387 of 503 people found the following review helpful
on February 21, 2013
I am also a fellow immunologist that studied vaccines, and a mother of two, and I was eager to read this book because I was hoping that a scientist will provide an honest balanced narration of the history, efficacy and future challenges of vaccine programs, and raise some real questions that is worthy of thoughts. However this book can make Fox News and MSNBC News seem fair and balanced.
I intend to write a full length review approximately the same length as the book itself, with proper references to the statements I make. But it will take time, and I don't want more readers mislead by the lack of negative reviews, so here is a shorter version.
Here are the major problems I have with this book:
1) Lack of reference. The author make various statements which are critical for her stance against vaccination that is not reference at all. For example, she claimed that Jenner's smallpox vaccine was only effective for an undefined "a few years", and yet, all my searches yielded rather long effectiveness of vaccinia vaccine ([...]). The author seems to choose references that would suit her argument but ignore those that contradict hers.
2) Totally biased. I guess I can't really blame her for writing a book titled "Vaccine Illusions" and only criticize the efficacy of vaccines, but what I have a problem with is her disguising this book as a scientific book that can be used to educate parents who are trying to make vaccine choices. No, this book is for those who have already made up their mind to not vaccinate their children and are looking for validation for such a decision from somebody that can be perceived as "credible". This book has never given any figures on the widely available data from WHO on the amount of deaths for each vaccine preventable diseases before and after each vaccine campaign. Nor did she ever mention the frequencies of disease outbreaks among those who are vaccinated vs those who are not. Yet, she raises questions that seems legit to the untrained eyes, but totally idiotic to those who studies immunology. For example, she mentioned that tetanus toxoid acts in the CNS, mentioned that antibodies can not cross blood brain barrier, then asked seemingly intelligently:"Then how does antibodies protect you from the toxin?" Any Stanford trained immunologist would sure know that antibodies constantly circulating your blood would prevent any toxin from ever getting to the brain from your infection site. Questions like this makes me believe that the author was intentionally deceiving her audience. Another example, she mentioned original antigenic sin, and attribute flu vaccination as a culprit. However, she did not mention that original antigenic sin was first discover not with vaccination, but rather actual viral infection with similar viruses. And since the author knows quite well that actual virus infection leaves with stronger memory immunity, and as she claims vaccination is not effective for a few years, one could easily argue that getting the flu would leave you way more susceptible to original antigenic sin than getting the vaccine itself.
3) Raise questions about vaccine that she knows that can not be answered the way she wanted, and use that to discredit all vaccine studies. For instance, one of her problems with vaccine is that it's efficacy is not directly tested with a real infection. She knows that no human trials where people are given the actual virus/bacteria will ever be approved. Yet, she takes in no consideration of the very low mortality rate directly due to any diseases in countries that have vaccine programs versus the high rate in countries that do not have vaccine programs, or even historical data in the same country.
4) Make vaccine immunity as your only line of defense so that it better be perfect or you are screwed. The most widely mistaken fact about vaccine is that it has to protect a person from ever getting infected. Vaccine would rarely prevent you from being infected, in most cases, it buys you enough time so your own immune system would keep the infection under control so that you would show no symptoms of infection; in some cases, you still show symptoms but less severe; and if the vaccine is a good one, you would rarely have full symptoms. Vaccine safety is a huge issue for vaccine producers, and CDC takes it very seriously, and there is a national vaccine safety hotline for each vaccine. Therefore vaccines should be viewed more as an extra safety net to lessen the assault of an infection on your own immune system. Some of the questions author raised is legit, such as reduced amount of antibodies in breast milk of mothers who are vaccinated vs those who had the disease. However, author did not mention that without vaccines, some people never got a chance to become mothers.
7 of 9 people found the following review helpful
on July 9, 2015
Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych is an immunologist. Despite her PhD credentials from Rockefeller Univ in NYC, and post-doctoral credentials from Harvard and Stanford, she speaks very clearly, even lucidly to the everyday reader. Admittedly, she states that immunology is an ". . . ivory tower" discipline, but she moves beyond that candid and honest statement, by showing HOW the 21st century populace became "married" to the concept of Vaccines, and then shows the fallacy in the concept, itself, and the inability of the concept to produce on its own promises. This is because of Primary and Secondary Vaccine failure, and the inherent ingredients which pose a Genuine Threat to the Life and Health of vaccine recipients of the 21st century.
