Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Inappropriate placebos in vaccine trials

  1. #1

    Inappropriate placebos in vaccine trials

    When I read that a medical study is double-blind, placebo controlled I’m almost automatically convinced that it’s a reasonably good study.
    After I found out that in most vaccine trials, that claim to have used a “placebo” for controls, no proper placebos are used; I feel like a gullible fool...

    In the first link are recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to NOT use placebos in vaccine trials...

    In short: the only medical vaccine trials in which a “placebo” can be used, is the situation that no appropriate existing vaccine exists for the specific disease.
    This means that only when no vaccine exists for the disease a placebo should be used.

    According to the WHO, it is unethical to conduct a proper placebo-controlled trial when already a “highly efficacious and safe vaccine” exists, because the participants in the study are deprived of the beneficial effects of the (already) existing vaccine.
    So in these situations instead of a placebo a previously approved vaccine will be used.
    According to the WHO, it wouldn’t be interesting to know the effects of the “new” vaccine compared to a placebo, but more relevant “how the new vaccine compares to the one that is currently in use”.

    In some situations, according to the WHO, “it may be appropriate to use a vaccine against a disease that is not the focus of the trial (e.g. an ongoing malaria vaccine trial provides non-malaria vaccines to participants in the control arm)”.
    The WHO motivates this preposterous advice with to “avoid giving an injection with an inert substance”.
    Obviously we can’t “waste” an injection to actually give a placebo (inert substance)…

    It are the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that enforce that no vaccine trials are performed with actual placebos.

    Anette Rid et al – Placebo use in vaccine trials: Recommendations of a WHO expert panel (2014): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4157320/
    (archived here: http://archive.is/NcK9e)


    To NOT use a placebo (that’s actually inert) and then call it a “placebo” anyway in a medical trial should be a criminal offence...

    The result is that every new version of a vaccine could be made with more adverse effects...
    If the first version of a vaccine has only mild (insignificant) adverse effects, comparing the second version to the first, could mean that the adverse effects are insignificant compared to the first, but would be significant compared to a placebo.
    The third version of the vaccine could be made even worse (while of course the medical quack doctors will advise that the newest version of the vaccine is clearly the best)...


    If a “scientist” would want to compare the vaccine to a placebo, for example because the study (or studies) that led to the approval of the vaccine didn’t look into certain types of adverse effects; this would (per definition) be prohibited by the REC…
    Because Gardasil and Cervarix are approved they could be used, according to the WHO guidelines, in following HPV-vaccine trials instead of a placebo. This makes it even more important that these vaccines are properly evaluated...

    The following article presents some questions on the controversial human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil - 27 “little secrets” not known about Gardasil.
    In my opinion it would be appropriate, to find out more about the (adverse) effects of Gardasil by a proper placebo-controlled trial.
    Following is a list of some of the “secrets” not known about Gardasil.

    1. Whether Gardasil prevents cancer
    3. Whether Gardasil increases the risk of cancer.
    A May 2006 FDA VRBPAC document stated girls previously exposed to vaccine-relevant human papillomavirus and get inoculated with Gardasil have a 44.6% increase in getting cervical cancer in their life time.
    5. Whether there is increased risk of autoimmune disorders due to the recombinant HPV DNA
    6. If HPV is necessarily an infection transmitted by sexual intercourse
    12. Long term serious side effects
    13. What the results would be if a true placebo had been used in all the clinical trials
    The FDA allowed Merck to use a potentially reactive aluminum containing placebo as a control for most trial participants, rather than a non-reactive saline solution placebo. A reactive placebo can artificially increase the appearance of safety of an experimental drug or vaccine in a clinical trial.
    http://offtheradar.co.nz/vaccines/29...e-secrets.html
    (archived here: http://archive.is/joMG6)


    There you have it: instead of a placebo they allowed the use of a “reactive aluminum containing placebo”. That’s a “placebo” with adverse effects...
    Maybe I’m the only one to think that it’s bizarre that according to the WHO it is unethical to use a placebo when already a vaccine exists, because the participants would be deprived of the existing vaccine. But participants in vaccine studies are injected with “placebos” with “aluminium” with adverse effects.
    To use a "placebo" with adverse effects should be a criminal offence...

    So not only are inappropriate “placebos” used in vaccine trials when another vaccine for the disease had already been approved, but also when no such vaccine had already been approved!
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Censored data on MMR trials

    Del Bigtree has gotten hold on some information through a FOIA request on the 8 “studies” that were done to approve the MMR vaccine by the FDA in 1978...

    The vaccine trials only ran for only 42 days, most of them had no placebo group for controls. For none of the studies, placebo results have been released. The value of these studies is that they did report on a variety of illnesses. Because information has been blatantly deleted, it’s obvious that there was/is a cover-up!
    I’ll only look at the first 3 studies, if I understand correctly the other 5 only compared the new MMR vaccine to the old MMR vaccine, so these results don´t have much value anyway.

