Right on Point

Ep. 34 - Neil Miller, discusses his new study on SIDS cases as reported in VAERS

July 14, 2021 Wayne Rohde
Right on Point
Ep. 34 - Neil Miller, discusses his new study on SIDS cases as reported in VAERS
Show Notes Transcript

Neil Miller, author of new study "Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: An analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature" discusses his new paper along with recently released paper that he co-authored with Dr. Brian Hooker "Health Effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth" plus his previous book, Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies:400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers. 

Support the show (https://www.gofundme.com/f/vaccine-court-podcast)

Neil Miller

Mon, 7/19 8:30PM • 53:16


vaccines, sudden infant death, death, vaccinated, vaccination, medical, study, vaccine court, people, infant deaths, baby, called, paper, international classification, parents, children, neil miller, brian hooker, certifiers, vaccine manufacturers


Wayne Rohde, Sponsor

CHD Sponsor  00:10

Children's Health defense is proud to be a sponsor of the Right on Point podcast, a weekly discussion of legal issues and initiatives to protect our most cherished resource, our children, hosted by Wayne Rohde.

Wayne Rohde  00:26

Welcome to the Right on Point podcast everyone. Thank you for listening. Once again, we meet up with the most intriguing show discussing your civil liberties, your legal rights surrounding the COVID epidemic, state and federal government actions and your health freedom. I'm your host, Wayne Rohde. 

I want to thank our sponsor for this week's podcast, Children's Health Defense and their online publication, The Defender. 

Check out our website on the RightOnPoint.online for previous discussions, episodes show notes and bios of our guests. The Right on Point podcast is delighted to bring you a platform that shares exciting and informative shows delivered by tremendous guests like we have today. This is a surprise. So let's dig in. 

I have a very interesting topic to discuss today and a question to my listeners, like I do every episode. How many of you know of Neil Miller? And a follow up question: If you don't know him, why not? Neil is a published author, a true independent medical researcher and journalist. 

Last week on the Right on Point podcast, there was a new study that was put out in the Journal of Translational Science, "Health Effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth." And Dr. Brian Hooker was our guest and we talked about it. Neil Miller is the other author of that study. Neil is a publisher or actually an author of several books: Vaccine Safety Manual for Concerned Families and Health Practitioners. It's a second edition that was published in 2011. Another book came out in 2015: Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? Then the third book that he published, which I think is a very popular book, and I believe it's been distributed in several different state legislatures, Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers. 

Well, today we're going to talk a little bit about his books, we're going to talk about that paper that he co-wrote with Dr. Brian Hooker. But also he's got a new paper that he just put out, and it's kind of, well, it's within about a week or so. And I'm really interested to get into it. Mr. Miller represents the Institute of Medical and Scientific Inquiry, in what many people consider God's country, which is Santa Fe, New Mexico. And he's here to discuss that new paper that he authored. So, welcome to the show, Neil. It's been a long time to finally get you on the program. How are you doing? 

 Neil Miller

Thanks, Wayne. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it. I'm doing great today. 

 Wayne Rohde 03:37

Okay, I don't know where you want to start, but I've got this new paper that you sent to me: "Vaccines and sudden infant death: an analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature." 

Neil Miller

Yes, it was just published. This was published in a peer reviewed medical journal called Toxicology Reports. And I was working on this for the last several months, and they published it. It went through the peer review process. And once that peer review process was done, they were very quick to get it out, to send me the proofs, and then to publish, straight to publication. That study is called "Vaccines and sudden infant death: an analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature." Now, there's a lot of important things in this study. But before we get into this study, I just want to do a quick recap of that study that I did with Brian Hooker. 

Dr. Brian Hooker and I co-authored a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study. Our officials that should be doing these studies, whether you think it should be... You know, frankly, I don't really want the CDC or the World Health Organization to do a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study because I don't really trust them to do a study that is trustworthy or credible. But nevertheless, they are the organizations that should be behind this push to look at the health outcomes in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Nevertheless, Brian Hooker and I collaborated on two studies that looked at vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. Our first study was published last year, and we looked at four health conditions. But this year we had access to three more practicing doctors, pediatricians who were accepting both vaccinated and unvaccinated children in their practices. And we had that information and were able to construct a study comparing the health outcomes of... We looked at basically allergies, autism, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, attention deficit disorder, and chronic ear infections. 