Additiionally, in this 50+pp brief tome, Dr Tetyana shows the failure of Vaccine Immunity v. Natural Immunity, and the inherent dangers which come with the CURRENT Vaccine Schedule: the Mercury [as a preservative] in many vaccines [especially Flu vaccines]. One thing the reader notices about Dr. Tetyana is that like Dr. Andy Wakefield (UK), Dr. Russell Blaylock (Ret. Pediatric Neuro-Surgeon), Dr. Suzanne Humphries, and Dr. Kelly Brogan (NYC physician), is that THESE academicians are ASKING Questions. Dr. Tetyana wants Truth to prevail, especially when an adult or child's life and health are at stake.
Dr. Tetyana advocates FULLY-INFORMED CONSENT on the part of parents, especially and by patients in general. Much of the mainstream Medical Community and Mainline-Media BALK at much of what Dr. Tetyana advocates in this book, but of course they have good reason: PROFITS. Like few physicians and PhDs, Dr. Tetyana is honest and money is never FIRST, as it tends to be the case among the majority within the Gargantuan Pharmaceutical field. The pharmaceutical field is a morass where Clarity of Information has become increasingly obfuscated and even esoteric.
Point: This book is not for those who want to feel GOOD about the current state of medical-affairs within the USA-Medical Community. This book is for those COURAGEOUS Readers who want the Truth ... the unvarnished, honest and Naked Truth. Sad to say, most people do not want to be Confused by the FACTS. Accordingly, this book is NOT for them.
I LIKE this book because there are still SOME good physicians and academicians who want TRUTH at all costs, and CARE about their patients more than ACCOLADES and PROFITS. This book will appeal for those who want CANDOUR and Helpful, but sometimes disturbing Data about the Medical World in the West, as it currently stands. Dr. Tetyana is on the patient's side, on the Parents' side, and especially on the children's side. This book exudes Honesty, which is refreshing, and real honesty gets Specific, which was her motive all along.
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on July 26, 2015
I have a doctorate in microbiology with concentration in immunology. I worked on vaccines in grad school. Claiming that natural immunity works when adaptive (e.g. vaccine) immunity doesn't is wrong. Claiming that measles, for instance, was not eradicated (for a while) in the USA by vaccination but by other factors is false. Tetyana also misunderstands variolation. She conveniently leaves out facts such as the 3-4X higher mortality rate per logged case of measles in the 1988-1992 epidemic versus 1960's data. (More on that below.) It's true that nutritional interventions that are fairly simple lower measles mortality. We see this in Africa. But we also see that the mortality rate only begins to approach the mortality rate of developed nations.
This is a repeat of Back To Eden's old ideas. I'm going to digress a little because it helps people see how wrong some of those archaic ideas are.
“Back to Eden” is a book by Jethro Kloss on nutrition and herbology. When I read it circa 1994, it was also a compendium of discarded medical treatments. For instance, inducing vomiting was recommended for asthma, which could kill a patient by aspiration of vomit. A more humorous one for drowning directed laying the victim over a barrel and blowing tobacco smoke up their rectum. I remember thinking, “So that's where that expression came from! I had no idea it was real!”
Born in 1863, Jethro Kloss died in 1945. His first son died of whooping cough in 1905. His religiously founded “Back to Eden” book caught on in the late 1960's, still sells well, and has been changed over the years since his death. Not everything in it is dangerous or hilarious, and a fair amount is beneficial. Mr. Kloss was a friend of Dr. Kellog, and advanced the cause of nutrition, mostly in line with modern views. Some herbs like aloe vera and calendula definitely work. But Kloss based everything on his own experience, which can sometimes mislead, the idea that what is natural is good, which is not always true, and his religious convictions, which are notorious for blinding people in some areas.
There are related books and pamphlets that became popular around the same time that are quite wrong. For instance, one can find illustrations showing buildup of hardened material on the walls of the colon and enemas are supposed to break it up in order to improve health. That buildup just does not happen, except in very rare instances that are life-threatening. Look at any colon, and it will have a pink lining and everything moves through. In the one exception I am aware of, improperly applied barium solidified like concrete in a man's colon. That patient died. So when you see this kind of thing in a health book as an explanation of why enemas work, it's just not true.