    First study #442, 199 children on the new MMR, 73 children reported complaints (“only” 36,7%), including – 22 Gastrointestinal illness; 23 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 13.
    Data has been released on the Rubella “control” of 197 children.
    On the other MR “control” group, 150-200 children, information has blatantly been deleted.

    Second study #443, 102 children on the new MMR, 78 children reported complaints (76.4%), including - 43 Gastrointestinal illness; 64 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 28.

    Third study #459 only 41 children on the new MMR, 34 children reported complaints (82.9%), including - 24 Gastrointestinal illness; 28 Upper respitory illness; Anorexia 20.
    More than 90% of the data has been blatantly deleted from the report, there were supposed to be 550 children included in this study - MMR (1) 150; MMR (2) 150; Measles 50; Mumps 50; Rubella (1) 50; Rubella (2) 50; Placebo 50.
    All of the other data on adverse effects (on more than 500 children) has intentionally been left out.

    Here is a link to the full set of received information (28 MB): https://icandecide.org/government/FD...ction-FOIA.pdf

    In the following video, Del Bigtree of High Wire that filed the FOIA request, tries to explain what he received.
    He makes some strong arguments, but doesn’t even realise that they fooled him by giving him a censored set, probably to hide the ugly truth (9 minutes)!
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    When I read that a medical study is double-blind, placebo controlled I’m almost automatically convinced that it’s a reasonably good study.
    After I found out that in most vaccine trials, that claim to have used a “placebo” for controls, no proper placebos are used; I feel like a gullible fool...

    In the first link are recommendations of the World Health Organization (WHO) to NOT use placebos in vaccine trials...

    In short: the only medical vaccine trials in which a “placebo” can be used, is the situation that no appropriate existing vaccine exists for the specific disease.
    This means that only when no vaccine exists for the disease a placebo should be used.

    According to the WHO, it is unethical to conduct a proper placebo-controlled trial when already a “highly efficacious and safe vaccine” exists, because the participants in the study are deprived of the beneficial effects of the (already) existing vaccine.
    So in these situations instead of a placebo a previously approved vaccine will be used.
    According to the WHO, it wouldn’t be interesting to know the effects of the “new” vaccine compared to a placebo, but more relevant “how the new vaccine compares to the one that is currently in use”.

    In some situations, according to the WHO, “it may be appropriate to use a vaccine against a disease that is not the focus of the trial (e.g. an ongoing malaria vaccine trial provides non-malaria vaccines to participants in the control arm)”.
    The WHO motivates this preposterous advice with to “avoid giving an injection with an inert substance”.
    Obviously we can’t “waste” an injection to actually give a placebo (inert substance)…

    It are the Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that enforce that no vaccine trials are performed with actual placebos.
    Is this text yours?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratovarious View Post
    Is this text yours?
    Yes.
    Most of my posts are a combination of summary (of an article) with some additional observations/opinion.

    I try to always use "" or <quote> if I actually cite something literally...

    A couple of times I have seen "my" posts literally reposted somewhere else on the internet.
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Firestarter View Post
    Yes.
    Most of my posts are a combination of summary (of an article) with some additional observations/opinion.

    I try to always use "" or <quote> if I actually cite something literally...

    A couple of times I have seen "my" posts literally reposted somewhere else on the internet*.

    Great, you do nice work , is sucks that so many here through things up and
    claim it by default (eng 101) as their own by omitting quotation marks.

    What really sucks is that we have to guess like mthfkrs what they may or may not have
    written themselves.

    I'll have to remember that you're one of those that know the difference.
    ...again , nice work , and appreciated.


    * I know what you mean, ha ha, and when they don't give credit , I guess
    at least the 'word' gets out.

    I often use '' '' 's when I have no idea where a quote came from or don't care to
    bother to list the credit, I just use the quotes to show that I'm not trying to
    claim it as my own work.

  7. #6
    I think that standard 'placebo' concoction is 'sugar water' or something
    probably tasteless.

    Wouldn't is suck if those bstrds loaded the placebo with something that is guaranteed to
    bring on adverse reactions, in order to make the 'fix' / vax look good.



Similar Threads

  1. Is the Unsuspecting Public Still Being Used in Secret Vaccine Trials?
    By Created4 in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-04-2017, 07:26 AM
  2. Vaccine Injuries and Deaths Continue to Increase in Federal Vaccine Court
    By Created4 in forum Personal Health & Well-Being
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 06-04-2015, 02:14 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-19-2013, 04:25 PM
  4. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 09-23-2013, 04:42 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-19-2012, 08:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •