Many people sincerely believe that all vaccines are safe, adverse reactions are rare, and no peer-reviewed scientific studies exist showing that vaccines can cause harm. This book — Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies — provides the other side of the story that is not commonly told. It contains summaries of 400 important scientific papers to help parents and researchers enhance their understanding of vaccinations.
“This book should be required reading for every doctor, medical student and parent. Reading this book will allow you to make better choices when considering vaccination.” — David Brownstein, MD
“This book is so precise and exciting in addressing the vaccine controversy that I read it in one evening. I recommend this book to any parent who has questions about vaccines and wants to be factually educated to make informed decisions.” — Gabriel Cousens, MD
“Neil Miller’s book is a tour de force and a clarion voice championing the cautionary principle: ‘When in doubt, minimize risk.’ Let’s talk science. Read this book. The truth will keep you and your children protected.”— Bradford S. Weeks, MD
“Nowhere else can one find such an organized and concise compilation of research on vaccines. Not only does Miller have a deep understanding of science and the issues at hand, he has made this book easy to reference and cite. Truly, there is no other guide out there quite like it. For everyone who contacts me in the future seeking scientific evidence about vaccines, I will recommend Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies.” — Toni Bark, MD, MHEM, LEED AP, previous Director of the pediatric ER at Michael Reese Hospital
“Miller’s Review of Critical Vaccine Studies is the most comprehensive and coherent accumulation of peer-reviewed research on vaccine issues and natural immunity I have ever come across. A must read for parents, teachers, doctors and other healthcare providers.” — Dr. Tyson Perez, pediatric chiropractor
Use: Parent/Guardian to School
The protection of our children from experimental COVID-19 vaccinations is paramount, safeguarding concerns are very real in Schools where they appear to be following ‘orders’ from Unions, Ofsted and Politicians.
Drafted by Lawyers and Doctors for the self-empowerment of Mums and Dads or Guardians to take action – this tool enables you to say NO.
Download and complete the Notice of Liability template with your details and those of the School.
This can then be emailed or sent Recorded Delivery to the ‘Respondent’ ie Headteachers, Governors and CEOs where appropriate.
The important thing is that you hold a copy of proof of delivery.
(LifeSiteNews) – Without a quiet change to federal law just before the onset of COVID-19, the experimental, mRNA COVID jabs may never have been labelled as vaccines.
A previous article on LifeSiteNews.com described the major conflicts of interest observable during the process leading up to the U.S federal government’s emergency use authorization of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. In December 2019 (before reported outbreak of COVID-19), the U.S. federal government signed a contract with one COVID-19 vaccine maker, Moderna, which “stated ‘mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidates [are] developed and jointly owned” by both Moderna and the U.S. federal government, the article explains.
This article discusses the additional significant fact that, also in December of 2019, the U.S. federal government changed the definition of “biological product” in federal laws governing vaccine labeling, emergency use authorization, and approval. The U.S. federal government labels vaccines as “biological products.”
A thorough discussion of the significance of the change of the U.S. federal law cannot be provided here due to the technical, scientific, and pharmaceutical terminology and descriptions required. A basic summary is as follows: without the December 2019 change to U.S. law defining “biological product,” the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may have been required to be labeled as something other than a vaccine.
Stated slightly differently, the U.S. federal government’s definition of “biological product” which was used up until a few weeks before the reported outbreak of COVID-19 may have prohibited the mRNA COVID-19 products from being labeled as vaccines.
It would probably be much more difficult for governments and/or employers to mandate receiving coronavirus mRNA substances labeled as drugs or other non-vaccine products. Guilt-tripping physicians, nurses, and others into receiving and supporting mRNA COVID-19 substances with the potential false accusation of “anti-vaxxer” would also be out of the question if the substances were not labeled as vaccines. ….