There is the false story that breast-milk will give children antibodies that protect them from infection. There are antibodies in breast milk, but human children are not like cows, and don't absorb antibodies into the bloodstream. We don't have receptors for that in our digestive tract. Breast milk antibodies might do some good against intestinal diseases, though that's questionable because they are proteins that should digest. Most of the benefit of breast milk is nutrition and factors that culture beneficial bacteria. The only circulating antibodies that a baby gets from the mother is by pumping them across the placenta. When a baby is born, it has maternal antibody levels that are around 1.6 times the level found in the mother. Every 40 days, about half of those antibodies are destroyed.
The point I am making here is that there are many archaic and wrong ideas out there because we have free speech. Often the archaic and wrong stuff is mixed together with a fair number of good things. But many of the archaic ideas are wrong. There are even a few people with advanced degrees who get false papers published. Some of them appear to make a profession of false papers. It can be fairly lucrative, because you have a built-in audience that wants to believe you. You can fundraise from them. And they will buy your books if you tell them what they want to hear.
In some cases, such as Gilles Seralini, who published false papers on GMOs, and Mangano and Sherman who wrote suggesting babies were dying in on the West Coast of the USA from Fukushima radiation, the falsification is glaring. (See references below.) Those are just dishonest – fakes. In other cases, people fall in love with a theory and can't let it go. Peter Duesberg, the tenured professor at UC Berkeley who doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS is like that. When he first proposed that idea, it was a reasonable hypothesis. But now it's a ridiculous embarrassment because we cause AIDS in monkeys routinely.
So back to vaccination and the opposition to vaccines. There are false ideas like the autism connection. Again, when Wakefield initially proposed it as possible, it was reasonable. At this point? Not so much. However Wakefield, like Tetyana, is just the most recent version of a movement that started 40-50 years ago. Long before that, and parallel with it today, is this idea is that if there is good nutrition and exercise, there is no need for antibiotics or vaccines. The idea is that children will recover, and if they get infected, they will do fine, better even than vaccine protected children. Even though that didn't work for Jethro Kloss, who lost his first-born son, people still believe it. And, mortality rates are low enough that many people can experience this as apparently true.
It is possibly the case that the rise in asthma is related to vaccination against major respiratory diseases like whooping cough. But that isn't proven yet, nor is it disproven. However, even if it has some truth to it, that version of the hygiene hypothesis does not mean that the mortality rate from things like whooping cough and Haemophilus influenzae aren't serious. But again, we really don't know this. There are other factors. (FYI - I had asthma from the time I was a few weeks old. My asthma didn't develop as a lack of disease.)
It is true that with improvements to nutrition, mortality and complications go way down. The severity of measles in a Vitamin A clinical trial in Africa dropped by 80%-60%. But all that does is to bring African mortality numbers into line with those found in the USA. In the 1960's measles death rates were approximately 1 death per 1000 reported illnesses, down from 26 per 1000 decades earlier. But in the 1987-1992 epidemic, there were 3-4 deaths per 1000 reported measles cases.
The fact remains that diseases like measles are severe, they can be deadly, and can leave a child with damage that may kill them years later. Your child is no less likely to suffer such consequences if you “do everything right” than if you don't. In the USA, there are not the severe deficits where the immune system is going to be impacted in a major way, except in some fairly rare cases.
Understand when I say this that I lived decades of my life as a strict vegetarian. I am very familiar with the mind-set and ideas popular in that community. I even ate “all raw” for a couple of years, and it was fine. If you do it right, you'll get excellent nutrition. But you do have to pay attention. And I have seen people who damaged themselves.
If you think about it for not too long, many of the things claimed by the more recent autism-vaccine camp are obviously strange. The recent claim by Wakefield and others that vaccines cause autism, but the full-blown measles disease won't? That makes little sense. The amount of immune system stimulation from childhood vaccines is very small. The response to the full-blown illness is huge. You can tell this by the fact that you get really tired when sick. Why are you so tired? In large part its because the normal 17% of your body weight that is white cells expands. They start synthesizing proteins to protect you. They expend lots of energy killing off the disease. Those millions of cells moving around inside you and making antibodies suck energy – lots of energy.
Adverse reactions are another story. Most of what is reported in the VAERS database is obviously not related. I've been through it myself. Some events are possibly related. I didn't find much there that I thought was likely caused by a vaccine. But vaccine opponents claim that even ignoring VAERS, that payouts from the special court for vaccine cases is proof that the claims are valid. However, this is just not true. If the special court rules to pay out, that does not mean there is a medical or scientific reason.
There are very rare side effects to vaccines and scientists really work at trying to find them. For instance, Pandemrix had a 1 or 2 in 50,000 narcolepsy side effect. (See references below.) However, the actual H1N1 disease had more cases.
