Aaron Siri explains:
AARON SIRI: “We FOIA'ed the FDA w/ a simple request. Provide all the clinical trials relied upon to license the flu shot for pregnant women ... They finally admitted we don't have any clinical trials because it's never been licensed for pregnant women.”
Post by Harry Fisher, reporting on a 2020 Yale Study. Excerpt:
[R]esearchers at Yale decided to find out what kind of psychological manipulation worked best to get people to take the COVID shot. They didn’t study medicine, they studied obedience.
[R]esearchers at Yale decided to find out what kind of psychological manipulation worked best to get people to take the COVID shot. They didn’t study medicine, they studied obedience.The researchers split people into groups and bombarded them with different emotional triggers. One message told people to think of vaccination as a “moral duty to protect others.” Another said that refusing the shot wasn’t brave but “reckless.” Others used guilt and shame, “How would you feel if you got someone sick?” or “Imagine how embarrassed you’ll be if you spread the virus because you refused.”
Then they measured which message made people cave fastest. Which one made them not only say, “Yes, I’ll get the vaccine,” but also, “I’ll pressure my friends to do it too.”
The results were exactly what you’d expect, the messages that made people feel guilty, ashamed, or afraid of being judged were the most “successful.” The study admits that those messages stirred people to persuade others and to judge anyone who declined as ignorant or selfish. In other words, they found the recipe for social coercion, and called it “science.”
This research wasn’t about understanding, it was about control. It created the tone that dominated those years, the moral superiority of the compliant and the public humiliation of the skeptical. What we lived through wasn’t spontaneous mass hysteria. It was engineered with precision, it was tested, measured, and rolled out.
We were never “informed.” We were handled.
RFK, Jr. is doing excellent work at HHS. Toby Rogers lists 5 things that would have seemed impossible 2 years ago:
The Overton Window has shifted massively toward medical freedom in the last six weeks:
@AaronSiriSG and I demolished the Pharma narrative at the Sept. 9 Senate hearing. Our clips have reached millions since. @realDonaldTrump asked for five huge changes to the childhood vaccine schedule at the Sept. 22 White House press conference
A) break up MMR, B) no more than 1 shot per visit, C) no mercury, D_ no aluminum, E) move hep B vax to age 12 [instead of injecting it into one day old babies, even though hep B is only spread through sexual contact and drug needles].
The documentary, "An Inconvenient Study" (@AnInconvntStudy), was released Oct. 3 and has been seen several million times.
And now the @nytimes has abandoned the genetic narrative in connection with autism which (finally!) implicates toxicants.
Our reformers in D.C. can and should push for maximum change right now (e.g. remove liability protection by ending vaccine schedules altogether). Let's go!!!!!
https://x.com/uTobian/status/1979998573988393110
It's entirely consistent to dislike Donald Trump and/or many of his policies, yet to applaud these changes.
I do trust science, if it is high-quality science that has not been corrupted by money or power.
Industry allied experts claim that it would be unethical to test a vaccine against a true inert placebo like saline. Really? Del Bigtree explains that the Pharma-preferred tests (against already existing vaccines) are like testing the safety of whiskey by comparing it to the "placebo" of vodka.
But I keep coming back to the claim of "unethical." This makes no sense to me, no matter how many times I hear an industry insider make the claim. Aaron Siri explored this exact topic in his outstanding new book, Vaccines, Amen! Here's an excerpt from page 163:
Ethics of Using and Not Using a PlaceboIn response to the lack of a placebo in some trials, the FDA and vaccinologists will assert that it is unethical to evaluate the safety of an unlicensed experimental vaccine in a placebo-controlled trial when there is already a licensed vaccine for the same disease.
This ethical concern, however, rings hollow because it ethics were a real concern, the FDA would require placebo-controlled trials before licensing new experimental vaccines at least where no licensed vaccine exists to prevent the same disease. For example, the very first vaccines for chickenpox or hepatitis A, both licensed in 1995, or HPV, licensed in 2006, could have easily included a placebo control group. No ethical issue with that. But as you now know, that is not what happened because that is not how the cult of vaccinology works.
Also, consider this: conducting a placebo-controlled trial will leave a clearly defined group of children unvaccinated only for the duration of the trial in a controlled setting where they can be monitored. In contrast, injecting a vaccine into millions of children in an uncontrolled setting without first assessing its safety in a placebo-controlled trial is, to any objective, reasonable observer, grossly unethical conduct."