How Does Pharma Test the Vaccines on the Childhood Schedule?

Eric Berg, MD explains how Pharma "tests" the vaccines on the childhood schedule. His explanation substantially overlaps that of Aaron Siri  (and see here and here). Here's how it was summed up on X by Valerie Anne Smith:

"When You Test A Drug, It's Against A Placebo."

"Vaccines Are Not Tested Against Placebos...They Are Tested Against Another Active Vaccine."

"That's Like Testing Whiskey Against Bourbon."

'Placebos' Used In Vaccine Clinical Trials As Listed From The Package Inserts For Common Vaccines:

Hepatitis B Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Aluminum Adjuvant & only safety tested for 5 days.

Vaxelis 6 in 1 Vaccine Trial...Placebo Was DTaP, Polio, HIB & Hep-B Vaccines.

HPV Gardasil Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Aluminum Adjuvant & Hep-A Vaccine. Only safety tested for 14 days.

Hepatitis A Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Hepatitis-B Vaccine & participants were monitored for 14 days.

Influenza A Clinical Trial...Placebo used was Influenza B Vaccine & clinical trial volunteers were followed for 28 days.

Meningitis Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the DTaP Vaccine & adverse reactions were monitored for 7 days.

Pertussis Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the Diphtheria & Tetanus Vaccine. Participants were followed for 14 days.

Prevnar-13 Pneumonia Clinical Trial...Placebo used was the Prevnar-7 Vaccine & volunteers were monitored for 7 days.

Polio Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo Was Diluted Polio Vaccine & patients were monitored for 2 days.

Chicken Pox Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was diluted Chicken Pox Vaccine & trial volunteers were monitored for 42 days.

Shingles Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was diluted Shingles Vaccine & participants were followed for 7 days.

mNEXSPIKE Covid Vaccine Clinical Trial...Placebo used was SPIKEVAX Covid Vaccine & only safety tested 7 days.

Without informed consent & without the use of a saline placebo skews all results & makes all vaccines appear "safe & effective" because the adverse events & side effects in both groups are the same.

The US CDC Government's belief on placebos as stated on the CDC website...

"Testing a new vaccine against a saline injection is considered unethical."

"Depriving half of the trial participants of an older vaccine(which is approved to use as placebo) & giving them a true saline placebo instead would not be fair: it would actually be unethical."

"Saline injections don’t cause a sore arm, which might unwittingly reveal to the 'double blind volunteers' that they are in the placebo group. Those who get the experimental vaccine & those who get placebo must be kept secret."

Who is Dr. Eric Berg. Per Grok:

Dr. Eric Berg, DC (Doctor of Chiropractic), is a health educator, best-selling author, and chiropractor specializing in nutrition, Healthy Keto diets, and intermittent fasting. Born around 1965, he faced personal health challenges that inspired his career shift toward natural health solutions.

Continue ReadingHow Does Pharma Test the Vaccines on the Childhood Schedule?

The Sorry State of Scientific Literature

It is surreal to read these quotes about the unreliability of science publications by people in a good position to evaluate this dysfunction.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.”

-Richard Horton, former Editor-in-Chief of The Lancet (the world’s premier medical journal) [

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet, wrote this statement in a comment titled "Offline: What is medicine's 5 sigma?" published in the journal on April 11, 2015.]

--

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (2006)

John P. A. Ioannidis

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

--

Karl Kanthak posts this:

“Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong.”

--

Post by InsiderHCW:

It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion.
- Marcia Angell, Editor, New England Journal of Medicine. [Marcia Angell wrote this statement in her article "Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption," published in The New York Review of Books on January 15, 2009].

--

So how do we know who to trust, in science, media, politics, or anywhere else that people claim that they are experts and that we need to trust them? It makes one almost this cynical . . .

Continue ReadingThe Sorry State of Scientific Literature

Bret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

I regularly follow biologist Bret Weinstein (and his wife, biologist Heather Heying) on their Darkhorse Podcast. Here's Bret on Piers Morgan's show warning that the aluminum adjuvants used in most of our vaccines have not been safety tested. Very concerning.

Camus on X offers this summary:

The Unsettling Scientific Silence on Aluminum Adjuvants

A powerful point from Bret Weinstein highlights a critical failure in our public health dialogue: the refusal to properly study the systemic effects of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines.

The core of his argument is not anti-vaccine; it is pro-science. He states that if injecting aluminum into muscle is safe, that is "a scientifically easy thing to establish." The fact that this foundational work remains conspicuously undone is a glaring red flag.

So, what is an adjuvant? For the public, it's an additive designed to put the immune system on "high alert" so it reacts strongly to the vaccine's target antigen.

But therein lies the potential danger. The alarm sounded by the aluminum is non-specific. The immune system knows it's under threat, but it doesn't know from what. This is a radical biological intervention.

Weinstein, as an evolutionary biologist, posits a crucial question: Is this chronic, misdirected immune activation connected to the epidemic of modern ailments we see in younger generations?

Could it be a driver of the proliferating allergies? Is it a factor in the rise of serious, sometimes fatal, autoimmune conditions like asthma?

We simply do not know. These questions have not been properly investigated.

The conclusion is inescapable: even if a vaccine is beneficial for the specific disease it targets, the net impact on a person's lifelong health could very well be negative. We are making a massive, population-scale bet without the necessary data.

This isn't a conspiracy theory. It's a demand for rigorous, transparent science to answer a question that has been ignored for far too long.

Continue ReadingBret Weinstein: The Safety of Aluminum Adjuvants in Our Vaccines Has Not Been Tested

Reverse Engineer Your Mind and Body

In his excellent book, Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity, Peter Attia stresses the importance of intentionally putting in the time now to safeguard your physical function and independence in later decades. He refers to this as the "Centenarian Decathlon," where individuals reverse-engineer their fitness goals by imagining the physical demands they'll face in their 90s or 100s—such as carrying groceries, playing with grandchildren, hiking, or simply rising from the floor unaided, and then building the necessary strength, stability, and endurance today to make those activities possible and perhaps likely.

Attia warns that without this forward-thinking approach, natural age-related declines (like muscle loss, reduced VO₂ max, and joint instability) erode over time, causing your body to become frail. Instead, you need to treat exercise as the most powerful "drug" for longevity, structured around four pillars: stability (to prevent injury and support safe movement), strength (to build muscle reserve), aerobic efficiency (for cardiovascular health), and anaerobic performance (for high-intensity bursts). An excerpt:

I ask all my patients to sketch out an alternative future for themselves. What do you want to be doing in your later decades? What is your plan for the rest of your life?

Everyone has a slightly different answer--they might want to travel, or continue playing golf or hiking in nature, or simply be able to play with their grandkids and great-grandkids (top of my own list). The point of this exercise is twofold. First, it forces people to focus on their own endgame, which most of us might prefer to avoid thinking about. Economists call this "hyperbolic discounting," the natural tendency for people to choose immediate gratification over potential future gains, especially if those gains entail hard work. Second, it drives home the importance of healthspan. If Becky wants to enjoy a healthy, rewarding life in her later years, and not repeat her mother's fate, she will have to maintain and hopefully improve her physical and cognitive function every decade between now and then. Otherwise, the gravitational pull of aging will do its thing, and she will decline, just as her mother did....

You remain relatively robust until about the fifth decade of life, at which point your cognitive and physical health will likely begin a gradual but steady decline, until you die (healthspan = zero) sometime in your sixties or early seventies. This would have been a not untypical lifespan for someone born into a hunter-gatherer or primitive agrarian tribe, provided they managed to avoid early death thanks to infectious disease or another calamity.

Attia distinguishes lifespan from healthspan:

The important distinction here is that while actual death is inevitable, this deterioration that were talking about is less so. Not everyone who dies in their eighties or nineties passes through the valleys of cognitive, physical, or emotional destruction on the way there. They are preventable--and I believe that they are largely optional, despite their ever-increasing gravitational pull over time. As we will see in later chapters, cognitive, physical, and even emotional deterioration can all be slowed and even reversed in some cases with the application of the proper tactics.

The other key point is that lifespan and healthspan are not independent variables; they are tightly intertwined. If you increase your muscle strength and improve your cardiorespiratory fitness, you have also reduced your risk of dying from all causes by a far greater magnitude than you could achieve by taking any cocktail of medications. The same goes for better cognitive and emotional health. The actions we take to improve our healthspan will almost always result in a longer lifespan. This is why our tactics are largely aimed at improving healthspan first; the lifespan benefits will follow.

[ pp. 40-46] Attia urges that by investing effort today you will "future-proof" your body, preventing decline so your older self remains capable and vibrant. In essence, Attia argues that if you work on these things, you will be giving a gift to your future physical self, enabling a higher quality of life rather than merely extending lifespan.

Why not do something similar to protect your mind? Exerting cognitive load builds up your ability to think. Reading widely (rather than simply following corporate news) will protect you from being manipulated by gaslighting and psyops. Now is the time to protect that version of you that will exist in five or 10 years!

[Supp Oct 3, 2025]

Lack of concern with health and growth, even if done in private, are obvious in public. One's huge belly is a lie detector regarding one's bad diet & and lack of exercise. One's willingness to make ad hominem arguments betrays one's refusal to engage with uncomfortable ideas.

Continue ReadingReverse Engineer Your Mind and Body

Jeffrey Tucker Describes the Bleak State of the World

Jeffrey Tucker has ambitiously taken the temperature of the political, economic and social world with an article titled: "The Coup, the Calamity, and the Conspiracy." I highly recommend a full read.

Tucker begins with this graphic:

Here is an excerpt:

[Y]ou could be more realistic and see that this was not a mistake at all. It was entirely intentional, the unfolding of a dark scheme hatched by an indescribably sadistic ruling class. Indeed, if this had all been an accident, we surely would have heard someone apologize by now.

There is also the planning involved. There was Event 201, the lesser-known Crimson Contagion, and many others. They are usually described in the mainstream press as rehearsals for unplanned contingencies, like resiliency training. Absurd. This was plotted far in advance. We have all the receipts. To realize this and connect the dots does not make you a conspiracy theorist. It makes you a person with the capacity to think.

To deny nefarious motives and schemes makes you impossibly naive to the point of sedation. At best, it makes you ill-read in history.

After five years, what can we say was the plan and purpose of this calamity? We all have our views. Certainly within Brownstone ranks, there are many opinions. We argue among ourselves all the time. Coming up with a clean and clear explanation is not easy because there are so many moving parts and so many industrial opportunists who took advantage of the crisis to cash out.

This is such an expansive article that resonated with me over and over.

I have many of the same concerns, but I won't say much here. I will say (as Tucker mentions in the early paragraphs) that I'm sure how well coordinated all of the powerful players are. Just because they are well-entrenched, monied and politically connected doesn't mean that they necessarily agree with each other day to day, much less year to year. But in my mind, there is definitely a hell of a lot of coordination.

The best solution to this horrific anti-Democratic mess is a vigorous, courageous and free press, but the powers-that-be know this deeply and they've got the formerly half-respectable "journalism" industry 95% locked down.

So in the meantime, it's Jeffrey Tucker, independent media and people like you and me doing what we can. It feels like a David and Goliath battle, especially when you see Trump kowtowing to Pfizer, just like Biden did and harris would have

Continue ReadingJeffrey Tucker Describes the Bleak State of the World