Years ago, medicine set a gold standard for researching fresh drugs. After performing any first tests, for example in vitro, researchers carry out final studies on humans. A large group of people selected to reflect the mark population of the fresh drug are divided randomly into 2 subgroups. During the study, half of the patients received the survey drug, while the second group called the control group received placebo, a neutral substance that was successful. It is crucial that both patients in the survey and their physicians do not know who is receiving placebo and who is taking the medicine. Actually, the actual documentation and coding let you to do this without losing data.
The alleged randomised controlled studies let an nonsubjective assessment of the efficacy and safety of the medicine or medical procedure, provided additional conditions are met.
First, the survey should take as long as planned. Unacceptable is premature completion, due to the fact that the results look good, and in time they could break down. For ethical reasons, the test can be completed before the time erstwhile the results clearly indicate the harmfulness of the test substance. fewer people know that this is how any studies to show the beneficial effects of vegetable oils, especially on the cardiovascular system, were completed. The patients were raining like flies, so the tests were stopped. The first specified was in the mid 1970s.
Secondly, erstwhile planning the study, it is essential to adopt the alleged end point, which is the expected goal, by far what size we will measure to find whether the medicine is effective, safe and suitable for use. As with the duration of the test, changes in the endpoint during or after the test are unacceptable.
You can find respective endpoints, but you can't change them later when, for example, we have obtained an adverse consequence and by torturing data, we are looking for the strength of another previously unforeseeable benefits of the drug. erstwhile data propose specified benefits, a fresh survey with a fresh endpoint is essential for their recognition.
This primary endpoint for all medicines and medical procedures should be mortality for all reasons, which, of course, should never increase. So what if aortic bypass bypass bypass bypass surgery reduces coronary pain and another signs of obstruction, since it does not prolong life and can shorten life. Jan Kulczyk was operated on by the best heart surgeons he could have for money.
The same is actual with medicines. So what if paracetamol reduces the symptoms of cold and flu, since it breaks the liver and in many another ways shortens life.
The endpoint of the effects of the survey medicine on mortality from all causes requires a sufficiently long-term survey to be reliable. For this reason, pharmaceutical companies enjoy inventing replacement end points that do not have much to do with the actual intent of the drug or procedure being investigated, but are easy to measurement and do not require costly long-term studies. Then, utilizing complex arguments, we are convinced by the regulatory authorities that this is what this was all about.
They lower cholesterol levels, despite the deficiency of evidence of harmful levels of cholesterol. According to the companies, the appropriate end point is to lower cholesterol levels from baseline. Thus, statins are tested for cholesterol levels, without paying attention to patients' wellness and especially to mortality from all causes.
It may be argued that death in a communication accident or in a fight is not related to a medication. However, if this mortality importantly increases in the treatment group, then something is going on. In statins, the common effect is brain fog and personality change, including irritability and aggression. Own cases in respective books were described by astronaut doctor Duane Graveline (for example, The Statin harm Crisis).
In vaccine studies, antibody levels are readily measured alternatively of actual diseases, despite the deficiency of a clear link to illness resistance. In addition, cases are known where advanced levels of antibodies favour illness and worsen prognosis (Mechanisms of antibody-dependent enhancement of infectious disease).
In addition, the immune strategy trained to defend against 1 kind or strain of pathogen fails for others (Original antigenic sin: A comprehensive review). For example, flu vaccinations not only defend poorly from it, but besides worsens another respiratory diseases.
Vaccines are a peculiar kind of medicine due to the fact that they are given to healthy people, to defend them from future threats which may happen only in the distant future or not at all. So their safety must be in the first place, so we could all think that vaccines are being tested peculiarly carefully with the highest standards. Unfortunately, it is an illusion.
The problem with vaccines is perfectly described in a well documented book Turtles All The Way Down: Vaccine discipline and Myth. In order to avoid ad personam arguments, authors stay anonymous (not to be confused with a completely different book with a akin title written by John Green and the film). The title came from an old communicative about the construction of the Universe. The Earth disc rests on the ridges of immense elephants standing on large turtles. The question of what the next answer of the believers is that these turtles are standing on the next, and those on the next, again on the next, and so on indefinitely. The basis of the planet of vaccines are further turtles until the end.
This image perfectly describes the situation in the vaccine trials, as not 1 has been tested according to a gold standard with control and actual placebo. The studies utilized false placebo and replacement endpoints. another vaccines, the erstwhile version of the same vaccine or the selected components of the test vaccine were expected to have been placebo, i.e. compared the devil with Satan or crap with dung.
Furthermore, all studies were besides short to find their safety or any meaningful endpoint. Thus, only replacement results, specified as antibody levels, were determined. Time is money, and people can be replaced.
In addition, pharmaceutical companies' practice of concealing adverse reactions, removing victims in tests from investigation documentation and denying them compensation for lost wellness in order to pretend that nothing like this happened. The victims are themselves guilty, their illness has nothing to do with the medicine being examined, or they simply imagined their disability.
For years Robert F. Kennedy Junior, as a lawyer, defended in court the interests of vaccine victims and during medical research. He so knows the problem through and for his actions corporate media called him an anti-vaccinationist.
Thanks to the actions of the Trump government, and in peculiar to the post of Secretary of wellness and Welfare (HHS) R. F. Kennedy Jr, the deficiency of work and the gigantic profits of large Pharma have just ended.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/us/rfk-jr-vaccine-safety-placebos-covid.html
By Christina Jewett and Sheryl Gay Stolberg fresh York Times, Updated May 1, 2025, 6:06 p.m.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on Thursday a plan that all fresh vaccines would require placebo-controlled studies, which amazed any experts who noticed that specified tests are already routinely carried out [Right.].
