Whether all this conclusively points to the actual damage or not, why not just remove anything containing mercury and/or aluminum from all products and medications given to humans, especially pregnant women and babies? There are safer alternatives. It was apparently used in pesticides, eyedrops and many other products for human consumption (who the heck puts mercury into teething products for babies?), but now we know better. The amount of (circumstantial or not) evidence presented here, even if just 10% of it is legitimate, would support the precautionary principle and lead sane people to push for removal of these toxic metals from all products asap. Right? Apparently, they are still present in many OtC products and vaccines (mercury in seasonal flu vaccines, aluminum in a number of other childhood ones), including those given to babies.
This is not an anti-vax book, despite many such opinions and accusations levied at it. There are no indirect complaints nor innuendos about vaccines themselves- the only anti in here is anti-toxins. It is primarily concerned with removal of toxic metals, mercury and aluminum, from products and vaccines given to everyone, especially children and babies. Why is this so controversial?
There is a portion of the book that attempts to tie the rise in autism and ASD diagnosis with the use of mercury and aluminum in ever more expanding number of childhood vaccines. Are all the studies done inconclusive? Apparently yes but are statistically significant (no idea how this works). Are they disturbing in their numbers, scope and implications? Absolutely.
Also, what is with the ever increasing number of childhood vaccinations, and combos/cramped schedules? Do we know for sure that what this does to the (immature) immune systems is completely positive? Do we even try to study it (we are not, apparently, but even that is obfuscated by the noise and screams of being 'anti-vax')?
Being cautious, especially when it concerns babies and children, is not crazy, conspiratorial or anti-science. Way back when we got a puppy, we did not follow the vaccination schedule recommended by the vet. Instead, we had her take a single vaccine type at a time, then the next a few months later (instead a combo of 4-5 at the same time). She had a particularly bad reaction to one of the first jabs she got, which was a scary experience I'll never forget. We also did not re-vaccinate her every year (a few years later that was changed to every two years), and instead did yearly titers. She had all the antibodies until she was 13, which means we only had to get her boosters for rabies every few years. We spared her dozens of unnecessary shots. Was she a miracle unicorn dog that retained positive titers for over a decade or this was a regular thing not properly tested or communicated to us? This experience cemented my caution about the quantity and the vaccine combos, not vaccines themselves. Given the experience of the past few years, now I am sadly not as confident in The Experts either. If that makes me anti-vaxxer, so be it. I just feel quite sad about it all.
I do not have the knowledge nor time to evaluate all the studies and information presented in this book. Therefore, I will not be rating it.