reSee.it - Related Video Feed

It is claimed that ethical concerns prevent double-blind placebo trials for childhood vaccines already on the schedule that never underwent safety testing. The first step should be honesty about the clinical trial data underlying childhood vaccines. One proposed method involves comparing health outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals using existing datasets. If unvaccinated children are equally or less healthy than vaccinated children, this should be published to reassure parents. However, if vaccinated children are less healthy, the claim that these products cannot harm anyone should be reconsidered. It is asserted that comparative studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals have been conducted, but not published because they allegedly show that the unvaccinated are healthier. Publishing a study showing vaccinated individuals are healthier would have discredited Robert Kennedy Jr., but the fact that it wasn't published suggests a problem.

Speaker 0 argues that to determine whether smoking causes lung cancer, you must compare smokers to non-smokers. They recount a sequence of flawed study designs that would falsely conclude no link: comparing two smokers with different consumption levels and finding the same cancer rates; comparing different cigarette brands among smokers and again finding no difference; comparing people in different towns who all smoke and finding no difference. The point is that all these comparisons fail because they do not include a non-smoker control group; thus they cannot establish causation. They then contrast this with vaccine studies, asserting that studies claiming vaccines don’t cause chronic diseases or autism do not compare vaccinated to unvaccinated children. Instead, such studies compare vaccinated children to other vaccinated children, with variations in vaccines received (e.g., MMR, DTaP, multiple vaccines in one visit) and with differing aluminum exposures (e.g., four milligrams vs two milligrams). They emphasize that these studies never examine the actual outcome of interest by comparing vaccinated against unvaccinated children. The speaker maintains that this flaw in vaccine studies mirrors the earlier tobacco example. The essential argument is that the only way to determine causation is to compare the exposure group (vaccinated children) to an appropriate control group (unvaccinated children). They reference the Henry Ford trial as an example of an unvaccinated-versus-vaccinated comparison, but note that no one has published or accessible data from it. They call for someone brave enough to conduct and publish a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study to settle the issue. Finally, they challenge proponents of vaccination to conduct such a study to prove their position, insisting that if vaccines are truly safe and non-causal for chronic diseases or autism, the study should be done and the data published to demonstrate that the claim is correct. The overall message is a insistence on direct, unambiguous vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated comparisons to establish causality, highlighting perceived gaps in current vaccine research and urging transparent data publication.

Speaker 0 argues that the myth that vaccines are safe and necessary and that they eradicated childhood disease is false. He claims vaccines have never been tested for safety and that there are no placebo-controlled trials; in trials, the control group is given the immunogens that are in the vaccine, making the comparison deceptive. He emphasizes that vaccines typically contain a protein plus an accompanying substance—the adjuvant or immunogen—that stimulates an immune response, and that these adjuvants (such as aluminum or other substances) by themselves are dangerous. When the control group receives these adjuvants along with the experimental group, he says the side effects are similar, describing this as a “slight hand trick” and “extremely deceptive.” He notes that for the last forty years people have been shouting that there has not been a true placebo-controlled trial with saline. He then argues that if one looks at the history of all the childhood illnesses that vaccines target, they were almost all nearly eradicated before the introduction of the vaccine. He claims that the impression vaccines stop childhood illnesses is not true; almost all illnesses had reduced to extremely low levels due to sanitation and hygiene, development, and some antibiotics. Regarding the vaccines themselves, he states that the true data and history of these vaccines are “really horrible.” He mentions a history of lack of safety and relates it to sudden infant death syndrome, asserting that it “suddenly came out of nowhere as we suspended the schedule” and asks when death occurs. He asserts that sudden infant death syndrome is reproducible in that it occurs at two months, four months, and six months, and that most of those deaths occur within days to a couple of weeks of the vaccine. He concludes with a strong personal stance: if he had his young children today, he would not give them a single vaccine.

