Proving Safety and Efficacy

Studies follow a hierarchy in terms of the quality of evidence that they can provide. Randomized double blind placebo control (RDBPC) studies are considered the “gold standard” of epidemiologic studies. As rigorous as this study method is, it has failed many times in the past. Drugs like Vioxx killed tens of thousands of people despite having undergone this form of study. Lets break down what this means in simple terms.


Approved study participants are chosen at random to be placed in either the treatment group or the placebo group.


In the context of a clinical trial, double-blind means that neither the patients nor the researchers know who is getting a placebo and who is getting the treatment. Because patients don’t know what they’re getting, their belief about what will happen doesn’t taint the results. Because the researchers don’t know either, they can’t hint to patients about what they’re getting, and they also won’t taint results through their own biased expectations about what the results will be.

Placebo Controlled

Definition of Placebo, noun, Merriam Webster
1aa usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder
ban inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)
A placebo is an inactive substance (often a sugar pill) given to a patient in place of medication. For studies on injectible drugs, a saline solution (salt water) usually serves as a placebo.

In drug trials, a control group is given a placebo while another group is given the drug (or other treatment) being studied. That way, researchers can compare the drug’s effectiveness against the placebo’s effectiveness.

Randomized Double-Blind Placebo Controlled Study

Thus, a randomized double-blind placebo controlled study is a medical intervention study involving human participants which are randomized into either treatment or control, and neither side knows who is getting the treatment and who is getting the placebo. Before getting to this stage, researchers often perform animal studies, clinical trials not involving a control group, and single-blind studies.



Not a single vaccine licensed for use has ever undergone RDBPC study. More over, not a single licensed vaccine has ever undergone inert placebo controlled study, much less randomized and double-blinded. It is this break from established scientific protocol that has parents across the world concerned about the safety of what we inject into our children soon after they are born. We would expect that as our most precious assets, whom are the most vulnerable, that medical interventions would need to be thoroughly tested using rigorous scientific studies that have been proven to yield the highest quality of evidence.

Excerpt from the Infrarix-Hexa Monograph (DTaP-HB-IPV-Hib):

A double-blind, randomized, placebo (DT)-controlled trial conducted in Italy, sponsored by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), assessed the absolute protective efficacy of INFANRIX when administered at 2, 4 and 6 months of age. A total of 15,601 infants were immunized with 1 of 2 tri-component acellular DTP vaccines (containing inactivated PT, FHA and pertactin), or with a whole-cell DTP vaccine manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, or with DT vaccine alone.

When reading the first sentence, there’s an assumption that true scientific protocol has been followed. But then the next sentence reveals the “placebo controlled” groups merely received other vaccines. This scientific sleight of hand dupes people into believing a high level of scientific rigor has been employed.

“Active” Placebos

Some vaccine trials claim to be “placebo controlled” on the surface, but reviewing the study one discovers that instead of using a true inert placebo (like a saline solution), instead they use “active” placebos. Sometimes this active placebo is another vaccine, and other times its all the ingredients of the vaccine (such as mercury, aluminum, aborted fetal tissue, protein particles, DNA, RNA, polysorbate 80, squalene, viral or bacterial particle contaminants etc) except the antigen itself. This completely negates the purpose of what a placebo is designed to control for.

Learn More about Vaccine Ingredients on

When we compare the effects of an intervention versus a true inert placebo, we can conclude that increases in adverse events or beneficial effects in the treatment group are a result of the treatment.

Using active placebos we could prove that being struck in the head with a baseball bat does not increase headaches if our active placebo group is being struck with a golf club. 90% of participants in both groups reported headaches, and thus being struck with a baseball bat did not increase reports of headaches versus placebo. This is the level of scientific fraud that is being called “settled science.”

Aluminium adjuvant has been administered to both experimental and control group in the vast majority of randomised clinical trials on HPV vaccines, thus masking its potentially harmful effects. Clinical trials designed to administer vaccine adjuvants to the experimental group as well as the placebo group do, de facto, not compare an intervention against a true placebo, and therefore, do not adequately assess safety. Indeed, aluminium adjuvants, new or old, should be evaluated for benefits and harms on their own merits. – 


Most doctors do not know that unlike virtually every drug that is approved (with few exceptions) vaccines do not undergo true placebo controlled study. When vaccination proponents are confronted with what should be a startling realization, the answer for why this fundamental type of study has not been conducted is that it would be “immoral” to withhold a vaccine from someone. 

What is truly immoral is injecting newborns and infants with drugs that have never undergone comprehensive study to prove safety prior to being licensed. Nazi’s were hung at Nuremburg for exerimentation on people without informed consent, today this immorality is praised for the Greater Good.


Learn More:


Leave a Reply

Brief History of Disease – How We Conquered Infectious Disease

Brief History of Disease – How We Conquered Infectious Disease

Medicine can be broadly categorized into two distinct groups; trauma and health. Western medicine is a product of wartime innovation designed to get soldiers back on the field as soon as possible. When it comes to trauma medicine, Western medicine is the undisputed...

Vaccine Efficacy – Are “immunized” and “vaccinated” synonyms?

Vaccine Efficacy – Are “immunized” and “vaccinated” synonyms?

Sleight of Hand Safe and Effective™ is the mantra we're all familiar with. When we're told a medical product is effective there is an automatic assumption that it has been scientifically proven to treat or prevent what it was designed for. It's this assumption that...

“My Doctor Knows Best.” – How much does he really know?

“My Doctor Knows Best.” – How much does he really know?

Doctors are supposed to be our most trusted source of information concerning the health of ourselves and our children. We trust that when they recommend a medical intervention that they fully understand the risks, the benefits, and the alternatives. We trust that...

Why are children experiencing an explosion in chronic illness?

Why are children experiencing an explosion in chronic illness?

Virtually every chronic disease has grown to epidemic proportions in our children. ADHD, allergies, autism, cancer, autoimmune conditions, diabetes, epilepsy, and the list goes on. With the dramatic rise of these chronic diseases happening over an infinitely small...

Are the unvaccinated at risk?

Are the unvaccinated at risk?

The discourse surrounding vaccines is emotionally charged and vitriolic on the part of zealous vaccination advocates. Anyone questioning vaccines in any way is said to be endangering children, condemning them to terrible diseases or even death. "Patients have the...

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This
%d bloggers like this: