D Books

Begin with Hero Archetypes and learn about the Chief or the Lost Soul or the Warrior. See what might make them tick.

Move to your Heroine Archetypes to visit with the Free Spirit, the Nurturer or my favorite the Spunky Kid. Learn how they got to be who they are.

Then you will learn how to use the Archetypes to Create Characters. As most writers understand, great characters are not one-dimensional and flawless. It is their layers that make them truly intriguing. Indiana Jones' fear of snakes made him believable.

Finally play with Archetype Interactions and see how the Waif might react to the Professor type. What if the Waif were layered with the Librarian and the Professor had a bit of the Swashbuckler in him. What would these two encounter? Where would they take your story?

Tami et al's book is invaluable to me. If I had no other book on characterization, I would be fine. My only quibble is that we didn't get the Villains, but Tami teaches a Villains Archetype class online as well as face-to-face. I just recently had the pleasure of taking that class with From The Heart Romance Writers.

Put this on your "must have" list if you want rich, complex characters.

In the quest of refining character, I have devoured a number of psychology texts and writer's guides, and I do believe that this one may be the best book on that topic I have ever discovered. I would quibble with Cowden, LaFever and Viders in their assertion that the 16 Master Archetypes are the only archetypes, but it's such a small point that it doesn't detract from what they present. Peppered with easily accessible examples, their book breaks down character into strong, clearly sketched components and then discusses how the palates may be blended--in individual character development and interpersonal relationships. I don't know if I would ever use any guide to create a character from scratch, but I'm always happy to find something to help me ensure that my characters behave consistently once they've been created. I expect this book to prove valuable for that, and I highly recommend it.

I started using this book for my writing the very day I received it. It's great--I can't recommend it highly enough

The book is a great tool for aspiring writers and screenwriters. It offers great insight into the different archetypes. That information is presented in a dictionary type form. Anyone can look up a personality type and find its virtue, flaws, style and background. I highly recommend the book to all aspiring writers.

I can't say enough good things about this book. Fantastic character profiles. I wish it had been available when I was studying Sociology at university! I own two copies so I can always have it at hand when I need some help. My ONLY complaint are the pop culture references as archetype examples. But, overlook Dr. Spock and Ally McBeal and this book is priceless!

I cannot imagine trying to read Proust's Everest of a novel until I've had enough life experience to be able to identify with his insights. How on earth was a man who died young and was confined to a bed for so many years able to learn so much about life and common human experience, emotion and perception? I don't know how, but I thank God that he was.

For modern readers, Proust is definitely an acquired taste that rewards patience. I never thought reading the works of one author would make those of others seem so much easier to read. But such is the case with Proust. Nevertheless, one shouldn't regard his writing as therapy or medicine; it may read like self help at times, with its frequent use of the first-person plural, but it is a story first of all. His writing is just more detailed and insightful than that of all but a handful of modern novelists.

Within a Budding Grove is a primer on patience and perception, one that will probably make you a better reader, perhaps a better writer, and certainly a more interesting human being. Struggle on patiently. You will get used to the labyrinthine sentences, paragraphs that run on for pages, and gargantuan chapters (if they can be called that) that don't really begin or end anywhere tidy. Eventually, you will likely come to enjoy it.

My only criticism: at times one does get annoyed by the slow pacing. For instance, I knew that this is the volume that introduces the reader to Albertine. But it did take about 600 pages for the narrator to meet her! That said, there are plenty of tasty morsels along the way. Read it, not so much for the simple story or the minutely detailed descriptions, but for the numerous insights and the astounding wisdom.

How can anyone summarize even a single volume of Proust's massive six volume novel? Within a Budding Grove (sometimes translated as In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower) is the second installment of In Search of Last Time. We find the narrator perhaps marginally older on vacation with his grandmother living in a luxurious hotel in Balbec off the coast. This volume, paired with the first (Swann's Way), is really the introduction to the work entire if you can believe it. In it, the narrator perhaps matures slightly; he cultivates his keen awareness of art, meets new people, and ultimately falls out of love with Gilberte and falls in love with Albertine. His relationship with his grandmother is certainly expanded, and the reader comes to learn that the narrator is not merely motivated by a trivial pursuit of pleasure and bourgeois charm. He is in fact, a truly full human being, complete with fear, love, desire, and ambition. He meets one of my favorite characters in the whole book, the impressionist painter Elstir, a character clearly based Monet, Manet, Pissaro, and others. He introduces the narrator to Albertine through his paintings, and teaches him about the joys of life and art. There are some passages in this section of the book (the latter half) which I just can't resist from quoting,

"I could never have believed that I should now be dreaming of a sea which was no more than a whitish vapour that had lost both consistency and colour. But of such a sea Elstir, like the people who sat musing on board those vessels drowsy with the heat, had felt so intensely the enchantment that he had succeeded in transcribing, in fixing for all time upon his canvas, the imperceptible ebb of the tide, the throb of one happy moment; and at the sight of this magic portrait, one could think of nothing else than to range the wide world, seeking to recapture the vanished day in its instantaneous, slumbering beauty" (pg. 657).

also (how French is this?),

"For a convalescent who rests all day long in the flower-garden or an orchard, a scent of flowers or fruit does not more completely pervade the thousand trifles that compose his idle hours than did for me that colour, that fragrance in search of which my eyes kept straying towards the girls, and the sweetness of which finally became incorporated in me. So it is that grapes sweeten in the sun. And by their slow continuity these simple little games had gradually wrought in me also, as in those who do nothing else all day but lie outstretched by the sea, breathing the salt air and sunning themselves, a relaxation, a blissful smile, a vague dazzlement that had spread from brain to eyes" (pg. 669).

I certainly cannot add any insights into the greatness and profundity of this work which has not already been said by Edmund Wilson or Vladimir Nabokov. Within a Budding Grove is a deeply felt, beautiful and fleeting segment of one of the finest novels of the last century, I urge you to read it.

Montcrief's translation, is the quintisential Proust. The, beautiful, florid prose is reminiscent of a time and a place that no longer exists, and captures the French aristocracy in the advent of WWI -- full of old-world trappings, yet abounding with subtle reminders of the globalization that was to follow. Proust's style and vision are directed admirably towards his artistic goal of appreciating art through sublimation, and express his idea that a true understanding of art comes first through appreciation, and then expression through a medium. This volume is full of Proust's own philosiphies on art, life and the people who abound in both. His observations, pointed and amusing, keep this volume relevant. Considering the wave of expatriate and existentialist writers who propogated Paris after the Great War, this book is truly the last in a line of works that view life in a grand, sweeping and elegant manner. Within a Budding Grove brought Proust fame and acclaim in his own time, and in ours can be seen as a masterpiece reflecting a time past, yet glimsping assiduously into the future. For those "in search of lost time" this is truly a great read.

