Raising a Vaccine Free Child [Paperback]

This review is too long, for which I apologise in advance. This book claims to be science-based, so this review is intended to address only the scientific issues within the book. One might consider this review to contain "spoilers" as I do discuss various parts of the book in detail. If you are interested in the validity of the claim that this is a "scientifically-based" book then please read on.

The first question that anyone should ask themselves before reading a supposedly scientific book is: what are the credentials of the author? To this end, reputable publishers will often include an "about the author" section, explaining the author's qualifications and why they feel that they have the right to draw the conclusions that they do. The absence of any such section in this book suggests that the author has no relevant qualifications, and the way that the author references and discusses scientific literature certainly supports this idea.
To avoid being called a hypocrite here is my "about the author" section:
I have a degree in Chemistry and Physics and am currently writing up a PhD thesis on Nanoscience. While my scientific qualifications are not directly related to immunology, my scientific background provides me with an excellent knowledge of Biology, the ability to assess scientific materials and perhaps most importantly: access to the scientific literature so that I can assess the references and claims in this book. Nonetheless this review merely represents my opinion (albeit a scientific opinion) and is not endorsed or supported by any other body. I hope that I will be excused the usual barrage of responses accusing me of having a vested interest in the success or failure of this book, as neither my qualifications nor my work have any direct links to the pharmaceutical or medical industries. This review is intended to be unbiased, and as such I will avoid arguing either for or against vaccination. I was in fact very interested in reading this book when a friend lent it to me. I thoroughly expected to find a balanced review of the arguments for and against vaccinations, which I assumed would conclude (whether rightly or wrongly) that the risks of vaccination are similar to the risks not vaccinating. I was sorely disappointed by what I found.

Let me start with the claim that this book is "fully referenced". It certainly does contain many references which refer to many of the points that author makes in the book, and for many readers the presence of these references may reassure them that this book is based on science. However, there are 3 mains problems with the references:
1) Many of the references do support well established scientific facts (e.g. the comment is made several times that "childhood diseases", an example of which would be mumps, cause further complications in adults and the elderly; this comment is referenced multiple times throughout the book). Such comments are true (in fact the aforementioned example is common knowledge), but will often be followed by the author's own unscientific statements which are not supported by references. Whether intentional or not, the proximity of such references to the author's own unscientific and unreferenced statements gives the impression that the reference supports the authors own statement, which is rarely the case.

2) Many of the references are newspaper clippings and news reports - clearly these are not scientific references, and most people know not to trust everything that the free press publish. However in many instances these references are presented in the same manner as the scientific references, with no indication that they are from a less reliable source (unless you check the references section for each reference). Some of the references are other books which may or may not have any scientific basis (I will hold my hands up here and admit to not having bought and critiqued all of the books that were referenced).

3) There are instances where the author has referenced some scientific articles and praised them as "scientific fact", while declaring that other scientific articles which oppose the arguments of the first are incorrect. In one of the worse instances of this (referring to a link between the measles vaccine and bowel conditions) the author argues that one paper was scientifically accurate while the other was of poor quality. However, a search of the literature reveals that the 'accurate' article was written by a doctor who has since been publicly disgraced, accused of scientific fraud and struck off the medical register - his work is considered by many to be one of the most damaging acts of scientific fraud in modern history. Further searching reveals that there are in fact many papers which oppose the arguments of the original article, but the author of this book only references one of these, referring to it as a flawed study (when it is in fact supported by many other similar articles by reputable scientists). Admittedly the controversy to which I have referred was not concluded until long after this book was written, but it began a long time before this book was written. The fact that this reference was included at all, while the other reference was referred to as flawed, indicates the lack of attention that the author has given to selecting accurate and well-supported scientific literature.
Obviously most of the references in this book (at least the ones that I did investigate thoroughly) are not as controversial as this. However the author does frequently reference articles which support her point of view, ignoring the many scientific articles which oppose her point of view or dismissing them as being poor science when in fact they are often better supported than the articles which support her point of view. This suggests that either the author has intentionally written an extremely biased book, or that she does not posses a sufficient understanding of the nature of scientific research.

Overall the book is not written in a scientific manner. In the first chapter the author likens pharmaceuticals companies to the Nazis, and anti-vaccinationists to medieval astronomers who were persecuted for believing that the earth goes round the Sun. Emotionally driven comments such as these are common place in this book, while balanced scientific discussion is almost completely absent. Much of the book discusses anecdotes and circumstantial evidence, from which the author erroneously attempts to draw scientific conclusions without any reference to scientific literature.