According to the speaker, most vaccines have never been tested in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate their safety. The speaker claims that vaccines contain aluminum compounds because many dead vaccines don't mount an immune response without them. The speaker alleges that in a Gardasil vaccine study, the placebo group received an aluminum adjuvant instead of a true placebo, resulting in similar side effect profiles between the active vaccine and placebo groups. The speaker asserts that Merck used a novel aluminum compound and that data suggests aluminum in vaccines is profoundly toxic. The speaker states that the only true randomized controlled trial involving a vaccine was conducted on sheep with blue tongue disease. The results allegedly showed that the aluminum in the vaccine was toxic, causing the sheep to become sick, unsociable, and, in some cases, die. The speaker concludes that the assumption that aluminum adjuvants in vaccines are safe is unfounded and has never been tested.

We documented six sixty 1 trials using inert placebo controls. We confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo controlled trials. The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false. 567 of these trials were not a routine injected vaccine for a disease in the CDC's childhood schedule. The remaining 94 studies, 70 of them did not involve healthy children. Of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a US licensed vaccine. That leaves us with three studies, three, that were claimed to have a inert control that were relied upon to license a routine injected childhood vaccine out of this entire list of 661. One was a trial for the chickenpox vaccine, the varicella vaccine. It was only a few 100 people, so was underpowered anyway.

"Inert should mean that the substance does not cause a chemical or biological reaction in the body." "Paul Offit routinely calls mercury and aluminum inert even though they are known neurotoxicants." "Philip Grandjean and Philip Langegon, they're the best two toxicologists in the world. They published a study in 2014 that says both aluminum and ethyl mercury are known neurotoxicants." "In the context of vaccines, placebo should mean saline as verified by independent third party testing." "FDA has no regulations concerning the contents of placebos." "manufacturers can put whatever they want into the comparator intervention and can still call it a placebo by law." "A double blind randomized controlled trial should have two groups." "That's not what the supporters of the status quo mean when they say randomized control trial." "That's why we're in this mess. That's why we have an autism and chronic disease epidemic in this country."

The speaker claims that no double-blind, placebo-controlled safety trials have been conducted on any childhood vaccines currently on the market. The speaker states that they have searched for such trials and been unable to find any. According to the speaker, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins allegedly admitted that placebo-controlled safety trials are not performed on childhood vaccines because it would be unethical to test products administered to children. The speaker challenges news agencies to provide evidence of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done prior to licensure for any childhood vaccine, asserting that it doesn't exist.

None of the 72 vaccines for children have been tested against a placebo. The speaker sued HHS in 2016 to find placebo studies for vaccines, but none were found. The safety testing for the polio vaccine was only 48 hours, while the hepatitis b vaccines were tested for 4-5 days. This means that any adverse events occurring after that time period were not considered. Without placebo testing, the risk profile of current vaccines is unknown, and it cannot be determined if vaccines cause more harm than good. The speaker questions the ethics of mandating medical products with unknown risks for children.

Senator Ron Johnson introduces Aaron Siri at the Kennedy Center, praising Siri as a highly consequential attorney and highlighting Siri’s work since the COVID era. Johnson recounts how his own oversight role in Congress evolved to rely on the adversarial legal process to extract information from a large government, noting that enforcement power rests in the courts. He frames Siri as someone who, through litigation and testimony, has exposed what he views as flaws in vaccine science, regulation, and safety oversight. Johnson describes Siri’s rise to prominence during the COVID period, beginning with public hearings on vaccine injuries in Milwaukee (June 2021) and Washington, DC (November 2021). He notes that Siri represented Dr. Patricia Lee, a physician who publicly discussed vaccine injection injuries and medical treatment obstacles, illustrating how federal health agencies and the CDC/FDA were perceived to respond to reports of injury. Siri’s testimony is credited with exposing calls to his practice from vaccine-injured doctors seeking treatment and the CDC/FDA officials’ defense of VAERS. Johnson highlights Siri’s 2022 and 2025 hearings, including the release of the VAERS data via the v-safe system, which Siri reportedly showed indicated higher rates of medical care sought and activity impairment among the vaccinated. Siri’s deposition of Stanley Plotkin and other experts is cited as foundational to his arguments about safety science, conflicts of interest, and the integrity of the vaccine schedule. Johnson points to the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) conclusions as being insufficient to prove vaccine safety for the entire childhood schedule, and to Siri’s presentation of the Henry Ford study (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children) showing higher rates of chronic illness among the vaccinated. A central claim Johnson attributes to Siri is that vaccines have immunity from liability, due to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (NCVIA). Siri’s summary is that vaccines are the only product in America with blanket liability protection for manufacturers and administrators, preempting design-defect claims via the Supreme Court interpretation that “the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design defect claims.” Siri argues this immunity removes the market incentive to develop safer vaccines and leaves safety oversight to federal health authorities (HHS agencies: NIH, CDC, FDA) rather than to private manufacturers. Siri’s account of the 1986 act is that it created a mandate for safer childhood vaccines, with three provisions: (1) the general rule placing the secretary of HHS in charge of vaccine safety; (2) a task force of NIH, CDC, and FDA to make safety recommendations to the secretary; and (3) a biannual report to Congress on actions to improve vaccine safety. Siri contends that the biannual reports have never been submitted, and the task force produced only one report (in 1998) before disbanding, with Secretary Kennedy recently reinstating the task force. Siri’s firm ICANN has filed FOIA requests and submitted recommendations to HHS about how to improve vaccine safety, asserting that the current safety framework is not adequate. Siri then surveys the landscape across federal agencies. He asserts that the absence of liability incentives undermines safety, citing industry-pricing and trial designs, and he presents specific examples of licensure trials for routine vaccines that he claims were inadequate by design. Examples include: - Hepatitis B vaccines (Recombivax HB and Engerix B): five days of safety monitoring in trials with 147 participants, according to package inserts and FDA reports he obtained; he notes a lack of long-term safety data and questions the adequacy of control groups. - Prevnar 7 and Prevnar 13 (pneumococcal vaccines): uses Prevnar 7 as a control for Prevnar 13; safety data show notable serious adverse events but are deemed acceptable for licensure; subsequent trials used Prevnar 13 as control for Prevnar 15 with continued concerns about safety signals. - DTaP vs DTP: claims DTP served as control and that DTP itself was not licensed on placebo-controlled trials; cites a Guinea-Bissau study showing higher mortality with DTP vaccination and other studies suggesting increased overall mortality with DTP. - Dengue vaccine: notes long-term, placebo-controlled data showing increased severe harm and death in certain age groups; argues that non-placebo, ethically problematic trial designs can mask safety issues. Siri asserts a categorical claim based on FDA licensure documents: not a single routine neonatal vaccine on the CDC schedule has been licensed based on a placebo-controlled trial; when another vaccine served as control, that control was never a placebo. He presents this as evidence that safety assessments were compromised, especially for early-life vaccines administered in the first six months. Regarding autism, Siri frames it as a litmus test for vaccine safety studies. He recounts IOM findings that were inconclusive about DTaP (and related vaccines) causing autism, citing the lack of sufficient studies and the absence of unvaccinated comparison groups in many analyses. He describes ICANN’s FOIA drive to obtain CDC studies showing vaccines do not cause autism, asserting that most of the CDC’s own 20-study list did not address the vaccines in question. In deposition clips, Siri indicates that the IOM and CDC have not produced adequate evidence to rule out a causal link for several injuries, and that the only mainstream “no autism” position has come under legal scrutiny when the agencies faced court-ordered settlements and deposition testimony. Siri concludes with reform recommendations across agencies: - FDA: remove conflicted personnel from vaccine safety reviews, require clear licensure standards, mandate proper controls and longer safety monitoring, require practitioner notification of trial details, and post pre-registered study protocols; regain transparency of de-identified health data. - CDC/HRSA: align vaccine injury compensation with statutory requirements; expand the VICP to cover more injuries; ensure the CICP is reformed and funded to reflect safety concerns; reduce conflicts of interest; promote alternative, non-pharmaceutical approaches for root causes of chronic illness. - NIH: limit pharma involvement in vaccine development, focus taxpayer-funded research on root causes and replication, and avoid patent-related partnerships that create conflicts. - CMS/HHS-wide: require automated VAERS reporting and public access to de-identified health data; ensure religious exemptions are preserved; depoliticize vaccines and end mandates as political tools; end chronic disease by addressing vaccines as a contributing factor to immune dysregulation. Siri closes by insisting that mandating vaccines is a political act that undermines informed consent, arguing that safety should be decoupled from politics and that safety and efficacy claims should be grounded in rigorous, transparent science. He emphasizes that informed consent, not mandates, should govern medical decisions.

