier claims that schools could have safely reopened in Fall of 2020, based primarily on a study produced in Europe. However, the teachers' unions resisted. They knew that if schools reopened, parents would return to work, the economy would rebound, and Donald Trump might get reelected. Who knew that those teachers were so conniving?

There are some good thoughts spread throughout this book. Knowing that the author is a Trump apologist prevented me from giving them any credence. Lots of respected authors are putting out books about the pandemic. Skip this one.

[Linda Galella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Science & Journalism come together and shed light on what REALLY happened...

Politicizing the single largest health crisis in modern times is unconscionable; on everyone’s part. Author, Nicole Saphier, MD., provides clear, substantiated evidence for many instances; none more egregious than Kamala Harris calling out Trump’s handling of COVID and comparing it to Obama’s handling of the Ebola pandemic in 2013 - Campaign glory, to be sure!

Saphier spends time going thru all the points of confusion from the last 16 months: face masks, following the science, (no matter how many times it changed), flattening the curve, lockdown, where DID it start? herd immunity and more.

One of those “more” is extremely important to me. I have Lupus. I’ve been taking Hydroxychloroquine for over 20 years; up until spring of 2020. Somehow, in their infinite wisdom, the government failed to think about the 1.6 million patients, HUMAN BEINGS, already taking this medication for seriously debilitating illnesses. I couldn’t get my medicine at all for 3 months and only reduced quantities for another 3 months. I’ll spare you the details, but it wasn’t pleasant, physically. The financial result was even worse. The cost of my meds went from $70 for 3 months supply to $631 - that’s AFTER the international surge is over and MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of doses are sitting doing nothing. WHAT?!?!? I had to call for assistance...

Playing politics with health care caused a true “Panic Attack” for me that also cause a serious health crisis. It was no joke and the effects are currently causing me medical problems costing me time, money but most importantly, jeopardizing my already precarious health. Something just isn’t right when the government can commendeer 100% of a medication that’s currently being used by a significant, (or any), part of the population for 40 years!

There’s lots of great information in this book but I did find the ending anti-climatic. Saphier mentions a few “winners” from the pandemic, one of which I would totally agree: telehealth appointments! Along those lines, working from home, (for many employees AND employers), has become a blessing as well.

Well written, documented and indexed in an easy to read volume📚

[Kelsey Wheeler · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thought this book was very interesting and extremely relevant with COVID-19 still surging across our nation. This book was VERY science-y, which is good since she is a doctor! At points, I was very confused, but she explained it very well. Highly recommend it to people who want to dig into the pandemic we are living in further to gain a better understanding on why we got here.

[Maxwell · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 - she didn't have the benefit of the Fauci emails, nor the stupidity of Fauci in 2021. I'm sure that would have been a whole nother chapter.

[Lori Yvette Fernandez Lopez · Rating 3 out of 5]

After the introduction of this book, I was very tempted to quit reading. i am glad I didn't but I still have thoughts. At the beginning, it really felt like this was going to be a pro right wing book riddled with biases, but I am glad I stuck around.

Most of this book bashes the politics around COVID, which almost any reasonable person agrees was the problem. Our government leveraged our pain and struggles around COVID for their own ends. The American people were the pawns in their games.

The part that hit me though was her analysis of the education system. I am a teacher and she missed some key details regarding the reopening of schools. Yes the science showed that there was a way to open school safely and to reduce transmission. We knew social distancing, mask wearing, frequent hand washing/sanitizing. Many teachers still were not willing to go back even with that knowledge. I will admit that I was one of them. The author falls into the narrative that teachers felt like they were to valuable to risk and above being front line workers, and oh boy is that not the case.

Teachers KNEW that schools would not follow safe opening protocols. We knew there was a way to open schools, but that those things would not happen and were not willing to go back in UNSAFE situations. Schools in my state (CA) are legally required to provide all necessary materials for students. Do you know what we couldn't get in stock and supply to kids? Masks, sanitizer, updated ventilations (they were all back ordered for MONTHS). AKA all the things necessary to open safely. Schools districts were also not putting protocols in place to address non-compliance. I work for a non-union district and so the teachers union had direct pull in our schools.

This issue was not as simple as "teachers did not want to work." I wanted to be back in school. It is better for kids, and, frankly, far less work than online teaching was. But I was not willing to go to work when our schools were not willing to enforce mandates and ensure basic safety protocols. I, and many of my colleagues, were not willing to go back when my school board openly said that they would not support smaller class sizes to support social distancing, make people wear masks, etc.

[Michael Jolls · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dr. Saphier’s “Panic Attack” attempts to encompass the full COVID-19 history, from November 2019 to early 2021 and how American politics did more harm than good. The book is a little wordy and I found myself needing to go back and re-read paragraphs a couple of times, however that’s because Dr. Saphier is giving the reader the stats. Ergo, it’s not a smooth read, but that’s okay because the reader is regularly taken back to the main topic (and frankly, it’s better than littering the text with a plethora of footnotes). Dr. Saphier has an overall bent towards Republicans and Trump, however “Panic Attack” remains fair as she lets the numbers speak for themselves. For example, she points out the errors with New York and California (Cuomo, Newsom & Pelosi), yet at the same time won’t outright blame Dr. Fauci, Obama or the CDC. “Panic Attack” successfully remains a history AND medical book, taking controversial topics such as face masks and lockdowns and looking at BOTH the positive and negative impacts of them. “Panic Attack” encourages readers to remain open minded in the midst of bedlam.

[April Nicholas · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was quite interesting learning about the hydroxychloroquine scandal involving Surgisphere and falsified data that appeared to be driven by the hatred of former POTUS Trump and trying to make him look bad. I hadn't known much about what went on regarding HCQ, just that some groups insist it cures covid and some insist that it doesn't. I'd looked at award winning Cochrane Review into HCQ in recent months and learned what studies actually determined, regardless of anyones claims. Despite the research, I still see people recommending HCQ every day.

The politicisation of covid has affected many countries negatively, not just the US, so the book deserves an extra star for highlighting what a huge problem that has been.

[Blake Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A flawed, but insightful and non-partisan analysis of the politicization and corruption that caused the horrible response(s) to COVID-19.While Saphier's personal opinions about specific issues including masking and lockdowns are inserted throughout, that doesn't become the focus of the book. Considering it came out in the midst of the pandemic, it's understandable that some points made didn't age well. Saphier, to her credit, acknowledges the inevitability of changes occurring between the time of her writing this and it being read. Although, I imagine some of the specific changes have surprised her.

[Terrance D Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

A Thorough Presentation concerning the Pandemic

This is the must read book on the facts of the coronavirus. It covers the vaccines and therapeutics, politics, rumors, miss information, very thoroughly, and from a doctor's perspective and knowledge.

[Michele · Rating 5 out of 5]

An honest, objective telling of the case of COVID-19 and the responses to it. Based on study and research, not personal opinion. A must-read to know more information beyond what news media and government bureaucrats have been telling us.

[Dh Triplett · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent analysis of the vivid response

A must read for anyone wanting to better understand the world’s response to Covid-19. Well written and easy to read.

[Jac · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent summary that felt unbiased and practical. So much has changed since this book was released. Would love a followup!

[Ross Campbell · Rating 1 out of 5]

Author is a total bullshitter. FOX News’ “medical correspondent” at its finest.

[Nkwright · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a thoughtful, unbiased analysis of what happened good and bad during the pandemic.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the book interesting. I liked the writing style and Dr. Saphier’s clear explanations. The book did what it set out to do; show that politics interferes with science and medicine, albeit through use of selective examples. I didn't agree with some of the points Dr Saphier made, but she did hold my attention. Thank you to Edelweiss and Broadside Books for the advance reader copy.

[Joe Walton · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Saphier writes about Covid-19 from many viewpoints and aspects of this very serious disease. There are chapters devoted to: Politicizing Science, Face Masks, Hydroxychloroquine, The Chines Cover-Up, The Consequences of Lock-downs and more.
Dr. Saphier writes with clarity and easy to understand language.

[Tracy Meyerson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good points that I had not thought about.