Another topic which has also concerned other reviewers is the author's discussion of homeopathy. The general scientific consensus is that homeopathy has no place in science (although it is widely acknowledged that homeopathy can be extremely effective due to the placebo effect). The reviewer gives an extensive "scientific" explanation of how homeopathy works, which is discussed in terms of Physics and Chemistry (my own speciality), and I can confirm that her explanation is completely invalid and makes no scientific sense at all (and, not surprisingly, contains no references to any scientific literature). The author then proceeds to apply these ideas to Biology in a manner which is not scientifically valid (great care must be taken when trying to apply theories from one field of science to another). The discussion of an unscientific topic like homeopathy is entirely inappropriate for a book which claims to be based on science, regardless of one's personal beliefs about it (again, I do not intend to argue for or against homeopathy, other than to state that it is not considered a science).

To discuss all of the science-related problems with this book would take far more time than I have and make this review even longer than it already is, so I list here some of the other worrying claims that this book makes:
* Measles cures cancer (no scientific evidence).
* Homeopathy can cure polio (no scientific evidence).
* There is a worldwide conspiracy by pharmaceuticals companies to sell vaccines which they know do not work, and that they suppress the "evidence" the homeopathy works (clearly conspiracy theories do not belong in a science-based book).
* There is a worldwide conspiracy by health services to suppress any evidence that vaccinations are harmful (clearly conspiracy theories do not belong in a science-based book).
* All scientists who do research on vaccines are controlled by pharmaceuticals companies (simply untrue - most scientists are free to research and publish as they see fit).
* Vaccines do not prevent people from catching the diseases that they vaccinate against (these arguments are based on anecdote, not well researched science).
* Vaccines do more harm than good (no scientific evidence provided).
* Diseases can be separated into two groups: childhood diseases and malevolent diseases, which behave and are treated in different ways (the author appears to have selected which diseases belong in which group based on personal whim - there are certainly no references which support the choices made here, nor the idea of dividing diseases into these two groups).

There are many other problems with this book and few of the topics discussed stand up to scientific scrutiny. This book has little scientific basis. In the instances where genuine science is discussed it is often manipulated or exaggerated to suit the author's arguments, with little insight into the science underlying the topics discussed. This poor manipulation of the scientific data makes it difficult to believe anything which the author writes, as the scientifically accurate parts of the book are so mixed with the unvalidated conjecture which forms a significant proportion (if not the majority) of this book. Read more ›

This is a very informative book for anyone trying to navigate the minefield surrounding childhood vaccinations. It is superbly referenced and it is refreshing to find some solid scientific facts about vaccination in a world full of misleading claims by government health authorities and big pharama.

I don't want to put anyone off this book because it is full opf important information but i think it is only fair that people should be aware that as you progress through the book it starts to make more and more claims about homeopathy. For me this seems at odds with the rest of the book which is well researched and referenced science. None of the homeopathy claims are referenced to scientific studies (because there is no scientific basis for homeopathy), which i guess is a good thing because if there were it would reduce the credibilty of the real facts.

All in all it is a good book and it has real important information for anyone considering vaccination who wants the real facts of the matter but if you think homeopathy is bogus you are going to have to skip a couple of chapters.

Raising A Vaccine Free Child

I strongly urge all parents to read this book. Having witnessed vaccine damage first hand to a family member (from the whooping cough vaccine) I was deeply suspicious of the injections for my 8 week old baby. I was told that the vaccines were 'improved' and that vaccine damage "does not happen". Once I began to research the subject, I was horrified at the damage vaccines cause, which often gets denied.

This book was an absolute gem through an exremely difficult time. I decided against any kind of vaccine for my baby. As you will find from a number of books there is controversy surrounding them all. Not only does the book demonstrate (with scientific basis) the awful problems with the vaccines, which are largely ignored by the medics, but it provides invauable advice on how to effectively treat childhood illnesses if they should occur. I particularly like the chapter 'Fever is a friend' which illustrates the problems concerning fever suppressing drugs such as infant paracetamol which seems to be administered for any kind of little niggle but can prove to be extremely dangerous when certain childhood diseases are present.

I can only say from experience please buy this book, it is the best money you will ever spend.