The speaker claims that no childhood vaccine has ever undergone a safety trial using a double-blind, placebo-based study. They assert that this type of study, involving a saline injection as a placebo, is the only way to determine the safety of a pharmaceutical product. Furthermore, the speaker states that there has never been a study comparing the health outcomes of children who receive the full schedule of 72 (or potentially up to 90) vaccines to those who receive none. Because of the lack of safety studies and comparative data, the speaker chooses not to inject themselves or their children with vaccines. They want evidence that vaccines are safe and make people healthier.

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

"Birtucil is probably the single worst mass vaccine that we've ever seen." "This vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is zero." "Death rates in the Gardasil trials were thirty seven times the death rates for cervical cancer." "Children who take that vaccine, the Gardasil vaccine, are thirty seven times more likely to die from the vaccine than they are to die from cervical cancer." "So the problem with Gardasil, like most vaccines, is it was never tested against a true placebo, an inert placebo." "And the CDC and HHS say, if you don't test it against a true placebo, it's not science." "The entity that is actually performing the study is and paying for this study is Merck." "Merck got to decide which injuries were being caused by Gardasil and which were just bad coincidences." "They were able to license something that is insanely dangerous."

We couldn't find a prelicensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines doses recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group.

Big problem with trusting the science is not the science part, it's who's behind the science part, primarily in the area of vaccines for children. Normally, when you study a drug, you compare it with a placebo, so that way you can truly test the side effects on something, but that is not how they test children's vaccines. This so called placebo control is not really a true placebo control because it's not inert. It's an active vaccine with something called an adjuvant. The big one that they've been using for a long time is aluminum. My question is, how can you really truly test the safety and effectiveness of something if you're looking at the relative safety of an active vaccine to another active vaccine with adjuvants. That just muddies the water to this whole safe and effective claim that you keep hearing over and over and over.

A PDF crowdsourced document that I believe CNN put out was sent to me by a New York Times reporter researching me, citing 200 different studies on vaccines that supposedly used placebo. I spoke with Dr. Joel Worsch, a pediatrician with an MS in epidemiology who wrote a book and is credible, neutral, and honest, and he says we don't know. There's not enough data to know. He breaks it down: the vast majority of these studies are not on the CDC schedule; many used active comparables, not inert placebo. After filtering, 25% of these studies pertain to vaccines on the schedule. Of those, inert placebo is used in about 5% of items. Longitudinal safety studies are zero; perhaps one or two were prelicensing. Journalists do their job: I spoke to doctor Joe; here's what I found. Cognitive dissidence is described as insecurity about flaws in the party.

"The myth of vaccines that, a, they are safe and, b, they are necessary and that they eradicated childhood disease, that is a myth." "They've never been tested for safety." "There are no placebo controlled trials." "They always put in the control group the immunogens that's in the vaccines." "That those adjuvants, whether it be aluminum or other substances, those by themselves are dangerous." "they refused to do a true placebo controlled trial like with saline." "they almost all were nearly eradicated before the introduction of the vaccine." "That is not true." "It's reproducible, occurs at two months, four months, and six months." "And most of those deaths are within either days to a couple of weeks of the vaccine."

Vaccines are neither safe, effective, necessary, nor harmless, and this has been a two-hundred-year indoctrination. No vaccine has ever been proven safe because true placebos aren't used, and subjects aren't followed long enough. Safety is determined by whether the vaccine causes immediate death. Long-term effects like asthma, allergies, eczema, ADD, ADHD, neurological problems, and autoimmune diseases are not monitored. The FDA arbitrarily decided in the early 1990s that side effects appearing more than 72 hours after vaccination are unrelated.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

"There is not one longitudinal safety study on hepatitis b against unvaccinated kids versus vaccinated kids, inert placebo, does not exist." "The two studies that are cited most often, one is for MMR." "Hep B is not involved." "They're like, we did a huge study about this. No autism." "And I'm not suggesting there's a link. I'm simply saying that huge study is only MMR." "The other study they love to talk about involves thimerosal." "Not everything else about the hepatitis B vaccine." "There the there the reality is it's not settled science. Just it's okay." "Vaccines have like, we could but to even say that, anti vaxxer."

