I think back to what I thought I “knew” in early 2020.
When you don’t know, you don’t know that you don’t know.
Mark Twain was on the money when he said “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
I’ve long thought of the dynamic of a fish that doesn’t understand the concept of “wet”. How would you explain “wet” to that fish? And what would it feel like to be a fish that for the first time gets the concept? There is an absolute innocence to the fish’s ignorance. It doesn’t even know that there is a question to ask.
The journey of the last 2 years has woken me up to the meaning of “wet” and I now understand what “dry” means and looks like.
Ignorance is innocence. Willful ignorance is not.
Curiosity is a muscle that withers if unused. It is the rope we use to climb out of the deep dark well of our ignorance. Withered curiosity keeps us in that well.
In coming to terms with the dangers and malfeasance of the Covid jabs, the follow up question seemed inevitable to me: “Have they lied about other vaccines and what do those lies hide?”.
I knew they were lying about all things Covid, but until I read The Real Anthony Fauci, I didn’t understand that the “system” that was generating those lies had been built over many years to generate a vast array of other lies designed to cover up a raft of commercially inconvenient truths.
It’s that “system” that I’m most interested in now. I’m interested in understanding the “cause of causes” and trying to go as high up the river to see and understand where and how it begins.
Having said all of that, I recent came across this conversation with Robert Kennedy Jr. on Mike Tyson’s podcast from Sept 2020 (the date is relevant as the rollout of the Covid jabs had not begun yet).
(YouTube removed the video, but you can watch it archived here, with thanks to BobH)
Listening to Robert is always interesting, but the discussion veers into vaccines for the last 15 minutes starting at around 1:09:00, and there is a section of this discussion that I found so significant that I’ve transcribed it here.
Robert Kennedy Jr.
The companies have zero liability, there's no incentive for them to make vaccines safe. They don't have to spend any money on marketing or advertising because they're mandated for 74 million kids to take whether they like it or not, and they don't have to test vaccines.
It's the only medical product that doesn't have to be safety tested.
And the reason for that is it's an artifact of CDC's legacy as a public health service and that agency was a quasi-military agency. That's why people at CDC have military ranks like Surgeon General and the vaccine program was conceived as a national security, defence against a biological attack on our country so they wanted to make sure that if Russians attacked us with anthrax or some other biological agent that we would be able to quickly formulate a vaccine and deploy it to 200 million people without regulatory impediments.
This point about the military origin of the system architecture that has given us todays vaccine industry stood out for me the most, and frankly stunned me. I had always wondered about why they would fudge the placebos, or more importantly how they could get away with it. Well, turns out the system was built for “speed” not “safety”.
I knew that the US military had ultimately given us the Internet. I also knew that the US military had developed GPS as we know it today in all our cars. But I had no idea that the US military’s fingerprint was imprinted into the fabric of the global industry and vaccine “safety”.
And so, they said if we call it medicine, we need to safety test it, so let's call it something else, we'll call it a biologic, and we'll exempt them from safety testing.
The companies when they made this sort of Gold Rush in 1989 to add the vaccines to the schedule, took advantage of that, and said hey we don't have to safety test these things. Because of that, you now have products that nobody knows what the risks are. We do know that the same year that we put them on the schedule we had this explosion of chronic disease. And, you know, our children are now the sickest generation history, and the CDC shrugs its shoulders. If you say where's this autism epidemic coming from, they say we don't know. Where is the obesity epidemic coming from? Where's the diabetes epidemic coming from? Why do our kids have peanut allergies which essentially didn't exist prior to 1989.
Eben Britton (co-host)
How about all the attention deficit stuff?
Mike Tyson
So, what are they doing this for? Money?
Robert Kennedy Jr.
All are directly linked to vaccines in the scientific literature. On our website we have 1,400 peer reviewed studies published on NIH's website PubMed, linking various vaccines to all of those injuries.
Well, they're making $60 billion a year selling us vaccines, but they're making $500 billion a year selling the remedies for the injuries caused by vaccines.
It’s hard to fathom the scale and meaning of these numbers. Some numbers are simply either two small or too big to understand. If you make $500 billion a year (and this was BEFORE Covid jabs and consequences) you have enough money to control a “global health narrative”. That’s a polite way of saying that you have the means of lying about anything but at the same time making sure that everybody believes you.
