Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

A double blind placebo trial is how safety gets established for a pharmaceutical product. You take ten thousand people, five thousand get the drug, five thousand get a placebo, which by definition should have no effect on the body. For an injectable product, that placebo should be saline. It's... called double blind because neither the scientists running the study or the patients receiving it know who got which one, and that distinction matters because those scientists are being paid by the drug company the entire time. That is the standard for every drug, every cancer treatment, every product we put in our bodies. Except one. One of the things I've proven through years of lawsuits with our nonprofit is that not a single childhood vaccine on the schedule has ever gone through that process. None of them. That is the core of my entire issue with this. Of everything you could rush to market without proving it safe first, why would it be the product given to a perfectly healthy child?show more

Del Bigtree

388,513 subscribers

40,423 views • 3 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Science & Technology Health & Wellness News & Politics

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

There are no double-blind, placebo-based randomized controlled trials for the safety of childhood vaccines. They don't exist because the people responsible for them decided not to do them. I know this because in 2017 Robert F. Kennedy Jr and I sat down at the NIH with Francis Collins and Tony Fauci and asked them. We said, we can't find a single placebo-based safety trial for any vaccine on the childhood schedule. Are you doing them, or are we just not seeing them? They told us they don't do those trials because they believe it is unethical to withhold what they consider a beneficial product from a control group. That is the logic. The faith that the product is so valuable that studying it rigorously would be unfair to the people in the trial not getting it. So they never study it. Every vaccine given to every child in America rests on an assumption of safety and nothing more. Marcello Foa

There are no double-blind, placebo-based randomized controlled trials for the safety of childhood vaccines. They don't exist because the people responsible for them decided not to do them. I know this because in 2017 Robert F. Kennedy Jr and I sat down at the NIH with Francis Collins and Tony Fauci and asked them. We said, we can't find a single placebo-based safety trial for any vaccine on the childhood schedule. Are you doing them, or are we just not seeing them? They told us they don't do those trials because they believe it is unethical to withhold what they consider a beneficial product from a control group. That is the logic. The faith that the product is so valuable that studying it rigorously would be unfair to the people in the trial not getting it. So they never study it. Every vaccine given to every child in America rests on an assumption of safety and nothing more. Marcello Foa

Del Bigtree

117,521 views • 2 months ago

💉Not a single routine injected childhood vaccine on the CDC schedule has ever been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. When another vaccine was used as the control, that vaccine was also never licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. Every product on the schedule traces back through a chain of vaccines-used-as-controls, and at the bottom of that chain, there is no placebo. Aaron Siri spent ten years fighting the FDA for the clinical trial documents that prove it, and every one of them is cited in chapter 10 of "Vaccines, Amen." "That is a categorical fact. And for any reporters out there, instead of calling Paul Offit when you run out of here, why don't you actually go to chapter 10 and look at the underlying FDA licensure documents that we spent 10 years clawing out of FDA's hands for yourselves."

💉Not a single routine injected childhood vaccine on the CDC schedule has ever been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. When another vaccine was used as the control, that vaccine was also never licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial. Every product on the schedule traces back through a chain of vaccines-used-as-controls, and at the bottom of that chain, there is no placebo. Aaron Siri spent ten years fighting the FDA for the clinical trial documents that prove it, and every one of them is cited in chapter 10 of "Vaccines, Amen." "That is a categorical fact. And for any reporters out there, instead of calling Paul Offit when you run out of here, why don't you actually go to chapter 10 and look at the underlying FDA licensure documents that we spent 10 years clawing out of FDA's hands for yourselves."

The HighWire

39,704 views • 2 months ago

"We don't know if [any] vaccine will cause cancer or impair your child's fertility later in life. That's every single childhood vaccine... [none of them have] been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility." This clip of board-certified primary care physician Dr. Jeffrey Barke (Dr. Jeff Barke) is taken from a podcast episode of The Counter Culture Mom Show (Tina Griffin) posted to Rumble on May 12, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "My push is really to educate, to give informed consent that isn't otherwise usually given. And the FDA package insert that's required by every vaccine, by every drug, by the way, has a standardized format, and it takes a while. And it took a while for me to teach myself how to read this package insert. "But they're all standardized. So, for example, section 13.1 that every parent should be aware of for childhood vaccines says the following. And I'm literally reading from the package insert. This vaccine is Vaxelis, which is insane. It has six vaccines in one, but nonetheless, they all read the same. So 13.1 says, quote, Vaxelis has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility. Translation, we don't know if this vaccine will cause cancer or impair your child's fertility later in life. That's every single childhood vaccine. "Again, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't get this product, but what I am saying is you should be aware of this. You should also be aware of what the ingredients are in the vaccine. You should be aware of what the studies are that brought the product to market. "Most people, Tina, don't realize that not a single childhood vaccine that's on the CDC schedule and approved by the FDA has ever been tested against a placebo and inert placebo in a randomized control trial. Not a single one of them. Why do you think that is? And if you're listening to this and you're like, you're crazy, that's not true. It actually is true. And the reason why that is, is the FDA has a very different level of scrutiny to bring vaccines to the market versus bringing drugs to the market. "So all these vaccines have come to the market, especially after the act that was passed in the mid-1980s that gave the manufacturers of these vaccines liability protection. So if you're injured by one of these vaccines, you have no recourse against the manufacturer. Once that liability protection was enacted, then the vaccine schedule exploded. And it makes sense. There's no downside. There's only upside down. They make a boatload of money. They have no risk, they have no liability. You can't sue the vaccine company. "And it's said for every new vaccine that's added to the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, that is a 1 billion with a B dollar annuity for that vaccine company. They don't have to advertise. CDC does it for them. They don't have any liability. So it's money in their pocket. And. And what incentive do the vaccine companies have to be extra sure that the product that they're injecting into our children is safe and effective if they have no downside liability. So again, get it or don't get it, but only after informed consent. Only after you know the details of what's in the package insert."

"We don't know if [any] vaccine will cause cancer or impair your child's fertility later in life. That's every single childhood vaccine... [none of them have] been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility." This clip of board-certified primary care physician Dr. Jeffrey Barke (Dr. Jeff Barke) is taken from a podcast episode of The Counter Culture Mom Show (Tina Griffin) posted to Rumble on May 12, 2025. ----------------Partial transcription of clip-------------- "My push is really to educate, to give informed consent that isn't otherwise usually given. And the FDA package insert that's required by every vaccine, by every drug, by the way, has a standardized format, and it takes a while. And it took a while for me to teach myself how to read this package insert. "But they're all standardized. So, for example, section 13.1 that every parent should be aware of for childhood vaccines says the following. And I'm literally reading from the package insert. This vaccine is Vaxelis, which is insane. It has six vaccines in one, but nonetheless, they all read the same. So 13.1 says, quote, Vaxelis has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential or impairment of fertility. Translation, we don't know if this vaccine will cause cancer or impair your child's fertility later in life. That's every single childhood vaccine. "Again, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't get this product, but what I am saying is you should be aware of this. You should also be aware of what the ingredients are in the vaccine. You should be aware of what the studies are that brought the product to market. "Most people, Tina, don't realize that not a single childhood vaccine that's on the CDC schedule and approved by the FDA has ever been tested against a placebo and inert placebo in a randomized control trial. Not a single one of them. Why do you think that is? And if you're listening to this and you're like, you're crazy, that's not true. It actually is true. And the reason why that is, is the FDA has a very different level of scrutiny to bring vaccines to the market versus bringing drugs to the market. "So all these vaccines have come to the market, especially after the act that was passed in the mid-1980s that gave the manufacturers of these vaccines liability protection. So if you're injured by one of these vaccines, you have no recourse against the manufacturer. Once that liability protection was enacted, then the vaccine schedule exploded. And it makes sense. There's no downside. There's only upside down. They make a boatload of money. They have no risk, they have no liability. You can't sue the vaccine company. "And it's said for every new vaccine that's added to the CDC childhood vaccine schedule, that is a 1 billion with a B dollar annuity for that vaccine company. They don't have to advertise. CDC does it for them. They don't have any liability. So it's money in their pocket. And. And what incentive do the vaccine companies have to be extra sure that the product that they're injecting into our children is safe and effective if they have no downside liability. So again, get it or don't get it, but only after informed consent. Only after you know the details of what's in the package insert."

