Scan barcode
A review by loriley
The Family that Couldn't Sleep by D.T. Max
2.0
I was not a huge fan of this book for a number of reasons.
First, the author should include some kind of glossary to clarify scientific terminology.
Second, the story order is all over the place. It jumps timelines and while this is sometimes ok in some historical stories, one that revolves around research and the understanding of a specific medical topic means that jumping timelines can be confusing. Its disorganized as heck and its honestly distracting.
Third, towards the end of the story Max completely departs from rigorous research and reporting to chat room speculation including chemophobia and possibly blaming vaccines. As an immunologist the end of the book really bothered me and I wish he hadn't gone into such a weird paranoid ending.
Fourth, I have an issue with the implied indestructability of prions. I am a relatively young researcher so I am not positive what the timeline of prion research has been since the book was published (my scientific career is only a decade old). However, it is now known that bleach will destroy prion proteins at a concentration of 40% sodium hypochlorite solution (bleach). I love medical history books and casefiles but the author and publishers do have some responsibility to include edits and republish additions with notes clarifying these points. I mostly include this because Max does a bit of fear mongering in the book that makes the reader feel as though prions are everywhere, indestructible, and will kill unsuspecting people at any time and a new epidemic of prions may attack the human population at any time.
Link to bleach destroys prion proteins scientific research article:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223659
Fifth, while I appreciate that the author acknowledges that the researcher Carleton Gajdusek was a pedophile (self admitted plus additional information) when many other historians sweep such issues under the rug the language he uses to describe Gajdusek is uncomfortably neutral. He doesn't seem to use the words abuse, manipulate, injure, or rape etc. Instead he phrases it as "sexual interest in children", or enthusiastic about a cultural group being ok with "fellatio" from "young boys". I understand that historians try not to take sides or inject judgement but we can all agree that pedophilia is horrible and abusive. Max was a little too casual and neutral when describing Gajdusek and his abusive actions.
First, the author should include some kind of glossary to clarify scientific terminology.
Second, the story order is all over the place. It jumps timelines and while this is sometimes ok in some historical stories, one that revolves around research and the understanding of a specific medical topic means that jumping timelines can be confusing. Its disorganized as heck and its honestly distracting.
Third, towards the end of the story Max completely departs from rigorous research and reporting to chat room speculation including chemophobia and possibly blaming vaccines. As an immunologist the end of the book really bothered me and I wish he hadn't gone into such a weird paranoid ending.
Fourth, I have an issue with the implied indestructability of prions. I am a relatively young researcher so I am not positive what the timeline of prion research has been since the book was published (my scientific career is only a decade old). However, it is now known that bleach will destroy prion proteins at a concentration of 40% sodium hypochlorite solution (bleach). I love medical history books and casefiles but the author and publishers do have some responsibility to include edits and republish additions with notes clarifying these points. I mostly include this because Max does a bit of fear mongering in the book that makes the reader feel as though prions are everywhere, indestructible, and will kill unsuspecting people at any time and a new epidemic of prions may attack the human population at any time.
Link to bleach destroys prion proteins scientific research article:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223659
Fifth, while I appreciate that the author acknowledges that the researcher Carleton Gajdusek was a pedophile (self admitted plus additional information) when many other historians sweep such issues under the rug the language he uses to describe Gajdusek is uncomfortably neutral. He doesn't seem to use the words abuse, manipulate, injure, or rape etc. Instead he phrases it as "sexual interest in children", or enthusiastic about a cultural group being ok with "fellatio" from "young boys". I understand that historians try not to take sides or inject judgement but we can all agree that pedophilia is horrible and abusive. Max was a little too casual and neutral when describing Gajdusek and his abusive actions.