The transcript follows a documentary-style examination of rising chronic illness in American children and a contested view of vaccine safety and testing. It weaves together personal testimonies, investigative reporting, and expert interviews to present a narrative that vaccines may be linked to widespread health problems and that the safety science behind vaccination is insufficient or flawed in certain respects. Key claims about child health trends - A diverse set of pediatric health issues is described as increasingly common: ADHD, allergies, eczema, psoriasis, autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile diabetes, lupus, Crohn’s disease), IBS, sleep disorders, seizures, and neurological conditions. Several speakers list multiple conditions affecting children, suggesting a broad chronic disease trend. - A striking statistic cited: “More than forty percent of American children now have at least one chronic health condition” (Speaker 5). Relatedly, autism rates are described as rising from “one in ten thousand” decades ago to “one in thirty one” today (Speaker 5). - An overarching contention is that these rapid increases are unlikely to be explained by genetics alone, given the relatively fast pace of change in incidence. The central study and the “hidden” narrative - The documentary frames a study led by a scientist who allegedly conducted research into chronic disease and vaccination but chose not to publish due to fear of repercussions. Hidden-camera investigations and interviews are used to explore why such data might remain unpublished and how the medical establishment responds to dissenting findings. - The film positions Dr. Zervos (Marcus Zervos), an infectious disease expert at Henry Ford Health System, as a pivotal figure who agreed to a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study but reportedly did not publish the results, leading the filmmakers to pursue further inquiry with him and others. Vaccines, safety testing, and the placebo question - A core claim is that vaccines have not undergone the gold standard of safety testing: double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials for the entire childhood schedule. The film argues that no childhood vaccine has completed such a trial prior to licensure. - The hepatitis B vaccine (Recombivax HB) is used as an example: its pre-licensure safety data reportedly cover only five days after each dose, with no long-term control group, and section 6.1 of the insert notes five days of safety monitoring, raising questions about detecting longer-term autoimmune or neurological injuries. - Opposing voices acknowledge ethical constraints around placebo trials in the presence of existing vaccines, but the documentary challenges this by pointing out that certain comparator trials (e.g., Prevnar 13 vs Prevnar 7) were not against saline placebo, and thus do not establish a safety baseline. - A recurring metaphor is the “whiskey study” scenario to illustrate how non-saline placebo comparisons can mislead safety conclusions. Retrospective and observational studies; the vaccine-safety signal - The film emphasizes retrospective and observational studies as alternatives to randomized trials, arguing they can reveal safety signals when prospective trials are unavailable. It highlights the Henry Ford Health System’s data as a major retrospective study: a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated analysis based on a large, integrated health database. - According to the film, the Henry Ford study found that vaccinated children had higher risks across multiple chronic health categories. Specifically, ten years of follow-up suggested: - Vaccinated children were 2.5 times more likely to have a chronic health condition overall. - An approximate fourfold increased risk for chronic health conditions in certain analyses. - A 4.29-times higher risk for autism was not statistically significant due to small autism counts in the unvaccinated group, but substantial signals were observed in other neurodevelopmental outcomes. - The study reported markedly higher rates of autoimmune diseases (around six times higher) and various neurodevelopmental disorders in the vaccinated group compared with unvaccinated peers. - In the ten-year window, 57% of vaccinated children had a chronic health condition versus 17% of unvaccinated children. - The documentary notes methodological limitations common to retrospective studies, such as follow-up differences and confounding factors, but argues that sensitivity analyses did not overturn the main findings. The vaccine schedule, broader policy, and dissent within the medical community - The narrative asserts that a large portion of physicians publicly defend vaccines as safe and effective, with long-standing support for vaccination policies and mandates. Yet it also recounts stories of physicians who faced professional pushback, licensing actions, or public criticism after raising questions about vaccine safety or suggesting alternative research paths. - The film mentions the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report, which stated that there were over 150 injuries likely associated with vaccines that had not been studied, and it notes that no large, randomized comparisons between fully vaccinated and fully unvaccinated populations had been published by major institutions (as of the report’s release). - The filmmakers recount efforts to obtain a definitive vaccination–unvaccinated study from Henry Ford and other institutions, with some figures expressing willingness to publish if the study clearly demonstrated that unvaccinated children fared better, while others face professional or political pressures. Vaccine advocacy versus safety concerns; the call for replication - Pro-vaccine voices in the film emphasize that vaccines have prevented millions of deaths and remain broadly safe, citing the historical success of vaccines and the large body of published research supporting vaccine effectiveness and safety. - Proponents of re-examination advocate replicating retrospective cohort analyses in other large health systems (e.g., Kaiser Permanente, Harvard Pilgrim, CDC’s VSD) to test whether similar patterns emerge. They stress the ethical and scientific necessity of replication to determine whether the observed signals hold across populations. - The film closes with a call for replication and transparency: if the data are robust, publishing them could transform the understanding of off-target and non-specific effects of vaccination. If replicated, such studies could reshape how vaccines are administered and studied. The documentary also threads personal stories of vaccine injury, including cases of severe reactions after various vaccines and the emotional and logistical toll on families. It juxtaposes these individual tragedies with the broader debate over vaccine safety research, urging readers to consider the evidence, replication, and the possibility that current vaccine safety paradigms may require reassessment.