You have the resources to brainwash a globe.
It’s dawning on me that the US military-techno-medical industrial complex is the most powerful entity in the history of human kind. I cannot say I’ve ever really understood or appreciated that point before. Having the power to kill others is one thing but having the power to brainwash them without them knowing they are brainwashed is something else entirely.
The diabetes medication, the Adderall, the Ritalin, the Advair inhalers...the anti-seizure medications, all of those. This is a really great business plan for these companies, make people sick, then sell them the lifetime cure. Measles don't make any money. If you've got measles or chickenpox, the cure is chicken soup and vitamin A, and you can't patent either of those. You'll be well in a week; they are self-limiting illnesses that go away in a week.
But if you can give somebody that vaccine that makes them diabetic for life then you've got a permanent customer or ADD or ADHD.
Many of the vaccines are for illnesses for which there is zero risk.
A one day old baby has zero risk of getting Hepatitis B, if the mother doesn't have it, generally the mother is tested for it. You can only get it from unprotected sex or from sharing needles. Why are we giving one day old babies a vaccine for Hepatitis B, and they admit the vaccine only lasts five years.
This last paragraph is an excellent addition to my recent Hep B article.
That baby is not going to have sex with a prostitute in the first five years of life.
And this has to be my favourite sentence of 2022 so far, it will be hard to top.
There's zero risk. And yet it's a very, very dangerous vaccine. I'm not anti-vaccine, I just want safe vaccines. I want vaccines tested.
And what I've said to people is, test them against an inert placebo, not one of them has ever been, or test them against an unvaccinated population. So, show me a vaccinated population then an unvaccinated population, and show me that the vaccinated population is healthier, and if you can do that, we will post that study on my website, and I will retire from this work and go back to working for Waterkeeper full time which is what I want to be doing.
I’d heard about the placebo malfeasance before but hadn’t gone deeper into the subject. But Robert’s mention of it hear prompted me to go looking and trying to better understand what he means.
Here is a passage from The Real Anthony Fauci:
Farber argues that, under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the failure of researchers to properly control with a placebo group “is perhaps the outstanding characteristic of AIDS research in general.” The statistical gimmick of getting rid of the inert placebo control group would become a tool wielded by Dr. Fauci to gain approvals for hundreds of new drugs and vaccines, from AIDS to COVID.
According to Farber, “As it was, there was no placebo group, so HIVNET’s results are a statistical trick, a shadow play, in which success is measured against another drug and not against an inert placebo—the gold standard of clinical trials.”
This is one of those design features very, very high up the river that has led to the pollution of everything downstream.
The “corruption of the placebo” is a feature of the system and NOT A BUG.
Toby Rogers brought my attention to this letter/report to HHS (Dept. of Health and Human Services) written in Dec 2018 (thank you Toby!) from ICAN (Informed Consent Action Group).
I’m not sure there is a better document that summarizes and explains the scale of malfeasance and corruption when it comes to the corruption of the “safety trials” and specifically to the corruption of the placebo group.
We know they redefine words and now we also know that they have redefined “placebo” to mean something that “is NOT a placebo”.
From the ICAN Report:
As defined by the CDC, a “placebo” is: “A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.” As HHS is aware, common examples of a placebo are a saline injection or sugar pill. The reason that drugs are first evaluated in a clinical trial against a placebo control group, prior to being released to the public, is to assess the drug’s safety and effectiveness. As explained by HHS:
In undertaking a clinical trial, researchers don’t want to leave anything to chance. They want to be as certain as possible that the results of the testing show whether or not a treatment is safe and effective. The “gold standard” for testing interventions in people is the “randomized, placebo-controlled” clinical trial. A placebo is an inactive substance that looks like the drug or treatment being tested.
However, for each pediatric vaccine – except one – that HHS promotes for routine injection into children, the clinical trials relied upon to assess its safety prior to licensing its use in children did not use a placebo-control group.
The following three tables, compiled from HHS’s own publications, list each pediatric vaccine that HHS’s vaccine schedule provides be routinely injected into American children. Each table addresses a different age range and answers whether the trials relied upon to license each vaccine for use in children included at least one clinical trial that assessed its safety against a placebo control group.