Brian is wonderful with statistics, he's wonderful with numbers. You can ask him to do anything, to look at anything. He can apply statistical analyses to it. So we were able to look at the data in a lot of different ways to be sure that the effects that we were finding were valid and credible. And sure enough, with all six of these conditions that I just discussed, unvaccinated children were without a doubt healthier and had significantly fewer of these negative health outcomes. In fact, the ORs, which stands for odds ratios—it's a statistical term—were above 4.0 for all of these conditions, which, for the layperson, I just have to tell you, it's highly significant. You know, anything above one is normally extremely significant. Basically, we found that vaccinated children were anywhere from four to over 10 times more likely to be diagnosed with these negative health outcomes than unvaccinated children. And one of the other important things, in fact my favorite part of this study, which was published in the Journal of Translational Science, this latest study by Dr. Brian Hooker and I, my favorite part is tables 9 and 10.

Wayne Rohde 07:00

That's what I've got.

Neil Miller 07:32

Good for you for recognizing their significance, to jump right to those two tables. We looked at breastfeeding in concert with vaccination. So basically what we did is we divided, in table 9, we divided all of our participants, all of the people we had access to look at, all of the children that either did receive vaccines or did not receive vaccines, we divided them into four groups. And in the first group, we looked at children that were not vaccinated and they were breastfed. Then we looked at children that were not vaccinated and not breastfed. Then we looked at children that were vaccinated and breastfed, and then the fourth group was children that were vaccinated and not breastfed. And we found a statistically significant linear relationship. Basically, the children that were not vaccinated and were breastfed had the best health outcomes. They had very low rates of allergies, autism, gastrointestinal disorders, asthma, attention deficit disorder, and chronic ear infections. The group that had the worst health outcomes were vaccinated and not breastfed. And they had odds ratios that were, again, they were anywhere from 4 to over 10 times higher than the reference group, which was the unvaccinated and breastfed group. 

Table 10 is very interesting as well. We also had data not only on whether these children were vaccinated or not vaccinated, but we also had data on whether the children were born vaginally or whether the mother had a C-section for the child. And we found very similar odds ratios. Again, basically what we found was children that were not vaccinated and had a vaginal birth had the best health outcomes all the way up to children... The worst health outcomes were in children that were vaccinated and were born through cesarean section. And the best explanation for this, we know with breastfeeding that breastfeeding is so wonderful for the immune system. So that only makes sense that that's going to help to reduce negative health outcomes in these children. But why would a C-section birth cause worse health outcomes than a vaginal birth. There are at least two explanations, possibly three that I can think of. One of them is that there's a lot of evidence that when the newborn is coming down the birth canal, through a natural vaginal birth, they're picking up the mother's microbiome. All of the microorganisms that are in that birth canal are being passed on to the baby, and that is part of that baby's immune system. So the baby's not only getting, you know, through breastfeeding, getting immune-building nutrition, but also by coming down the birth canal. Now, when you bypass that birth canal through a C-section, then you're tampering with this natural process with the microbiome. That's one explanation. Another explanation is a lot of mothers have trouble breastfeeding babies when they've gone through a C-section. So the babies have trouble latching on to the breast, and things like that. So it's also possible that these babies are more likely than vaginally born babies to not be having access to proper and prolonged breastfeeding. There's a third possible explanation, and that would be a lot of times with C-sections they give the mother more antibiotics. And so the antibiotics also damage the microbiome. And so that goes back to that.

 Wayne Rohde  12:14

It's kind of strange that you talked about breastfeeding and C-section. I did not know that there's more, I guess babies that refuse breastfeeding if they're born by cesarean. 

Neil Miller  12:28

I think what happens is there's a bonding process that takes place. And it's also possible that the mother, she may have been knocked out for the C-section, and she might not be altogether there to work with the baby. I'm not sure about all of the details. 

Now, me personally, my wife and I, our children were born at home 30 some years ago. I've been outspoken about vaccines ever since my wife was pregnant with our first child. We had two children. That's how I got started into this. I investigated vaccines when my wife was pregnant more than 30 years ago and we decided we were not going to vaccinate. At the time, I was doing my research in medical journals in medical libraries because we didn't have access to the internet like we do today. We also had a natural birth. We didn't work with medical doctors. We were very holistic, very natural-minded. I was the one to catch my children when they first entered the world and I was the first to greet them. And of course my wife breastfed our children for over two years. And we did not vaccinate our children. They were breastfed. We did a lot of things that were unusual at the time. We did family bedding, you know, we didn't put our children into a crib. They slept with us until they were about three or four years old. We did everything like that. My son was not circumcised. So we didn't do that. Everything was holistic and our children never visited a medical doctor. Now, if there was an emergency, I think that's where our western allopathic medicine is at its finest, with emergency medical care. But thankfully we didn't need emergency medical care for anything, whether it was the birth or our children growing up, so they never visited a medical doctor. But let's move on to my other latest study that was also published just about a week ago. It just came out.

Wayne Rohde  14:50

This one's got a lot of interest for me because of my interest in SIDS and research. So let's really get into this one.

 Neil Miller 14:59

You know, autism since the 1990s and 2000s, autism has been the talk of the town, and rightfully so. The medical-pharmaceutical industry has done their best to censor any data, any information, linking vaccines to autism. But I have to tell you, I've been doing this work since the mid-1980s and I wrote my first book in the late 1980s, and that book has been translated into multiple languages. Vaccines: Are They Really Safe and Effective? was my first book based off of my initial research, and people still come up to me today and thank me for writing that book, and thank me for educating them so that they can make informed decisions for their own children. But the reason I'm mentioning this is because back in the 1980s, talk wasn't so much about autism, it was about sudden death, sudden infant death and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And babies were dying, mostly after receiving the whole-cell diptheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, the DPT vaccine. It was a highly reactive vaccine. And in fact, because that vaccine was causing so much brain damage and death, they moved to the acellular pertussis vaccine. They initially didn't want to move to an acellular pertussis vaccine. I believe mainly, my research showed me because the Japanese really had the patent on the acellular vaccine. And it was the American pharmaceutical companies didn't have the patent on it so they wanted, even though the babies were dying and being permanently injured from that whole-cell pertussis vaccine, they wanted to continue with it for as long as they could. But it wasn't until the 1990s that they were able to switch over from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine to the acellular pertussis vaccine. So I had an interest in Sudden Infant Death since the 1980s and throughout the 1990s. But it was only recently that I decided 'You know what, I'm going to write about this.' And I'm going to document the history of sudden infant death. And I'm also going to conduct an analysis of the VAERS database. The VAERS database, for those who aren't aware, VAERS is an acronym that stands for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It's a vaccine database that's jointly run by the FDA and the CDC. It was required to be established by the 1986 vaccine laws that were established by Congress. 

In 1986, Congress established the law that gave liability protection to vaccine manufacturers and established the vaccine court. And it also established the vaccine compensation program and also required that there would be a database established by the FDA and CDC so that babies or children, or when anybody was hurt by a vaccine, that could be documented and recorded in the VAERS database. So that would be a safety database so that it would give us initial warnings. If you see patterns in that VAERS database, that's an initial safety signal. Anyway, in the past year I worked on this paper, and just about a week-and-a-half ago this paper was published, went through the peer review process and was published. It's called Vaccines and sudden infant death: an analysis of the VAERS database 1990-2019 and review of the medical literature. Now, there are basically three sections to this paper. In the first section, I describe a little bit of the history. And then in the second section I conducted a study or an analysis of the VAERS database. And in the third section, I review the medical literature, going back to the 1930s all the way up to the present. In summary: prior to the 1960s, okay, something happened in the 1960s that was different, that was unique, and that's not really talked about in so-called anti-vaccine circles, in vaccine circles or anti-vaccine circles. By the way, mothers and fathers that are labeled as anti-vaccinators are not anti-vaccinators. They're ex-vaccinators. They did what they were told. They listened to the CDC, they listened to the FDA. They listen to their medical doctor and the World Health Organization, and they vaccinated according to the CDC's recommended immunization schedule. Their children became permanently disabled, permanently injured or died as a result of following the recommended immunization schedule. And they decided they needed to protect their children from further vaccination. And now they are ex-vaccinators. And they are labeled as anti-vaccinators because it's used as a slur as though those people that have done the research are somehow anti-science, anti-scientific or are spreading misinformation. But the truth of the matter is that there are several studies. And by the way, in my latest book, Miller's Review of Critical Vaccine Studies, I summarized several studies that show that people that investigate and do their research on vaccines, people that are labeled as anti-vaccinators are actually more educated, more highly educated, than people that just blindly follow the recommendations of the CDC.