Sense Receptor

22,703 views • 1 year ago

The foundational narrative of vaccine safety is crumbling under the weight of a single, inconvenient question: "Where are the placebo-controlled trials?" A recent Australian Senate hearing exposed the shocking truth that the public health establishment has worked tirelessly to conceal. When asked how many placebo-controlled studies support the childhood vaccine schedule, regulators were left stammering, unable to provide a single example. Their defense? A convoluted, ethically-based excuse: once a vaccine is on the market, it is considered "unethical" to test new ones against a true saline placebo. Why? Because you would be "denying" children an "established" effective product. But this is a circular logic trap of the highest order. As revealed in the powerful new documentary An Inconvenient Study, this creates a perpetual "bait-and-switch." New vaccines are only tested against older vaccines, which themselves were never tested against a true placebo. The entire schedule is built upon a house of cards, with each new product leaning on the safety assumption of a prior, equally un-validated one. The film brilliantly illustrates this with the "Whiskey Study" analogy: - To test if whiskey causes car accidents, the gold standard is a trial against water. - The vaccine industry's method? Test whiskey against vodka, and when both groups crash, declare whiskey "safe" because it was no worse than vodka. They have never done the water test. This is the "gold standard" that isn't. This is the "mountain of science" with a gaping, placebo-shaped hole at its core. For decades, the public has been told a story of absolute safety and rigorous testing. Now, as officials struggle to answer basic scientific questions, that story is being exposed as a carefully constructed myth. The questions are finally being asked. The answers, or the stunning lack thereof, are changing everything.

The foundational narrative of vaccine safety is crumbling under the weight of a single, inconvenient question: "Where are the placebo-controlled trials?" A recent Australian Senate hearing exposed the shocking truth that the public health establishment has worked tirelessly to conceal. When asked how many placebo-controlled studies support the childhood vaccine schedule, regulators were left stammering, unable to provide a single example. Their defense? A convoluted, ethically-based excuse: once a vaccine is on the market, it is considered "unethical" to test new ones against a true saline placebo. Why? Because you would be "denying" children an "established" effective product. But this is a circular logic trap of the highest order. As revealed in the powerful new documentary An Inconvenient Study, this creates a perpetual "bait-and-switch." New vaccines are only tested against older vaccines, which themselves were never tested against a true placebo. The entire schedule is built upon a house of cards, with each new product leaning on the safety assumption of a prior, equally un-validated one. The film brilliantly illustrates this with the "Whiskey Study" analogy: - To test if whiskey causes car accidents, the gold standard is a trial against water. - The vaccine industry's method? Test whiskey against vodka, and when both groups crash, declare whiskey "safe" because it was no worse than vodka. They have never done the water test. This is the "gold standard" that isn't. This is the "mountain of science" with a gaping, placebo-shaped hole at its core. For decades, the public has been told a story of absolute safety and rigorous testing. Now, as officials struggle to answer basic scientific questions, that story is being exposed as a carefully constructed myth. The questions are finally being asked. The answers, or the stunning lack thereof, are changing everything.

Camus

14,485 views • 10 months ago

When I visited with Dr. Pompa to talk about “An Inconvenient Study” he presented me with a something I get a lot: “We know that there’s some small percentage of vaccine injury, but look at all of the lives they save - the benefit outweighs the risk.” My reply is always the same - we need science to prove that, and that should be a double blind placebo controlled trial, because it’s the only one that can show cause. But one has never been done…They stress the safety of novel cancer drugs - and those people are at the end of their options. But for healthy kids? Vaccines that have never been rigorously safety tested. Why?

When I visited with Dr. Pompa to talk about “An Inconvenient Study” he presented me with a something I get a lot: “We know that there’s some small percentage of vaccine injury, but look at all of the lives they save - the benefit outweighs the risk.” My reply is always the same - we need science to prove that, and that should be a double blind placebo controlled trial, because it’s the only one that can show cause. But one has never been done…They stress the safety of novel cancer drugs - and those people are at the end of their options. But for healthy kids? Vaccines that have never been rigorously safety tested. Why?

Del Bigtree

24,893 views • 9 months ago

Elon Musk’s real claim about Optimus isn’t that it’s the biggest product ever made. It’s that the biggest product ever made is a tenth of it. Musk: “I think it will be 10 times bigger than the next biggest product ever made.” That isn’t a claim about robots. It’s a claim about every object humans have ever sold each other, and it only holds once you notice what they all had in common. Every product ever built shipped incomplete. The drill needs a hand. The car needs a driver. The phone needs someone awake and holding it. All of it was leverage, and leverage does nothing until something pushes on it. You were the missing part in every machine ever made. That was the design, not a flaw. Optimus is the first product that arrives with the operator already inside. Which is why the company that got there first was never going to be a robotics company. Musk: “Tesla is the only company with all the required ingredients.” The mind and the body were never built by the same people. Labs that can think can’t stamp metal. Companies that can stamp metal can’t think. Tesla spent a decade mass-producing a machine that already has to see, decide, and move through a world full of people. Then priced it for a driveway instead of a defense contract. The robot is that machine with the road taken away. Musk: “You should be able to ask them to do things naturally.” A machine that has to be programmed sells to the people who can program. A machine you can talk to sells to anyone with something they’d rather not be doing. Every product in history was priced against another product. A better phone. A faster car. A cheaper tool. This one is priced against a wage. Wages are the largest line item on earth and the only cost technology has never driven down. Labor is the only thing anyone has ever sold that the seller never gets back. Every wage ever paid was a life billed by the hour. Musk: “Nothing will even be close.” Nothing else is close because everything else was capped by buyers. Demand for a product ends when everyone who wanted one has it. Demand for work doesn’t end. The ceiling was never how many people would buy it. It was how much there is to do, and there has never been a shortage of that. Only of hands. The prediction isn’t that Optimus succeeds. It’s that if it does, it enters the oldest and largest market on earth, one that has never had a competitor. Every product ever made sold you a better way to spend your hours. This one sells the hours back.

Elon Musk’s real claim about Optimus isn’t that it’s the biggest product ever made. It’s that the biggest product ever made is a tenth of it. Musk: “I think it will be 10 times bigger than the next biggest product ever made.” That isn’t a claim about robots. It’s a claim about every object humans have ever sold each other, and it only holds once you notice what they all had in common. Every product ever built shipped incomplete. The drill needs a hand. The car needs a driver. The phone needs someone awake and holding it. All of it was leverage, and leverage does nothing until something pushes on it. You were the missing part in every machine ever made. That was the design, not a flaw. Optimus is the first product that arrives with the operator already inside. Which is why the company that got there first was never going to be a robotics company. Musk: “Tesla is the only company with all the required ingredients.” The mind and the body were never built by the same people. Labs that can think can’t stamp metal. Companies that can stamp metal can’t think. Tesla spent a decade mass-producing a machine that already has to see, decide, and move through a world full of people. Then priced it for a driveway instead of a defense contract. The robot is that machine with the road taken away. Musk: “You should be able to ask them to do things naturally.” A machine that has to be programmed sells to the people who can program. A machine you can talk to sells to anyone with something they’d rather not be doing. Every product in history was priced against another product. A better phone. A faster car. A cheaper tool. This one is priced against a wage. Wages are the largest line item on earth and the only cost technology has never driven down. Labor is the only thing anyone has ever sold that the seller never gets back. Every wage ever paid was a life billed by the hour. Musk: “Nothing will even be close.” Nothing else is close because everything else was capped by buyers. Demand for a product ends when everyone who wanted one has it. Demand for work doesn’t end. The ceiling was never how many people would buy it. It was how much there is to do, and there has never been a shortage of that. Only of hands. The prediction isn’t that Optimus succeeds. It’s that if it does, it enters the oldest and largest market on earth, one that has never had a competitor. Every product ever made sold you a better way to spend your hours. This one sells the hours back.

