Why Vaccine Trials are NOT good science

4 min read


“Science advances by conducting the experiments that could potentially disprove our hypotheses”

❌ There’s a misconception in the minds of civilians and biased-scientists alike that the intent of scientific experiments and clinical trials is to prove a hypothesis 

– e.g. to prove a vaccine is safe and effective.

🤔 That could not be further from truth. If you are to do REAL, valuable, truth-seeking science, the goal in an experiment is to attempt to DISPROVE your hypothesis.

⛏Science is about chipping away at flawed theories, until what you are left with is the truth.

Just like Michelangelo with art, science is the same:

“The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”

Furthermore, not all science experiments are created equal. Take a look at the three types of experiments below, with Type 1 being the best and Type 3 being as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Why Vaccine Trials and non-scientific

💉Guess where Vaccine Phase 2 / 3 trials sit?…

Firmly between Type 2 and Type 3.

❓The question then is, why are they so useless? Surely they could make a trial a Type 1 experiment? 

I’m not sure they can, but they at least could be a STRONG type 2 if the goal was to attempt to disprove a series of hypotheses….

…Versus what we see, which is design objectives to bend-reality to fulfil the singular hypothesis of “efficacy”. 


(for science, truth & public health)

  1. A Challenge Response – across the Vaccinated group, inoculate participants with lab-cultured virus in lab settings, to guarantee exposure to to carefully witness infection and protection.
  2. Staggered Challenges – In order to test durability of the vaccine, do the above at different points in time on different participants, from Week 1 to Week 52 after the second dose.
  3. Placebo Challenges – Do the same as above, but on the control arm participants. Again, to control exposure and scientific control of variables and monitoring.
  4. Individual Ingredient Reactions – Vaccines contain many ingredients. Devise sub experiments, to monitor and measure short and long term reactions to the individual ingredients. Especially the newly formulated lipid nanoparticles.
  5. Test for unintended Antibodies – Look to disprove the concern of long-term allergies created by unintended antibody production. I.e. is the body creating antibodies against the ingredients of vaccine versus the attenuated virus or purified/instructed proteins?
  6. Test for fertility concerns – There is concern that the Spike Protein homology is very similar to a protein within the uterus of females. Look to disprove the hypothesis that the antibodies produced against the mRNA-instructed spike protein do not also target proteins within the reproductive system.
  7. Autoimmune Seroprevelance – as autoimmune issues are at the base of most chronic conditions, closely monitor increased antibody production against human tissue and organs as a result of the vaccine creating a sustained autoimmune response. Expensive, costly, but essential is human health is important.
  8. Medicine Interactions – Recruit participants who are on a series of chronic and acute meds to test and monitor interactions between the vaccine and other meds.
  9. Select demographics that are most at risk – Design a study that has higher proportions of participants that represent the groups that are both at greater risk of serious infection and also likely to have weakened/worsened response to vaccines (e.g. elderly shielders and BAME).
  10. Measure T Cells before and after – Look to better understand the role of T Cell immunity be measuring T Cells before and periods of time after vaccination. Does the vaccine have a positive effect?
  11. Measure Neutralising Antibodies BEFORE and after – This, surprisingly, does not feature in some Phase 3 vaccines trials, such as the Pfizer one. Importantly, leverage this analysis to inform “effectiveness” and not the rudimentary approach currently used.
  12. Antibody-Dependant Enhancement – Look to disprove the hypothesis that Vaccines can cause ADE, where non-neutralising antibodies were created and when exposed to the virus causes an excitable cytokine storm due to having the wrong antibodies that actually enhance virus entry into cells.
  13. Vaccine-Associated Virus Interference – Look to disprove the hypothesis that a vaccine for one virus can cause a a more severe response to similar viruses. E.g. science that shows that flu vaccines can cause more severe coronavirus infections.
  14. Functional decline – Look to disprove the concerns that vaccines, especially the newer forms that involve genetic engineering, have the potential to cause a slow decline in function – whether it be mitochondrial energy, neuro-cognitive impairment, cancer promotion etc.

A High Bar, rightfully


Of course, the above test, design and monitoring expectations are costly, resource intensive, and most importantly need TIME to  play out and observe.

🤔 This effort might even be accepted, IF (a big if) there was confidence from the manufacturers and Govt that the vaccine would pass this battery of tests.

🤫 The above tests also demand that we do our studies WITHIN the studies themselves, versus using the unassuming public as #guineapigs. Unlike the approach we are seeing, where public rollout is considered “Phase 4” of the vaccine studies.

👎🏼 These requirements demand that we stop hiding behind “unethical” objections to doing science properly. Such as, we can’t do Challenge Response on human participants. Or, that it is unethical to keep the placebo arm unvaccinated. 

Conveniently, the Pharma manufacturers, researchers, study designers and regulators deem proper science to be “unethical”.

🥺 However, they see it as being completely ethical to “suck it and see” on the unassuming public, whilst not conducting the detailed health monitoring as suggested above. #nice

So what say you?

SO, to all those faithful #ProVaxxers, who get their belief and certainty from appealing to authority and consensus thinking – WHAT SAY YOU?

❓Do you think it’s unreasonable for science to be performed throughly and with the pure intentions of science, not money and politics?

❓Do you think Vaccine studies answer all the important questions of consequences and true effectiveness?

❓Why should I trust a vaccine, when none of the above can be offered? Especially from these experimental covid vaccines that leverage never-tried-before technology and have negligible testing?

🌎After all, we’re not talking about a drug needed for 1 in 100,000  people. The ideology is to give these vaccines to EVERY human being on the planet…

#AllTheFacts #ProperScience



Statements on what is good science borrowed from Charles Rock PhD, faculty member in the Infectious Diseases Department and director of the Protein Production Facility at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. Link in comment below 👇🏼


The Original Facebook Post

Enjoyed the read?

Comment below, and check out our longer-form Articles, our shorter Micro Blog sections, grab Healthy Meal Ideas from AdapNation Food Diary, and Free Gym Workout Plans at #HyperWorkouts.

Leave a comment