Let's get back to the study. Something happened in the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s, there was no term, they didn't even have a term, for sudden infant death. They had something that was called crib death. It's extremely rare, highly unusual for a baby to die from what they were calling crib death. And you could go anywhere and read the medical literature around the world and you would find that there were very few references to crib death. In the 1960s, what happened was several new vaccines were introduced and required for entry into school. National immunization campaigns were instituted around the nation and in fact in other countries as well. And so starting in the 1960s, for children to go to public school, they had to get smallpox vaccines, DPT vaccines, then they also introduced measles and mumps and rubella. They had the polio vaccine that was required. And so by the late 1960s there were so many deaths that were occurring in infants that they had to create a new medical term called Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And then in 1972 that term, sudden infant death, was formalized and became a legal term, a legal cause of death. 

A lot of people aren't aware of the International Classification of Diseases. So, there are 130 ways for an infant to officially die. These are codes, medical codes, listed in the International Classification of Diseases. Starting in the late 1890s, or the early 1890s, I think in 1893, they first established this system, the International Classification of Diseases. And about every 10, 15 or 20 years, they revise the International Classification of Diseases and bring it up to date. So we're up to the 11th revision, I believe, of the International Classification of Diseases. So, when a baby dies and the coroner or a medical certifier has to certify the cause of death, they have to choose from among these 130 categories. 

The medical industry did something that's very interesting in the 1970s. Up until the 1970s, they had a category in there called prophylactic vaccination. So a medical certifier could list—if a baby was vaccinated and died after receiving that vaccine and that medical certifier found a link between that vaccine and the death—they could list prophylactic vaccination as the official cause of death. Prophylactic is just a fancy term for preventative. And they also had subcategories for particular vaccines, if you died from a particular vaccine. So they had subcategories they could also code for in the ICD. But starting in the 1970s, when the International Classification of Diseases was revised, the medical industry completely removed prophylactic vaccination as an official cause of death. So now what does that mean? What happens? What is the effect of having done that? Now remember, sudden infant death was basically unheard of until the 1960s when national immunization campaigns were instituted. In 1969, Sudden Infant Death was a new term. And then in the 1970s, starting in the mid-1970s, when the ICD was changed and prophylactic vaccination was no longer able to be used as an official cause of death, medical certifiers were essentially compelled to do two things: Number one, misclassify cause of death (if they were caused by vaccines), and conceal those causes of death. Right, because they couldn't list them as prophylactic vaccination. So what did they do? Many of those deaths they would label as sudden infant death syndrome. That was a catch-all term for many of these infant deaths that took place shortly after vaccination. And so, sudden infant death statistics skyrocketed. 


In the 1980s, parents were beginning to catch on. At the time, the industry at the time, they still had, you know how today the industry has captured, completely captured, the media. The media doesn't do any investigative research on vaccines at all today. They simply parrot, you know, whatever they're told from the health organizations. The FDA and the CDC and World Health Organization, for the most part, they've been captured by Big Pharma. That whole conglomerate, that whole medical-industrial complex, has captured the media. So the media is no longer doing their investigative research and reporting. Well, I have to tell you, because I've been doing this work educating parents and health practitioners about vaccines for more than 30 years. And they were, the medical industry had a good, you know, they captured the industry back in the 80s as well. There wasn't as much of a tyrannical grasp. It wasn't as oppressive. And some of the investigative TV shows were doing stories on babies that were dying after receiving the DPT vaccine. And people were frightened and vaccination rates were dropping, and the medical industry, Big Pharma was losing money and they were upset. And in fact, that's when they were starting to be sued. And people were, you know, a lot of lawyers were getting in on suing vaccine manufacturers and the vaccine manufacturers threatened to go out of business if they didn't get gain that liability protection that Congress gave them in 1986. But something else happened shortly after that. Because the vaccination rates were dropping and people were scared of the DPT vaccine, the American Academy of Pediatrics came out and said, 'We need to assure parents that vaccines are safe and babies are not dying in their cribs because they just recently received their vaccines; that's just a coincidence. They are dying in their cribs because parents are placing them on their bellies rather than on their backs.' 


In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics started a national campaign, and it was called the Back to Bed [Sleep] campaign. Basically, it was teaching parents to put their babies supine when they lay them to rest or lay them down for the evening, rather than prone. And something happened. Shortly after that, it seemed like the SIDS rate dropped. It seemed like the cause of the sudden infant deaths were not related to the vaccines but it was related to the babies being improperly placed on their bellies in their cribs. Well, guess what? In this paper that was just published in Toxicology Reports, "Vaccines and sudden infant death," okay, I did a little more digging. And what I discovered was when that campaign took place, medical coroners, medical certifiers and coroners, death certifiers, they did something. They changed how they were recording these deaths. So, deaths that were previously recorded as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome were now being recorded as suffocation in bed. They were now being recorded as death caused by unknown or other causes. When you do an analysis of the drop in sudden infant death, okay, if you look at just sudden infant death statistics, let's say from a period in the 1990s to the early 2000s, sudden infant death absolutely dropped and it was statistically significant. And it looks like, it absolutely on the surface looks like, the American Academy of Pediatrics program to put babies on their backs when they go to sleep was successful and it made it look like Sudden Infant Death Syndrome was not related to vaccination. However, what happened was there was a statistically significant increase in medical certifiers listing the cause of death, not as sudden infant death anymore, but as suffocation in bed and suffocation other, and death from unknown causes. And when you combine these other causes we're now using to certify cause of death and combine those with SIDS, there was no statistically significant decline in infant deaths. And so, it was essentially a farce. Basically, it was robbing Peter to pay Paul, it was a shell game. They were moving these deaths from one death certification category to another. And it's all documented. I have all the references to all the citations so that it's not just my word; it's documenting that this is something that actually in reality took place. So that's the first part of my paper, where I'm documenting this history of how there were manipulations and medical certifiers were essentially compelled to misclassify and conceal infant deaths when they were possibly related to the vaccination. So the coroner's were using alternate categories to label it.

Wayne Rohde  31:24

Can they use SIDS now? Can a coroner say the death is from vaccination?

Neil Miller  31:30

Yes, they they're still using SIDS. SIDS is a catch-all phrase. SIDS basically means we don't really know what happened. Or it means that, 'yeah, the baby died shortly after receiving vaccines but we're not going to list that because we don't have an official listing so we're going to call it Sudden Infant Death Syndrome instead. Or we're going to call it suffocation in bed, or we're going to call it death from unknown causes.' There are other categories that are potentially used by medical certifiers as well. And I discuss these later in the paper, these other potential categories where potential deaths from infant vaccines are being certified as deaths from other causes. 

