Is this book an opinion or result of a research?

[briellejee]

She used her father's research and they call it meta-analysis research and it's taken to be valid as long as the research follows all scientific protocol of research findings. So for me it's a valid book because the author emphasises on the need for chemotherapy on top of the natural remedies.

Yes! meta-analysis is a form of research based on other research papers, like this one. Although, this book still contains her biased opinions.

[Cleis]

Thank you for bringing this critical viewpoint. I think this is an important question to ask of this kind of book. I find it rides the line between an autobiography and historical fiction despite presenting itself as non-fiction - it's certainly not a scientific work. A hard look at what sources are there (though the author leaves many claims entirely unsupported) shows that the vast majority of the author's sources are insular and nepotistic. She largely pulls from her father's research, peer-reviewed or not, and her own foundation. Regardless of the author's background, she needs many, many more legitimate, published sources outside of herself and her father to have credibility.

[rubinelli]

After reading the book, it is clear that the author put a lot of time and effort into understanding the basics of biology, even referencing biology's central dogma and reverse transcriptase. The amount of research she did on her own, even without a formal degree, is enough for me to believe that the book is based on research rather than opinion.

[meghankelly009]

I am generally hesitant to jump on "conspiracy theories" and I have not finished this book yet, but I will say that her writing is very convincing and she seems to bring in experts ideas as well as her own. Overall, it is still an opinion. I think in order to fully take this book as written truth, there would need to be more discussion with people and experts who refute it.

However, to answer the question, "Do you feel that the book is based on a sufficient level of research to back its claims?" I would say that is has a decent amount of research backing it, but had it been written by the people who have conducted the research, it may have been more successful in coming across as "truth" since it would probably have presented more questions against her ideas and been able to refute the critics for effectively

[BeatrixPotter]

It seems to be mostly opinion. Although it references research, it doesn't seem to be a balanced viewpoint.

[Browlyns]

In my understanding I think this book is more of an opinion since most research here have not been accepted by contemporary medical boards.

[praisecrown8]

It is as result of a research.

[amandathebibliophile]

Even though her official background was originally in law, based on her story, and more importantly, the science she ultimately learned through her journey, I would 100% argue that the book is research based. I would also argue that especially BECAUSE her original background was in law, she would know better than to make a bunch of major claims without doing all the research necessary to go public. I also think the website speaks for itself -- not to mention the enormous body of published scientific works that illustrate the many points she makes in her book. I thought this was an EXCELLENT book.

[Jsovermyer]

The author is reporting on the research of her father, who was a medical researcher. The information in the book could be used to treat people wirh cancer, but more testing should be done to prove it's effectiveness.

[briellejee]

Thank you for bringing this critical viewpoint. I think this is an important question to ask of this kind of book. I find it rides the line between an autobiography and historical fiction despite presenting itself as non-fiction - it's certainly not a scientific work. A hard look at what sources are there (though the author leaves many claims entirely unsupported) shows that the vast majority of the author's sources are insular and nepotistic. She largely pulls from her father's research, peer-reviewed or not, and her own foundation. Regardless of the author's background, she needs many, many more legitimate, published sources outside of herself and her father to have credibility.

This seems to be a good point and a fresh perspective. Though there were sources cited, I guess I do agree with you that they are nepotistic. Thanks for this viewpoint - it really changed the way I see this book!

[Cleis]

Thank you for bringing this critical viewpoint. I think this is an important question to ask of this kind of book. I find it rides the line between an autobiography and historical fiction despite presenting itself as non-fiction - it's certainly not a scientific work. A hard look at what sources are there (though the author leaves many claims entirely unsupported) shows that the vast majority of the author's sources are insular and nepotistic. She largely pulls from her father's research, peer-reviewed or not, and her own foundation. Regardless of the author's background, she needs many, many more legitimate, published sources outside of herself and her father to have credibility.

This seems to be a good point and a fresh perspective. Though there were sources cited, I guess I do agree with you that they are nepotistic. Thanks for this viewpoint - it really changed the way I see this book!

Thanks! I think my original post may have been just a little harsh, there were two strong sources supporting her father's research from Columbia University. However, I still wish that there were more outside sources so that I could sit back and enjoy! I felt like I had to be skeptical while reading because of how many missing citations there seemed to be.

[Joe Hadithi]

The author's father did the hard work, the daughter has also sought help from experts in the field but it still isn't as good as if it came from the horse's mouth...

[mamilla93]

How about its her opinion based on her father's research? I don't think that qualifies as her research given it is her father's research and her background isn't in science.

[Ashiyya Tariq]

You are right, the author has degree in some other decipline. But actually she is presenting this book from the perspective of her father's research. She has sufficiently provided facts and figures to support this research. Plus, she has cited many cases that were solved using this healing method, that includes both traditional and natural ways to cure Cancer. So I am of view that this book is quite authentic, and is a great source of hope for those who are undergoing painful traditional treatment of cancer.

[Cristina Chifane]

I think it is well-researched since it is backed up by scientific and statistical data as well as professional studies in the field. It is, after all, Sylvie's attempt to make her father's work known to the general public.