You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
A review by sarahbythebook
The New Abnormal: The Rise of the Biomedical Security State by Aaron Kheriaty
Did not finish book. Stopped at 19%.
Yikes...
I appreciate the publisher for providing copies of this book for honest review, but this one taught me to read more carefully when I request things.
The New Abnormal sounded promising, offering insights into a rising biometric security state. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't a psychologist that works for a conservative think tank misrepresenting history and using anti-capitalist arguments unironically to rail against the protections put in place by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the record, I stopped in the middle of chapter one. I ended on the printed page 32, but there's a 25 page introduction that I read. I'm counting that. I stopped when I ran out of the red page flags, taking that as a sign to call it quits. (And that's a lot of page flags to use in that short a section of book!)
This book, in my opinion, is dangerous. It's written by someone seemingly in a position of good authority on medical matters, so why shouldn't Dr. Kheriaty speak on COVID-19? Well, for starters, he's a psychiatrist. Not an immunologist or epidemiologist or an infectious disease doctor. A psychiatrist. Most information I can find about him relates to either his work in the conservative medical ethics think tank, his own substack, or the fact that he got fired for refusing to get vaccinated. The writing itself is solid, and if you don't know what to look for or don't want to delve into his bibliography, you'd believe this was a well-researched book.
However, one of my biggest issues with The New Abnormal is the unethical (ironic) use of sources. To run with one article exclusively for a particular section with no counter or corroborating accounts is lazy at best and disingenuous at worst. It goes further, too, when one looks more closely at the source being relied so heavily on. Represented as a journalist, Kheriaty cites Michael Tracey when discussing university COVID protocols--except Tracey publishes to his own substack or in right-wing media outlets exclusively. He could not have picked a more bias source. He then goes on to cite Tracey's twitter account for a horror story from university students rather than supplying a less dubious source like a real news article or an interview.
Shortly after that, we get a real gem: "A student at the University of Chicago told me all students there had to sign a Soviet-style affidavit pledging that they would snitch on fellow students for even minor violations of covid protocols."
A. Student. Told. Me.
No citation, no source, no evidence at all.
And then citing material that was criticized at its publication without mentioning that criticism? It irks me. I spent too many years learning ethical research practices to just ignore what Kheriaty has done. You cannot cherry pick your sources.
The other big issue that I took with the book also ties into what I've learned as a researcher, and that is the gross misrepresentation or misinterpretation of historical fact. To cite the experiments of Nazi scientists as comparable to the work being done by doctors trying to halt the spread of COVID is fear mongering, plain and simple. Tests and procedures designed to protect the most vulnerable of our society (e.g. masking) is in no way the same as forced sterilization or euthanasia of society's "undesirables".
And then the attempt to tie American lock-downs to the lack thereof in Communist USSR or Fascist Italy or during the bombing of London. Just, no. For the first two, the government was backed by a fear of extreme violence--they didn't need legislation to force people to stay inside and away from others. As for the bombing of London, Kheriaty is correct in mentioning their curfews, but to equate on any level a virus and literal bombs makes no sense. Locking down the city of London for a threat that came almost exclusively at night and that couldn't spread from person to person would have made no sense; it would not be a proportional response. However, the use of the RAF to combat German planes did make sense, just like wearing masks to combat the spread of a virus spread the respiration makes sense.
His values also seem to be inconsistent from time to time. For all his going on about medical consent, he is awfully quiet on the subject of abortion, too. Between that and the (presumably) accidental anti-capitalist takes, there are a lot of application gaps (although his inability to see racism as a public health issue tracks I guess).
And one final minor gripe that's more on his editor than Kheriaty himself, but not being able to get an official act of legislation right is laziness. It is Canada's Emergencies Act.
In the end, I had to stop reading this for my own sake. I absolutely would not recommend this to anyone at all, and I wish it had never been published because I do believe that it is the type of book that can be dangerous.
I appreciate the publisher for providing copies of this book for honest review, but this one taught me to read more carefully when I request things.
The New Abnormal sounded promising, offering insights into a rising biometric security state. I don't know what I was expecting, but it wasn't a psychologist that works for a conservative think tank misrepresenting history and using anti-capitalist arguments unironically to rail against the protections put in place by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
For the record, I stopped in the middle of chapter one. I ended on the printed page 32, but there's a 25 page introduction that I read. I'm counting that. I stopped when I ran out of the red page flags, taking that as a sign to call it quits. (And that's a lot of page flags to use in that short a section of book!)
This book, in my opinion, is dangerous. It's written by someone seemingly in a position of good authority on medical matters, so why shouldn't Dr. Kheriaty speak on COVID-19? Well, for starters, he's a psychiatrist. Not an immunologist or epidemiologist or an infectious disease doctor. A psychiatrist. Most information I can find about him relates to either his work in the conservative medical ethics think tank, his own substack, or the fact that he got fired for refusing to get vaccinated. The writing itself is solid, and if you don't know what to look for or don't want to delve into his bibliography, you'd believe this was a well-researched book.
However, one of my biggest issues with The New Abnormal is the unethical (ironic) use of sources. To run with one article exclusively for a particular section with no counter or corroborating accounts is lazy at best and disingenuous at worst. It goes further, too, when one looks more closely at the source being relied so heavily on. Represented as a journalist, Kheriaty cites Michael Tracey when discussing university COVID protocols--except Tracey publishes to his own substack or in right-wing media outlets exclusively. He could not have picked a more bias source. He then goes on to cite Tracey's twitter account for a horror story from university students rather than supplying a less dubious source like a real news article or an interview.
Shortly after that, we get a real gem: "A student at the University of Chicago told me all students there had to sign a Soviet-style affidavit pledging that they would snitch on fellow students for even minor violations of covid protocols."
A. Student. Told. Me.
No citation, no source, no evidence at all.
And then citing material that was criticized at its publication without mentioning that criticism? It irks me. I spent too many years learning ethical research practices to just ignore what Kheriaty has done. You cannot cherry pick your sources.
The other big issue that I took with the book also ties into what I've learned as a researcher, and that is the gross misrepresentation or misinterpretation of historical fact. To cite the experiments of Nazi scientists as comparable to the work being done by doctors trying to halt the spread of COVID is fear mongering, plain and simple. Tests and procedures designed to protect the most vulnerable of our society (e.g. masking) is in no way the same as forced sterilization or euthanasia of society's "undesirables".
And then the attempt to tie American lock-downs to the lack thereof in Communist USSR or Fascist Italy or during the bombing of London. Just, no. For the first two, the government was backed by a fear of extreme violence--they didn't need legislation to force people to stay inside and away from others. As for the bombing of London, Kheriaty is correct in mentioning their curfews, but to equate on any level a virus and literal bombs makes no sense. Locking down the city of London for a threat that came almost exclusively at night and that couldn't spread from person to person would have made no sense; it would not be a proportional response. However, the use of the RAF to combat German planes did make sense, just like wearing masks to combat the spread of a virus spread the respiration makes sense.
His values also seem to be inconsistent from time to time. For all his going on about medical consent, he is awfully quiet on the subject of abortion, too. Between that and the (presumably) accidental anti-capitalist takes, there are a lot of application gaps (although his inability to see racism as a public health issue tracks I guess).
And one final minor gripe that's more on his editor than Kheriaty himself, but not being able to get an official act of legislation right is laziness. It is Canada's Emergencies Act.
In the end, I had to stop reading this for my own sake. I absolutely would not recommend this to anyone at all, and I wish it had never been published because I do believe that it is the type of book that can be dangerous.