So then we get into the second part of my paper, and that's where I actually do an analysis of the VAERS database. And what I did is I looked from 1990 to 2019, that's 30 years of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Now keep in mind, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is accessible to independent researchers, independent investigators, okay, like myself. And so I am able to download that data or I'm able to research that data and investigate. And I did that. And I looked at 30 years of data from 1990 to 2019. And I looked at two things. And so there are basically two main analyses in my paper. In the first analysis, I looked at all infant deaths that took place, that were listed as reports of infant deaths after the vaccine, after vaccines were administered. And the second thing I did was looked at all infant deaths that took place but we're specifically labeled as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And there were 2605 reports of infant deaths after vaccination. And there were 1048 infant deaths that were reported, that were labeled as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. And there's a statistical analysis method to look at expected deaths in a certain period of time, and the observed deaths. So basically, you're applying this statistical method to determine 'What are the expected number of deaths on any given day?' versus how many actually took place, and that will determine whether there is a statistically significant difference. Okay, so now, what I did is I looked at the first seven days, and I broke it down. How many of these reports of deaths took place in what I'm calling close temporal proximity? That means they took place soon after the vaccines were administered. How many took place in the first day, within 24 hours? How many took place within three days? And how many took place within seven days, versus how many reports took place between eight days and 60 days post-vaccination? And if you look at how many deaths took place between eight days and 60 days post vaccination, it was a very small number. That's the expected number. That's closer to a background rate, right? Like how many would you expect? How many would you expect just normally in, say, an unvaccinated child, or how many would you expect before the child was vaccinated? Or how many would you expect just in society where the child wasn't exposed to some potentially harmful or toxic substance? 

You can get up to my website at thinktwice.com. I'm going to post this study. I'll also post the study that I co-authored with Dr. Brian Hooker. My previous study with Brian Hooker is on my opening page at thinktwice.com. But if you go to thinktwice.com and scroll almost to the bottom of that page, on the left hand side, I'm going to have this study there. You're going to want to go to tables 2 and 3. And that's going to show you the specific data showing how there was a statistically significant number of deaths in close temporal proximity to the time of vaccination versus how many took place, many, many days or many weeks post-vaccination. And by the way, you're a lawyer and know about the vaccine court, this is your field of expertise.

Wayne Rohde 36:19

I am not an attorney.

Neil Miller

Okay, but you've studied the vaccine court, and you've written about it, and you understand how it operates. And, so you understand that, for example, you understand that there are three prongs right, to be able to prove a case.

Wayne Rohde  36:41

Althen one, two and three, you bet.


Right, and one of those prongs is basically that there has to be some sort of a linkage, right? For example, if a baby dies after a certain vaccine, that baby has to die, it's listed, there's a table, a table of how quickly that baby has to die within, if that baby dies within, say, 72 hours, that's significant. That's listed as a requirement. So you can't argue that, you know, that you're missing one of those prongs if that baby doesn't die within close temporal proximity. So the point I'm trying to make is this is a very significant issue. Okay, not just in my paper, but actually in the vaccine court. They require close temporal proximity often as a condition, as one of those prongs to be able to prove your case.

Wayne Rohde  37:39

Right, it's often three, which in short, it's basically timing. Does it fit within the medically accepted time frame? Whether it's death, whether it's Guillain-Barre, whatever the medical outcome, there are different timing elements here, does it fit? And then Althen one is the plausible theory.

Neil Miller 38:04

Right. Some vaccines, if they're going to have, like with inactive vaccines, a lot of times the reaction is going to take place pretty quickly, within a couple of days, two to three days. So some live vaccines, the reaction, like with the MMR vaccine, if there's going to be a serious adverse reaction, sometimes it tends to occur on that ninth or 10th day post-vaccination. There's not an immediate reaction. And by the way, that's an incubation period. That's evidence of an incubation period. And in my paper, which I know you were very interested in, where I discussed an important case that that came before the vaccine court. There are other elements, by the way, to my analysis, so you're going to have to get the study, your listeners will have to get the study to read the entire study. There's a lot of other great information that I don't have the time to discuss today. But that's in that paper, you definitely want this paper.

 Wayne Rohde  39:10

When I saw it, I said this is incredible. And for my listeners, I'm going to have links on the show notes, for all of Neil's papers, and books and even his website. So when we go and when you click on for listening to this episode, you'll see the show notes there and you can click on to those papers, download them. And so people don't have to worry about taking notes during this podcast. I do want to bring up one thing here and it's in that paper, and it's basically section... and you talk about the Boatman case. 

Neil Miller

Yes, that's what I was going to discuss. 

