HHS Secretary Kennedy Exposes Schrodinger's Placebo

The vaccine safety community has complained for years that there is no pre licensure placebo-controlled safety testing of vaccines. The vaccine Industry finally admitted it, but said it's OK.

A play in one act:

Vaccine industry last year: "Vaccines are placebo-controlled safety tested and are safe."

Vaccine industry this year: "It is alarming that RFK jr wants to do placebo-controlled safety testing on vaccines!"

Autism mom rolls her eyes and looks straight into the camera: “We told you that none of them were placebo-controlled safety tested before they went on the market in the first place. We've been yelling about it for years and now they admit that we were right, but still call their products safe. You believe us yet?”

The Vaccine industry horrified that RFK junior will undergo placebo-controlled safety testing before going on the market, while simultaneously claiming that all vaccines on the market underwent placebo-controlled safety testing before they were allowed to go on the market.

Kennedy has exposed the placebo bait and switch and vaccine defenders are working overtime on X to say that non-placebos are placebos because ethics apparently dictate that vaccine makers lie to the public. For the good of the public.

From NPR:

“The Trump administration plans to impose a new testing requirement for new vaccines — a demand that could delay the availability of the next round of COVID-19 vaccines and complicate the approval of other vaccines.

The administration will require all new vaccines to be tested against an inert substance known as a placebo before they can be made available, which is a "radical departure from past practices," according to a statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of Health and Human Services.

The latest statement triggered alarm among vaccine experts that this may be another step by Kennedy to undermine the confidence in and availability of vaccines.”

"I think it is the interest of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to make vaccines more expensive, less available and more feared," said Dr. Paul Offit, a University of Pennsylvania vaccine expert. "He's an anti-vaccine activist, a science denialist who is going to do everything he can to tear down the infrastructure in this country of vaccines. Robert F. Kennedy Jr is a dangerous man."

The administration maintains this new requirement is aimed at ensuring vaccines are safe. But vaccine experts dispute the claim that key vaccines weren't tested against a placebo.”

Let's start with a common understanding of the word placebo as defined by both common definition and defined historically by the medical industry.

The common understanding of the word “PLACEBO” according to Webster’s Dictionary:

noun

pla·​ce·​bo plə-ˈsē-(ˌ)bō

plural placebos

1a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder

b: an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)

2: something tending to soothe

The common understanding of the word “INERT” according to Webster's Dictionary:

adjective

in·​ert i-ˈnərt

1: lacking the power to move

2: very slow to move or act : sluggish

3: deficient in active properties

especially : lacking a usual or anticipated chemical or biological action

synonyms for inert:

• dead

• lifeless

• unusable

• dormant

• off

• vacant

• idle

• unused

• inactive

• inoperative

• latent

• at rest

• out of commission

• fallow

• useless

• on the shelf

• suspended

• unoccupied

• quiescent

• asleep

• comatose

• arrested

• moribund

• interrupted

• unworkable

• inoperable

Now let's look at how the medical industry defines the word “PLACEBO.”

• Placebo, an inert, or dummy, drug. Placebos are sometimes prescribed for maladies with no known scientific treatment or in cases in which an ailment has not yet been diagnosed. They are also used in tests involving responses to new drugs. In a blind test the patient does not know whether he or she...

  Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 2020

• An inactive substance or treatment that looks the same as, and is given the same way as, an active drug or treatment being tested. The effects of the active drug or treatment are compared to the effects of the placebo.

  NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms

  U.S. National Cancer Institute, 2021

• An inactive substance, treatment or procedure that is intended to provide baseline measurements for the experimental protocol of a clinical trial.

  NCI Thesaurus

  U.S. National Cancer Institute, 2021

• Placebos are inactive substances or interventions, most often used in controlled studies for comparison with potentially active drugs.

  Merck Manuals, 2020

  But suddenly in 2021…

• Any dummy medication or treatment. Although placebos originally were medicinal preparations having no specific pharmacological activity against a targeted condition, the concept has been extended to include treatments or procedures, especially those administered to control groups in clinical trials in order to provide baseline measurements for the experimental protocol.

  NLM Medical Subject Headings

  U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2021

Wait… what? “the concept has been extended to include treatments”. Treatments by definition are not inert or inactive. Whatever happened to inert, dead, lifeless, unusable, dormant, or off?

Again we turn to Webster’s:

treatment

noun

treat·​ment ˈtrēt-mənt

1: the act or manner or an instance of treating someone or something: such as

…c: the action or way of treating a patient or a condition medically or surgically : management and care to prevent, cure, ameliorate, or slow progression of a medical condition

treatment of accident victims

palliative treatment of inoperable cancer

treatment of a blocked artery

infertility treatments

treatment of diabetic patients

also : an instance of treating a patient or medical condition

patients requiring numerous chemotherapy treatments

Removal of the skin growth required a single treatment.

2a: a therapeutic agent, therapy, or procedure used to treat a medical condition

So when the medical industry says “placebo” what the public hears is that vaccines have been compared to something inert, dead, inactivated, or off things that can't do anything. Vaccines are compared to a zero. Vaccine researches do not use a true baseline.

But what the medical industry means when they say the word placebo is something that does something, something that is on, active, non inert, and will react within the human body.

It means the opposite of what the public thinks it means. In the public discourse such a claim is called “lying,” or “fraud,” or a “bait and switch.” In medical industry parlance it is called “ethics.”

Schrodinger's Placebo is both dead and alive when in the subject

The unusual thing that happened after Kennedy's announcement was that defenders of the vaccine program rushed to Twitter to argue that vaccines were placebo control tested, and when it was pointed out in study after study that true inert saline placebos were not used, they fell back to the argument that it would be unethical to use inert placebos because to do so would leave the control groups unprotected for the disease being tested. Arguing that active vaccines were inert placebos.

