Part 1, Informed Consent: No Legitimate Vaccine Safety Studies

Dr. Stoller: "The foundation of evidence-based medicine rests on the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial"

According to the NIH website, this is what INFORMED CONSENT is:

Informed consent is a cornerstone of medicine, ensuring ethical treatment decisions and patient-centered care. Patients have the right to make informed and voluntary treatment decisions. Informed consent is more than merely a signature on a document; it is a communication process between the clinician and the patient.

This process ensures that the patient is fully informed about the nature of the procedure or intervention, the potential risks and benefits, and the alternative treatments available. The patient can refuse or withdraw consent at any time during treatment. Informed consent respects patient autonomy, promotes trust in the patient-provider relationship, and safeguards against unethical practices.

When it comes to vaccinations, there is no informed consent. Parents are not informed about potential side effects when it comes to vaccinating. It’s a one-size-fits-every-child schedule regardless of what the unknown risks might be.

Vaccine Safety Trials Science and Ethics Exposed

Time: 3:24

In this series, Dr. K. Paul Stoller provides the information about vaccines and safety concerns that every parents should have before deciding to vaccinate their child. In the absence of real informed consent, parents need to educate themselves.

I’m Dr. K. Paul Stoller and this short video explains the obfuscation of science with anything that has to do with vaccines.

No double-blind placebo-controlled vaccine studies

The foundation of evidence-based medicine rests on the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial—a gold standard designed to eliminate bias and ensure scientific validity. Despite this, neither the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), nor major vaccine manufacturers have consistently applied this standard in the evaluation of vaccine safety and efficacy.

In practice, so-called placebo groups in vaccine trials often receive either an earlier vaccine or an injection containing all the components of the experimental product except the antigen.

Relying on phony science

This is a methodological sleight of hand that undermines the legitimacy of safety claims and misleads both the medical community and the public.

A simple analogy, a new vaccine is like a hamburger with everything on it. An experiment is performed to see if eating this hamburger makes one fat, but the control group doesn’t get a glass of water, they get another hamburger minus the pickles and that’s called a placebo. But it’s clearly not a placebo, and the results of this experiment showed that eating a hamburger with pickles didn’t make anyone fatter than the control group.

This is what we are up against…pseudo science.

Where is the study comparing fully vaccinated and never vaccinated kids?

More concerning still is the CDC’s ongoing refusal to conduct large scale comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Such studies could yield critical insights into long-term health outcomes, yet the agency has persistently declined to pursue them.

The work of Dr. Peter Aaby and colleagues provides a compelling counterexample. In a retrospective analysis of three decades of DPT, diphtheria, pertussis tetanus vaccine use in West Africa using age matched unvaccinated controls, Aaby found that the vaccine was associated with up to a tenfold increase in overall childhood mortality.

These findings, though peer-reviewed and methodologically sound have been systematically ignored in public health discourse.

This is not merely an academic oversight—it is a profound ethical failure.

There is no oversight

Public health authorities and vaccine manufacturers have a duty not only to promote interventions but to rigorously interrogate their consequences.

The persistent refusal to adopt true placebo controls and to consider dissenting evidence signals a dangerous entanglement of science with politics and profit.

The medical establishment increasingly operates as an unassailable institution where questioning prevailing dogma is met not with scientific rebuttal, but with censorship and marginalization.

We are witnessing the erosion of critical inquiry in favor of ideological conformity. In this context, the suppression of data that challenge the official narrative is not only scientifically indefensible—it is morally reprehensible.

The implications of the systemic corruption are far-reaching, affecting not only individual patient safety, but public trust in the entire medical enterprise.

If science is to retain its authority, it must welcome scrutiny, not suppress it.

In June, 2023, when RFK was an independent Presidential candidate, he was interviewed on News Nation. He was unshakeable in his position that no vaccine has undergone double blind placebo-controlled studies. Kennedy on Vaccine Skepticism: "We Don't Have A Priesthood Here," "Americans Are In Charge Of Our Own Lives"

Background on Dr. Stoller

In 2020, the Medical Board of California revoked Dr. Stoller’s medical license for giving medical vaccine exemptions to ten children, including a four month old with congestive heart failure and an infant who woke up in a pool of blood the day after routine vaccinations.

California is adamant that there will be no vaccine exemptions, even medical ones for sick children. All doctors must comply.

Dr. Stoller is sure that the action taken against him by the state of California was also due to his work to develop genetic screening for adverse reactions to vaccines.

Even speculating that some children may be susceptible to vaccine injury had to be stopped. Stoller’s work contradicting the principle of vaccinology, VACCINES ARE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE FOR EVERY CHILD—NO EXCEPTIONS

Please comment, share, subscribe (it’s free)