The placebo was present in the second study I listed, which I'm sharing again here. But again, I've done just a lazy search of the top ten articles when I literally just googled what you're requesting. If you don't want to believe studies thats fine, but to claim they don't exist is inaccurate.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0264410X94902410
These studies don’t compare outcomes between vaccinated and non-vaccinated. If you don’t see that, I can’t help you. But also, yes, I’m highly suspicious of so called scientific studies. It is a known fact that pharmaceutical companies pay “scientists” to create “studies” to support selling their products. Something like 70% of studies are not even reproducible:
“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own.”
That is correct. It's easy to find studies that say anything at all.
Yeah none of these studies actually have a placebo group they compare outcomes to. For good reason, it would prove vaccines are nonsense. That’s why they take away licenses of doctors who try to compare vaccinated to unvaccinated people. Hint: unvaccinated people are healthier.
There are plenty of research studies which support both sides which are easy to read behind the paywall via scihub.
I’m only asking for the side that supports vaccines
Protective antibodies were found and elicited reasonable to good immune response in elderly patients compared to those given the placebo (this is flu vaccine tested).
https://sci-hub.ru/https://doi.org/10.1016/0264-410X(94)90241-0
Link doesn’t show the full study
Weird. I have no reason to lie to you. Sats come and go.
https://video.nostr.build/840ba4f6706c34f6a784a65b90f420bc1e43e29c2beb50ba2117cd205130b6eb.mp4
So I think this is related to the site's security. Sci-Hub has a lot of different links, typically some will be up and some down. It's best to copy the article's DOI into Sci-Hub and it should have full functionality. That's why I was saying linking the Sci-Hub I'm using isn't ideal. But if you really want to access peer reviewed science that's how you do it for free. I can't do it for you though.
Your link worked on desktop and I finished reading it. I’m almost done with my response 😂
There is so much wrong with the conclusions you are making based off this study.
"The data in the literature on immune response following vaccination are contradictory. A variation of (0-80% in the protection rate obtained through vaccination has been reported."
This is from the discussion section talking about the general research in the field on vaccines. I give credit to these researchers for being honest about how bad the research is on vaccines. FUCKING insane variation. 0 to 80%?? That means most of this research is unreliable. And this is on immune response which is seemingly the presence of antibodies in the blood. It's not the absence of illness. And no, presence of antibodies doesn't mean immunity or good health.
"In a recent review article of publications between 1968 and 1988, 17 studies were selected which reasonably met the criteria of a good trial. In these 17 publications, the vaccine components could be studied in relation to the immune response in 30 cases. In ten of these cases, a more favourable response was found in younger rather than older people, while the opposite was found in four cases and no difference could be found between the groups in 16 cases. Such divergence in findings was explained by the methodological shortcomings present in these studies."
Another example of bad methodology in vaccine research that they called out. This is why I said you can't just look at the abstract. You need to look at the way they're doing the experiment. At least these guys are seemingly thorough in their analysis of other research.
Speaking of which, let's see how these guys did the research:
"The antibody titres of the sera were measured by means of the haemagglutinin inhibition test (HI). Influenza virus strains for titrations were propagated in embryonated 12-day-old chicken eggs. Strains of or strains analogous to the vaccine were used for the titrations. Because of the low avidity of influenza B viruses, the eggs which had been infected with this strain were treated with ether."
I'm not going to pretend I understand why they are putting the samples in rotten eggs, but why don't they just measure the fucking health of the participants over a reasonable period of time? Who gets sick and who doesn't. Seems like a pretty easy thing to track.
The other issue with this research is that it presumes that the presence of increased antibodies is a good thing. That if you have antibodies, then you are protected. But that clearly isn't true with covid. They found increased numbers of antibodies after covid vaccination! That doesn't mean that you have increased protection from covid. Another correlational finding from an unnecessarily complicated study. Just do a fucking comparative study of vaccinated and unvaccinated people lmao. Here are the words of the researchers:
"Further research is needed to determine whether a good immune response decreases the incidence of influenza."
So this study doesn't prove that vaccines actually improve health. All it did was prove that if you inject a virus into someone, that the body will increase its antibodies. That's not immunity and that's not a measure of health. But what other things happen to your body when you inject vaccines into it? A direct injection of a virus into the bloodstream is not how people get sick. They get sick, supposedly, from viruses entering the body their mouth or nose. What if injecting these serums into the blood is just bad for you? What mechanisms does your body have to defend against something in the bloodstream like that? How does your body filter out the adjuvants in your blood? Why have they found aluminum in brain autopsies of autistic people? The only way it could get to the brain is through the bloodstream.
But I appreciate you sending me this study because it was surprisingly thorough. I learned more than I expected to. Thank you! I'll zap because it was still valuable to me overall. Some of those statistics are fucking crazy: 0 - 80% variation is fucking wild hahaha
No response?