This is a great copy of Vol. 2 of A la recherche du temps perdu [In Search of Lost Time] or [Delving into Things Past]. Each volume in the septrology may be read individually as an independent novel. This is, of course, the very best translation available in English; probably the very best that will ever be available in English: certainly the next best thing to reading the original French.

Note: Proust is not quick reading, and one who tries to read too quickly will just as quickly lose the tread of the narrative. This text has its own time scale, and the reader must adjust his/herself to the text--not the other way around. In this stream of consciousness narrative, the narrator (/author) digresses as he speaks (/thinks): he digresses, digresses, digresses; and then, he returns, returns, returns to the point where he began. One has to follow his line of thought: this is the art and beauty of the text.

Proust's achievement is one of the greatest edifices of Western art, perhaps comparable only to Wagner's Ring cycle.

It's my experience, reading this novel, to be perpetually grateful for the miracle of Proust, grateful, too, that he waited until his maturity to write; as someone who's spent time in writing workshops, I can only imagine the dissipation of his energies into anemic prototypes had he been persuaded to publish prematurely. Lovingly written, every word endowed with love of life and maturity's distillation of life experience, it is a novel (which reads like a memoir) of a life devoted to the connoisseur's pursuit of pleasure-how can that not alienate? Proust is consciously writing for an elite of mental or temperamental sympathy. To say that reading Proust has helped me through hard times is true-yet how can I-someone who has, to paraphrase a T-shirt I saw recently, a blackbelt in keepin' it real-not resent a courtesan with three ladies to aid in her toilette-however tenderly rendered?

The mature Proust's vision of love-in this novel at least-is adolescent and self-absorbed, and there is no sense of a selfless or mature love, such as that of a parent for a child, which contains a dying to self as opposed to an expansion of self. (One thinks here of the authorial contempt for the too-giving parent, Vinteuil.) I pity Marcel: to lose oneself-the burden-to lose time-sometimes-is very refreshing indeed. Mired in the adolescent and egotistical point-of-view, without benefit of even the illusory counterpoint of an adult lover's (Swann's) point-of-view, the narrative does sometimes suffer from too much Marcel. Coddled, effete, he finely calibrates the shades of disillusionment that possession as opposed to reflection offers-the "psychological impossibility of happiness"-after having his wildest fantasies (Berma! Bergotte! Balbec!) fulfilled time and again. And he universalizes his singular temperamental trait, that inability to live in the moment.

Proust is only too conscious of his weaknesses, and as a result, we get his poetics: "I am aware that this is to blaspheme against the sacrosanct school of what these gentlemen term `Art for Art's sake,' but at this period of history there are tasks more urgent than the manipulation of words in a harmonious manner," Norpois says, and one is laughing out loud with pleasure at the dissonance between Marcel's lofty musings on Berma and the cold spiced beef jiggling in its cubes of aspic, the delicious conflict of temperaments.

He gives me back to myself-it's a long time since I've felt the sole inhabitor of my consciousness and had the leisure to puzzle out my sensations. Usually my mind is full to the brim like this: "Mommy-mommy-mommy-here comes little bear! What does little bear say?! Mommy-mommy-mommy-mommy-moooooommy! Here's little bear! Little bear is talking!" So that I don't have mental space or leisure to process even the simplest sensation, how the sun feels on my shoulders, for instance. Visiting Proust's cool room of mirrors and ocean waves returns that feeling to me, and that is precious. There is something precious in his extremity-his lack of apology for a sensitive and aesthetically-driven nature that is anathema to middle-class American values. And that rhythm like ocean waves! It gets in your head, lowers your blood pressure, no doubt alters brain wave patterns, the chemicals in neuropathways.

There is something so extreme (admirable!) in Proust's sensibility-the extremity of his pursuit of pleasurable sensation intellectually reorganized and savored-that one feels-paradoxically-something dehumanizing in his gaze. His musings on the protoplasmic nature of young girls frankly chills me! Yet I see it as part of the "green fuse," the life force pagan and repugnant at times. So, what happens in Vol.3? I can't wait, yet at the same time I hope for something I may not get.

This is by far the best Abe book out there...actually makes "learning" fun!...be careful about loaning this one out!

This is the best book on Lincoln I have ever read. A true joy to read.

Knowing little other than the obvious facts about Lincoln, I was amazed, entertained, and simply captivated by this Carnegie masterpiece. Lincoln's poverty-stricken childhood, his lackluster days as a lawyer, his love of poetry, his political career - it's all covered in great detail and conveyed in a very appealing and straightforward style. Carnegie's research and dedication towards this book are deservedly well-applauded. The story of how this very mortal man became so admired, so loved, and such an American icon is simply priceless. This monumental work is a must-have for anyone's collection.

THIS BOOK WAS GIVEN TO ME . THE COPY I HAVE IS THE 1932 PRINTING . I KNOW NOW HOW LUCKY I AM TO OWN IT AFTER FINISHING . IT WAS VERY HARD TO PUT DOWN . OTHER BOOKS I HAVE READ ABOUT HIM DIDN'T TOUCH ON HIS GENTLENESS AND HOW IT AFFECTED NOT ONLY HIS MARRIAGE BUT, THE WAR. SOMETIMES I THINK NOW, HE WORRIED TOO MUCH ABOUT OTHERS FEELINGS . SUCH AS INEPT GENERALS AND THAT LUNATIC WIFE , MARY TODD WHO'S TEMPER TANTRUMS WERE INFAMOUS. LIKE HE HAD ENOUGH " ROCKS IN HIS SACK " WITHOUT STRIFE AT HOME. I SO PITY HIM , EVEN NOW THAT HE IS BEYOND ALL CARES AND WOE . GOD BLESS YOU SIR AND GIVE YOU THE PEACE THAT SO ELUDED YOU HERE ON EARTH .

