You probably already came across the term 'double-blind randomized control trial'.  

Such control trials are conducted to determine whether vaccines are sufficiently 'safe and effective' to approve them and keep them on the market.  

Hence it is ESSENTIAL that these trials are not rigged but are conducted in such a way that the resulting data from the trial are trustworthy and not biased.  

This means that for the vaccine tested there is besides the trial vaccinated group also a control group which receives a pure saline injection, such that the results of the vaxxed and control group can be compared. 

Sounds logical and self-evident.  But here is the thing > there are NO randomized control trials that meet that simple criterion. 

What they do is provide the control group not with a neutral and pure saline injection, but they inject them with the same vaccine shot from which only the 'active' ingredient has been removed, and the control group thus gets a shot containing all the adjuvants and other toxic materials that are added to make the vaccine shot 'more effective'.  Needless to say that it would be much easier to just provide a pure 100% saline injection, and so it is clear that the above practice that has been the standard for +50 years, is meant to rig the outcome of the trial. 

And when questioning that shady practice, and advocate for giving a pure saline shot to the control group, the trial-conductors shift the non-discussion to whether the ingredients in the shots given to the control group are 'harmless'.  

 

That whole practice is much better explained by Toby ROGERS in his testimony to the September 9 Senate Committee.  

Attached the link to both a short 3 minute clip of his testimony, as well as a transcript of what he stated.  

More than highly recommended to read that short transcript, and understand how the data from vaccine trials are rigged and the public is being gaslighted about vaccine safety.

> https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/clip-3-from-the-sept-9-senate-hearing

 

As this is such an essential topic for discussing 'vaccine safety'  I post here excerpts from the Transcript of Toby Roger's Senate testimony. 

 

>> 

[Toby Rogers]

In Ph.D. programs, you have to read original sources and you have to define terms. Let’s be crystal clear about the definitions of these terms, because the fate of the Republic depends on getting these definitions right and Dr. Scott is playing fast and loose with these definitions. So let’s be crystal clear about what we mean.

Inert should mean that the substance does not cause a chemical or biological reaction in the body. When supporters of the status quo use the word inert, they can mean just about anything. Paul Offit routinely calls mercury and aluminum inert, even though they are known neurotoxicants. Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan are the best two toxicologists in the world. They published a study in 2014 that says both aluminum and ethylmercury are known neurotoxicants [see Supplemental webappendix]. But the supporters of the status quo say that these things are safe, and they’re not, they’re absolutely not.

 

In the context of vaccines, placebo should mean saline as verified by independent third party testing. That’s NOT what the supporters of the status quo mean when they say placebo. The fact is the FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos [see Beatrice Golomb 1995 and 2010]. So manufacturers can put whatever they want into the comparator intervention and can still call it a placebo by law. Furthermore, scientific journals have no regulations concerning the contents of placebos. Sometimes the manufacturers disclose them in connection with the study and about two-thirds of the time they do not [see Golomb 2010].

Why Use Adjuvant-Only Placebos?

 

  ⁠◦  To isolate whether side effects come from the antigen (the part that triggers immunity) or from other ingredients like adjuvants.

  ⁠◦  This helps determine if reactions are due to the immune response or the delivery system.

 

Ethical Constraints

  ⁠◦  If a safe and effective vaccine already exists, it’s considered unethical to give participants a saline placebo and leave them unprotected.

  ⁠◦  In such cases, trials compare the new vaccine to an existing one, or use an adjuvant-only placebo to avoid withholding  protection.

 

Big fat nothing burger as per.

 

Ignoring all of the above.........if only there was some evidence from worldwide vaccination programs that vaccines worked like say......oh I don't know......the ones used to eradicate or minimise the effects of smallpox? Polio? 

5 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

Why Use Adjuvant-Only Placebos?

  ⁠◦  To isolate whether side effects come from the antigen (the part that triggers immunity) or from other ingredients like adjuvants.

  ⁠◦  This helps determine if reactions are due to the immune response or the delivery system.

Ethical Constraints

  ⁠◦  If a safe and effective vaccine already exists, it’s considered unethical to give participants a saline placebo and leave them unprotected.

  ⁠◦  In such cases, trials compare the new vaccine to an existing one, or use an adjuvant-only placebo to avoid withholding  protection.

Big fat nothing burger as per.

 

Toby Roger's testimony at the 9 Sept Senate meeting, shreds that whole argument. 

> 

But the one thing they never do is to compare a completely unvaccinated group with a vaccinated group because everyone knows that such a trial would show harms.

So if you go through all seventeen hundred and four trials in the database that Dr Scott has put together, as Aaron Siri has done, you’ll find that the inert ingredients are not inert, the placebo is not saline, and the randomized controlled trial does not have a completely unvaccinated control group.

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Toby Roger's testimony at the 9 Sept Senate meeting, shreds that whole argument. 

Better read up before recycling that nonsense.    

 

 

Oh Wow!.....Sorry! I had no idea Toby shredded it......I take it all back........🙄

 

 

4 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

Ignoring all of the above.........if only there was some evidence from worldwide vaccination programs that vaccines worked like say......oh I don't know......the ones used to eradicate or minimise the effects of smallpox? Polio? 

 

Yep, trying to sideline the topic.  This topic is about whether the current practice of conducting control trials to determine 'vaccine safety' is trustworthy.  It is NOT, and the trials are rigged to hide any harms.    

 

 

Toby Rogers -- predictably, not a medical doctor of any kind, but instead, a run-of-the-mill anti-vaxer affiliated with anti-vax misinformation peddling groups like RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense organization and the right-wing Brownstone Institute:

 

From this guy's written testimony:

" I was in a Ph.D. program in Political Economy at the University of
Sydney...

Since then I’ve continued my research with Children’s Health Defense, as an independent journalist, and as a Fellow at Brownstone Institute."

 

-----------------

 

Overall, we rate the Children’s Health Defense a strong conspiracy and quackery level advocacy group that frequently promotes unsupported claims. We also rate them low for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda and several failed fact checks.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

 

AND

 

Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/

And in a nutshell, thanks to AI:

 

--AI Assisted

 

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And in a nutshell, thanks to AI:

 

--AI Assisted

 

 

Oh the irony....555......Toby....shredded.

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Toby Rogers -- predictably, not a medical doctor, but instead, a run-of-the-mill anti-vaxer affiliated with anti-vax misinformation peddling groups like RFK Jr.'s Children's Health Defense organization and the right-wing Brownstone Institute:

 

From this guy's written testimony:

" I was in a Ph.D. program in Political Economy at the University of
Sydney...

Since then I’ve continued my research with Children’s Health Defense, as an independent
journalist, and as a Fellow at Brownstone Institute.

 

-----------------

 

Overall, we rate the Children’s Health Defense a strong conspiracy and quackery level advocacy group that frequently promotes unsupported claims. We also rate them low for factual reporting due to the promotion of propaganda and several failed fact checks.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/childrens-health-defense/

 

AND

 

Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.Overall, we rate the Brownstone Institute Right Biased based on editorial positions that favor a conservative-libertarian perspective. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a failed fact check and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19.

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/brownstone-institute-bias/

 

Strange then that such a 'run-of-the-mill anti-vaxer' (your words) would be allowed to provide sworn testimony at the recent 9 Sept Senate meeting.  

Why not refute what he is stating?  Ah yes, silly me, because you can't and so the only non-argument left is smearing the messenger.  

 

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And in a nutshell, thanks to AI:

 

--AI Assisted

 

 

The last sentence of that IA-generated search says it all > Mainstream scientists and fact-checkers widely dispute his claims.  

Ah yes, the Oracle of Truth - Pharma-paid 'fact checkers' and bought mainstream scientists, dispute his claims and are generously rewarded for doing so.   

 

Why was a run-of-the-mill non-qualified anti-vaxer allowed to testify? Good question!

 

Because the chair of the Senate subcommittee where Toby and RFK Jr.. attorney Aaron Siri were allowed to testify is chaired by a noted anti-vaxer and COVID misinformer, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson.  So he''s using his government platform to spread and propagate their nonsense.

 

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/

 

RON JOHNSON:

 

"A staunch ally of President Donald Trump, Johnson ... promoted false claims of fraud in relation to Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election. He has rejected the scientific consensus on climate change. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson voted for the CARES Act, resisted stay at home orders, used his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to invite witnesses who promoted fringe theories about COVID-19 and spread misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations. [emphasis added]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Johnson

 

There are whack jobs and quacks even in senior positions in the U.S. government, as the presence of RFK Jr. clearly attests.

 

 

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/subcommittees/investigations/hearings/how-the-corruption-of-science-has-impacted-public-perception-and-policies-regarding-vaccines/

 

The above link allows to download the full 9 Sept hearing (3hr40min), as well as the testimonies by a.o. Aaron Siri and Toby Rogers.  

I have written about this quite a few times on AN, and sister site, TT.

 

Kennedy should insist that the labs redo the tests, with controls, and independent observers. This fiasco gets to the heart of the matter on clinical trials and drug testing.

 

One might reasonably think that the people running the trials, would absolutely ensure that the controls were above board. After all, the drug companies funding the trials, would want to make sure a potentially harmful drug was flagged up. Wouldn't they? Instead we see the opposite. Confusion, obfuscation, and dare I say it; deliberate manipulation of the trial outcome/results. Why? Well, it cost a fair bit of dosh to get a new drug product to market. Any fines, or other payouts, when the drug is in general use, is factored in from the start. Up to 10% of the cost of some drugs is simply added to pay out at later stages. Some of these Big Parma firms have been fined millions, some even billions.