They echoed Paul Offit’s refrain that those in vaccine trials in the control group were at terrible risk if they were not also vaccinated against the disease that the vaccinated group was being given shots for. Offit uses the polio trials in 1954 to dramatically make his point while shaming his critics a “cruel”:

“In 1954, 420,000 first and second graders in the United States were inoculated with Jonas Salk’s inactivated polio vaccine; 200,000 were inoculated with salt water. It was one of the largest placebo-controlled trials of a medical product in history. Jonas Salk didn’t want to do it. He couldn’t conscience giving a saltwater shot to young children when as many as 50,000 were paralyzed by polio and 1,500 died every year. When the trial was over, the vaccine was declared “safe, effective, and potent.” Church bells rang out; synagogues held special prayer meetings; department store patrons stopped to listen to the results of the trial over loudspeakers. How did we know that Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was effective? We knew because 16 children died from polio in that study—all in the placebo group. We knew because 34 of the 36 children paralyzed by polio in that study were in the placebo group. These are the gentle heroes we leave behind.”

UPDATE: shockingly, Offit lied here. A reader brought to my attention Aaron Siri’s response to Offit’s shaming missive. Siri points out that the polio vaccine was not using saline placebo. Frankly, I'm embarrassed that I did not look it up before I published it. New rule, check every single one of Offit’s claims.

More false claims by Offit. First, it is categorically false to claim that “200,000 were inoculated with salt water.” These children did not receive “salt water.” The official final report from the Salk trial (Dr. Offit, I am happy to send you a copy), on page 51, describes precisely what these 200,000 children received as a control. It was an injection that included, among other things, the following ingredients: “199 solution” (a synthetic tissue culture medium and ethanol) “phenol red,” “antibiotics,” and “formalin.” Don’t take my word for it, see the official report for yourself. It is categorically false for Offit to claim “200,000 were inoculated with salt water.”

Emboldened by Saint Offit, his followers repeat that other vaccines must be used as the control group to protect the subjects from the disease that they are trying to prevent with the active vaccine being tested. Going so far as to state it would be unethical to allow a control group to receive an inactive placebo.

But his disciples haven't looked hard at his own work to see that he did not even do what they are promoting

Since we are using Paul Offit's ethical claims as a basis for this argument, let's look at the vaccine that he made,Rotateq, that made him a multimillionaire. Now a rotavirus vaccine already existed when he tested his. Rotarix. So if he believed he needed to protect the control group against rotavirus then he could have used Rotarix as his fake placebo. But he didn't.

He used a solution composed of: “Polysorbate-80, Tissue Culture Medium, Fetal Bovine Serum, and Sodium Phosphate." This solution was certainly not preventative of rotavirus, so tell me what it was protective of?

Paul Offit is a con man. His arguments seem reasonable on the surface, until you start thinking critically about the whole picture. Because according to his own writing and research he is an unethical vaccine maker. He neither protected his control group from rotavirus by using Rotarix, nor protected them from injury from his random chemical concoction by using a simple saline.

So why didn't he just use saline if he was not going to protect his control group from something much less rotavirus?

Finally, why the hell would you use Polysorbate 80 in a placebo? It is a soap that makes oil and water mix, and it is linked to very serious side effects. It is hotly debated whether or not should be any products used by humans, much less injected, so why would you put it in a “PLACEBO” that is supposed to have no effect so you can compare the test group with it for SAFETY.

I can only assume that he wanted a fake placebo that would cause damage including to the intestinal damage to make his intestinal vaccine look safer.

The fake placebo is not a random occurrence, it is now the standard. Without notifying the public, the vaccine industry has decided that you have to use a vaccine as a placebo because to do so would be unethical. That is the norm that you must not deviate from without permission. In fact the World Health Organization published a paper giving permission for true placebo to be used under circumstances.

Placebo use in vaccine trials: Recommendations of a WHO expert panel

“Placebo controls may be acceptable even when an efficacious vaccine exists, in the following four possible situations:

• When developing a locally affordable vaccine.

• When evaluating the local safety and efficacy of an existing vaccine.

• When testing a new vaccine when an existing vaccine is not considered appropriate locally.

• When determining the local burden of disease.”

Basically just for neglected diseases, “in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).” That is not for you Mr. & Mrs. America.

So by declaring that inert placebos will become the norm in the United States, Kennedy has exposed the fact that inert placebos have not been in use in childhood vaccine safety evaluations like we were all told before we vaccinated our children.

Here we see each vaccine, and the other vaccine that it was tested against in lieu of a true placebo.

Additionally, ICAN put together this handy chart for us years ago as a result of the findings of there multiple lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services in trying to determine how these vaccines were safety tested in the first place. It is tough finding out that the vaccine that injured your child was never tested in the first place for safety.

What the vaccine industry fails to grasp is that we don't care what their excuse is for not using true inert placebos to safety test vaccines. They have destroyed confidence in the vaccine program because they have lied to us and giving us yet another bait and switch, finding yet another way to claim that vaccines are “safe” while knowing that legally they are “unavoidably unsafe” and scientifically they don't have any idea how dangerous their vaccines are.

The vaccine industry needs to stop using the word “placebo” for anything other than saline, and come up with something else. Vaccibo? Frankincebo? Children’s Health Defense has taken to calling them all, “Fauxcebos.”

To the vaccine industry I want to say that: it doesn't matter why you don't use true, inert placebo controlled safety testing. You just don't. You may want to call what you do safety testing, but you never had a true baseline to begin with. So I don't trust anything you say about the safety of your vaccines. No one should trust you. You don't safety test your products properly.

I don't care WHY you don’t do it,

I care THAT you don’t do it.