Dustin

49,627 views • 1 month ago

"Never a Placebo-Controlled Group": How Our Children's Vaccines Were Licensed on a Foundation of Flimsy Science. We are told the vaccine schedule is the most tested and safest in medical history. But what if that claim collapses under the weight of the actual data? Attorney Aaron Siri delivers a stunning fact that should halt every parent and citizen in their tracks: "Almost all childhood vaccines were licensed based on trials in which safety was reviewed for days or weeks after injection, underpowered, not enough kids, and there was never a placebo-controlled group for a single of the routine childhood vaccines injected into children, not one of them." Let that sink in. Not one. The gold standard of scientific research—the placebo-controlled trial—was abandoned for the entire routine childhood vaccine schedule. Why the Double Standard? For prescription drugs, companies run years-long, placebo-controlled trials. Why? Not ethics—economics. They are liable for damages. A harmful drug means financial ruin. For vaccines, the incentive is perversely flipped. With liability removed, the corporate boardroom's bottom-line calculus is simple: do the absolute minimum required for licensure. The Hep B Example is Jaw-Dropping Proof. The Combovax HB vaccine, given to babies on their first day of life, was licensed based on a "trial" that: - Monitored safety for just FIVE DAYS. - Included only 147 children. - Had NO control group whatsoever. This isn't just inadequate; it's scientifically indefensible. The recent COVID vaccine trials, often criticized as rushed, were vastly more comprehensive than this. The Root Cause? The Liability Shield. There is no doubt: if vaccine manufacturers were financially liable for injuries, the safety science would be exhaustive. They would never risk their profits on such flimsy data. The absence of liability created an absence of scientific rigor. This isn't conspiracy. It's cold, hard corporate calculus, and our children are the ones living in the experiment. It's long past time to demand the same gold-standard safety proof for vaccines that we demand for every pill we swallow.

"Never a Placebo-Controlled Group": How Our Children's Vaccines Were Licensed on a Foundation of Flimsy Science. We are told the vaccine schedule is the most tested and safest in medical history. But what if that claim collapses under the weight of the actual data? Attorney Aaron Siri delivers a stunning fact that should halt every parent and citizen in their tracks: "Almost all childhood vaccines were licensed based on trials in which safety was reviewed for days or weeks after injection, underpowered, not enough kids, and there was never a placebo-controlled group for a single of the routine childhood vaccines injected into children, not one of them." Let that sink in. Not one. The gold standard of scientific research—the placebo-controlled trial—was abandoned for the entire routine childhood vaccine schedule. Why the Double Standard? For prescription drugs, companies run years-long, placebo-controlled trials. Why? Not ethics—economics. They are liable for damages. A harmful drug means financial ruin. For vaccines, the incentive is perversely flipped. With liability removed, the corporate boardroom's bottom-line calculus is simple: do the absolute minimum required for licensure. The Hep B Example is Jaw-Dropping Proof. The Combovax HB vaccine, given to babies on their first day of life, was licensed based on a "trial" that: - Monitored safety for just FIVE DAYS. - Included only 147 children. - Had NO control group whatsoever. This isn't just inadequate; it's scientifically indefensible. The recent COVID vaccine trials, often criticized as rushed, were vastly more comprehensive than this. The Root Cause? The Liability Shield. There is no doubt: if vaccine manufacturers were financially liable for injuries, the safety science would be exhaustive. They would never risk their profits on such flimsy data. The absence of liability created an absence of scientific rigor. This isn't conspiracy. It's cold, hard corporate calculus, and our children are the ones living in the experiment. It's long past time to demand the same gold-standard safety proof for vaccines that we demand for every pill we swallow.

Camus

38,809 views • 10 months ago

Rand Paul just introduced a bill to end vaccine manufacturer liability protection. And every single American regardless of where you stand on vaccines should be paying attention. S. 3853. It is simple. It lets individuals sue pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries and deaths. Just like every other product in the United States. Just like every other drug. Think about that for a second. Every other drug on the market can be sued over. Pharma pulls products all the time. They pay out lawsuits all the time. The industry survives. So what exactly is it about vaccines that requires a special shield from accountability that no other product in America gets? Ask yourself that question honestly. If you trust these products, if you are lining up to take them, it should bother you that the companies making them have zero financial incentive to make them safer. Because they cannot be sued. Because since 1986 they have been legally protected from the consequences of harming you. That is not a free market. That is not how a republic works. This bill cuts across every political line. Every ideology. It unites people who agree on very little else. And we should all be watching very carefully to see which members of Congress vote against it. Because a vote against this bill is a vote to protect corporations over the people they have harmed. Call your representatives. Today. Be loud. Tell them clearly: if you do not support this bill, you will not have our trust and you will not have our vote. This is the moment. Don't let it pass quietly.