The storytellers of other nations and cultures have to manufacture myths to give themselves heroes. Americans don't have to. Abraham Lincoln is inspiring because of his greatness, yet he is inspiring also because of his human frailties, which make his monumental achievements all the more fantastic. This book is a labor of love by Mr. Carnegie about his hero; it's his way of making his hero available to us all. I love particularly the introduction in which Mr. Carnegie tells his reasons for writing the book and his method of composing it. This is one of the best books I've ever read. All the wisdom and insight Mr. Carnegie ever collected in his "how to" books can be found more poignantly and abundantly here, because Lincoln exemplified everything that Mr. Carnegie ever taught. This book is what will keep Mr. Carnegie's name alive, long after his institute has folded and his "how to" books have gone out of print. In this book Mr. Carnegie captures the living reality of Lincoln: his wisdom, his virtues, his beautiful and unfettered English prose, his perserverance, his commitment to justice and liberty, his keen understanding of the paradoxical condition of mankind, his deep reverence, and his abiding love.
This book also demonstrates that heroes don't just descend from Olympic heights to awe mankind with superhuman prowess; they are regular folks who face troubles, pains, and long-odds like the rest of us; but when most people act out of self-concern and a desire for ease and convenience, true heroes do what is RIGHT, in spite of the cost to themselves and the apparent futility of the task at hand. Lincoln was such a hero.

I just purchased the updated 2006 edition from B&N. Although this book is very useful and informative, I must say I have a difficult time understanding all the medical terminology. Eventhough they attempt to give definitions of all the medical terminology, the definition itself is too complicated. I feel like I need to go to medical school to understand this book completely.

Or breastfeeding already? Get this. And get it before you need it, because it may take a while to be delivered. Breastfeeding women are frequently told by health care providers that they must wean to take a particular medication; this is only very rarely true. But you won't be able to know without good information, and this book has the definitive answers.

Also useful during pregnancy. A lot of advice to pregnant women is basically based on the suffer-through-it principle. This book will help you participate in making a safe, informed decision about whether a particular medication is safe enough for you to take.

VERY HELPFUL AND MUST HAVE FOR MOTHERS WHO ARE BREASTFEEDING AND EVEN PREGNANT

This is a wonderful resource to have on hand throughout the "baby making" process. Not only does it include in depth information regarding medications while you are nursing but it lists each drugs pregnancy risk category and possible side effects to adults and children. I am ordering the new version since my 2000 copy is a little out of date. I refer to it all the time.

Nice resource although Drugs in Lactation and Pregnancy is just as thorough...
The benefit of this book over the previously mentioned is it is soft cover, smaller and more portable, not as heavy to carry.

This book is indeed a must-have item as a study tool. I've found it to be very detailed and clearly written. I highly recommend this book to others.

From what I've read and for the purposes that I've had to use it for this book is relevant and very necessary to the spiritually inclined!!!

I think that this book is excellent for people that are called to be prophets and prophetess. This has really helped me to understand my call and why I face some of the things that I have. It also explains the anatomy of it and its origin which makes it excellent.

I bought this book to help me with interpreting types and symbols for visions and dreams and other prophetic revelation. It's not that helpful for the purpose I purchased it for. It's just okay...but I have other tools that are much, much more helpful.

I've always wanted a dictionary that had the definitions of the prophetic words that are used, whenever I prophecies from Pastors, Apostles, Prophets and Leaders at International Conferences. It has helped me to even prophesy with the correct terminology and delivery and understand more in depth about the gift and the office. 5 KUDOS!!!

Lanesa Stubbs

This book is simply delightful - my 8-year-old is constantly giggling - he is unable to read it to me for the laughter...He has a high reading level - but kids love it (almost as much as their parents!!) My son really is Calvin (I am a bit concerned he may be getting ideas from the little rascal!!)
LOVE IT!!!

. I like this book because it has funny parts.
. I also like the part when calvin pretends to be GodZilla and destoys Tokyo, which is the buildings that Calvin made in his sandbox.
. I dislike someparts of the book.
. I also dislike the part when Calvin pretends to be a zombie.

What can be said about Calvin & Hobbes that hasn't already been shouted to the heavens by legions of prematurely grown-up fans ?

Calvin is the eternal Child/Id within us all, and Hobbes is his stuffed tiger / best friend / faithful companion in arms come-to-life ... and together they swashbuckle their way through a childhood world populated with drooling monsters of the imagination, screaming ray-guns, carboard boxes turned magical transmogrifiers, and giant tut-tutting adults who are forever dragging us back from our revels by the ear, in order to make us wipe our feet, bathe, eat, do our homework, and go to bed on time.

By laughing at Calvin & Hobbes, we get to vicariously relive some of our own carefree childhoods exploits ... exploits which echo in our adult lives, because (looks both ways) we never actually grew up. Only our bodies did.

Highly recommended.

Calvin is in alliance with Hobbes to combat the monsters that lurk in his imagination. The victims of this battle? Usually, Calvin's hapless parents. This collection is among the funniest as it centers on the darker side of Calvin's runaway train of imagination: monsters, space creatures, icky girls, and nefarious snowmen. Pick it up, or the monsters in the closet will come out as well.

Well, I must admit I have had this book since I was in 8th grade when my best friend at the time gave it to me. I still crack up when I'm going through the pages upon pages of strange situations that Calvin and his stuffed friend find themselves in. Definately a must for any C&H fan and really funny. Buy it.

I have to add my 5 stars for this informative resource. It was my textbook for two courses. However, even after my classes ended I found myself referring back to the loads of information provided within the pages of this book. It is extremely comprehensive and well worth the investment.

*If you are not a student required to purchase a newer edition, I recommend looking at an earlier edition - I know that you'll get the same great information, just at a much discounted price.

Book was exactly as described. Brand new and in shrink wrap. Very happy with purchase!

This is a great book, it's easy to read, it has excellent, detalied and graphic photographs. I highly recomend this book as a text or reference book.

This a must read & a book to hold on to for reference.

All the information you need for death investigation...has a couple extra chapters in the new edition that were not in the last one...

Whether you have an opinion or not about prostitution , I think it's a good idea to read this book. By reading Dolores' book I can tell she is intelligent and well educated and she tells a very interesting story about her life as a prostitute without trying to convince the reader of what is *right* or *wrong*. She eventually became one of the most recognized prostitutes in America at one point. She fought for women's rights and appeared on television shows. It's interesting to learn of the different types of *clients* she came across in different countries, as well as other hookers, and how she handled certain dangerous situations. I've learned that prostitutes aren't that different from a lot of women, they aren't just dirty, AIDS infected low life people. Many of them really do like their jobs and feel they are helping people. This is a great book, I think every woman should read it.

