Malattie, vaccini e la storia dimenticata

Humphries presents a different perspective on medical history, and I'm curious what motivated her to focus on this aspect. Did she discover new sources that reshaped her understanding?

The book questions mainstream narratives, which made me wonder whether the sources were balanced or selectively chosen. How did others interpret the evidence?

The book covers a broad swath of history, but I wonder what guided her choices in highlighting specific incidents over others. Was it a matter of impact, availability, or personal focus?