Rand Paul just introduced a bill to end vaccine manufacturer liability protection. And every single American regardless of where you stand on vaccines should be paying attention. S. 3853. It is simple. It lets individuals sue pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries and deaths. Just like every other product in the United States. Just like every other drug. Think about that for a second. Every other drug on the market can be sued over. Pharma pulls products all the time. They pay out lawsuits all the time. The industry survives. So what exactly is it about vaccines that requires a special shield from accountability that no other product in America gets? Ask yourself that question honestly. If you trust these products, if you are lining up to take them, it should bother you that the companies making them have zero financial incentive to make them safer. Because they cannot be sued. Because since 1986 they have been legally protected from the consequences of harming you. That is not a free market. That is not how a republic works. This bill cuts across every political line. Every ideology. It unites people who agree on very little else. And we should all be watching very carefully to see which members of Congress vote against it. Because a vote against this bill is a vote to protect corporations over the people they have harmed. Call your representatives. Today. Be loud. Tell them clearly: if you do not support this bill, you will not have our trust and you will not have our vote. This is the moment. Don't let it pass quietly.

The HighWire

38,340 views • 6 months ago

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Marc Andreessen on the 3 things he looks for when investing in a startup The first thing Marc Andreesen looks for is a big market: “Is there a big existing market that you think you can go after and displace incumbents? Or do you believe there will be a new market that will be big?” The second thing he looks for is a 10x better product: “Is there a fundamental technology or economic change that justifies a new company? And the way I always think about that is: Is there a 10x change happening in the technology landscape? Is something 10x faster, 10x cheaper, or 10x better? If it’s not 10x, we as both VCs and entrepreneurs have to ask ourselves if it’s really worth doing because it’s really hard to start new companies . . . Existing companies are usually pretty good at what they do. So for a new company to exist, it has to bring a product to market that’s so much better than what exists that it punches through the status quo.” The third is the team: “Is the team outstanding? . . . You want to have a founding team of complementary skillsets. You want to have at least one super strong technologist — quite possibly more than one. Some of the best startups are actually more than one founding technologist. And then it often helps to have someone who is a marketing or salesperson who has a really good understanding of business.” Marc believes that you need all three of these, but if you’re going to compromise on one of those as an investor, it should be the product: “A great market is a lot easier to make up for with iterative product execution. The problem with a poor or small market is that even if you do a good job on the product, there just aren’t that many customers so it’s hard to ever get big and people get demoralized . . . And then we evaluate the team of a startup by its ability to get into a big market with a good product.”

Startup Archive

17,333 views • 7 months ago

This isn't a debate. This is a confession. Australian Senator Alex Antic just asked a regulator a simple question: How many gold-standard, placebo-controlled trials are behind the childhood vaccine schedule? The answer will leave you speechless. They admitted they can't provide a number. The justification? It's "ethically questionable" to test vaccines against a true placebo once a treatment is "established." Let's be clear: They are injecting millions of our children with products that have never been tested against an inert saline placebo in long-term trials. Their defense is that the science is "contextual" and the "real-world" evidence is enough. But without that gold-standard comparison, how can we ever truly know the long-term safety profile? How can we quantify the risk vs. benefit without the most basic scientific benchmark? They've replaced the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine—the placebo-controlled trial—with an appeal to authority and decades of "we just know it works." This is a staggering admission that the entire foundation of childhood vaccination relies on a different, lower standard of proof than what is demanded for every other medicine. This isn't conspiracy. This is what they said, under oath. Demand better science.

Camus

223,624 views • 9 months ago

The results of the study at the heart of our award-winning film “An Inconvenient Study” are shocking. A complaint I hear often is that the study is too small - that there aren’t enough children in the unvaccinated group. For contrast, the Hepatitis-B vaccine that we give newborns only had 147 children in it, with no control and no placebo. They were monitored for 5 days. So, a 5-day safety study with 147 children was good enough for the Hep-B approval, but a study with twenty thousand kids, two thousand of which were unvaccinated, followed for multiple years, is not? Think about that. Weston A. Price Foundation

The results of the study at the heart of our award-winning film “An Inconvenient Study” are shocking. A complaint I hear often is that the study is too small - that there aren’t enough children in the unvaccinated group. For contrast, the Hepatitis-B vaccine that we give newborns only had 147 children in it, with no control and no placebo. They were monitored for 5 days. So, a 5-day safety study with 147 children was good enough for the Hep-B approval, but a study with twenty thousand kids, two thousand of which were unvaccinated, followed for multiple years, is not? Think about that. Weston A. Price Foundation

Del Bigtree

115,850 views • 8 months ago

🚨 “There are NO saline placebo-controlled studies looking at the hepatitis B vaccine risk given to day-old newborns.” “Why?” “Here’s what you’ll be told by the… so-called authorities.” Dr. Suzanne Humphries exposes the excuses for why vaccines can’t be properly safety tested: “We’re told that it’s unethical to do a saline placebo study now because the safety was long ago established.” “Hepatitis B vaccines that we’re using today were licensed based on immunogenicity.” “[They’ve done] some short-term safety monitoring for a few days in some uber-healthy infants and a small group of premature, low birth weight infants for sure.” “[They’ve done] comparisons that sometimes used aluminum-containing placebos or other controls rather than pure saline.” “And we know that this is a common practice… by supposed vaccine scientists to use another vaccine that contains an inflammatory agent.” “They say because it will make it less obvious who received the placebo.” “And the other reason is ‘we don’t want to deprive the placebo group from something beneficial.’” “What a riot.” Dr Suzanne Humphries CHDTV Live

🚨 “There are NO saline placebo-controlled studies looking at the hepatitis B vaccine risk given to day-old newborns.” “Why?” “Here’s what you’ll be told by the… so-called authorities.” Dr. Suzanne Humphries exposes the excuses for why vaccines can’t be properly safety tested: “We’re told that it’s unethical to do a saline placebo study now because the safety was long ago established.” “Hepatitis B vaccines that we’re using today were licensed based on immunogenicity.” “[They’ve done] some short-term safety monitoring for a few days in some uber-healthy infants and a small group of premature, low birth weight infants for sure.” “[They’ve done] comparisons that sometimes used aluminum-containing placebos or other controls rather than pure saline.” “And we know that this is a common practice… by supposed vaccine scientists to use another vaccine that contains an inflammatory agent.” “They say because it will make it less obvious who received the placebo.” “And the other reason is ‘we don’t want to deprive the placebo group from something beneficial.’” “What a riot.” Dr Suzanne Humphries CHDTV Live

Children’s Health Defense

30,321 views • 2 months ago

Vaccine Safety "Pyramid Scheme" Exposed: The Shocking Truth They Never Wanted You to See In an amazing presentation, attorney Aaron Siri drops a truth bomb that should be heard by every parent, doctor, and policymaker. He systematically dismantles the most common defense of the childhood vaccine schedule: the claim that they were tested against saline placebos. Siri reveals a chart, built from years of work and sourced directly from FDA documents, that tracks the clinical trials for every single routine injected childhood vaccine. The categorical finding? Not one. Not a single one. Here is the stunning reality: - No Saline Placebos: There has NEVER been a routine injected childhood vaccine licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial using an inert saline solution. - The "Pyramid Scheme" of Safety: Instead, new vaccines are tested against older vaccines, which were themselves tested against even older ones. This creates a "daisy chain" where safety is only ever compared to another product that also lacked a true safety baseline. - The Proof is in the FDA's Own Documents: The source for this chart is the FDA's website. As Siri states, "If you don't agree with this information... you're arguing with the FDA." Some of the most shocking examples: - Hepatitis B: The first vaccines for newborns were licensed with no control group at all. - PCV (Pneumococcal): The original Prevnar 7 was tested against another experimental vaccine—a practice Siri compares to testing a new cancer drug against another unproven cancer drug. - Polio (IPOL): The modern IPV vaccine, a completely different technology from the Salk vaccine, was licensed with a safety review of just three days and no control group. - MMR: The clinical trials for the current MMR II, which uses human fetal cell lines, used no control group. - HPV (Gardasil): The "placebo" used in trials for thousands of young girls was not saline. It often contained the aluminum adjuvant—a known neurotoxin with no therapeutic benefit—effectively rigging the trial to mask true adverse event rates. This rigged system allows serious adverse event rates in healthy children to creep into the 7%, 8%, and even 9% range in clinical trials. Because the control group gets a similarly reactive shot, the numbers appear "similar" and are deemed "safe," hiding the true risk. The bottom line: The entire childhood vaccine schedule rests on a foundation that has never been properly tested for safety against an inert placebo. The baseline safety profile for these products is, and has always been, unknown. This isn't an opinion. It's a fact documented by the FDA itself. If this doesn't make you question everything, what will?

Camus

474,264 views • 9 months ago

RFK Jr. Reveals: Gardasil Vaccine 37x More Lethal Than Cervical Cancer It Prevents "Gardasil is probably the single worst mass vaccine that we've ever seen. Vaccine targets millions of pre-teens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero. Nobody in their right mind would ever take this vaccine if they actually read the clinical literature." "Death rates in the Gardasil trial were 37 times the death rates for cervical cancer. Children who take that vaccine, the Gardasil vaccine, are 37 times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from cervical cancer." "So the problem with Gardasil, like most vaccines, is it was never tested against a true placebo, an inert placebo. And the CDC and HHS say... If you don't test it against a true placebo, it's not science. You have no way of gauging whether the injuries you're seeing from the product are being caused by that product or whether they're just bad, sad coincidences." "The entity that is actually performing the study is, and paying for the study, is Merck. Merck got to decide which injuries were being caused by Gardasil and which were just bad coincidences and because it had that power it just wrote them all off as bad coincidences." "You can do that when there's no placebo because the injuries they were seeing in the control group which where the girls were getting aluminum neurotoxins were identical to the injuries they were getting in the Gardasil group so they said well we don't have to report any of these as vaccine injuries. So they were able to license something that is insanely dangerous."

RFK Jr. Reveals: Gardasil Vaccine 37x More Lethal Than Cervical Cancer It Prevents "Gardasil is probably the single worst mass vaccine that we've ever seen. Vaccine targets millions of pre-teens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero. Nobody in their right mind would ever take this vaccine if they actually read the clinical literature." "Death rates in the Gardasil trial were 37 times the death rates for cervical cancer. Children who take that vaccine, the Gardasil vaccine, are 37 times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from cervical cancer." "So the problem with Gardasil, like most vaccines, is it was never tested against a true placebo, an inert placebo. And the CDC and HHS say... If you don't test it against a true placebo, it's not science. You have no way of gauging whether the injuries you're seeing from the product are being caused by that product or whether they're just bad, sad coincidences." "The entity that is actually performing the study is, and paying for the study, is Merck. Merck got to decide which injuries were being caused by Gardasil and which were just bad coincidences and because it had that power it just wrote them all off as bad coincidences." "You can do that when there's no placebo because the injuries they were seeing in the control group which where the girls were getting aluminum neurotoxins were identical to the injuries they were getting in the Gardasil group so they said well we don't have to report any of these as vaccine injuries. So they were able to license something that is insanely dangerous."

Camus

1,463,131 views • 1 year ago

Joe Rogan lays out why the news will never seriously criticize pharmaceutical companies. It isn't about selling you the drug in the ad. The ad buys something far more valuable. ROGAN: "The funding for those commercials, a giant chunk of it is pharmaceutical drug companies." "They don't do that because they want to sell drugs. They do that because now the news will not criticize the pharmaceutical drug company." The product was never the pill. The product was the silence...

Joe Rogan lays out why the news will never seriously criticize pharmaceutical companies. It isn't about selling you the drug in the ad. The ad buys something far more valuable. ROGAN: "The funding for those commercials, a giant chunk of it is pharmaceutical drug companies." "They don't do that because they want to sell drugs. They do that because now the news will not criticize the pharmaceutical drug company." The product was never the pill. The product was the silence...

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

95,427 views • 2 months ago

"Every software product you build, fate has already decided the outcome. The market is either going latch onto your product and run with it, or it's not. Do not ship a product, find a lack of success, and then try to market your way through that. Because the binding receptors likely don't exist. Once you recognize that the market is immutable, that no amount of tweeting, LinkedIn posting, advertising is going change whether the market wants your product, then you take a different mindset." — Matt MacInnis, COO/CPO at Rippling

"Every software product you build, fate has already decided the outcome. The market is either going latch onto your product and run with it, or it's not. Do not ship a product, find a lack of success, and then try to market your way through that. Because the binding receptors likely don't exist. Once you recognize that the market is immutable, that no amount of tweeting, LinkedIn posting, advertising is going change whether the market wants your product, then you take a different mindset." — Matt MacInnis, COO/CPO at Rippling

Lenny Rachitsky

29,706 views • 8 months ago