Bombshell: safety tests for vaccines are corrupt and dangerous

By
External Source
-
0
14
Bombshell: safety tests for vaccines are corrupt and dangerous


Bombshell: safety tests for vaccines are corrupt and dangerous

Jon Rappoport

Nov 20, 2024

∙ Paid

“Take this new vaccine. Tests showed it’s very safe.”

Bullshit.

Let me lay this out for you.

A vaccine maker, seeking FDA approval for a new vaccine, runs a clinical trial with humans.

(Every vaccine was once new, so these clinical trials go way back.)

In the trial, the humans are divided into two groups. The first group gets the new vaccine, and the second group gets a placebo.

The researchers compare adverse reactions in the two groups.

Pretty straightforward.

But here’s the catch. In most safety studies (some people claim it’s all studies), the placebo isn’t the standard saline solution.

Instead, it’s an older vaccine, which has already been approved, and is in use.

If possible, the older vaccine is used to “protect against” the same disease the new vaccine “protects against.”

There are several reasons given for using an older vaccine as a placebo, instead of the saline solution.

I’m not going to bother going through them. They’re ridiculous. For example, “We don’t want to leave people in the placebo group unprotected, so we give them the older vaccine.” Huh? What?

Here’s the reveal. By using the older vaccine as a fake placebo, researchers are deploying an injection THAT ALREADY HAS ADVERSE REACTIONS BAKED INTO IT.

Therefore, by design, the new vaccine and its adverse reactions are going to look better, when the two groups of volunteers are compared.

The new vaccine is going to look MUCH BETTER than it would, if it were compared against a real saline-solution placebo—which yields NO adverse reactions.

“Let’s see. The volunteers in group A, who received the new vaccine…they experienced a total of 176 adverse reactions. The people in group B, the placebo group…168 reactions. That’s comparable. Good. That’s good.”

Sure it’s good, because the placebo wasn’t a placebo, it was a vaccine that causes a whole bunch of adverse reactions.

And the FDA doesn’t blink or raise questions. It just goes along with the con.

Worse, the older vaccine used as a placebo? At one time it was new, and the manufacturer was testing it against an older vaccine, and naturally, the new vaccine passed muster, even though it caused numerous adverse reactions. See where I’m going?

Let’s see:

This post is for paid subscribers

Subscribe

Already a paid subscriber? Sign in


By Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.


By Mark Curtis

Mark Curtis is an author and consultant. He is a former Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) and has been an Honorary Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde and Visiting Research Fellow at the Institut Francais des Relations Internationales, Paris and the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Auswartige Politik, Bonn.

Mark has written six books on British foreign policies and international development:

Mark has also worked on international development issues for over 20 years and manages a consultancy that works with and supports progressive NGOs – Curtis Research. In this work, Mark has published over 75 reports on issues such as food/agriculture, mining, tax, corporations and trade. For this work, please visit curtisresearch.org

Mark is a former Director of the World Development Movement (now called Global Justice Now), Head of Global Advocacy and Policy at Christian Aid and Head of Policy at ActionAid.  He is a graduate of Goldsmiths’ College, University of London and the London School of Economics and Political Science.

To contact Mark

(Source: jonrappoport.substack.com; November 20, 2024; https://tinyurl.com/29o4z3nr)