In a message by Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the Department of wellness and Welfare, said that prior to approval, all fresh vaccines will undergo safety tests in placebo-controlled studies And he called this step a extremist departure from the applicable standards.
[...]
Together, these actions indicate that Kennedy intends to dig into the details of his work on the vaccine, which will most likely consequence from his many years of activity as 1 of the most avid critics of the surveillance of vaccines in the country.
While any scientists say it is worth seeking a full knowing of the possible unforeseen effects of vaccines, they besides inform that the hold in the approval of life-saving vaccines could endanger public health.
It's good to realize there's no specified thing as a life-saving vaccine. This can be given after a sera bite against the venom of a viper. However, vaccines are given to healthy people and are intended to defend them from possible future risks.
Vaccine and public wellness experts – Boston Globe reports – said that the HHS message is misinformation. The experts put forward 3 basic arguments. Firstly, they argued that it was unethical to hold back access to a ‘known’ vaccine for those who request protection (they always usage as an example of children and measles). Second, placebo-controlled studies are costly and longer than antibody studies, possibly prolonging the time of launch of vaccines. And third, they argued rather seriously that Some medicines may not succeed, so they will simply be rejected. Indeed it is simply a terrible danger that the ineffective and dangerous will be rejected.
Michael Osterholm, an expert on infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota in Biden's transition team, said that this change is threatening the existence of coronavirus vaccines. Did Osterholm realize what he admitted? If covid vaccines neglect to last a placebo-controlled study, should notbe utilized or sold. It's a common sense conclusion.
Also a erstwhile associate of the FDA advisory board, a fierce promoter and vaccine salesman, Dr. Paul Offit, considers increased transparency and higher safety standards to be threats.We are observing the gradual breakdown of vaccine infrastructure in this country,” said Offit without any exaggeration. Offit's message was another complex incidental confession. If the full strategy collapses under the weight of gold standard tests, what we had before was not any science, but a colossal fraud that generated profits at the expense of human wellness and life.
All another medicines are subject to the placebo studies described in the introduction, but according to vaccine experts they should be exempted from this obligation. According to these experts, a coercive injection to healthy infants should not be rigorously investigated, and we should have uncritically believed the teachings of pharmaceutical companies.
Safety in practice is becoming clearer. Recently, a preprint survey entitled:
Twelve-month mortality for all causes after the first vaccination against COVID-19 with Pfizer-Biontech or mRNA-1273 among adults surviving in Florida
Twelve-Month All-Case Mortality after first COVID-19 Vaccination with Pfizer-Biontech or mRNA-1273 among Adults surviving in Florida
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/025.04.25326460v1.full
Again, it would seem that the safety and efficacy profile of Covid-1984 vaccines should be well known due to the fact that they have been given to billions of people. Meanwhile, doctors and officials around the planet for mysterious reasons have obscured statistic so much that any analysis is highly difficult.
The survey was arranged by Florida's chief doctor Joseph Ladapo, a medical doctor and a doctor from Harvard, and it consisted of analyzing the Medicare database in Florida. The comparison of non-vaccinated subjects was virtually impossible, as medical administrations included all individuals with unclear vaccination position as unvaccinated categories. By bypassing this problem, the authors compared the 2 vaccinations, specifically their hazard of death for any reason — mortality for all reasons — with a statistically undeniable 40% higher hazard of death after vaccination with Pfizer compared to Moderna.
Namely 229 more people died after vaccination with Pfizer for all 100,000 vaccinated. In itself, this number is worrying, but 1 can fear that this safer vaccine of Moderna was not an innocent lamb either.
Results
The inclusion criteria were met by 9 162,484 adults in Florida who were not in the institutions, including 5,328,226 who were vaccinated with BNT162b2 and 3,834,258 who were vaccinated with mRNA-1273. A full of 1,470 100 vaccinated individuals were matched 1 to 1 on the basis of 7 criteria, including the census area. Compared to mRNA-1273 recipients, BNT162b2 recipients had a importantly higher hazard of mortality from all causes (847.2 versus 617.9 deaths per 100,000; odds ratio, OR [95% CI]: 1,384 [1.331, 1,439]), cardiovascular mortality (248.7 versus 162.4 deaths per 100,000; OR [95% CI]: 1,540 [1.431, 1,657]), COVID-19 mortality (55.5 versus 29.5 deaths per 100,000; OR [95% CI]: 1,882 [1.596, 2,220]) and non-COVID-19 mortality (791.6 versus 588.4 deaths per 100,000; OR [95% CI]: 1,356 [1.303, 1,412]). The negative control results showed no sign of a significant, unobserved residual disruptor.
Conclusion
Florida adults who received BNT162b2 had a importantly higher hazard of 12-month mortality due to overall, cardiovascular, COVID-19 and another than COVID-19 than matched recipients of mRNA-1273. These results propose differentiated non-specific effects of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 against COVID-19 and possible adverse effects on overall and cardiovascular mortality. They item the request to measure vaccines utilizing clinical endpoints beyond the mark disease.
So in short, it's time to end the peculiar treatment of vaccines. They request to be tested as closely as the another drugs, possibly more.
Thank you for reading Substack Jack! Subscribe for free to receive fresh posts and support my work.
