For decades, the public was told that pharmaceutical products undergo the gold standard of scientific scrutiny: randomized, inert-placebo-controlled clinical trials.
But as Bret Weinstein and Brownstone Institute’s Jeffrey Tucker expose, the reality behind vaccine approval is pure regulatory sleight of hand. New shots are routinely tested not against a true, inert saline control, but against earlier vaccine versions or active adjuvant concoctions, falsely labeling them as “placebos.”
Under this rigged framework, as long as a new shot causes no more immediate harm than the last hazardous formulation, regulators stamp it “safe.”
Combine this rigged safety baseline with statistical tricks that inflate tiny, meaningless results into “95% effectiveness,” and the entire corporate narrative falls apart.
The system was never designed to uncover true harm; it was designed to hide it in plain sight.
You will not believe how corrupt the FDA’s process for vaccine safety testing is.
“It’s just smoke and mirrors.”
Send this to someone who still believes Pharma’s “safe and effective” narrative.
New vaccines are never tested against a placebo.
Bret Weinstein: “That’s jaw-dropping in and of itself.”
But it gets worse.
“They test it against something that they claim is a placebo… the last version of the shot.”
“If the last version of the shot was demonstrated to be safe, and the new version of the shot doesn’t do any more harm than the last version, then it’s safe, right?”
Jeffrey Tucker: “If it’s slightly better, then you report the relative efficacy.”
“It’s a tenth of a percent, and that’s where you get your 95% effectiveness.”