This book is all about the use of (sexual) power in the struggle for survival: 'Women choose to go into prostitution because they need money'; or, 'because it is the best way to make a living.'
As the author says: 'There should be laws forbidding poverty, but no laws forbidding a woman to accept money from a man for her company.'

The numbers are staggering: alone in the US, there are approximatively 1300000 prostitutes.

A main theme in this book is hypocrisy.
Of the people arrested in the sex trade only 10 % are clients.
Sexual 'entertainment' is written off as a business expense.
Condoms are distributed freely to the military.
In the Philippines doctors blamed prostitutes for introducing AIDS into the country ... not the American servicemen.

This book is a worth-while documentary about an important aspect of human behaviour. It shows that human beings are not primarily rational.

This is a great book. I met Dolores at a Mensa convention we were both speaking at. I am a member of Mensa; Dolores is not. I attended her lecture out of curiosity and then stopped for a chat afterwards. That chat turned into a friendship that lasted for most of the 12 years that I lived in Atlanta. I read this book: Working: My Life as a Prostitute, about 4 months after having met her and it is genuine. Dolores is also genuine. Don't ask her a question unless you want the straight truth as your reply. Dolores is a smart businesswoman who has led quite an interesting life. My many talks with her gave me insight into differing perspectives; many of which I wouldn't have had, had I not known her. I can honestly say that reading her book opened my eyes about many aspects of life as a woman. How men see us; even if we don't want to think that it is true. It is a MUST read for all women past the age of 16.

Dolores French is warm-hearted, wise and has much to say. This book should not be out of print, and it should be in stock... I hate it when a good book take 4 weeks to obtain! I hope it will be reprinted soon.

I fully agree with the author. I know best about prostitution as my mother was prostitute from age 15 to 61, my sister,wife,2 daughters are also in same business.We all are very happy & proud of this business.We have never cheated any customer. We donate for charity too.I hope that our future generation will continue this business with same honesty & dedication.We never refused aged or bad looking clients.

It is a great book for children. My daughter is now 21 years old and is pregnant with our first grandchild. We used to read this book to her as a child. Along the way I misplaced the book, and she wanted another copy to read to her child. Her dad nicknamed her "Fred" after one of the characters in this book.

This book is a great way to introduce children to the subject of opposites. Fred and Ted like to play different musical instruments. They like different foods. They drive different colored cars. They are even different sizes.

The problem ensues when, after a day of skiing, Fred and Ted rent rooms at a hotel and discover that their beds are unsuitable. Fred and Ted meet to discuss a solution to their situation. After they fail to arrive at reasonable solution, a wily bird resolves their problem. Fred and Ted go back to the hotel to enjoy a peaceful sleep.

I like the simplicity of the story. As a fun alternative, you might consider asking your child to try to find a solution to Fred and Ted's problem before reading the ending.

Like many of the other reviewers, this was a favorite story of mine as a child back in the 70's. I am THRILLED that it is still in print and, (judging from the reviews here on Amazon), has a strong "following." The sweetness of the story is in its simplicity. I have already bought one copy as a gift, and I intend to spread the word of 'Big Dog, Little Dog' as gifts in the future as well.

This was my favorite book when I was little. I read it so much the book was falling apart. When I got older I think my mom finally threw it away, it was in such sad shape. I'll have to buy a new copy of it now that I've found it again, just for memory sake. I would definitely recommend this book if you have kids, or just like some light reading to cheer you up once in a while.

My son received this book on his third birthday - in 1977. My three year old grandson recently discovered the tattered and torn copy that I had saved. He immediately fell in love with it and proudly annouces that it is "Daddy's favorite book." I'm not sure which "boy" will be more excited when the new copy arrives but in the meantime it has brought back a flood of memories for this Grandma. What a joy!

I could not put this book down. I found it to be extremely helpful and therapeutic.

This book gave me clarity and peace after suffering from 2 miscarriages. I refer to it often when I need some guidance and explanation. A must for all women who have experienced one or more miscarriages.

After his wife miscarried four pregnancies, author Jon Cohen poured effort into assembling a comprehensive, accurate, and user-friendly repository of information on miscarriage. Now in a new paperback edition that corrects a few errors found in the original, Coming to Term: Uncovering the Truth About Miscarriage explores the latest research and findings on the phenomenon, debunks myths and hype, and shines a spotlight on real problems that could be making the occurrence worse in today's world - such as federally unacceptable nitrate levels (which fluctuate seasonally, often influenced by agriculture and animal waste disposal) found in some American wells. Cohen also explores a diverse array of medical treatments, from drugs to surrogate parent contracts to "touchy-feely" emotional therapy methods that can offer surprisingly positive results. Steeped in compassion as well as wisdom and solid information, Coming to Term is highly recommended.

this is definitely the best book that I've found on the subject of miscarriage. I have had three miscarriages and one child and have been told many differing opinions from doctors. When I suffered my last miscarriage at 37, a doctor told me that I had only a 40% chance of having another successful pregnancy. As with any medical condition, you have to be your own advocate, and this book is the best starting place that I've found to make the journey.

Since my last miscarriage, I saw a doctor that suggested IVIG. the procedure would cost me $9000. I consulted another doctor in the book, who gave me a better explanation of my situation and now I feel comfortable trying to move forward without expensive interventions.

When you experience several miscarriages you are faced with a maze. I found this book essential in figuring out the best way for my husband and I to proceed.

