by Christina England
Health Impact News

On November 12, 2017, Neil Z. Miller made an online announcement that was guaranteed to shock thousands of parents worldwide.

In a post, written on the popular social media platform Facebook, Miller exposed that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had recently hatched a plan to ensure that ALL children were up to date with their scheduled vaccinations, whether they were vaccinated or unvaccinated.

He revealed that the CDC had launched a catch-up program which could cause an unvaccinated 5-year-old to receive as many as 19 vaccinations in one month.

He wrote that:

“The CDC has just launched a program that will calculate a catch-up schedule for children who were not vaccinated on schedule. A 5-year-old child who was not previously vaccinated would be required to receive 19 vaccines in one month, including 6 doses of aluminum-containing injections! This catch-up schedule was NOT tested for safety to determine the immediate or long-term risk of neurological or immunological damage.” (own emphasis)

Following the links provided by Miller, it appears that the CDC table of vaccinations required in their catch-up program had been approved by the following organizations:

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – (www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip)

American Academy of Pediatrics – (www.aap.org)

 American Academy of Family Physicians – (www.aafp.org)

 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists – (www.acog.org)

See tables here.

Could their latest step be yet another one of the many underhanded tactics used by the CDC to implement mandatory vaccination?

Higher Number of Vaccinations Equals Higher Number of Infant Deaths

That number of vaccinations administered in such a short time frame could potentially kill a young child, and if anyone would know how dangerous administering 19 vaccinations in one month could be, it would be Neil Z. Miller.

According to his bio, Miller has devoted the past 30 years of his life to not only educating parents and health practitioners about the dangers of vaccines, but also encouraging informed consent and non-mandatory laws.

In 2011, Miller and his co-author Gary S. Goldman published an extremely well-written paper titled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

Their paper highlighted the fact that the countries with the highest number of vaccinations on their schedule were the same countries that had the highest number of infant mortalities.

Using a number of tables, the researchers were able to determine that the number of infant deaths appeared to coincide with the number of vaccinations being administered in each country.

Through rigorous research, they discovered that the lower the number of vaccines being recommended, the lower the number of infant deaths.

They wrote:

“The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States.”

They determined that in 2009, a total of 26 vaccine doses were recommended for children under the age of one in the U.S. The team then compared the number of vaccine doses being recommended in each country against the number of infant deaths.

From their calculations, they were able to determine that not only did the U.S. recommend the highest number of vaccinations, but that they also had the highest number of infant deaths.

Since 2009, the number of vaccinations being recommended to infants has significantly increased. According to recent reports, the U.S. vaccination schedule currently recommends that children receive a total of 56 injections of 73 doses of 30 different vaccines beginning on day one of their life.

It would be interesting to know if the infant mortality rate has continued to rise, just as Miller had predicted.

Miller’s 2011 paper was not the only paper in which he made it abundantly clear that multiple vaccinations could endanger the life of a young child.

Combining Childhood Vaccinations in One Visit is Potentially Life-Threatening

In September 2016, Miller published a paper titled Combining Childhood Vaccines at One Visit Is Not Safe.

It is a summary of a previous study by Miller and his co-author, Goldman. Using data taken from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) website, they were able to show that the more vaccines a child received at any given time, the more likely an adverse reaction could occur.

They wrote that:

 “… Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 969 infants received two vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 107 of those infants were hospitalized: a hospitalization rate of 11%. Of 1,959 infants who received three vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 243 of them required hospitalization: 12.4%. For four doses, 561 of 3,909 infants were hospitalized: 14.4%.

Notice the emerging pattern: Infants who had an adverse event reported to VAERS were more likely to require hospitalization when they received three vaccine doses instead of two, or four vaccine doses instead of three.”

The researchers continued:

“… Of 10,114 infants who received five vaccine doses prior to the adverse event, 1,463 of them required hospitalization: 14.5%. For six doses, 1,365 of 8,454 infants were hospitalized: 16.1%. For seven doses, 1,051 of 5,489 infants were hospitalized: 19.1%. And for eight doses, 661 of 2,817 infants were hospitalized: 23.5%. The hospitalization rate increased linearly from 11.0% for two doses to 23.5% for eight doses.”

