Vaccine Makers Destroy COVID Vaccine Safety Studies!!!!
- Makers of COVID-19 vaccines are now destroying long-term safety studies by unblinding their trials and giving the control groups the active vaccine, claiming it is “unethical” to withhold an effective vaccine
- In so doing, they make it virtually impossible to assess any long-term safety and effectiveness, and the true benefit versus cost
- It’s ironic, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community is more important than an individual’s risk of harm. Yet vaccine manufacturers are saying that participants in the control groups are harmed by not getting the vaccine, and saving the individual is more important than securing the data needed to make public health decisions
- Getting the active vaccine comes with risk, not merely benefit. This is particularly true for the novel mRNA technology used in COVID-19 vaccines
- As of April 1, 2021, VAERS had received 56,869 adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, including 7,971 serious injuries and 2,342 deaths. Of those deaths, 28% occurred within 48 hours of vaccination. The youngest person to die was 18 years old
While reports of side effects from COVID-19 gene therapies, including life-threatening effects and deaths, continue to climb at breakneck speed,1 a one-sided narrative of safety and effectiveness permeates mainstream media and medical news.
These “vaccines” are so safe and so effective, according to this narrative, that keeping control groups intact for long-term study and comparison of outcomes is now being derided as “unethical,” despite the fact that there is absolutely no non-fraudulent data to support their perverse assertions. Truly, what we’re watching is the active destruction of basic medical science in a surreal dystopian nightmare.
In the JAMA report by Rubin, Moncref Slaoui, Ph.D., chief scientific adviser for Operation Warp Speed, is quoted saying he thinks “it’s very important that we unblind the trial at once and offer the placebo group vaccines” because trial participants “should be rewarded” for their participation.
All of these statements violate the very basics of what a safety trial needs, which is a control group against which you can compare the effects of the drug or vaccine in question over the long term. I find it inconceivable that unblinding is even a consideration at this point, seeing how the core studies have not even concluded yet. The only purpose of this unblinding is to conceal the fraud that these vaccines are safe.
None of the COVID-19 vaccines currently on the market are actually licensed. They only have emergency use authorization — which, incidentally, also forbids them from being mandated, although this is being widely and conveniently ignored — as trials are still ongoing.
At the earliest, they may be licensed two years from now, at the completion of the follow-up studies.5 This is why those in the military are allowed to refuse it, and refuse they have. Among Marines, the refusal rate is nearly 40%.6
So, before the initial studies are even completed, vaccine makers and regulatory agencies are now deciding to forgo long-term safety evaluations altogether by giving placebo recipients the real McCoy, and so-called bioethicists are actually supporting this madness. As reported in The BMJ:7
“Although the FDA has granted the vaccines emergency use authorization, to get full license approval two years of follow-up data are needed. The data are now likely to be scanty and less reliable given that the trials are effectively being unblinded.”
It’s ironic in the extreme, because vaccine mandates are being justified on the premise that the benefit to the community supersedes the risk of individual harm. In other words, it’s OK if some people are harmed by the vaccine because the overall benefit to society is more important.
Yet here they’re saying that participants in the control groups are being harmed by not getting the vaccine, so therefore vaccine makers have an obligation to give it to them before the long-term studies are completed. This is the complete opposite argument used for mandatory vaccination.
If we are to accept the “greater good” justification for vaccination, then people who agree to participate in a study, and end up getting a placebo, need to roll the dice and potentially sacrifice their health “for the greater good.” Here, the greater good is the study itself, the results of which are of crucial importance for public health decisions.
Without this data, we will never know whether the vaccines work in the long term and/or what their side effects are. If an individual in the control group gets COVID-19, then that’s the price of scientific participation for the greater good of society, just as when a vaccinated person gets harmed, that’s considered an acceptable price for creating vaccine-induced herd immunity.
Put another way, when it comes to mandating vaccines, harm to the individual is acceptable, but when it comes to doing proper safety studies, all of a sudden, harm to the individual is not acceptable, and protecting the controls is more important than protecting the integrity of the research. The fact that they’re this inconsistent in their “ethics” could be viewed as proof positive that public health isn’t even a remote concern.
Scientific Ethics Are Eroding
Apparently, concern about risk to the individual only matters when vaccine makers have everything to gain. By eliminating control groups, we’ll have no way of really proving the harm that these “vaccines” might impart over time, as all participants will be in the same proverbial boat.
I remain confident that we’ll continue to see many more health problems and deaths develop in time, but without control groups, these trends can more easily be written off as “normal” and/or blamed on something else.
If I try to edit the OP, it gets deleted and it says “This topic is marked as spam.”
I thought the Moderna control was the meningitis vaccine. That is not a placebo.
That’s terrible news, tbp, but thanks for making us aware of it.
My sister has been fending off pressure from her family and doctor to take the vaccine by saying she was waiting for completion of the safety trials. Prematurely ending the safety studies takes that “easy answer” away from her (and even that was not easy for her). Maybe she could change it to “waiting for FDA approval in lieu of completion of the safety trials”? Then again, maybe that won’t keep them off her back for long either. From In-Depth: How full FDA approval would impact vaccine mandates, competition
…” last updated 9:44 PM, Apr 18, 2021
SAN DIEGO (KGTV) — Pfizer could apply for full FDA approval of its COVID-19 vaccine as early as this month, and Moderna could follow soon after.”
I wonder if ending the safety studies this way -with the BS that they were so safe and so effective they couldn’t be kept from the placebo group- could actually help the vaccine-makers get full FDA approval? If so, it could get even harder for a lot of people postponing the vaccines out of safety concerns:
“There is a lot of legal debate about whether companies or colleges and universities can require people to get a vaccine that only has emergency authorization. But it becomes clear cut once a vaccine has full approval: they can.
Some employers already require the flu vaccine. Courts have upheld the authority of states to fine people who refuse vaccination.” [bold mine]
In late January, WHO released a statement that reiterated the lack of data on pregnant women receiving the COVID-19 vaccine. However, the next day, ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) released a joint statement that seemed to muddy the waters. The statement, published January 27, reads: “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM) are aware of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendation to withhold COVID-19 vaccines from pregnant individuals unless they are at high risk of exposure. ACOG and SMFM continue to stress that COVID-19 vaccines currently authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration should not be withheld from pregnant individuals who choose to receive the vaccine.”
Here’s what the Professional FactSheet reads pg. 19-20:
11 USE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS 11.1 Pregnancy
Pregnancy Exposure Registry
There is a pregnancy exposure registry that monitors pregnancy outcomes in women exposed to Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine during pregnancy. Women who are vaccinated … encouraged to enroll in the registry by calling 1-866- MODERNA. *Data gathering.
All pregnancies have a risk of birth defect, loss, or other adverse outcomes. In the U.S. general population, the estimated background risk of major birth defects and miscarriage in clinically recognized pregnancies is 2% to 4% and 15% to 20%, respectively. Available data on Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine- associated risks in pregnancy.
In a developmental toxicity study, 0.2 mL of a vaccine formulation containing the same quantity of nucleoside-modified messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) (100 mcg) and other ingredients included in a single human dose of Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine was administered to female rats by the intramuscular route on four occasions: 28 and 14 days prior to mating, and on gestation days 1 and 13. No vaccine-related adverse effects on female fertility, fetal development, or postnatal development were reported in the study…
*Rats and mice have a 21-28 gestation period so we have no idea if the offspring are functional or sterile. Dr. Yeadon former VP of Pfizer is afraid of potential infertility in humans. Notice they only gave 1 dose to the rats, not 2.
Thanks for finding and posting this tbp.
One of the way of destroying safety studies is to say the drug is so essential that doing a study is unethical because it delays release and subjects one group to placebo.
This was done with the combined estrogen/progesterone (Prempro) post-menopausal hormone therapy. Pharm scientists (wearing white coats) testified in congressional committees that to study the safety of this combination drug was unethical because its benefits were so over whelming. It was approved without testing.
Unfortunately, Prempro caused breast cancer in tens of thousands of women. And it was not discovered for 10 years or so. 10 years later it was decided that harm outweighed the benefits.
This is the cost of skipping safety studies.
There are exactly zero placebo safety trials for any of the vaccines our children receive. .gov refuses to do any trials of those vaccines now because it would be unethical to withhold the vaccines. In spite of .gov having paid out over $4 billion dollars in vaccine damage. Nothing to see here!
The loss of the control group in the safety studies makes unvaxed people more important. The unvaxed in the population can be used for vaxed vs unvaxed health comparison studies.
I imagine this is why there is such a strong push to eliminate unvaxed people. There will be almost no one left to prove the safety or problems with the vaccines.
While testing a news vaccine we need some brave people to accept the experimental vaccine. We also need some brave people to remain unvaxed for followup vaxed vs unvaxed comparison studies.
I’m not holding my breath that we will ever get such studies. The modest study data about the childhood vax program is not flattering to Pharma.
“ten years of practice data clearly show that unvaccinated and partially vaccinated children have a dramatically lower risk of autism compared to children vaccinated according to the CDC schedule.”
Btw the that doctor’s medical board is attacking him.
“The first peer-reviewed study comparing health outcomes of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated was recently published in the Journal of Translational Science by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University. ”
“The “Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children” implicates vaccines in a host of chronic illnesses now epidemic in our nation’s children.”