Thank you for this excellent breakdown. I still cannot believe sometimes that this is where we find ourselves.
I think there is a coalition of people with different goals undermining vaccine trust and availability. The majority of them probably loudly misunderstand science and ethics. They've never encountered these facts before, and instead were inundated with social media narratives from grifters (or grifter narratives from people like Wakefield before social media existed).
There are people who compartmentalize their belief in various medical intervention or believe that faith in God actually determines health outcomes.
But then there are honest to God eugenicists. Some of them believe vaccines create autistic people, and they hate us so much that will slash and burn medical science to try to eradicate us. Some of them grasp some of the science, but they believe if you require a vaccine to live, then you deserve to die.
“They hate us so much”, who is US? The journals are filling up with papers from genuinely concerned serious scientists. The days of people buying the false dichotomy of The Science vs YouTube grifters have passed.
Disgraceful muddying of the waters. This piece assumes vaccines that are already on the market are safe and that adjuvants such as aluminium are safe.
There is nothing unethical if - on discovering that a vaccine is safe and effective it is then given to the group who missed out as they received a placebo.
it’s acknowledged that Pfizer sold a different version of its C19 shot to the one tested, and that senior management were given a different preparation and that Borla didn’t take it at all. I’ll say that again, they tested one version and gave you another, a version they refused to take themselves
Finally it is now clear that differences in batches caused injury and death, both in US and Denmark. So the trials seem irrelevant when manufacturers cannot mass produce the drug that passed the safety tests.
Thank you kindly, I can’t tell if you are fucking with me but it is a compliment anyway. Why anyone wouldn’t do some reading around a subject beats me, people will spend more time researching their next holiday or car than what they put in their body, oh I guess it’s OK so long as the jab stays in my arm, nothing to worry about there.
It says: Stays in my arm. It means spike proteins did not stay at the injection site and are popping up in tumours, including in the brain. Thank you for the opportunity to amplify further this one aspect of the lies that were told in the name of The Science.
Because we must not try to redo what smarter people have already done:
Heather E. Heying argues that the claim that using placebos in vaccine trials is immoral is flawed because it assumes the vaccine is already safe and effective—an assumption that the trial is meant to test. The clinical trials are supposed to determine that. Assuming a vaccine’s safety to avoid placebo trials undermines the scientific process by favoring weaker testing methods over rigorous ones, such as the placebo-controlled trials, that will provide unbiased evidence of a vaccine’s effects.
Heying also addresses the suggestion (and common occurrence) of comparing new vaccines to existing ones instead of placebos, pointing out that most current vaccines were not tested against a true placebo during their development. Instead, many trials used “placebos” containing adjuvants—substances meant to boost immune response—which can overstimulate the immune system.
This lack of inert placebo testing means there’s insufficient safety data on vaccines, especially regarding adjuvants. She suggests that adjuvants, rather than the vaccine’s active ingredients, might be contributing to rising rates of autism and autoimmune disorders by causing the immune system to overreact to environmental triggers like pollen or food (NSEs), potentially leading to allergies or other immune-related conditions. Without proper placebo-controlled trials, the safety of adjuvants remains untested, raising concerns about their role in declining public health.
Heying first explored these concerns in a June 2023 article and notes that her perspective on pharmaceutical products has not improved since then.
I don't see how there could be an inert placebo that feels like a 'vaccine'. They would know or atleast be more likely to suspect they had the placebo and be effected by the nocebo effect of believing they were susceptible to 'the virus'. To study it scientifically you would need an arm that was not given the 'virus' propaganda. It would be unethical to subject people to the 'virus' propaganda and it could spread to others. We can already see how dangerous 'virus' propaganda is by comparing 2019 with 2020.
This type of fear mongering is taking advantage of so many. The public doesn't scrutinize statements like scientists do. I could probably say, "we're going to implement the actual vaccine will now be tested" in trials and you would get a significant portion of the population glazing over and believing it.
I'm not sure you do your arguments any justice by starting off with irrelevant data points like "these two jews", or calling people as5holes. Neutrality will help you gain traction. Your strongest point is: "The risk-benefit ratio can’t be known until trials are complete, making the original claim invalid." and this is, I think, one of the main flaws in this anti-placebo article.
Thank you for this excellent breakdown. I still cannot believe sometimes that this is where we find ourselves.
I think there is a coalition of people with different goals undermining vaccine trust and availability. The majority of them probably loudly misunderstand science and ethics. They've never encountered these facts before, and instead were inundated with social media narratives from grifters (or grifter narratives from people like Wakefield before social media existed).
There are people who compartmentalize their belief in various medical intervention or believe that faith in God actually determines health outcomes.
But then there are honest to God eugenicists. Some of them believe vaccines create autistic people, and they hate us so much that will slash and burn medical science to try to eradicate us. Some of them grasp some of the science, but they believe if you require a vaccine to live, then you deserve to die.
Crazy times.
“They hate us so much”, who is US? The journals are filling up with papers from genuinely concerned serious scientists. The days of people buying the false dichotomy of The Science vs YouTube grifters have passed.
You are a gleeful shit-eater.
No, there are still reasonable and educated people and then folks like you who are just straight up out of touch with reality.
The projection is so strong with you folks.
This sounds like they want to run the Tuskegee Untreated Syphilis Study all over again...
https://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/about/timeline.html
Disgraceful muddying of the waters. This piece assumes vaccines that are already on the market are safe and that adjuvants such as aluminium are safe.
There is nothing unethical if - on discovering that a vaccine is safe and effective it is then given to the group who missed out as they received a placebo.
it’s acknowledged that Pfizer sold a different version of its C19 shot to the one tested, and that senior management were given a different preparation and that Borla didn’t take it at all. I’ll say that again, they tested one version and gave you another, a version they refused to take themselves
Finally it is now clear that differences in batches caused injury and death, both in US and Denmark. So the trials seem irrelevant when manufacturers cannot mass produce the drug that passed the safety tests.
You are a disgraceful "own researcher."
Thank you kindly, I can’t tell if you are fucking with me but it is a compliment anyway. Why anyone wouldn’t do some reading around a subject beats me, people will spend more time researching their next holiday or car than what they put in their body, oh I guess it’s OK so long as the jab stays in my arm, nothing to worry about there.
"stays in my arm"
What would that even mean?
It says: Stays in my arm. It means spike proteins did not stay at the injection site and are popping up in tumours, including in the brain. Thank you for the opportunity to amplify further this one aspect of the lies that were told in the name of The Science.
Of course antigen and antibodies do not stay in the arm. Blood doesn't "stay in the arm" either.
The lie is that any such claim or reassurance was ever provided by any credible source.
Where did that nonsensical whining point originate?
1. I take it that you benefit financially from this industry, otherwise why shill for them?
2. Say that to my face
3. Care to refute actual facts? Thought not.
"I take it that you benefit financially from this industry, otherwise why shill for them?"
I don't. I'm not "shilling" for anyine or anything. I just find gullible vaccine-pussies amusing.
Because we must not try to redo what smarter people have already done:
Heather E. Heying argues that the claim that using placebos in vaccine trials is immoral is flawed because it assumes the vaccine is already safe and effective—an assumption that the trial is meant to test. The clinical trials are supposed to determine that. Assuming a vaccine’s safety to avoid placebo trials undermines the scientific process by favoring weaker testing methods over rigorous ones, such as the placebo-controlled trials, that will provide unbiased evidence of a vaccine’s effects.
Heying also addresses the suggestion (and common occurrence) of comparing new vaccines to existing ones instead of placebos, pointing out that most current vaccines were not tested against a true placebo during their development. Instead, many trials used “placebos” containing adjuvants—substances meant to boost immune response—which can overstimulate the immune system.
This lack of inert placebo testing means there’s insufficient safety data on vaccines, especially regarding adjuvants. She suggests that adjuvants, rather than the vaccine’s active ingredients, might be contributing to rising rates of autism and autoimmune disorders by causing the immune system to overreact to environmental triggers like pollen or food (NSEs), potentially leading to allergies or other immune-related conditions. Without proper placebo-controlled trials, the safety of adjuvants remains untested, raising concerns about their role in declining public health.
Heying first explored these concerns in a June 2023 article and notes that her perspective on pharmaceutical products has not improved since then.
- Heying, H. E. (2025, May 2). [Post on X]. Retrieved from https://x.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1918386875016069565
Heying, H. E. (2023, June). Childhood Vaccines and the Placebo Problem. Natural Selections. Retrieved from https://naturalselections.substack.com/childhood-va
Eat more feces
I take it that you benefit financially from this industry, otherwise why shill for them?
2. Say that to my face
3. Care to refute actual facts? Thought not.
I don't see how there could be an inert placebo that feels like a 'vaccine'. They would know or atleast be more likely to suspect they had the placebo and be effected by the nocebo effect of believing they were susceptible to 'the virus'. To study it scientifically you would need an arm that was not given the 'virus' propaganda. It would be unethical to subject people to the 'virus' propaganda and it could spread to others. We can already see how dangerous 'virus' propaganda is by comparing 2019 with 2020.
Lots of people don't have noticeable reactions to vaccines.
Huh?
This type of fear mongering is taking advantage of so many. The public doesn't scrutinize statements like scientists do. I could probably say, "we're going to implement the actual vaccine will now be tested" in trials and you would get a significant portion of the population glazing over and believing it.
So why Jim Beam? You could have gone with Jack Daniels or Johnnie Walker. Is this what your daddy abused before teaching you a “lesson”?
Ah okay so he was a schizophrenic? He was “trying to hit the bad men” when he punched you?
I'm not sure you do your arguments any justice by starting off with irrelevant data points like "these two jews", or calling people as5holes. Neutrality will help you gain traction. Your strongest point is: "The risk-benefit ratio can’t be known until trials are complete, making the original claim invalid." and this is, I think, one of the main flaws in this anti-placebo article.
Though actually it was "his as5hole" :-) but I assume it's a typo and it should have been this as5hole... ;-)
I imagine they also push back because these tests are expensive, which affects their bottom line.