This is a topic that is just too big to ignore now, as the implications are extraordinary. My own personal advice is stay away from vaccines, they are nothing but for profit poisons. In the headline video is Dr Ahmad Malik telling you doctors have no clue about vaccines. Doctors receive no formal education on vaccines during medical school. A physician trained between 1993 and 1998 confirms there were no lectures on vaccines across five years of instruction. He reports that this is not unique to his experience. After speaking with colleagues in the U.S., Australia, and the U.K., both older and younger, he says none reported receiving vaccine education during their medical training.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Doctors typically cannot name the ingredients in vaccines or explain what adjuvants are. Most are unfamiliar with the design of clinical trials or the nature of the placebo controls used. They are not able to cite adverse event data and have not reviewed relevant studies. Despite this, they regularly describe vaccines as “safe and effective” and administer them as part of routine care.
Medical professionals often base their views on a simplified explanation of how vaccines work. They are taught that exposure to a weakened or partial version of a virus enables the immune system to respond more effectively to future infection. Beyond that, they are not provided with instruction on formulation, testing methods, risk evaluation, or trial duration.
This situation is consistent across countries and generations. The lack of structured teaching on vaccines means most physicians rely on institutional messaging rather than personal analysis of safety data or trial methodology. Their confidence in vaccines comes from the system that trained them, not from direct knowledge of the product's development or pharmacological profile.
No distinction is made between product classes or risk levels. Questions about ingredients, long-term safety data, and placebo selection are rarely addressed in clinical practice. The term “adjuvant” itself is unknown to many practitioners. When asked about complications or side effects, the typical answer is a general denial rather than reference to data.
The public often assumes that doctors have expert-level understanding of vaccines. According to the speaker, this is not supported by the training process. Doctors are expected to promote vaccine uptake without being taught the underlying details. The profession, he says, treats vaccines as a settled subject rather than a field requiring continued study or scrutiny.
The most difficult thing for many people is the brainwashing and indoctrination via “repeat and rinse” followed by “trust the science, trust the experts” to the extent that people believe in vaccines blindly. The same way people are made believe in religious dogma. No one will admit they ever researched the vaccines let alone know what is in the vaccines, but they will stand by their belief and call you a conpiracy theorist. Yet not a single routine childhood vaccine was licensed based on a long-term placebo-controlled trial. None of the vaccines has undergone a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial prior to approval. A true placebo must be an inert substance, such as saline.
Aluminum adjuvants, such as AAHS used in the Gardasil trial, are not valid placebo controls. In the Gardasil study, participants were reportedly given either the vaccine or a placebo, but the placebo group actually received the aluminum adjuvant, not saline. This resulted in similar side effects between the vaccine and placebo groups, as both contained aluminum. The aluminum adjuvant used was a novel compound, not previously employed in other vaccines. The RotaTeq oral vaccine trial included substances like polysorbate and sodium phosphate, which are also not acceptable as inert placebo controls.
(Dr Paul Marik)
Terminology around "placebo" is inconsistently applied. The relevant question is whether there are any active ingredients, such as adjuvants or preservatives, in the so-called placebo. Despite the desire to refute this issue, no evidence of placebo-controlled trials using inert substances has been presented. From leading health authorities down, no one has provided such data. Vaccines are commonly tested against other vaccines, not true placebos, which means no definitive safety data from inert placebo comparisons exists.
Vaccines are not medicine in the traditional sense. There is no standard placebo platform in vaccine development. If the absence of true placebo-controlled trials is surprising, it reflects a gap in understanding how vaccines are evaluated. Placebos in drug trials serve to measure the effect of a treatment against an inactive control, providing measurable, evidence-based results.
Vaccines are administered to healthy individuals, including infants and toddlers. Since there is no illness being treated, the outcome or "effect" is not measured the same way as in therapeutic drug trials. Without a treatment target, defining a placebo strategy becomes ambiguous.
The absence of vaccine education in formal training programs has implications for informed consent, professional accountability, and public trust. It also raises questions about the basis on which medical advice is given in this area. No curriculum coverage, no clinical instruction, and no peer discussion were reported by the doctor quoted. The same pattern appears to hold internationally.
If you think my voice should be heard louder then PLEASE support by becoming a PAID SUBSCRIBER. I’m here for your raw, straight, and dedicated analyses. Your support is appreciated. Thank you.
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv
Share this post