The Second Big Lie of Vaccinology & "The Greatest Fear Among Vaccinologists Is The Creation Of A Vaccine That Is Not Only Ineffective, But Which Exacerbates Disease..."

🚨 THE FLASH SALE CONTINUES! 🚨

Before we get to today’s featured story, a revised repost of an article originally published by this Substack on December 6th, 2021 titled, “The greatest fear among vaccinologists is the creation of a vaccine that is not only ineffective, but which exacerbates disease. Unfortunately, CoV vaccines have a history of enhancing disease...” will provide important additional context.

The Intelligence-Industrial Complex that owns the majority of the CoV “vaccine” patents, their BigPharma assets, and various sociopathic errand boys like Dr. Fauci and Ralph Baric always knew full well that the Modified mRNA slow kill bioweapon injections would exacerbate all kinds of diseases, and induce all kinds of severe adverse events given the grim history of the animal studies; in fact, without their criminal FDA’s fraudulent “emergency” use authorization (EUA), these depopulation injections would have never ever made it to human trials.

Those Modified mRNA animal studies are the closest things to RCT with placebo studies ever performed on any vaccines, and the results were so terrible that all of the studies were either cut short or in some way manipulated to avoid the ultimately damning results.

All vaccines are unsafe, ineffective, unnecessary, and must be avoided, and all vaccines represent total medical mendacity.

---

Will the average person ever finally perform the requisite research, or will they “booster” themselves into the next life as per the depopulation agenda currently playing out in PSYOP-19, soon to be PSYOP-(____), more at Disease X?

The research study entitled, SARS vaccines: where are we? concluded, “The greatest fear among vaccinologists is the creation of a vaccine that is not only ineffective, but which exacerbates disease. Unfortunately, CoV vaccines have a history of enhancing disease, notably with feline CoVs.”:

The purposely difficult to find ferret study that was cut short before the animals prematurely and gruesomely succumbed entitled, Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome is associated with enhanced hepatitis in ferrets established that Modified mRNA “vaccines” are deadly.

Ferret Response

1. Vaccination Protocol: Each ferret was immunized with rMVA-S (ferrets 7 to 9), n day 0 with a dose of 1e8 PFU of the corresponding virus per ferret by intraperitoneal and subcutaneous routes, and a booster immunization was given on day 14 with the same regimen.(Weingartl et al., 2004)

2. Immune Response: Neutralizing activity was detected in sera along with a corresponding immunoglobin G titer collected from all three ferrets 7 days after booster immunization with rMVA-S virus, while the titer declined to undetectable level 14 days after the booster (Weingartl et al., 2004).

3. Side Effects: Ferrets immunized with rMVA-S (particularly ferret 9) developed severe periportal and panlobular mononuclear hepatitis in contrast to only mild periportal mononuclear hepatitis was observed in control ferrets (Weingartl et al., 2004) .

4. Challenge Protocol: Ferrets were challenged with 1e6 PFU of the SARS-CoV Tor2 isolate by the intranasal route(Weingartl et al., 2004).

5. Description: Study shows correlation with liver damage but does not definitely proof it is caused as SARS-CoV in ferrets also damage liver.(Weingartl et al., 2004)

And then there were the mice studies that showed Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) entitled, Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challenge with the SARS virus and Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2: Lessons from Other Coronavirus Strains respectfully concluded:

These SARS-CoV vaccines all induced antibody and protection against infection with SARS-CoV. However, challenge of mice given any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.

[…]

The development of highly effective and safe vaccines for COVID-19 should consider aspects such as the possibility of ADE and other adverse effects previously observed with SARS and MERS.

Except there never were any “highly effective and safe vaccines” for COVID-19, or any other virus, flu, common cold, smallpox, or otherwise; in other words it is impossible to inject anything into the deltoid to prevent any respiratory disease.

The optics of a viral outbreak was the setup for the real bioweapon payload in the mass uptake of these nocuous “vaccines.”

In terms of exacerbating disease, we now have an epidemic of turbo cancers, “died suddenly,“ and a plethora of other “vaccine” induced adverse events.

As per the above studies, the Modified mRNA “vaccines” never passed animal trials, and as such could never make it to human trials; thus, the murderous “experts” and their Intelligence Industrial Complex handlers pushed through the Emergency Authorization Act (EUA) in order to poison humanity with their slow kill bioweapon “vaccines.”

Does anyone really believe that BigPharma, the DoD, Pentagon, WHO, CDC, NIH, et al. were somehow not aware of the above research studies?

Does anyone still really believe that these democidal criminals did not somehow know that there were carcinogenic SV40 promoter sequences deliberately added to these “vaccines?”

Does anyone still really believe that these NWO globopedo eugenicists did not somehow know that the “vaccine” spike protein (SP2) would suppress the cancer suppressor p53 protein, or that deliberate contamination with the gene altering SV40 promotor sequences would not fuel a turbo cancer epidemic?

Does anyone still really believe that the democidal powers that be did not somehow know that Ivermectin would stop any Gain of Function (GoF) “pandemic” dead in its tracks, and that this miracle drug along with Fenbendazole would serve as a (VAIDS-induced turbo) cancer cure?

They always knew.

The greatest fear among (honest) vaccinologists has been realized, and then some.

They want you dead.

Do NOT comply.

---

Also, it is important to point out that more and more “experts” with extreme BigPharma conflicts of interest are pushing back hard on the RCT with placebo model by now framing it as unethical to use this gold standard research methodology, except that by not performing these randomized control studies represents the most unethical crimes against humanity that are continuously being committed and covered up.

In an paper titled, Fool’s-gold science, The ethical and scientific perils of testing most vaccines using placebo-controlled randomized trials, the authors attempted to use an ethics loophole in order to maintain their highly immoral status quo, concluding with the following exercise in mental gymnastics, torturing of logic, and egregious subversion of real science:

Calls or policies requiring the use of placebos to test vaccines are ethically flawed and unsound in their insistence that this is the only method for generating credible or so-called ‘gold standard’ science. The American Academy of Pediatrics has already stated that it will not follow these demands, rather issuing their own evidence-based guidelines. Essentially, Secretary Kennedy Jr. and HHS are asking the American public to start from scratch again, testing vaccines that have already been proven safe and effective. Far from upholding scientific rigor, such demands distort the purpose of trials and jeopardize public health (Gostin and Reiss, 2025). They hasten the erosion of herd immunity, already under strain for diseases such as measles due to declining vaccination rates. Rebuilding public confidence and restoring coverage will take years, if not decades. No sponsor, investigator, research ethics committee, manufacturer, or regulator ought to participate in trials that disregard existing evidence and indefensibly expose populations to preventable harm under the false guise of scientific purity. Demanding such trials for proven interventions is not only scientifically unsound but also ethically indefensible.

Essentially, Secretary Kennedy Jr. and HHS are asking the American public to start from scratch again, testing vaccines that have already been proven safe and effective.

Just because the word “proven” is thrown around without any actual scientific proof does not make it so, and now the concept of “scientific purity,” which is contemptuous code for scientific rigorousness, is somehow all of a sudden ethically indefensible.

These criminal authors are pretending to know the difference between right and wrong, as autism rates “mysteriously” go parabolic and cancer cases “inexplicably” surge all around them. No, what these profoundly compromised authors are really trying to impart is that their deadly fraud of ‘$afe and Effective’ has never been tested nor proven to do anything but cause damage, which is why everyone must take their word for it, and never ever perform any actual RCTs with placebos, because Trust the $cience.

This perversion of medical ethics is precisely what constitutes scientific iniquity, and these deeply conflicted “experts” must never be questioned nor interrupted in their unrelenting handiwork of poisoning humanity.

---

by Clayton J. Baker, MD

When performing scientific studies of the effectiveness and safety of medical treatments, the gold-standard study design is widely considered to be the so-called “prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial.”

While this claim is not universally true for all types of medical investigation, when examining the effectiveness and safety of new – or existing – medical treatments, this rule applies very well indeed. For the purposes of this essay, we will focus on the placebo-controlled aspect of clinical trials.

There are two excellent reasons for a clinical trial to be placebo-controlled.

• First, one does not want to perform a treatment on patients unless the treatment is more effective than leaving them alone.

• Second, one does not want to perform a treatment on patients if the treatment is more harmful to them than leaving them alone.

Unless you are in the vaccine business, that is. The vaccine industry has a long, disgraceful history of shielding the ineffectiveness and toxicity of their products by using false placebos in the clinical trials of their products.

What Is a Placebo, and Why Are Placebo-Controlled Studies Important?

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary a placebo is defined as:

1a: a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder

b: an inert or innocuous substance used especially in controlled experiments testing the efficacy of another substance (such as a drug)

The first definition touches on the famous ‘placebo effect,’ which is the observed tendency for even inert or ‘sham’ treatments to produce positive effects in some patients.

The second definition is relevant to the clinical trial process. Here, a ‘placebo’ is the inert treatment that is used in the ‘control group’ of a clinical trial – that is, the group that doesn’t get the active treatment. The control group provides a valid baseline for comparison with the ‘treatment group’ of the study – that is, the group of subjects that get the actual treatment in question. Note that the placebo must be both inert (inactive) and innocuous (harmless).

The reasons for using a true placebo comparison group in a clinical trial are straightforward. By comparing the active therapy under investigation to a true placebo, several vital determinations can be made about the therapy.

First, since a true placebo is harmless, one can identify, by comparing harmful effects seen in the group that got the treatment with harmful effects seen in the group that got the placebo, any and all harms caused by the treatment.

For example, if a harmful effect is seen equally in both the treatment group and the placebo group of the study, that harmful effect is not attributed to the treatment, but rather to other factors. However, if a harmful effect appears only in the treatment arm of the study (or appears with significantly higher frequency or intensity), it is attributed to the treatment.

Second, since a true placebo is inactive, one can determine, by comparing the intended or beneficial effects seen in the treatment group with beneficial effects seen in the placebo, any and all benefits caused by the treatment.

For example, if a beneficial effect is seen equally in both the treatment group and the placebo group of the study, that beneficial effect is not attributed to the treatment, but rather to other factors. (In such cases, the beneficial effect seen in the treatment group is often described as ‘no better than placebo.’) However, if a beneficial effect – especially if it was intended – appears only in the treatment arm (or appears with significantly higher frequency or intensity), it is attributed to the treatment.

It should be obvious how the proper use of true placebo control is essential to arriving at the truth in clinical studies of medical treatments. However, one can also see why a dishonest researcher would not want to employ a true placebo-controlled clinical study, if they did not want the truth about either the safety or effectiveness of a medical treatment to be exposed.

The Curious Case of the Cleveland Clinic, or, Why Use Fake Placebos in Vaccine Studies?

If the goal of a clinical study is to truthfully determine whether or not a medical treatment is, to quote the infamous slogan, “safe and effective,” then proper use of true placebo-controlled studies is essential.

However, if the goal of a clinical study is to get a vaccine past FDA regulators, onto the market, widely accepted by patients, and perhaps even onto the CDC vaccine schedules, then a properly run, true placebo-controlled trial can be a death sentence to that medical treatment. In fact, simply comparing a vaccine’s effects against nothing at all – not even a placebo – can expose the problems with such a product.

During the winter of 2024-2025, researchers at the prestigious and very mainstream Cleveland Clinic performed a large, well-designed study comparing the incidence of influenza in its vaccinated employees versus its unvaccinated employees. Their findings:

This study found a significantly higher risk of influenza among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state in northern Ohio during the high influenza activity period of the 2024-2025 influenza season.

In fact, the vaccinated group showed a whopping 27% increased risk of contracting influenza in the months after vaccination, compared with the unvaccinated group. The researchers hypothesized possible reasons for this apparent dismal failure of the flu shots, including the following:

…there is biological plausibility for why this could possibly happen. Antigenic imprinting refers to a phenomenon where the first exposure of the immune system to influenza by infection or vaccination shapes the breadth of immune responses to subsequent influenza infections or vaccinations, preferentially recalling memory B cells targeting epitopes of the originally encountered strain rather than generating new responses to current strains.

The findings of the Cleveland Clinic study demonstrate a phenomenon that, in the vaccine literature, is often referred to as “negative efficacy.” To ordinary people, the phrase is “harm.” A vaccine that increases the risk of your getting the disease it is supposed to protect you from is causing harm.

Comparing vaccines against no treatment – or placebos – exposes their harms. Vaccinologists have found a way around this through the use of fake placebos.

