Customer Reviews for

Wrongful Death: The AIDS Trial

Average Rating 4
( 133 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(78)

4 Star

(21)

3 Star

(12)

2 Star

(5)

1 Star

(17)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

3 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

Highly recommended

This has been one of the most informative books I have ever read. I lost two brother to AIDS. This book made me question many things proceding their death. I googled some of the characters in this book as well as the drug company involved. Inspite of the fact that t...
This has been one of the most informative books I have ever read. I lost two brother to AIDS. This book made me question many things proceding their death. I googled some of the characters in this book as well as the drug company involved. Inspite of the fact that the book is being protrayed as frictional is just to protect the innocent. I strongly recommend this book. To the reader, I suggest that you have an open mind, because if you ever had losts any love one to AIDS, it will piss you off.

posted by izziebelle on March 17, 2011

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

12 out of 14 people found this review helpful.

Sorry but he's wrong...and it is killing people.

I'm usually the first to TP the pharmaceutical industry and the government's house but in this case this book is way off track. The first way he's wrong is in his assessment of how we diagnose HIV. We have to search for anti-bodies because viruses are too small. 100 tim...
I'm usually the first to TP the pharmaceutical industry and the government's house but in this case this book is way off track. The first way he's wrong is in his assessment of how we diagnose HIV. We have to search for anti-bodies because viruses are too small. 100 times smaller than bacteria. They can only be seen through an electron microscope. Think of searching something the size of Lake Erie one cubic yard at a time small. Viruses are so small that scientists still argue on whether or not they can be classified as living. So we search for the body's immune response to it. It's faster and doesn't cost 1 million dollars per test. Anti-bodies are created in response to an invader, not the successful eradication of an invader. He was wrong again. That happens when you don't actually talk to an immunologist when you write his part. Also AZT was originally a viral inhibitor. They experimented with it back when a working hypothesis was that cancer was caused by viruses. It was never like modern chemo drugs that depend on controlled doses of poison that weaken the body. Yes there are side effects and they are bad, but not the ones your thinking of. Further more retro viruses are unstable. Not really a problem for it when it can invade a cell and produce 1 trillion copies a pop. This is a problem for us because if one accidental mistake produces drug resistance, it can produce a few more million copies that promote that resistance. Even if it makes a lot of mistakes along the way. Because there was only one drug at the time they prescribed it at a higher dose because it was the only thing there was. Now we have a cocktail that can nail the virus multiple ways even if evolves resistance to one. Talk to your doctor, go to web md look at Wikipedia even. Grab a book about viruses and read yourself. South Africa adopted this policy of AIDS denialism and it killed thousands of people.
Oh yeah, the writing. Fair writing skill really he knows how to write about characters, but the whole thing is so David vs. Goliath cliched it's not funny. His character is a Mary Sue trope. He's writing with a political agenda and character development is riding in the backseat.

posted by Ian_Rook on January 11, 2011

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 16 of 17 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1
  • Posted January 11, 2011

    Sorry but he's wrong...and it is killing people.

    I'm usually the first to TP the pharmaceutical industry and the government's house but in this case this book is way off track. The first way he's wrong is in his assessment of how we diagnose HIV. We have to search for anti-bodies because viruses are too small. 100 times smaller than bacteria. They can only be seen through an electron microscope. Think of searching something the size of Lake Erie one cubic yard at a time small. Viruses are so small that scientists still argue on whether or not they can be classified as living. So we search for the body's immune response to it. It's faster and doesn't cost 1 million dollars per test. Anti-bodies are created in response to an invader, not the successful eradication of an invader. He was wrong again. That happens when you don't actually talk to an immunologist when you write his part. Also AZT was originally a viral inhibitor. They experimented with it back when a working hypothesis was that cancer was caused by viruses. It was never like modern chemo drugs that depend on controlled doses of poison that weaken the body. Yes there are side effects and they are bad, but not the ones your thinking of. Further more retro viruses are unstable. Not really a problem for it when it can invade a cell and produce 1 trillion copies a pop. This is a problem for us because if one accidental mistake produces drug resistance, it can produce a few more million copies that promote that resistance. Even if it makes a lot of mistakes along the way. Because there was only one drug at the time they prescribed it at a higher dose because it was the only thing there was. Now we have a cocktail that can nail the virus multiple ways even if evolves resistance to one. Talk to your doctor, go to web md look at Wikipedia even. Grab a book about viruses and read yourself. South Africa adopted this policy of AIDS denialism and it killed thousands of people.
    Oh yeah, the writing. Fair writing skill really he knows how to write about characters, but the whole thing is so David vs. Goliath cliched it's not funny. His character is a Mary Sue trope. He's writing with a political agenda and character development is riding in the backseat.

    12 out of 14 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 3, 2010

    Has potential but needs editing

    The storyline in this novel is ok, but it lacks polish. The biggest problem with it is that it is written in the present tense (unusual) with lapses (a paragraph or line here and there for no apparent reason) into the past tense. It seems to lack a specific voice. In short, this book reads like a draft of something that could be better with more editing.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 19, 2011

    REALLY come onp0

    When i read the title i knew it wasnt a book for me. Of corse i didnt read it but it sounds jacked up.

    0 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 1, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted November 19, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted March 6, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 20, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 29, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 25, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 30, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 20, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 30, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 18, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted December 29, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 30, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 5, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 16 of 17 review with 1 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 1