There are several reasons why this book does not deserve its present "five star" rating which are explained in this detailed review. The primary criticism is that the author demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific literature. He also shows a lack of scientific insight, and fails to recognize how immune issues can play a role in reproductive failure. He also uses a (now widely considered) flawed study to support his central arguments. Finally, he criticizes reproductive immunologists for their use of anecdotal evidence, yet relies on heavily anecdotal evidence to support his own views. In more detail, here are the weaknesses in this book:

On IVIG treatment for recurrent miscarriage

Cohen chooses to elaborate on the negative sides of the IVIG argument, yet fails to elaborate on the positive arguments, a disservice to the reading, investigating audience trying to understand all sides of IVIG issue.
For example, he agrees that elevated natural killer cell levels can be associated with miscarriage. On page 95, he says: "...studies suggest that women who repeatedly miscarry chromosomally normal babies produce higher level of natural killer cells." Cohen also agrees that IVIG may suppress natural killer cells. Page 95: "Some experiments show that IVIG suppresses natural killer cells" Yet, despite his acceptance of an NK miscarriage connection, he still chooses to scare patients away from lifesaving IVIG treatment that many clinics offer. On page 95 Cohen says "IVIG inadvertently infected people with hepatitis C" and "no amount of screening can test for a pathogen that science has yet to discover." Also, Cohen fails to mention the fact that modern IVIG preparations are screened for all known viruses, past and present. And fails to emphasize that IVIG is completely FDA-approved and thousands of patients are using it routinely with no ill effect for dozens of common autoimmune diseases. For a professional reporter supposedly reporting all sides of an issue, Cohen's investigation seems surprisingly one-sided.
Finally, Cohen seems to criticize the mental state of any patient choosing the IVIG option. At the end of page 95, he states: "untried options can have an intoxicating effect, leading them (women) to throw caution to the wind." I think Cohen's personal bias against reproductive immunology is clear. His ability to report on IVIG with logic and impartiality is sacrificed.

Th1:Th2 theory

On page 79, Cohen states that Th1:Th2 (immunological rejection) theory is a "hugely controversial hypothesis." However, most people who read scientific reproductive journals today would wonder how Cohen arrived at this understanding of the miscarriage literature. If he had a proper grasp of current theory he would not see that the Th1:Th2 theory is not only not "hugely controversial," but it is actually one of the freshest and most accepted new research developments in reproductive immunology medicine today.
How does Cohen arrive at his "Th1:Th2 is controversial" conclusion? In the book, Cohen cites only one single Th1:Th2 review study by Laird SM et al. (he apparently ignores the rest of the rest of the supporting studies in the literature) Yet, interestingly, upon reading carefully, this study actually seems to support Th1:Th2 relevance to miscarriage. It states: "Immunological rejection of the fetus due to recognition of paternal antigens by the maternal immune system, resulting in abnormal immune cells and cytokine production, is postulated to be one cause of unexplained pregnancy loss...there is some evidence for an alteration in the ratio of Th1 and Th2 cytokines produced by peripheral blood monocytes."
Note the phrases: "evidence for an alteration in the ratio of Th1 and Th2 cytokines" may be the "cause of unexplained pregnancy loss." So Cohen's strongest study against Th1: Th2 theory actually seems like it does not bolster his argument much at all?

Antiphospholipid Antibody (APA) Issues

On page 96, Cohen implies that APA positive recurrent miscarriage patients are like a "Black Swans" meaning that, although these patients exist, they are not as common as people might think like (they are rare and over-sensationalized). Again, it appears Cohen is "off the mark" here too. In fact, any layperson who does a cursory Pub-Med search through the literature would find that APA miscarriage patients are actually very common in the recurrent miscarriage population. In fact, one study shows that APA positive patients are present in almost a third of ladies who suffer unexplained recurrent abortion. See study by Cubillos J et al, Incidence of autoantibodies in the infertile population." Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;90 (3):364-9 which states: "In the group of patients with a history of miscarriage, 38.2% (p < 0.05) (tested positive) for APL."
In addition to failing to state the truth about APA frequency, Cohen fails to address the fact that very few centers do the proper APA testing. This may account for why so many APA patients are missed in many infertility clinics. Few local laboratories test for all 6 classes of APA, causing many APA positive patients to be missed: See study by Coulam CB et al: Antiphospholipid antibodies associated with implantation failure after IVF/ET. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997 Nov;14 (10):603-8. Study quote: "A complete APA panel using seven isotypes is necessary for diagnosing implantation failure associated with RAFS. If only anticardiolipin antibody is measured, 4% (13/312) of the positive APAs are detected, and 81% (56/69) of women with implantation failure associated with RAFS will have the diagnosis missed." Cohen never addresses any of this.

Endometriosis

On page 44, Cohen asserts that no miscarriage/endometriosis connection exists.
Cohen's words: "...controlled, randomized prospective trials later convincingly showed that no such connection exists." However, the truth is, there are dozens of studies in the literature citing the connection between endometriosis to immune issues early pregnancy loss. Does Cohen simply not know these studies exist? Or just he just over-look these studies, instead? Doesn't Cohen ever wonder about the "coincidence" that endometriosis is closely tied to immune issues and is also connected to recurrent pregnancy loss? Has he ever thought that there may possibly be a connection between endometriosis and miscarriage? Once again, Cohen seems naive to the literature and totally naïve to the larger interrelated implications that individual, so-called "unrelated" studies can present. Not only do Cohen's assertions about endometriosis seem naïve, but his assertions seem weak as well. His arguments are based on one single study: Vercammen EE et al: Endometriosis and recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18(4):363-8.
Upon reading the fine print of the study, you find that the argument against the recurrent miscarriage/endometriosis connection is not even that strong to begin with. The authors (countering what Cohen might imply) actually suggest that endometriosis is associated with implantation failure...yes... the very study Cohen uses as his argument against such a connection makes such a connection! See study quote: "...some studies have shown that the decreased number and quality of oocytes, the fertilization rate, and the implantation rate per embryo may be reduced in women with endometriosis"

The Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Issue

On page 114, Cohen states "The largest studies to date of pregnant women with PCOS estimate miscarriage rates of 40 percent and 60 percent." Yet, Cohen misses the connection between PCOS miscarriages and immune issues completely. There is one important immune-PCOS study that he omits entirely by Jakubowicz DJ et al: Reduced serum glycodelin and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein-1 in women with polycystic ovary syndrome during first trimester of pregnancy. J. Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Feb;89 (2):833-9. Study quote: "These findings are significant in that they may provide a mechanism for first-trimester miscarriage in PCOS. Because glycodelin inhibits mixed lymphocyte reaction and natural killer cell activity, impaired production of glycodelin presumably allows a maternal immune response against the embryo." Cohen misses the PCOS immune connection completely.

Incompetent Cervix

Cohen's lack of understanding of the miscarriage literature comes through again in discussions about incompetent cervix as well. On page 138, he states "factors that cause the cervix to weaken largely remain a mystery." Yet he also says "some studies have shown links to other uterine anomalies, exposure to DES, and even antiphospholipid antibodies"
Why doesn't Cohen dig deeper here? If indeed he says incompetent cervix is linked to APAS, DES and uterine anomalies, how has he missed the fact that cervical incompetence is also associated with Th1:Th2 cytokine imbalance and that Th1: Th2 cytokine imbalances is associated with incompetent cervix? Doesn't he want to solve this cervical incompetence (as he puts it) "mystery"?
See supporting incompetent cervix studies that Cohen completely misses in his book:

1. Mohapeloa H et al HLA-DR typing of women with recurrent late spontaneous abortion and unsuccessful cervical cerclage. Hum Reprod. 1998 Apr;13(4):1079-82.
"The results suggest that HLA-DR-associated immunological factors might play a part in recurrent late spontaneous abortions and extremely preterm births under a cervical incompetence-like picture, at least in the subset of cases not treatable by cervical cerclage."

2. Lee KY et al: Interleukin-6, but not relaxin, predicts outcome of rescue cerclage in women with cervical incompetence. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;191(3):784-9.
"Amniotic fluid interleukin-6 is increased in patients with cervical incompetence, which suggests that subclinical inflammation may contribute to cervical incompetence. Further, an elevated interleukin-6 level predicts a cerclage short-latency interval between cerclage and delivery. In contrast with interleukin-6, amniotic fluid relaxin does not appear to contribute to cervical incompetence-induced cervical dilation."

DES immune connection

Also, Cohen misses the fact that families who have used DES to prevent miscarriage may indeed have a higher incidence of immune issues (causing the miscarriages) that this "family tendency" to immune issues may be why "DES daughters" have more miscarriages, not the fact that they have been exposed to the DES in the womb? This possibility is never even considered, brought up or discussed in the book. Cohen, again, fails to address the possible immune connections in families who have used DES, leaving the total DES discussion more confused, not less.

Environment

On page 172, Cohen seems to agree that a few environmental factors may affect pregnancy outcome in certain instances: Nitrates in well water (page 172), and Bisphenol A in plastics (page 173). Nonetheless, Cohen seems uninterested in following up with these studies, he instead still prefers to dismiss the environmental idea overall. On page 174: "... miscarriages, as far as science can now determine, rarely occur because of what a woman eats or drinks, where she lives and works, and what air she breathes."
In fact, Cohen uses a (frankly, ridiculous) description as an example of pregnancy environmental durability: he describes how his grandmother jumped repeatedly off a chair in an attempt to induce a miscarriage. (page 174) This anecdote is (somehow?) used to support the idea that "the uterus, amniotic sac, and the placenta marvelously work together to prevent harm." Quite frankly, this is an embarrassing example of the typically non-scientific arguments that Cohen uses to support his journalistic angles.

Infection

Similarly, Cohen uses faulty logic when he discusses infectious agents. He admits that certain infections possibly may increase the incidence of miscarriage: page 166: "Infection may cause miscarriage "...rubella, syphilis, genital herpes, mumps, toxoplasmosis, malaria, possibly gardenerella." Yet, despite conceding this, Cohen still manages to glide over the infection/immune problem connection. (page 166: "...a few pathogens may account for a small percentage of miscarriages, although their sporadic nature means they play no important role in recurrent loss.")
In addition to pushing the infection miscarriage connection "under the table", Cohen never mentions how infectious agents may possibly stimulate the immune system to cause immune related miscarriage? In fact, the infection- immune connection is never even addressed at all? This is a glaring fault in Cohen's research, especially considering the fact there are several studies implicating the immune system as the ultimate cause of infection-related miscarriage. In fact, Dr Attila Toth of New York City has devoted whole career to this infection/miscarriage issue. Yet apparently Cohen knows nothing of Dr. Toth's research? Or if he does, Cohen chooses not to discuss it? A few infection -immune studies that Cohen misses:

1. Korbel DS et al: Natural killer cells and innate immunity to protozoan pathogens. Int J Parasitol. 2004 Dec;34(13-14):1517-28.
"Natural killer (NK) cells are lymphoid cells that mediate significant cytotoxic activity and produce high levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in response to infection."... "NK derived interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) production is also essential for control of several protozoal infections including toxoplasmosis, trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis and malaria."

2. Ashkar AA et al: "Interleukin-15 and natural killer and NKT cells play a critical role in innate protection against genital herpes simplex virus type 2 infection." J Virol. 2003 Sep;77(18):10168-71. "This study demonstrates that IL-15 and NK-NKT cells are critical for innate protection against genital HSV-2."

3. Jensen JR et al: Fluctuations in natural killer cell activity in early syphilis. Br J Vener Dis. 1983 Feb;59(1):30-2. "In primary syphilis natural killer cell activity was increased, especially in patients lacking circulating lipoidal antibodies."

Luteal phase defect and progesterone

In addition to missing the infection-immune connection completely, Cohen also seems to miss the hormonal-immune connection as well. Though he says that an association may exist between luteal phase defect and miscarriage, Cohen misses (yet again) the possible immune relationship that may exist between these two issues. On page 99, Cohen states: "If the lining becomes inhospitable too early, as happens with what's called a deficient luteal phase, the embryo will not burrow, leading to a miscarriage, or it will not borrow currently, causing preeclampsia later in pregnancy"
No discussion is made about the fact that patients with poor luteal phases often have low progesterone in the latter half of the cycle...or the fact that progesterone has been shown to have an immunosuppressive effect. This immune factor may contribute at least in part to progesterone supplement's immune healing effect in recurrent miscarriage patients. See more studies that Cohen apparently misses in his book:

1. Szekeres-Bartho J. Immunological relationship between the mother and the fetus. Int Rev Immunol. 2002 Nov-Dec;21(6):471-95. "Another protective mechanism operating in favor of pregnancy is progesterone-dependent immunomodulation. Due to stimulation by fetally derived antigens, pregnancy lymphocytes develop progesterone receptors and in the presence of progesterone produce a mediator (PIBF) that, through altering the cytokine balance, inhibits NK activity and exerts an antiabortive effect in mice."

2. Laskarin G, Tokmadzic VS, Strbo N, Bogovic T, Szekeres-Bartho J, Randic L, Podack ER, Rukavina D.Progesterone induced blocking factor (PIBF) mediates progesterone induced suppression of decidual lymphocyte cytotoxicity. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2002 Oct;48(4):201-9. "The results indicate possible role for PIBF, as a mediator of progesterone in regulation of Decidual Lymphocyte cytolytic activity at the maternal-foetal (M-F) interface."

Preeclampsia

Lastly, on page 99, Cohen successfully makes the connection that patients who suffer from luteal phase defect may also suffer from preeclampsia at a higher rate. However (yet again) he totally misses the possible connection that exists between preeclampsia and immune issues (even more surprising considering the number of studies supporting the preeclampsia- immune connection that exist out there). How can Cohen miss this? Again and again it seems Cohen is totally unable to put the complex pieces of the miscarriage puzzle together. Again and again he fails to see the immune connection, failing to see how it can clarify so much of the "muddy water" that exists in this recurrent miscarriage field today. Here are some more immune/reproductive studies that Cohen completely misses:

1.Saito S, Sakai M. Th1/Th2 balance in preeclampsia. J Reprod Immunol. 2003 Aug;59(2):161-73. "Th1 predominant immunity is closely related to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction and poor placentation."

2. Makhseed M, Raghupathy R, El-Shazly S, Azizieh F, Al-Harmi JA, Al-Azemi MM. Pro-inflammatory maternal cytokine profile in preterm delivery. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2003 May;49(5):308-18.
"These data are suggestive of a maternal type 1 cytokine bias in preterm delivery".

3. Simhan HN, Krohn MA, Zeevi A, Daftary A, Harger G, Caritis SN. Tumor necrosis factor-alpha promoter gene polymorphism -308 and chorioamnionitis. Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jul;102(1):162-6.
"Carriage of the TNFA2 allele is associated with a more than three-fold increased risk of clinical chorioamnionitis, even when accounting for important clinical and microbiologic risk factors."

4. Kaplan D. Fetal wastage in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1986 Oct;13(5):875-7.
"Ninety-six women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were found to have an abortion ratio higher than that of a comparison group (p = 0.005). This was true even before the onset of their RA (p = 0.007)"

5. Sergent F, Verspyck E, Marpeau L. [Crohn's disease and pregnancy. About 34 cases. Review of the literature] Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2003 Jan;31(1):20-8.
"When the disease (Crohn's) is active, the risk of abortion and prematurity increases."

3. Cohen's flawed anti LIT arguments

Gullible patients

On page 58 Cohen begins: "Many couples plug their ears and firmly believe that because of the treatment, they have babies - and no amount of scientific data can shake the power of that conviction." From the beginning of the book, Cohen seems step off on the wrong foot about a typical reproductive immunology patient's psychological nature. He apparently accusing anyone who choose new or controversial treatments (like LIT or IVIG) to be emotionally gullible, unwilling (or unable?) to make sound scientific decisions. In fact, in my personal experience (through my many years watching these types of treatment programs) I have found that reproductive immunology (RI) patients are probably some of the most clear thinking, well read, well researched medical patients out there, able to pull apart any study to find its strengths, weaknesses and its flaws. Certainly most RI patients are not types to ignore solid scientific data. Already Cohen seems "off base" about the patient population he is writing about.

The REMIS LIT study by Carol Ober

Regarding the Carol Ober REMIS study Cohen states on page 69: "Because of the lack of benefit, we recommend against this intervention (LIT) as a treatment for unexplained recurrent miscarriage' concluded the researchers." It is already known that the REMIS study "proving" LIT ineffective was flawed in many ways. Dr. Beer outlined these flaws in detail in his Letter to the Editor sent to the Lancet. Among the REMIS study flaws that Dr. Beer cites are:

1. Failure to recruit an adequate number of study patients.

2. Failure to induce immune responses. Only 26% of women who received lymphocyte immunization developed HLA antibody response. (The immunization must have been prepared and/or given incorrectly to elicit this low response.)

3. 21 of 59 abortuses received genetic study. All (total 11) abnormal fetuses were from treatment group but this data was not reflected in the outcome analysis.

4. A higher proportion of treatment group had a previous live birth (P=0.054). Yet a previous meta-analysis had shown that lymphocyte immunization more effective in women with primary abortions. This was not discussed or considered in the REMIS study.

I know Cohen, through his LIT research, must have read the miscarriage support sites and Dr Beer's Lancet letter (available online to anybody), yet he makes no mention of this letter or any of its arguments in his LIT chapter. Why does he seem to avoid addressing this issue? This reporting bias not only does injustice the LIT, but also to those trying to find the truth about this LIT medicine. And frankly makes one wonder about how "impartial" Cohen's journalistic intentions really are.

Poor patient selection

Many of Dr. Beer's criticisms of the REMIS study similarly apply to other LIT studies. A common flaw found in negative outcome LIT studies is the failure to test subject's LAD (blocking antibody) levels before and after the LIT injections. As a result, researchers never really know if LIT patient:

1. Really needs LIT
2. Has achieved a proper LIT response before conception is attempted

In addition to these flaws, some LIT studies fail to use fresh donor cells (such as the REMIS study), making LIT less effective. Other studies fail to follow the timing and dose requirements that Dr. Beer recommends (i.e. some studies only do LIT once preconception, some studies do not wait the 3- 4 weeks necessary for the proper immune response take place). Lastly, those who understand reproductive immunology understand that LIT should be not be used as the sole immune treatment. Other immune problems need to be identified and independently treated as well (e.g. APA issues, ANA issues, cytokine imbalance, etc). Essentially, patients need a full immune work-up before doctors decide how LIT will fit into their total immune protocol. See Christiansen et al: Evidence-based investigations and treatments of recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertility and Sterility, Volume 83, Issue 4, April 2005, pages 821-839. Study quote: "Current meta-analyses evaluating the efficacy of treatments of RPL are generally pooling very heterogeneous patient populations and treatments. It is recommended that future meta-analyses look at subsets of patients and treatment protocols that are more combinable."

Cohen criticizes the use of anecdotal evidence yet uses anecodotal evidence himself

On page 74 Cohen criticizes the LIT studies as being flawed saying, "the fuzzy scientific rationale behind theories often makes it difficult to select patients who indeed may benefit from a treatment." Yet at the end of the same chapter, on page 82, he uses the example of a solitary successful pregnancy (Jess') that succeeded without LIT use, saying this success "casts further doubts about whether the value of lymphocyte immune therapy"
So Cohen uses one solitary pregnancy success to "further cast doubts" on the value of LIT? He admits the success is anecdotal, yet still uses it as an emotional tool to bash LIT at the end of his chapter. Again Cohen seems to push non-scientific thinking here. How are readers supposed to respect the author as a scientifically unbiased journalist when so much emphasis is placed on the emotional power of the single success story, to pull the emotions of the reader at the end?
Also, it should be noted, if Cohen had any true understanding of LIT, he would recognize that blocking antibodies built of from Jess's previous successful pregnancy would have alone explained her second pregnancy success without LIT. Yet this possibility is not even touched upon in the chapter because Cohen apparently does not understand the LIT science (either "does not understand" the issue or chooses to skip over the issue altogether?) In either case, from a reproductive immunologist's point of view, this LIT chapter ends on a very weak note.

