Name: Fauci to Bigtree/RFK in 2017: Adequate trials, analyses of childhood vaccines will NEVER be done
Uploaded: 2022-07-11T14:57:39+00:00
Duration: 9 min 58 s
Description: SUMMARY: Fauci admitted in 2017 that no phase 3 inert placebo controlled trials of childhood vaccines have ever been done. They will also never be done in the future, because they are "unethical". Fau

1 year ago

588

SUMMARY: Fauci admitted in 2017 that no phase 3 inert placebo controlled trials of childhood vaccines have ever been done. They will also never be done in the future, because they are "unethical". Fauci will also block any (public) analysis of already available data. So there is no adequate proof of childhood vaccine necessity, safety, or efficacy, nor will there be if it is up to the government institutions.

Anthony Fauci admitted to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Del Bigtree in a meeting in 2017 that there are no randomized, double blinded, inert placebo controlled studies on any childhood vaccine on the CDC schedule. Not only are there no such trials currently, but Fauci said they would never be done because they are "unethical".

This argument assumes that all vaccines are strictly necessary, extremely safe and highly effective. Doing a trial where a portion of the participants receive an inert placebo, would be unethical, because their health would be in danger unnecessarily.

However, apparently it IS ethical to expose millions of children to health risks due to inadequately tested injections that are essentially mandatory.

NB: During the COVID 'pandemic', Fauci and others essentially blocked all (early) treatment with repurposed medications, because the large scale, double blinded, placebo controlled clinical trials had not been done. See the double standards? One the one hand, they refuse to do placebo controlled trials for vaccines because it is unethical to expose a person to health risks due to lack of support. On the other hand, they have no problem essentially banning all support for people with COVID without even giving them a placebo. (This is not even new: Fauci used the same trick in the 1980's with AIDS.) As dr. Robert Malone says, "Tony [Fauci] likes to have it both ways."

The vaccine cult have done an excellent job of protecting their dogma from attacks:

1. They start out with the (implicit) claim that all vaccines are necessary, safe and effective. Since they are the 'authorities' and they "represent science" (according to themselves), they feel they have the right to make such claims despite having no adequate scientific evidence to back up these claims, and the availability of significant scientific evidence to question the claims. As Bret Weinstein says, "The authorities deliver PR in lieu of information".

2. They will only admit lack of necessity, efficacy or safety if it is proven in a large scale, prospective, double blind, inert placebo controlled trial.

3. They will block any such trials, so the conclusive evidence will never be generated.

It could be that the vaccine cult truly believe it is unethical to do inert placebo controlled studies. However, alternative explanations are not only possible, but plausible. For instance, they might be afraid or know for a fact, that doing such trials would show conclusively that regular vaccines in the current context are neither necessary, nor safe, nor effective.

The authorities unblinding all participants ('breaking the blind') in the COVID vaccine trials way before the trial had ended, and erasing the placebo group by offering to vaccinate its participants ('cross-over'), fits with this explanation. This sabotage makes it much more difficult to adequately prove that the COVID jabs are unnecessary, unsafe and/or ineffective.

NB: Here, we are just talking about SINGLE vaccines. However, there are significant additional safety and efficacy issues with COMBINATION vaccines, such as the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine. The chance of combination vaccines ever getting the required trials are even slimmer.

What are alternative ways to get high quality evidence?

1. Observational retrospective trials comparing unvaccinated children with vaccinated people, such as the one done by dr. Paul Thomas. He showed that unvaxxed children were significantly healthier overall than vaxxed children. While this does not conclusively prove that childhood vaccines are harmful, it certainly points in that direction.

2. Cluster randomization, e.g. comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated regions.

3. Teasing a signal of causation out of a correlation. The Bradford Hill criteria are very suitable for this purpose.

4. Data mining: Analysis of large data sets with advanced techniques and computers. The required data are already available, for instance in the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD). All required expertise is also available (for instance at Oracle) and the study would be relatively cheap.

When asked by Del Bigtree and RFK for this study, Fauci answered: "We will NEVER do that study". This is presumptive evidence of fraud.

It is highly likely that the analysis has already been performed internally and subsequently suppressed, because the results were inconvenient to their ideal of universal vaccination. Had the data been convenient, the analysis would have been published to strengthen vaccine confidence and uptake.

If the government would make the de-individualized data available to the public, experts like dr. Jessica Rose would probably do the study for free. Here we see in no uncertain terms that Fauci doesn't care about public health, since there can be no valid reason to not analyze already available data.