How could it be that people make mistakes about linking what happens with their child to a vaccine? Think about it.
There are approximately 10 million vaccines per year given to children in their first year in the USA. That is 38,000 vaccinations every weekday. It isn't possible to do that and not have something else happen that someone sees as coincident. Awards have been given for multiple sclerosis (which has no scientific relationship to vaccination), and to a child with a mitochondrial genetic disorder that causes brain degeneration. Disorders that affect the brain commonly develop symptoms in the 2nd year of life. There are rare mutations that we haven't yet given a name to. Similarly, any infectious illness could appear on the same day as the vaccination. Given how many vaccines are administered, it is impossible that such coincidences won't happen. But for a parent, the connection could be made in their mind. Figuring out what is happening with a rare side effect is hard. It's not something you can do at home.
In very rare cases there might be an immune reaction that gets out of control. Humans do not have working siglec-13 or 17, which are the immune system dampers for TLR-4 which detects broken bacterial cell walls. If a vaccine gets contaminated with bacteria, this is possible. Prevention of bacterial contamination is why thimerosal used to be in most vaccines. It was used for decades and has never been linked with any problems.
Much is made of the law that shields vaccine manufacturers from lawsuits. But vaccines are a low-margin, low-profit business, and courts are not where scientific decisions are made. It is very hard for a jury to resist a tear-jerking story, and big companies are seen as deep pockets. So in the mid-1980's, with DPT vaccine makers shutting down, the law was enacted. Vaccine manufacture was just not supportable as a business. And drug companies should make (in the USA alone) about 2-3 times the global yearly revenue from vaccines of all kinds off of one epidemic. So this idea that vaccines are some drug company plot to damage your child is just wrong.
The numbers are crystal clear. In the last serious measles epidemic in 1987-1992, 259 deaths were reported. Removing the 15% who had HIV/AIDS, that leaves 220 deaths, in otherwise healthy children who got excellent medical care. The death rate hit 3-4 deaths per thousand disease reports in that epidemic - much higher than in 1960, and we think we had better reporting. Almost all of those deaths were in unvaccinated people, because vaccination, even if it isn't perfect usually cuts disease severity.
Recommending to parents that they not vaccinate is a kind of murder by proxy. This is deadly nonsense.
Provided for fact-checking purposes.
* Indicates a book or publication that contains false or archaic materials in whole or in part.
* Kloss J. Back to Eden. (1986)
* Mendelsohn R. How to raise a healthy child in spite of your doctor. (1984)
* Rona, Z. Natural Alternatives to Vaccination. (2002)
* Mangano J. An Unexpected Mortality Increase in the United States Follows Arrival of the Radioactive Plume from Fukushima: Is There a Correlation? (2012) http://joh.sagepub.com/content/42/1/47.short (In this paper, datasets are cherry-picked and if all data is included, there is a small drop in mortality overall, and those cities closest to Japan had a drop, while those farthest had a rise.)
* Seralini, et al. RETRACTED: Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. (2012) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 (This paper is hugely flawed, as discussed in this linked article.) http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/04/scientists-support-retraction-of-the-seralini-gmo-study-the-petition-to-reinstate-it-is-misleading-and-contradictory
Coutsoudis, et al. Vitamin A supplementation reduces measles morbidity in young African children: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. (1991) http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/54/5/890.short
Gindler, et al. Acute Measles Mortality in the United States, 1987–2002. (2004) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106092 Figure 1.
Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2. (2015) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26136476
VAERS database https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/index
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on August 18, 2015
An incredibly irresponsible publication. It's disheartening to see a well educated, seemingly intelligent individual succumb to anti-vaccine rhetoric and be taken in by bad science. Please look for vaccine information in more reputable sources. Try any publication by Dr. Paul Offit for starters.
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful
on April 14, 2015
I would like to personally thank this author for stepping up to the plate and giving us all a real look at the inner workings of vaccination and the complications that arise from its overuse in today's world.
Being a paramedic for over ten years, I saw first hand many of the vaccine related injuries spoken of in this book (and some that were not), & I am sick of second & third year medical students in an ER telling families that "your child must have had some kind of response to a virus", when there is an absence of any other explanation for the child's condition on presentation at the ER except for it being post vaccination.
Doctors continue to see themselves as a high authority, yet to continue be taught only what pharmaceutical companies want them taught. For the sake of our kids and future generations, I hope this stops one day soon. Credible books like this one will help that cause.
So, thank you to the author, please continue to spread the word & I will continue to promote your great work!
122 of 186 people found the following review helpful
on March 21, 2012
If you have any interest in researching vaccination and immunity, I think this is a good book to read. This book alone will not answer all your questions, but offers a very compelling and well-researched starting point, or continuing point, for the discussion of vaccines. There is a lot of good information in this book, and as a mom who has already researched vaccination extensively, I still have learned a lot from reading this.
At the start of this book, the author introduces herself and how she came to her views on immunizations. Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych has a PhD in immunology and started out excited about vaccines, but as her studies progressed, her views began to change. In the introduction, she explains her reasons for writing this book, and also gives definitions to the terms of immunity, immunology and immunization. Though she comes from a very scientific background, she has written this book in a way that it could be understood by nearly anyone, because she defines many of the scientific terms she uses.
Chapter one is about the history of vaccination, and how the process came about with the first vaccine for smallpox. Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych also explains how this process was flawed from the beginning, and it has remained so ever since. She says that "Every new generation of immunologists is initiated into this illusion and inadvertently takes immunologic research in the direction that is further and further away from understanding the true basis of immunity." Her writing style and logic are very compelling.
Chapter two covers the introduction of vaccination for diphtheria and tetanus, using blood from horses that had been gradually infected with the diseases. This led to "serum sickness" which led to the introduction of formaldehyde into the vaccine. The author goes into further explanation of how vaccination came to be without ever having been properly tested for effectiveness. At the end of this chapter, she asks the question of "why the science of immunology is so resistant to re-evaluation...of its theories?"
In chapter three the author introduces the concept of natural immunity to tetanus, which does not involve or require antibodies to the toxin (a basis of vaccine theory). She explains how the tetanus bacteria work and also the process and conditions required for a tetanus infection to take place. The author explains what the body actually needs (as opposed to anti-toxin antibodies) to gain natural immunity to tetanus.
Chapter four opens with the reasoning that was used to determine tetanus vaccine as "successful," and upon inspection of this reasoning it is clearly flawed. The author goes on to discuss the ineffectiveness of vaccination against tetanus, and potential reasons other than vaccination that cases of tetanus have gone down, as well as a possible treatment for tetanus that was dismissed due to the trial not being randomized. The author uses this example to further question the double standards of immunology.
In the fifth chapter, the author questions the claim that immunologic memory leads to natural immunity. She explains the reason that alum is mixed in to some vaccines. She explains how immunologic memory is achieved in experiments, and also why this is ineffective when the body is exposed to a real pathogen.
Chapter six I found particularly interesting, as it shows how the process of vaccination in the body's immune response resembles not immunity, but allergy. The author describes the stages of allergy and how vaccination may contribute to allergic reactions developing in children. I thought this was a very interesting parallel brought up, and one that I would like to learn more about.
In chapter seven, the author questions the definition of vaccine safety. A vaccine is considered safe if there is a zero chance of causing the virus the vaccine is meant to protect against. However, this definition of safety does not take into account the other adverse effects that vaccination can bring, and the author delves into this dilemma.
While chapter five covered the topic of alum being added to vaccines, chapter eight is on the vaccines that do not require alum, and the flaws behind the theory of their effectiveness. This chapter goes on to describe that unlike natural immunity, vaccine-induced immunity wanes after a few years. Diseases that are mild in childhood then become dangerous in adolescence and adulthood once the vaccine wears off. What were mild childhood diseases are no longer childhood diseases because of this dilemma...they are being pushed into other age groups, and as a result are no longer mild.
Chapter nine explains how vaccination actually eliminates natural immunity. The author describes how vaccinated mothers are less likely to give their infants natural immunity through pregnancy and breastfeeding, whereas naturally immune mothers (mothers who have experienced the disease and overcome it) are more likely to pass on immunity to their infants. The lack of natural immunity in mothers leads to generations of babies without maternal immunity in their earliest and most vulnerable months.
Chapter ten is about the flu shot. As is also mentioned earlier in the book, this chapter describes the difference between antibodies attaching to a protein versus antibodies attaching to a complex particle, how the use of the flu shot can bring about a state in the body called "antigenic sin," and what this does to actually decrease immunity in some ways.
Chapter eleven is titled "Winning Battles but Losing the War." This chapter goes into why vaccines are long-term ineffective for bacterial diseases. A very short but informative chapter.
Chapter twelve is about redefining our views of germs as not being inherently dangerous, but rather, conditionally dangerous, and to take a look at the conditions that cause certain germs to become hazardous to health. Diet and nutrition are addressed here, as well as breastfeeding for infants.
Chapter thirteen is a brief introduction to homeopathy as an alternative to Tylenol. The author also questions the mainstream fear of fever, and gently reminds that fever takes place for a reason.
Chapter fourteen is on making the decision of whether or not to vaccinate your children. What I really love about this chapter is that the author does not simply say "Do not vaccinate your children," but rather poses several questions for the parent to consider about each disease/vaccine before making a decision. The chapter then goes on to address the concept of "herd immunity."
Finally we come to the afterward, in which the author describes why research on immunity is not taking place "outside the box" due to the funding system and how research areas of science are determined. Then the author gives her very thorough appendix/reference guide for further research.
This book is full of links to the studies she references, and is clearly well thought out and researched material. I appreciated the writing style and that I didn't have to pull out a dictionary at any time to understand what the author was trying to convey. There were a few parts that I had to re-read in order to understand the concepts, but in a way that is to be expected with such a complex topic. I found this book to be very well organized and well put together. I think this is an excellent resource for anyone who is for, against, or unsure about vaccines. If you are interested in educating yourself, this is a good book to add to your scope of knowledge, and the book's Appendix offers several suggestions for further reading.
I received a free copy of this book in exchange for my honest review.
11 of 17 people found the following review helpful
on January 30, 2015
Really wonderful material and well worth reading or watching her video presentation. The negative reviews always happen from people who will not stop to study the issue - they have an emotionally charged agenda against people like Dr Obukhanych from the get-go. And that is really suspicious. They are so afraid that learning that there is "something wrong" with vaccination will send us into unending epidemics. That is simply not the case. Lets figure out what is wrong and calmly, rationally, create a better way. That's all. Its not safe. We want it safer. Can you not join us in that goal? The people who take time to present the arguments, like Dr Obukhanych, make absolutely good rational sense. Moreover, I want people like Dr Obukhanych at the table in making policy decisions, and I want all industry representatives to be OUT of the discussion. If your livelihood and the work of your life depends on believing that all vaccines are safe, all the time, and will not tolerate any questioning of them, then you need to disqualify yourself from the discussion.
66 of 101 people found the following review helpful
on April 3, 2012
As the parent of newborn twins, I felt a strong duty to educate myself on what seemed like a vaccine controversy. The few times I mentioned that I questioned the validity of the current vaccine program, my "friends" jumped down my throat and acted as if I was a wild-eyed nutjob for questioning a government program. One even called me a baby-killer when I said that I was considering not vaccinating my children. Others told me that people like me were a social ill and that I would damage the "herd immunity".
All I had were some questions about vaccination - I did not have a strong opinion one way or the other. Until I read this book.
This book is a *wonderful* way to understand the science of how vaccines are intended to work and why they do NOT work that way. I learned about how the body gains natural immunity, how a mother passes immunity her infants, and how the body repairs immunity-critical cells. There are core "immunologic dogmas" like herd immunity and the best way to treat the immune system of infants and adults that the author digs into in simple sentences. Most importantly, I learned about natural immunity and why it's being damaged by vaccines. I was surprised at the amount of suppositions that vaccine science is based on.
The author is extremely knowledgeable and professional in her presenting her case on why the current vaccine program is damaging our natural immunity and causing far-reaching immunological issues. There are frequent links to supporting documents, statistics and studies. She leaves enough open-ended questions to make it a comfortable read for someone who is pro-vaccine. This is a short book; the chapters are to the point and eloquent.
I wish my doctor would read this book.
12 of 19 people found the following review helpful
on November 11, 2014
Clear and concise. Finally a highly regarded immunologist willing to tell the truth about what research shows about the whole vaccine scam. While she touches only lightly on the politics of the vaccine industrial complex, she clearly describes the mechanisms by which all of us, vaccinated or not, have and will continue to suffer from the damage caused by the vaccination program that is based on false premises, lies and distortion for the benefit of pharma profits. If you want to easily understand how to make vaccine decisions for your family, this is one of the best sources of information.
12 of 19 people found the following review helpful
on November 21, 2014
Her case is presented with clear, well grounded scientific reasoning. I recommend this book as essential reading, especially for anyone who is unaware of the well researched rationale behind anti-vaccine movement.