Wayne Rohde

Now, what's interesting here and the way that I really tried to boil it down in my discussions with people is that there is this triangle, if you will, of how they describe the three elements that need to be present for since cases or whatever and one's external stressors. And that's where Dr. Douglas Miller, the medical expert, kind of concentrated. And his argument was, correct me if I'm wrong, but his argument was, vaccinations can be an external stressor that can cause premature pediatric death. And the way the court looked at it, you know, even though they granted compensation, and then the government went judge shopping to get an appeal, and they appealed it and got it reversed, went up to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. And their motion, their appeal was denied. So basically, Boatman was done. Then comes along another case that was already in the pipeline at the time. And that's the Nunez/Diaz case. And this is where I find it very problematic, very concerning to the American people. That is our government is deciding about compensation for children who perished because of vaccination, on policy, not on science anymore. And the policy is, and it was argued in Boatman in the Federal Circuit. Your honors, if you award compensation to the family, many parents will not vaccinate. That was their key argument, which is not based on science, it's based on policy. That's what makes the Boatman decision really, really concerning. But then Nunez comes along and the circuit takes it a step further. We talked about Althen One [prong], which is the step where you get to show a plausible theory that it can happen. That's all that requires. They affirm that not only does it have to be a plausible theory, but it's got to be supported by consensus of the medical community. And that's absolutely absurd, because the medical community is not going to accept that vaccinations cause SIDS. And so basically, now the court shut out any hope of anybody submitting a petition because their child died of a vaccination. They shut that door.

Neil Miller 42:33

It defeats the whole purpose of why the vaccine court was established in the first place. It was supposed to be a non-adversarial process through which parents could be compensated and the vaccine manufacturers could no longer be held liable. Now, if they want to do that, then the tradeoffs should be that the vaccine manufacturers should no longer have those liability protections. Those liability protections should be removed so that people are free to take these vaccine manufacturers to court and let the juries decide whether or not compensation, whether or not there's a link between the vaccines and these deaths that happened within a short period of time after those vaccines were received. 

I want to read something from Dr. Douglas C. Miller. He gave expert testimony. And he did give this physiological explanation for how it was possible for these babies to die. And what he said was, he explained that when you receive one or more vaccines at once it evokes the production of cytokines. Physiological studies have shown that these can produce fever and inhibit the activity of 5-HT neurons in the medulla causing prolonged apneas and interference with auto-resuscitation. Dr. Miller noted that JB (JB was the child that died, you know, because Dr. Miller, he's a neuropathologist that's representing these parents in the vaccine court) Dr. Miller noted that JB was a healthy infant developing normally. He was immunologically normal. After receiving vaccines, cytokines circulated into the central nervous system and interacted with the hypothalamus to provoke fever and act in the brainstem, which was already deficient in serotoninergic drive for respiratory effort, leading to an apneic episode from which he did not recover. And that is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. So he's giving a scientific, medical, biologically plausible explanation for how a baby could suddenly expire. And by suddenly expire, I actually described... 

There's another important point that has to be made in the paper, okay. And this also gets to a potential weakness of my study. Now keep in mind, all studies have strengths and weaknesses, and they have to be understood within that context. They have to be understood within the confines of the boundaries of the study itself. What type of study? What type of analyses were conducted? What were the limitations of the study? And how well does that apply out to the larger population as a whole. So, one of the weaknesses, potential weaknesses of my study is that it's possible that these deaths that were happening shortly after vaccination were not due to vaccination but were due to something called reporting bias, that parents are just more inclined to report these deaths because something happened that they recalled, that happened in close proximity. Okay, so basically, the baby got the vaccine. And then a day or two later or three days later, the baby dies and the parents are looking for a reason to blame it on something. And they say, 'Oh, my baby got the vaccine.' And so, the argument is that this could potentially be reporting bias. They're just reporting it more often because it happened, you know, it happened shortly after but the deaths aren't actually related. Okay. But there's a way that I can dispel of the strength of this weakness, okay, if I can put it in those terms. And I do that in the paper, because I have another table in here. 