In other words, the more vaccines that an infant received, the more likely they were to suffer a serious adverse reaction.

Miller and Goldman explained that:

“Of the 38,801 VAERS reports that we analyzed, 11,927 infants received one, two, three, or four vaccine doses prior to having an adverse event, and 423 of those infants died: a mortality rate of 3.6%. The remaining 26,874 infants received five, six, seven, or eight vaccine doses prior to the adverse event and 1,458 of them died: 5.4%.

The mortality rate for infants who received five to eight vaccine doses (5.4%) is significantly higher than the mortality rate for infants who received one to four doses (3.6%), with a rate ratio(RR) of 1.5 (95% CI, 1.4-1.7).

Of infants reported to VAERS, those who had received more vaccines had a statistically significant 50% higher mortality rate compared with those who had received fewer.”

To read more on Miller’s paper, see my article: New Study Warns of the Dangers of Multiple Vaccinations.

Unvaccinated Baby Died When Doctor Guessed Number of Vaccines He Should Receive

Bently.

Sadly, Miller was correct, because in 2015, I wrote the tragic story of six month-old Bently, who died after his doctor made an “educated” guess and administered 13 vaccinations in one day. I wrote:

“Imagine being emotionally blackmailed by your doctor to have your baby vaccinated with a lethal cocktail of 13 vaccines, which included two doses of the DTaP, three doses of the oral rotavirus vaccine and two doses of the polio vaccination. It sounds impossible, doesn’t it?”

However, this is exactly what happened to Alisa Neathery when she took her six month-old unvaccinated baby to the doctor for the first time.

She told VacTruth:

“Prior to the shots being given, when the doctor was discussing the pros of getting vaccinated with me, he explained how he was from a village in Africa.

That we were lucky in America to have the opportunity to receive vaccines because where he was from, the mothers had to have like 11 kids each, since most would die off from disease because they were not as fortunate to receive vaccines like we are here in America.

He really pushed them on me hard. He spent a lot of time convincing me to give Bently the vaccines, but when it was done, we never saw the doctor again.”

According to Alisa, the doctor spent a long time deciding exactly which vaccinations Bently should receive and told Alisa that they shouldn’t give him too many. The doctor eventually decided on a total of 13 vaccinations, which Alisa now believes led to Bently’s death just five days later.

You can listen to Alisa’s tragic story in full, as she explained to Richie Allen exactly what happened on the day she decided to have her child vaccinated.

With Alisa’s story in mind, we asked Miller if he could comment on the CDC’s catch-up vaccination program. He told us that:

The CDC’s catch-up schedule is unscientific, dangerous, and criminal.

A 5-year-old child who was not previously vaccinated would be required to receive 19 vaccines — biological drugs — in one month, including 6 doses of aluminum-containing injections!

This catch-up schedule was not tested for safety to determine the immediate and long-term risk of neurological and immunological harm.

It will cause irreversible health damage in an unfortunate number of children.

A CDC report on combining pharmaceuticals found that they can induce additive or synergistic toxicity causing ‘unexpected deleterious health effects’ much greater than expected following exposure to a single substance.

Health authorities responsible for advocating multiple vaccines to children in an accelerated time frame are devoid of scientific integrity, lack common sense, and should be held accountable for child endangerment.

We believe that he is correct, especially since doctors determine how many vaccinations a baby should receive in one visit. The case of six month-old Bently has proven that babies can die if doctors are left to decide how many vaccinations are safe to give a young child in one day.

Alisa now has a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for legal assistance to fight for justice for her son, whose death was ruled as sudden unexpected unexplained infant death syndrome (SIDS).

For further reading on this subject, please see:  Toddler Permanently Brain Damaged by a Mystery Combination Vaccination That Her Parents Did Not Consent To.

Order Here!

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.