Book Comparison: They Call Me Harriet vs The Premonition – Two Perspectives on a Global Crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep cracks in global healthcare systems, prompting a flood of analysis, reflection, and storytelling. Two standout books—They Call Me Harriet: Stories From The Underground by Patricia Gilliano-McClung and The Premonition: A Pandemic Story by Michael Lewis—offer dramatically different yet complementary perspectives on the pandemic and the systems that struggled to contain it.

While both works address the healthcare response to COVID-19, they diverge in tone, focus, and intent. This comparison explores how each book tackles key themes, from systemic failure to individual advocacy, scientific integrity, and the emotional cost of crisis care.

They Call Me Harriet: Stories From The Underground (2024)

They Call Me Harriet is written by Patricia Gilliano-McClung, PMHNP-BC, MSN, RN, a seasoned nurse and healthcare executive with nearly four decades of experience. This memoir doubles as a powerful piece of healthcare advocacy. It offers a deeply personal account of Gilliano-McClung’s battle with COVID-19, not only as a patient but as a whistleblower within the system she once served. The book critiques standard hospital protocols and highlights the limitations of institutional care during the pandemic. 

Central to her narrative is the promotion of alternative treatments, most notably Ivermectin, and the creation of an “underground railroad” for patients seeking what she believes to be more compassionate and effective care. The title pays homage to Harriet Tubman, casting the author in a similar light, as someone guiding others to safety and truth in a time of crisis.

The Premonition: A Pandemic Story (2021)

Written by acclaimed journalist and author Michael Lewis—best known for Moneyball and The Big Short—The Premonition is a gripping work of investigative narrative nonfiction. Rather than focusing on patient experiences, Lewis centers his story on the behind-the-scenes efforts of doctors, scientists, and public health officials who recognized the looming threat of the pandemic before most of the world took it seriously. The book offers a sweeping look at the systemic roadblocks these experts faced, from bureaucratic silos within institutions like the CDC and FDA to the political hesitations that stifled timely action.

Comparing Core Themes

1. Critiquing the Healthcare System

• Gilliano-McClung’s Perspective: From her dual role as nurse and patient, the author presents an emotional critique of hospital policies such as the use of Remdesivir and the enforcement of isolation protocols. She highlights how financial incentives may have compromised patient care, using her personal hospitalization as a primary example.
• Lewis’s Perspective: In contrast, The Premonition offers a top-down critique of U.S. institutions like the CDC and FDA. Lewis details how bureaucracy and political agendas stifled pandemic readiness and innovation.

Takeaway: Both books reveal critical flaws, but while Harriet emphasizes failures in patient care and emotional trauma, Premonition zooms out to highlight the dysfunction within leadership and policy systems.

2. Advocacy and Resistance

• Gilliano-McClung: Casts herself as a medical whistleblower, advocating for controversial treatments like Ivermectin. Through an “underground” network of practitioners, she promotes what she sees as more humane, individualized care—often in opposition to CDC guidelines.
• Lewis: Profiles figures like Dr. Carter Mecher and Dr. Charity Dean, public health officials who fought against inertia using data modeling and policy advocacy to prepare for the pandemic’s impact. Their resistance is strategic, grounded in science, and aimed at reforming broken institutions.

Takeaway: Advocacy in Harriet is grassroots and emotionally charged; in Premonition, it’s policy-oriented and research-driven. The former may polarize due to its support for disputed treatments, while the latter appeals to readers aligned with mainstream science.

3. The Human Cost

• Gilliano-McClung: Paints a raw portrait of emotional loss and psychological trauma. Stories of patients dying alone, the alienation caused by PPE, and the collapse of human connection during the pandemic form a central narrative thread. Her transition to psychiatric care underscores the overlooked mental health crisis.
• Lewis: While The Premonition humanizes its characters, especially public health professionals, the emotional toll on patients and families is not the book’s central concern. Lewis focuses more on institutional breakdowns and the intellectual battle to change the system.

Takeaway: If you want an emotionally resonant account of how COVID-19 policies affected real people on the ground, They Call Me Harriet delivers. The Premonition is more focused on the strategic landscape and decision-making.

4. Scientific Perspectives

• Gilliano-McClung: Challenges mainstream scientific consensus, expressing skepticism about vaccines and hospital protocols. She relies on anecdotal evidence, alternative resources like the FLCCC, and texts such as The Coronavirus Prevention Handbook to support her case.
• Lewis: Strongly affirms scientific inquiry and data-driven decision-making. He critiques the suppression of credible scientific warnings, but not the science itself.

Takeaway: Harriet presents a counter-narrative that questions medical orthodoxy, which will resonate with readers distrustful of institutional authority—but it risks alienating those who prioritize peer-reviewed science. Premonition remains firmly grounded in conventional scientific rigor.

Narrative Style and Structure

• They Call Me Harriet: Gilliano-McClung blends memoir with patient stories, advocacy, and poetic reflection. The structure is episodic and personal, sometimes uneven, but emotionally engaging. It reads like a diary from inside the storm.
• The Premonition: Lewis employs a fast-paced, investigative style with interwoven character arcs. The narrative is structured like a thriller, complete with rising tension and strategic revelations. It’s cohesive, well-paced, and designed to inform as much as entertain.

Takeaway: Harriet is heartfelt and raw; Premonition is polished and cinematic. Readers looking for personal resonance may prefer Harriet, while those interested in journalistic storytelling and big-picture analysis will lean toward Premonition.

Strengths and Limitations

They Call Me Harriet

• Strengths:
  • Firsthand perspective from a seasoned nurse
  • Emotional depth and authenticity
  • Emphasis on mental health and overlooked aspects of care
  • Unique voice in the alternative treatment movement
• Limitations:
  • Relies on anecdotal and contested medical claims
  • May feel disorganized in structure
  • Controversial stance could alienate mainstream readers

The Premonition

• Strengths:
  • Deeply researched and expertly written
  • Engaging narrative structure
  • Sheds light on policy and leadership failures
  • Accessible to a wide, data-driven audience
• Limitations:
  • Limited attention to frontline emotional experiences
  • Less relevant to personal healthcare stories

Who Should Read These Books?

• They Call Me Harriet is ideal for healthcare professionals, COVID-19 patients, mental health advocates, and readers skeptical of mainstream narratives. It offers an emotionally charged and unfiltered perspective from inside the system.
• The Premonition suits readers interested in public policy, investigative journalism, and systemic reform. It’s a must-read for those who want to understand the structural failures that shaped the pandemic response.

They Call Me Harriet and The Premonition tackle the same crisis from radically different vantages. One is a personal, emotionally raw account of navigating a broken system from within; the other is a strategic, high-level investigation of systemic inertia and missed opportunities.

Together, they offer a multifaceted understanding of COVID-19’s legacy. Read Harriet for its unapologetic human voice and advocacy. Turn to Premonition for clarity on how and why institutions failed to act. In the end, both are vital for anyone seeking to grasp the full spectrum of the pandemic’s human and institutional impact.