And if you look back at original data, if you look at tables two and three, or if you go back, or if you go back to figure... Basically, what it's looking at, is what's called an incubation period. What happens with the incubation period, more deaths are not reported on day one; more deaths are actually reported on day two. There's a possible explanation for this is that there is an incubation period for the deaths to take place. The whole process that begins, and there's going to be an inflammatory process that's going to eventually cause difficulty with auto-resuscitation. That process takes time to build up and peak. And that peak period, there's evidence in the scientific literature that that process can take anywhere from 24 to 48 hours. And that's like, imagine if you ingested poison, but the poison isn't going to kill you right away. But it's going to take 24 to 48 hours to do what it does to cause you to expire. And that is evidence against reporting bias, when you've got this incubation period. That's evidence of a biological plausibility for Dr. Douglass's theory of what is actually taking place, and that it takes time for that process to occur. 

Getting back to the point that you brought up, is that they're asking for consensus now. Not only for a parent to win one of these cases, not only does their expert witness have to show biological plausibility, not only do they have to show some kind of physiological linkage between the vaccine and some physiological process that leads to the death, but there has to be medical consensus amongst doctors. First of all, Dr. Miller, this neuropathologist that we're discussing, he's obviously a genius, and he's made this connection. Okay. And in the medical literature, you can go back throughout history where you can look at all these ridiculous things that they've done in the medical practices, until some genius came along and said, 'Hey, wait, we're doing something wrong. Okay. Hey, let's wash our hands, you know, before we go into surgery.'

Neil Miller  49:17

Right? And everybody says, 'This is ridiculous. What do you mean, wash your hands? Why should we have to do that?' So you've got this genius that comes along and he's able to show this physiological process, he's able to show this linkage that's necessary, so there's a clear biological plausibility. Now they're raising the bar, and they're saying, 'Oh, no, we want all the doctors to have a consensus on this.' That's absurd. That is just another ploy. That is another tactic. That's another censoring mechanism that has been instituted by the medical-pharmaceutical industry to shut down any linkage. For them to say, to actually say, 'If we give out compensation this is going to act as a disincentive to vaccination,' yeah, that's political. That's not medical. That's a political argument. That's not a medical argument for them to say that because this vaccine might be shown to cause death and it might reduce vaccinations, well, yeah, it should reduce vaccination. It should instill in people a desire to research vaccines a little bit deeper before they go and just blindly follow what they're being told by the medical industry, by the pharmaceutical industry and by these people that are supposed to be experts that we're supposed to shut up and listen to. There's my say.

Wayne Rohde  50:39

Unbelievable, okay, we've come to the end of our program, but this is, I'm going to have you back on as a guest. Because I have a feeling you got another paper in you very soon. We're going to have to have some follow-up on this SIDS paper because I think this is going to gain some traction. I know that there was a real kind of retrospective look at, was it last fall, Mark Blaxill put out a little bit of a study, not really published much, that looked at the drop in what we call SIDS cases. And coincidentally, it happened during the pandemic because mothers were not getting their children, newborns, vaccinated, and all of a sudden a huge drop. I think that pissed off the medical community quite a bit. 

Neil Miller  51:24

I think there's potential for a lot of data now, you know, looking back at 2020, and to see, because a lot of people did not vaccinate and to see what happened with all of these rates of various adverse events, adverse health conditions. If there's the drop in adverse health conditions related to non-vaccination during 2020, that could be significant.

 Wayne Rohde  51:51

So we're going to look at that. That'll take a couple years before we can tease out the numbers. But yeah, we'll see it. Listeners, you've been listening to the Right on Point podcast. It's a candid discussion of your civil liberties, issues and your legal rights with your government. And we discussed what no one else will by digging deep into the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, otherwise known as the vaccine court, the prep Act, the countermeasures Injury Compensation Program and legalities of the COVID pandemic. This podcast is made possible by the generous contributions of you, the listeners. Please consider a donation to ensure future discussion interviews. 

I really want to thank our guest today, Mr. Neil Miller, for coming on and explaining his papers. It's been tremendous. It's been a fun discussion. And I want to thank the many listeners of this program, to leave you which I do every week with the following and that is keep learning. Keep challenging yourself. Always, always question authority. Everybody, have a good day. We'll see you next week. Thank you.

Sponsor  53:04

We hope you enjoyed the podcast and thank you for listening.