How Does the Vaccine Industry Use Fake Placebos?

It is simple and easy, not to mention scientifically rigorous and ethically sound, for any clinical study of vaccines to include a true placebo group. For example, the treatment group could receive the vaccine, while the placebo control group could receive an identical-appearing injection of sterile saline.

However, in vaccinology, true placebos are almost never used. Why not?

It is not because of legitimate ethical concerns. Healthy subjects are almost always used in vaccine trials. Nobody is being denied a potentially lifesaving treatment in favor of a placebo, as may sometimes be the case in other areas of medical research, such as in oncology or surgery.

The only logical explanation is the intent to conceal undesired findings.

For example, in its recent, controversial Phase 3 clinical trial for its new mRNA influenza shot (which in fact is a gene therapy posing as a vaccine), Pfizer did not compare their new product to a true placebo. Instead, they did this:

…we randomly assigned healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 64 years to receive either a quadrivalent modRNA influenza vaccine (modRNA group) or a licensed inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (control group) during the 2022–2023 influenza season in the United States, South Africa, and the Philippines.

Let’s step back and think about this for just a second. Instead of using a simple, cheap, true placebo such as a sterile saline injection, Pfizer – which designed and conducted their own study – used something they called a “control vaccine,” consisting of whatever standard licensed traditional flu vaccine was being used at the time in South Africa and the Philippines.

Really?

Sure, one can argue, they wanted to show their new shot was better than the old-fashioned one. Still, this in no way excuses not adding a third group as well – a true placebo group.

The results of the study give a strong clue why Pfizer designed their trial with a fake placebo.

With regard to safety, in almost every category the clinical trial measured for adverse events, the Pfizer mRNA shot showed higher incidence than seen with the traditional vaccine. In fact, the adverse effects were so much worse in the most important age group – 65 and older – that Pfizer simply omitted all the data from that demographic in their report in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Imagine how those safety data would have looked compared to a true placebo group. No wonder Pfizer chose a fake placebo – apparently, this was whatever flu shots the Filipino and South African public health officials had on hand at the time.

But the New England Journal article declared victory, claiming “adverse event profiles were similar in the two groups” while adding:

The relative efficacy of the modRNA vaccine as compared with the control vaccine against influenza-like illness was 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4 to 53.9) on the basis of 57 cases in the modRNA group and 87 cases in the control group, a finding that met the criteria for both noninferiority and superiority.

Pfizer states their shot’s “relative efficacy” was 34.5%. Doesn’t sound too impressive. But here’s the kicker – it’s not even an absolute reduction. It’s 34.5% less than the traditional vaccine. How does the Pfizer jab compare to just leaving people alone? We have no idea.

Behold the cesspool of doubletalk and patent dishonesty in which we are now mired. Harm is now “negative efficacy.” Worse findings are called “similar.” True placebo controls have been dumped in favor of something called a “control vaccine.”

(And in case you’re wondering, “noninferiority” is just vaccine-clinical-trial-speak for ‘this one doesn’t suck any worse than the other one.’)

No medical product should ever be allowed to be brought to market and administered to patients on the basis of “relative efficacy.”

After all, these products aren’t marketed to consumers as “relatively safe and effective,” are they?

---

Please use code CURE20 to receive 20% off on the newest product Hydroxychloroquine, as well as ALL of the amazing products that you have been purchasing for many years now like the Nobel Prize winning miracle compound Ivermectin, the no less miraculous Fenbendazole, Doxycycline, the full spectrum organic CBD oil containing 5,000 milligrams of activated cannabinoids and hemp compounds CBD, CBN & CBG, the powerful immune support nutraceutical and spike support formula VIR-X, and the sugar craving reducing, blood sugar balancing and even anti-cancer allulose sugar substitute FLAV-X!

The WEEKEND FLASH SALE ends Sunday, December 21st (midnight eastern time), 2025.

Upon adding products to your cart, please go to the cart icon at the top right corner of your browser page and click it, then choose the VIEW CART option whereby you will be redirected to a page where you can enter the code CURE20 in the Use Coupon Code field.

Only the RESOLVX HEALTH website offers all of the authentic products that this Substack promotes.

Please contact the company directly with any product questions: info@resolvx.health