The Tender Loving Care (TLC) argument

Last but not least, we must talk about the author's focus on "Tender Loving Care" (TLC) Cohen's "beloved" argument that he seems to like to use to dilute the validity of many miscarriage studies in the book. Throughout the book, it is evident that Cohen has been rather "sucked in" by the Tender Loving Care argument, the idea that offering extensive psychological support and emotional support to a patient can significantly increase a patient's likelihood of pregnancy success.
On page 175, Cohen calls the Liddell TLC study, "a study with spectacular powers." In a RESOLVE Interview Cohen calls Dr. Lesley Regan's 1997 TLC study "an amazing study. I learned more from it than maybe any single paper (and I have read maybe1000). I highly recommend it." Essentially Cohen has three studies to back his TLC argument:


1. Liddell HS et al: Recurrent miscarriage--outcome after supportive care in early pregnancy. : Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Nov;31(4):320-2.
86% success with TLC (38/44)
33% success without TLC (3/9)

2. Clifford K et al: Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 1997 Feb;12(2):387-9.
74% success with TLC (118/160)
49% success no TLC (20/41)

3. Stray-Pedersen B et al: Etiologic factors and subsequent reproductive performance in 195 couples with a prior history of habitual abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1984 Jan 15;148(2):140-6.
86% success TLC (no actual pregnancy numbers given in this abstract)
33% with no TLC

At first glance, these success numbers seem surprising, even shocking and impressive considering the "vague", "touchy-feely" nature of the TLC subject matter. But looking deeper in the methodology of these studies, we find the statistics are probably more deceiving and more flawed than we know. First, all the patients in each of these studies were "self selected" to receive TLC from the clinic. Populations were not randomized at all, which, of course, is a Big Red Flag to anyone trying to get meaningful scientific results. So you have to ask yourself, given the fact these TLC populations are "self selected", what reasons could cause one patient to "select" to discontinue medical care while another patient chooses to continue it? Could it be that patients whose pregnancies succeed may be more inclined to stay with the clinic, while those that are having negative experiences tend to drop out of a program with higher frequency? This is not TLC are we are measuring here. It could be a measurement of an interesting tendency to "hide" and "grieve" in human nature.
Also, another point to note about these TLC studies: in not one of these TLC studies is the actual "Tender Loving Care" procedure exactly outlined. What does this TLC actually involve physically? There may be factors involved in these TLC pregnancy successes apart from the TLC itself, factors we could never pick up on because they are not outlined for us? This description deficiency is yet another red flag with these studies.

Dr. Beer's success due to TLC?

Last, but not least, it appears that Cohen sees Dr Beer's program through "TLC tinted glasses" as well. See Cohen's quote on page 82: "I suspect that he (Dr. Beer) does offer tender-loving care, and that its benefits may confuse the results his patients experience with experimental treatments." In making this statement, Cohen clearly reveals his lack of familiarity with the day to day running of Dr. Beer's program. One thing most of Beer patients know, only a small percentage of Dr. Beer's registered patients actually ever meet Dr. Beer in person. Most of Dr. Beer's consults are conducted by phone or by email. In fact, Dr. Beer only meets about 5% of his registered patients "in person" at all. Many of these patient meetings are "one time only" personal meetings with later consults being done over the phone or through email. Certainly, Dr. Beer does not have ongoing basis face to face relationship with most of his patients, unless one considers emails "TLC." All in all, Cohen puts these TLC studies on a pedestal in a way he rarely does with other studies in the book. Cohen's later words about the TLC studies are even more revealing:
Page 179: "Just as scientific research can never prove that love exists, I suspect it can never arrive at rock solid evidence that expert care prevents miscarriage or helps people come to terms with their reproductive fate. But as one researcher said to me, If you witness a talking dog, you do not need a control group to believe it. In three different recurrent miscarriage clinics around the world, I have seen the equivalent of a talking dog"
How can you argue with someone who has decided that controlled studies are no longer necessary to prove a theory valid? This is the same man who says we should dismiss LIT because the studies are flawed? A man who believes that TLC is as obvious because it is like a "talking dog"? It scares me, frankly, that Cohen is writing a book we are supposed to take seriously, that the world is supposed to take seriously, when he openly admits to using a "talking dog" type of reasoning.

Finally, Cohen's most heartfelt speech in his book, making the strongest veiled attacks on any miscarriage patient's decision to use immune therapy are found on page 129: "Women and men who want babies, especially those who have tried and failed, would benefit if they recognized how intense desires can lead them to take unnecessary risks. It bears repeating again and again and again. Most women who miscarry even three or four times, will carry to term if they become pregnant again...they (millions of women) may logically end up in the delivery room praising an intervention that, years later, they will come to curse." What does this mean, praising an intervention "in the delivery room" that, years later, "they will come to curse"? Does this mean, even after delivering our "Beer babies" using immunotherapy, we will feel we made the wrong decision to do LIT and IVIG? Please! I just hope that others can see through the facade of this book the way that I do.

As I hold and play with my "Beer babies" each day, after suffering devastating losses, I feel blessed that I myself, at least I have put the scientific connections together. That I, myself, at least, have seen the patterns, seen the immune connections, as a result, understand the bigger miscarriage picture in a much more complete way.
Pity those who read this book and come away feeling more confused about immune therapies than they were before. Pity them. Pity Cohen for bringing this situation about. However, in the big picture, I am not worried. I honestly feel that so much progress has been made in this reproductive immunology field the last few years, that the blind, anecdotally-based musings of a sensationalist reporter will do nothing to hurt the field over the long term. The foundation of the RI science is far too reaching, far too strong to ever be marred by the non-scientific ponderings that are really so biased that most (if not all) true scientists will see right through them upon reading this very dangerously naïve and misleading book.

-An informed RI Advocate and Dr Beer patient