There is so much about the "science" behind vaccines that many people are simply unaware of, like the fact that most vaccines are not even safety tested against honest placebos, for instance. Then there is the issue of a legitimate unvaccinated control group being evaluated alongside a vaccinated group, both of which would be exposed to the same pathogen as part of an observational analysis. This type of safety test has never even been conducted, because many deem its construct to be "unethical" based on an illogically circular assumption that the unvaccinated group would be "unprotected" from said pathogen.
These and other crafty methods of ultimately hiding the truth about vaccines and their many documented dangers from the public are the modus operandi for Big Pharma, which has painstakingly duped the masses into thinking that vaccines have been extensively and unquestionably proven safe. They most definitely have not been proven safe, of course, and many of the vaccine package inserts put out by the vaccine industry itself openly admit this, at least, if you know how to read them.
Big Pharma routinely 'safety tests' vaccines against other vaccines to declare them safe
In a recent piece for VacTruth.com, Markus Heinze takes a closer look at the faulty methodology behind vaccine safety studies, explaining to his readers using simple analogies why the prevailing vaccine dogma is so preposterous. Using several vaccine package inserts as evidence, Heinze divulges the truth about how vaccine companies literally "safety test" their vaccines against other vaccines rather than placebos, which completely compromises their outcomes.
GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) ENGERIX-B hepatitis B vaccine for children, for instance, is his first example, as the package insert for this vaccine reveals that it was safety tested against a different vaccine rather than a saline-based placebo. Since both vaccines used in this study likely produced adverse events -- GSK chose the "control" vaccine, after all -- its manufacturer was able to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion that ENGERIX-B does not come with an elevated risk of harmful side effects.
"What the pharmaceutical company should have done is inject one group with the vaccine and the other group with a non-vaccine placebo (i.e., saline)," writes Heinze. "What the pharmaceutical company did, instead, was inject one group with the hepatitis B vaccine, and the other group with a different vaccine. Then they monitored both groups and found that the recipients of their vaccine had 'no significant difference in the frequency or severity of adverse experiences' as compared to the recipients of other vaccines."
To illustrate the absurdity of this study design, Heinze compares it to a hypothetical safety test on a McDonald's Big Mac that uses a Burger King Whopper as the "control." Obviously, the outcomes are going to be similar, as the products in question are similar -- the Big Mac is "no more lethal than the Whopper" would be the ludicrous conclusion of this study, if it were ever to be conducted.
But this is exactly what the vaccine industry is doing to prove the "safety" of its vaccines, and it is something of which few people are aware. To date, not even one independent, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on vaccine safety using legitimate comparisons to arrive at unbiased results has been conducted. Some members of Congress, including Representative Bill Posey from Florida, have tried to introduce legislation that would require this type of study, but such efforts have been thus far unsuccessful.
Be sure to read Heinze's full piece on the great vaccine safety deception here:
Sources for this article include: