Debate on Vaccine Testing Methods
big problem with trusting the science is not the science part,
it's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of
vaccines for children. Because I hear this over and over and over
in social media and the news, "They've been tested for safety.
It's been proven that these vaccines are safe and effective." Normally,
when you study a drug, you compare it with a
placebo, so that way you can truly test the side
effects on
something. But that is not how they test children's
vaccines. What they'll do is they'll test an active vaccine
with another active vaccine. So this so-called placebo
control is not really a true placebo
control because it's not inert. It's an
active vaccine with something called an adjuvant.
This is something they add to vaccines to create more of an immune reaction,
and the big one that they've been using for a long time is, uh, aluminum.
Think about this for a second. If I were to test the
safety studies on whiskey, of course, I'd wanna test that against
water, right? But what if I tested whiskey against bourbon,
and I looked at the side effect of each, okay?
So whiskey will create, uh, fatty liver, creates inflammation of the liver,
cirrhosis, all sorts of other problems like dementia,
et cetera, et cetera.
So if I were to tell you, "Well, the bourbon had roughly about the same
side effects as the whiskey,
so it's not any worse," that would be considered safe.
Yeah, that's how they test these vaccines in
children.
The argument that they make against this to justify it is they don't
wanna give a true placebo with children because they consider that
harmful, right? Because they're not giving something
that can save their
life. My question is: How can you really, truly test the safety and effectiveness
of something if you're looking at the relative safety of an active
vaccine to another active vaccine with adjuvants?
That just muddies the water to this whole safe and effective
claim that you keep hearing over and over and over
End of transcript · 351 words