The "Ethical" Strawman
Exposing the Real Reasons They Will Never Do the Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Study
Public health, government agencies, and pharmaceutical companies are often criticized for not conducting vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies and rightly so. This contentious issue is often dismissed because they state it raises ethical concerns and practical challenges but the truth is that such a study would intersect with vested interests. Despite calls for such studies, they remain largely absent from research agendas. This post explores the reasons behind this absence and delves into the complexities involved.
Ethical Considerations
One of the primary reasons cited by public health and government agencies for not conducting vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies is ethical concerns. They argue that it would be unethical to deprive individuals of potentially life-saving vaccines in a controlled study. Such studies would require a group of participants to go without vaccination, exposing them to risks of preventable diseases. (Even though there are many out there who would gladly decline vaccines and take part in the study to expose the truth behind the façade that is the vaccination schedule).
The claim that will be made is that such a study violates the principle of beneficence, which emphasizes the obligation to do good and prevent harm to individuals. But without such a study how can one know if vaccines are truly as safe as they say they are?
Using Placebos
In clinical trials, the gold standard for testing the efficacy of a new intervention is the use of saline placebos. However Public Health officials will claim that in the case of vaccines, using saline placebos presents practical and ethical challenges. They will argue that administering a saline placebo to individuals who could potentially benefit from vaccination would be unethical. This dilemma complicates the design of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies and purposely so.
Alternative Comparators
To address the ethical concerns surrounding placebo use, researchers often opt for alternative comparators in vaccine studies. These may include using other vaccines or adjuvants, such as aluminum, as controls. However, critics argue that such comparators can skew results in favor of the tested vaccine. For instance, if the control group receives another vaccine, any observed differences in outcomes between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups may be attributed to the specific characteristics of the comparator vaccine rather than the tested vaccine.
For example, if I give you 10 shots of tequila and then I give someone else 10 shots of Jack Daniels and then say “see Tequila doesn’t make you drunk, there was no difference in the outcome between the two groups”. It’s manipulating the results for their advantage and putting money in their pockets. There’s a vested interest and if their product is proved to be unsafe then they lose money. Simple as that.
Practical Challenges
In addition to ethical considerations, public health officials will claim there are practical challenges that hinder the conduct of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies. These challenges they claim include recruitment difficulties, funding constraints, and logistical complexities. Moreover, conducting long-term follow-up studies to assess the safety and efficacy of vaccines requires substantial resources and time.
All of which are bogus. Not only is there the Vaccine Data Link (VDL) that could be used to conduct such a study (see below), but there are thousands of people who would gladly volunteer to do such a study to prove what they already know. That unvaccinated children/adults are much healthier and have less chronic health problems than those who are fully vaccinated.
The Vaccine Data Link
Critics argue that public health agencies could utilize existing resources, such as the Vaccine Data Link (VDL), to conduct vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies without resorting to unethical practices. The VDL is a collaborative project between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several health organizations that monitors vaccine safety and effectiveness using electronic health data. Leveraging this database could provide valuable insights into the comparative outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals without the need for controlled trials.
Vested Interests
Despite the availability of resources like the VDL, public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies avoid conducting vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies intentionally. These entities are reluctant to pursue such studies because they fear the potential ramifications. If conclusive evidence emerged showing adverse outcomes associated with vaccination, it could undermine public trust in vaccines, disrupt government immunization programs, and adversely affect the profitability of pharmaceutical companies.
If they can’t make you sick, then they lose a life long customer. Hence the propaganda that vaccines are “safe and effective” and have “saved humanity”. Simply look at the ingredients in a vaccine. Is the human body born, or at any point for that matter, deficient in those ingredients? Aluminum, Thimerosal, Formaldehyde, Polysorbate 80, Aborted Fetal Tissue are all toxic and should never be injected into the body.
You can’t inject health.
It’s Simple. Do the Study
The absence of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated studies is a contentious issue that has nothing to do with ethical or practical issues, it’s all rooted in vested interests. While public health agencies and pharmaceutical companies cite ethical concerns and logistical hurdles, these entities could leverage existing resources like the Vaccine Data Link to address these concerns. However, the reluctance to conduct such studies persists amid fears of adverse outcomes and repercussions for stakeholders. Resolving this debate requires one simple thing.
Do The Study.
Resources:
The Control Group - A Pilot Survey of Unvaccinated Americans