Title: Not the Best Medical Historian
Product review: The book itself is not bad when it gets to more of the social history after the plague. However, the medical history part is a little shoddy, with the author misusing terms, referencing some questionable obscure sources to make his point, and making some assumptions that should not be made. As a source of medical history I could never in good conscious recommend this book, as its not a very accurate depiction.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