According to HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule, babies receive three injections of each of the following vaccines between day one and 6 months of life:
As the above table and HHS’s own documentation show, there is not a single vaccine brand routinely injected into American children between day one and 6 months of life that was licensed based on a clinical trial which included a placebo-control group.
According to HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule, babies receive a fourth injection of most vaccines in the table above as well as one or two injections of each of the following additional vaccines between 6 months and 18 months of life:
As the above table and HHS’s own documentation show, there is not a single vaccine brand routinely injected into American babies between 6 months and 18 months of life that was licensed based on a clinical trial which included a placebo-control group.
Finally, according to HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule, children receive yet another injection of a majority of the vaccines in the above two tables as well as one to three injections of each of the following additional vaccines, along with an annual influenza vaccine, between 18 months and 18 years of life:
As the above three tables and HHS’s own documentation establish, only one out of 30 vaccines brands routinely injected into American children was licensed based on a clinical trial which had a placebo-control group.
The use of placebo control groups is essential to protect society from the harm that could result from widespread use of ineffective or unsafe medical treatments. The fact that HHS does not and apparently will not require pharmaceutical companies to use a placebo control in pediatric vaccine clinical trials evidences HHS’s lack of confidence in the safety profile of these products. If HHS had confidence in their safety profiles, it would require that vaccine clinical trials – as is typical for drug clinical trials – include a placebo-control group. For example, drugs such as Botox, Prozac, and Lipitor, typically given to adults rather than children, have placebo controls in their clinical trials. Like almost all drugs, pediatric vaccines should be licensed based on placebo-controlled clinical trials so that HHS can assess their safety profiles prior to approving them for injection into millions of children.
It is troubling that HHS chose to begin its response by misstating that prior to licensure for children “many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” At worst, HHS knowingly perpetuated this inaccurate claim, but at best, HHS was unaware this claim was incorrect. This leaves the public to wonder what other critical assumptions underpinning HHS’s confidence in vaccine safety are incorrect.
This next section goes into detail on how the Gardasil control group was corrupted. It’s telling and informative as to the lengths they will go to to corrupt the trials but also the mechanics and tools used in that corruption.
The critical difference between using an inert and non-inert substance as a control can be clearly seen from the trials relied upon to license Gardasil in 2006. The manufacturer’s package insert for Gardasil states that it was licensed based on a clinical trial in which:
(i) 10,706 women received Gardasil;
(ii) 9,092 women received 225 mcg or 450 mcg of Amorphous Aluminum Hydroxyphosphate Sulfate (AAHS) – the so-called “AAHS Control” (aluminum adjuvant, such as AAHS, is a known cytotoxic and neurotoxic substance used to induce autoimmunity in lab animals, and which numerous peer-reviewed publications implicate in various autoimmune conditions58);
and (iii) 320 women received a “Saline Placebo.”
During the six month study follow-up, 2.3% of the women receiving Gardasil (the “test group”) and 2.3% of the women receiving the AAHS Control or Saline Placebo (the “combined control group”) reported developing a systemic autoimmune disorder. Since the rate of systemic autoimmune disorders in the “test group” and the “combined control group” were similar, the vaccine was deemed safe and licensed by HHS.
What the manufacturer’s package insert for Gardasil given to the public failed to disclose is that the Saline Placebo group had zero cases of systemic autoimmune disorder (when 7 cases – 2.3% of 320 subjects – would be expected if autoimmune disorders were equally distributed among the Saline Placebo and AAHS Control recipients).
This fact was obfuscated by combining the small Saline Placebo group with the large AAHS Control group into a single control group and reporting their combined systemic autoimmune disorder rate, even though all the cases of autoimmunity came from the AAHS Control group. The following is an excerpt from Gardasil’s package insert with the combined control group highlighted in yellow:
The fact that the Saline Placebo group had no cases of systemic autoimmune disorder is what would be expected. It is not normal for 2.3% of previously healthy girls and women to develop a systemic autoimmune disorder within six months of the commencement of a clinical trial unless there was some environmental exposure that caused the harm, such as an injection of Gardasil or AAHS. This finding is nonetheless ignored because, to license this vaccine, HHS permitted AAHS to serve as the control.
It was also unethical to inject almost 10,000 girls and women with a known neurotoxin like AAHS, which has no therapeutic benefit. The transparent purpose of this unethical study design was to create a “control group” that would yield a similar adverse event rate to the “test group” receiving Gardasil. In this manner the trial masked a serious safety issue with Gardasil that should have prevented its licensure. Furthermore, there was no excuse for not requiring a placebo control (saline injection) in clinical trials for Gardasil because, at that time, no other vaccine was yet licensed for the four HPV strains Gardasil was intended to prevent.
Then there is the issue of timeframe. The observation and review period for adverse reaction is counted in DAYS.
At two months of life, HHS’s schedule instructs that babies be injected with the Hepatitis B, Hib, DTaP, IPV, and PCV 13 vaccines. The safety review period of so-called solicited and unsolicited adverse reactions in the trials relied upon to license these vaccines were also too short to capture any resulting chronic health conditions. This is confirmed by HHS’s own documentation for each:
Again, without a placebo controlled clinical trial, which none of the above had, the actual safety profile of each vaccine cannot be assessed even for the limited duration that its safety was reviewed. Moreover, even assuming placebo controls were used, tracking safety for (at most) a mere 6 months after injecting a 2-month old baby will not reveal if the vaccine caused autoimmune, neurological or developmental disorders that are likely to only be apparent or diagnosed after the child is a few years of age.
Lastly and for the sake of completeness I want to include the tables in the ICAN Report that outline what was in each and every “Control Group” for each of the vaccines.
We have injected these toxins into the bodies of our children because they told us they were safe, that they were tested and we took that to mean “tested against a real placebo”.
Well, that never happened, we were lied to from the very beginning and our children have paid the price.
For example, HHS lists two studies involving the meningococcal vaccine as comparing “vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.” However, in one study the test group and control group both received a meningococcal vaccine, and in the other study the test group received seven vaccines and the control group received six vaccines. Claiming these two studies compared “vaccinated versus unvaccinated children” is misleading. The following table details these two studies and highlights the rate of serious adverse events (SAEs) that are ignored because the control group, wrongly labeled “unvaccinated,” is used as the baseline for what is deemed “safe”:
Similarly, the following table summarizes every purported “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” study that HHS could identify regarding the Hib vaccine (injected per HHS at 2, 4, 6 and 12 months of age) and again highlights the rate of serious adverse events that are ignored because the control group, wrongly labeled “unvaccinated,” is used as the baseline for what is deemed “safe”:
Similarly, for the six influenza vaccine studies listed by HHS as comparing “vaccinated with unvaccinated children,” only four involved an injection of influenza vaccine, and only one of these can be properly labeled as comparing “vaccinated with unvaccinated children.” This one placebo-controlled study involved HIV-infected children and, while it provided almost no useful safety data because it only monitored safety for three days, it demonstrates that it is ethically permissible to use a saline placebo in a vaccine trial.
As for the 13 studies regarding HPV vaccine labeled by HHS as “vaccinated versus unvaccinated,” all – except for one study with a control group of 17 HIV-positive girls – use other vaccines or an injection of the aluminum adjuvant contained in the HPV vaccine as a control. The table below reveals high rates of serious injuries and chronic illness reported by the HPV vaccine recipients, which were dismissed as not being a vaccine safety issue because the rates were similar to those reported in the “spiked” control group. It is noteworthy that unlike most of the vaccines in the tables above, the HPV vaccines were studied in adolescent and older women who, unlike children or babies, are able to clearly express if they are experiencing a serious adverse reaction, such as neurological issues.
The above tables make clear that HHS is misleading the public when it labels these studies as “vaccinated versus unvaccinated” because the control group in each study almost always received another vaccine and/or an active ingredient found in the vaccine.
Little comfort should be derived from the fact that the rate of serious adverse events is the same in an experimental vaccine test group and a control group receiving another vaccine or toxic substance, especially when that rate is higher than what would be expected in the general population. For example, it is troubling that a serious adverse event rate of over 30% (or even 2% of babies) is dismissed just because it occurred in both the subject and control groups, especially where the control group received another vaccine or toxic substance.
So, in summary, the “safe” part of “safe & effective” we can confidently describe as a blatantly misleading institutional lie which renders the “effective” part redundant.
To my two children, I owe you an apology for sleep walking you into these poisons.
I am sorry.
P.S.
On an unrelated note, we managed to save a beautiful injured python yesterday.
Share this post