This book, released in 2025, purports to share all major scientific failures at assessing vaccine safety and provides the evidence behind its major claims. However, it is very important to understand the premise of the book to get at why the book makes many of the errors it preaches the reader to not commit.
The most important conflict of interest is to look into the background of the author – he is the chief lawyer working for the Informed Consent Action Network, one of the largest antivaccine organizations in the United States. It is going to be their mandate to find every error in every possible corner of vaccine research to maintain their brand and earn income on more vaccine related lawsuits. If they were to find that a vaccine suited their standards, they would have one less vaccine to file a lawsuit about.
Secondarily, the biggest logical error this book commits is the error of false premises. This is when somebody tries to argue with you based upon a statement that is patently false. A more real-world example of this is, “based upon the premise that all airplanes are spraying toxic chemicals into the sky, why won’t you stop all the chemtrails”? This particular delusion arises from believing that all airplane exhaust (a normal expected finding with a plane) is some kind of toxic chemical, whether it be a pesticide, mind control molecule, or whatever. The starting premise is patently false because planes come in all shapes and sizes and serve many different functions, of which only ONE is to spray pesticides. This is the most commonly employed debate tactic or logical error in this book.
Onwards to a sampler of actual arguments and debunks:
Allegation: All cause deaths for covid didn’t go down, so the COVID vaccine didn’t work
This represents a poor understanding of epidemiology. The definition of all cause death is the absolute or percentage of deaths in a population. The reason this statistic is helpful for policymakers is because it can help assess during a viral pandemic, whether or not people are dying from various causes related to the pandemic infection. The primary intent of vaccination is never to reduce all cause deaths from everything under the sun – clearly a vaccine cannot protect against American gun violence, deaths from police brutality, or car accidents. COVID vaccinations can be relied upon to protect against some of the excess mortality via decreasing deaths attributable to COVID19, such as blood clots or heart failure. Secondarily they can protect against overwhelming the hospital system. Multiple academic centers have shown that COVID vaccination protects well against COVID related mortality and does not increase mortality from other causes.
Diphteria toxin is countered by iron, vitamin C, vitamin B3
This assertion comes from taking laboratory studies out of context and forgetting that what is true in the super controlled conditions of a lab, is not necessarily true in a human being. The standard of care remains to take vaccination as the best preventative, use an antitoxin as needed during severe disease, and potentially antibiotics.
Allegation: they would have kept scarlet fever vaccines if they could, but the amount of scarlet fever out there is now too low to justify a vaccine
Group A streptococcus, the causative agent of scarlet fever, is easily treated by antibiotics. This is where a lack of clinical knowledge significantly impairs the discussion on vaccines. If vaccinologists could find a way to design a scarlet fever vaccine following the strict guidelines of all the other vaccines, they absolutely could. Many groups have tried. However, the barriers to designing both a safe and effective vaccine are quite high because of the risk of autoimmunity and the large variety of group A strep bacteria. This also refutes the allegation that vaccinologists could never criticize their own vaccines.
Selective application of statistical significance in Pfizer initial trial
This book laments the observation from the Pfizer initial clinical trial for licensing the COVID vaccine, that the amount of deaths in the vaccine group was greater than in the control group. The book author however, conveniently omits the observation that this difference was not statistically significant. To understand the deception requires an understanding of what statistical significance means – it is essentially a mathematical equation that tells you something is highly unlikely to have occurred by chance. If you were to see a UFO once, other people could argue that you saw a projection from a TV screen, a commercial, or something like that. However, if you brought pictures, saw the craft, touched the craft, met the pilots, and shared some bread, it would be highly unlikely that all this occurred by random chance alone. Mathematics can help us do something similar with the difference between two group. The dishonesty comes when Siri does point out statistically significant comparisons that try to lure the reader into a false argument, such as in the measles chapter. While the mathematics was calculated correctly, fixating on that observation alone requires ignoring the dangers of measles in order to seek out the apparent reduced risk of chronic diseases. This also ignores the chronic diseases that measles itself causes. An honest actor cannot selectively apply statistics only when it is helpful for his arguments.