According to the speaker, vaccines have never been tested in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate their safety. The speaker claims that vaccines contain aluminum compounds because many dead vaccines don't mount an immune response without them. The speaker alleges that in a Gardasil vaccine study, the placebo group received an aluminum adjuvant instead of a true placebo, so the side effect profiles of the active vaccine and placebo groups were the same. The speaker asserts that Merck used a novel aluminum compound and that data shows aluminum in vaccines is toxic. The speaker states that the only completely randomized controlled trial was on sheep using a vaccine for blue tongue disease. The speaker claims the aluminum was toxic, the sheep became sick, their behavior changed, and many died compared to the placebo group. The speaker concludes that the presumption that aluminum as an adjuvant is safe is unfounded and has never been tested.

Gardasil is claimed to be the worst mass vaccine ever, targeting preteens and teens at zero risk of dying from cervical cancer. It's alleged that death rates in Gardasil trials were thirty-seven times higher than cervical cancer death rates, implying children are thirty-seven times more likely to die from the vaccine than from cervical cancer. The claim is that Gardasil, like most vaccines, wasn't tested against a true inert placebo, which the CDC and HHS require for scientific validity. Merck, who funded and performed the study, allegedly decided which injuries were caused by Gardasil, writing off others as coincidences. This was possible because the control group received aluminum neurotoxins, causing injuries identical to those in the Gardasil group, allowing Merck to avoid reporting vaccine injuries and license a dangerous product.

None of the vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have undergone proper testing. No childhood vaccine has completed a placebo-controlled clinical trial with sufficient duration and power to confirm its safety before being administered to millions of children in America. This is not an opinion; it can be verified by anyone visiting the FDA website, where the package inserts and clinical trial documents are available for review.

We documented six sixty 1 trials using inert placebo controls and confirmed that all 16 antigens routinely recommended for children have been studied in placebo controlled trials. The claim that childhood vaccines haven't been tested against placebos is demonstrably false. Drilling into the 661 trials, 567 were not a routine injected vaccine for disease on the CDC's childhood schedule; the remaining 94 studies, 70 did not involve healthy children; of the remaining 24, 21 did not involve a US licensed vaccine. That leaves three studies claimed to have an inert control used to license a routine injected childhood vaccine. One varicella trial had only a few hundred participants and, though called inert, used neomycin instead. The Gardasil 4 trial's control group largely received an aluminum adjuvant injection; a few hundred labeled inert were not inert. The Gardasil 9 trial used a saline injection only after three doses of Gardasil 4. The result: zero trials used a placebo as well as a true inert control to license a routine injected vaccine on the CDC schedule.