 

I was involved in a trial, for a Sth African company, in London in 2006. For my part, I did my job as good as I could, and I can say, that I never saw anything untoward what-so-ever. It was a double-blind trial. The manager, a Sth African lady doctor, was Owl-eyed. The only problem encountered. in the trial, was about the solitary TV. Some of the subjects wanted to watch the cricket, while others wanted films.

 

Actually, there was a big problem at the site with another trial earlier that year. ''March 2006, volunteers were given a drug in a clinical trial at Northwick Park.''

Some adverse events.

 

''The Drug Trial That Went Wrong.''

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002j3xk#:~:text=Initially intended as a potential,medical treatments evolve at speed?

 

 

21 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I have written about this quite a few times on AN, and sister site, TT.

 

Kennedy should insist that the labs redo the tests, with controls, and independent observers. This fiasco gets to the heart of the matter on clinical trials and drug testing.

 

One might reasonably think that the people running the trials, would absolutely ensure that the controls were above board. After all, the drug companies funding the trials, would want to make sure a potentially harmful drug was flagged up. Wouldn't they? Instead we see the opposite. Confusion, obfuscation, and dare I say it; deliberate manipulation of the trial outcome/results. Why? Well, it cost a fair bit of dosh to get a new drug product to market. Any fines, or other payouts, when the drug is in general use, is factored in from the start. Up to 10% of the cost of some drugs is simply added to pay out at later stages. Some of these Big Parma firms have been fined millions, some even billions.

 

I was involved in a trial, for a Sth African company, in London in 2006. For my part, I did my job as good as I could, and I can say, that I never saw anything untoward what-so-ever. It was a double-blind trial. The manager, a Sth African lady doctor, was Owl-eyed. The only problem encountered. in the trial, was about the solitary TV. Some of the subjects wanted to watch the cricket, while others wanted films.

 

Actually, there was a big problem at the site with another trial earlier that year. ''March 2006, volunteers were given a drug in a clinical trial at Northwick Park.''

Some adverse events.

 

''The Drug Trial That Went Wrong.''

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002j3xk#:~:text=Initially intended as a potential,medical treatments evolve at speed?

 

 

Sorry guys!

 

The BBC link has been taken down. Another link below.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theralizumab

26 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

I was involved in a trial, for a Sth African company, in London in 2006.

 

 

In what way were you involved?

 

Which compound?

3 minutes ago, Bacon1 said:

In what way were you involved?

 

Which compound?

Part of the supervisor team.

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

You probably already came across the term 'double-blind randomized control trial'.  

Such control trials are conducted to determine whether vaccines are sufficiently 'safe and effective' to approve them and keep them on the market.  

Hence it is ESSENTIAL that these trials are not rigged but are conducted in such a way that the resulting data from the trial are trustworthy and not biased.  

This means that for the vaccine tested there is besides the trial vaccinated group also a control group which receives a pure saline injection, such that the results of the vaxxed and control group can be compared. 

Sounds logical and self-evident.  But here is the thing > there are NO randomized control trials that meet that simple criterion. 

What they do is provide the control group not with a neutral and pure saline injection, but they inject them with the same vaccine shot from which only the 'active' ingredient has been removed, and the control group thus gets a shot containing all the adjuvants and other toxic materials that are added to make the vaccine shot 'more effective'.  Needless to say that it would be much easier to just provide a pure 100% saline injection, and so it is clear that the above practice that has been the standard for +50 years, is meant to rig the outcome of the trial. 

And when questioning that shady practice, and advocate for giving a pure saline shot to the control group, the trial-conductors shift the non-discussion to whether the ingredients in the shots given to the control group are 'harmless'.  

 

That whole practice is much better explained by Toby ROGERS in his testimony to the September 9 Senate Committee.  

Attached the link to both a short 3 minute clip of his testimony, as well as a transcript of what he stated.  

More than highly recommended to read that short transcript, and understand how the data from vaccine trials are rigged and the public is being gaslighted about vaccine safety.

> https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/clip-3-from-the-sept-9-senate-hearing

 

I'd just like to turn the clock back to 1960/61, when a white-coat, Dr Frances Kelsey, refused to sign off a drug for her boss; the FDA.

 

Interestingly, the other 'experts' did sign Kevadon (Thalidomide) off. But Dr Kelsey, stood firm, and insisted that the clinical trials were simply not good enough. Saying they were incomplete, inconclusive and certainly DID NOT show the drug was 'safe and effective'.

 

Why did the others sign the drug off? Especially when it became obvious that there were deformed babes. Did any of them say; 'I got it wrong' I wonder. This was a world-wide distribution of a drug. How was it so easily recommended for general use in these other countries?

 

Kennedy has a chance to 'clean' the whole suspect system. Is he the man?