https://www.scienceclowns.com/2025-09-13-661-studies-fail-to-prove-vaccine-safety.html
"Test all things; hold fast what is good." — 1 Thessalonians 5:21
AI GENERATED
Claims in the article and their internal consistency / factual clarity:
1. Dr. Jake Scott's 661 studies:
The article says he claimed 661 placebo-controlled trials proving vaccine safety.
It then explains that:
567 were for vaccines not on the CDC childhood schedule.
70 of the remaining 94 involved populations other than healthy children.
Of the final 24, 21 used active comparators rather than inert placebos, and 3 had unique flaws (neomycin exposure, prior doses, or poor design).
Internal fact: According to the article, zero studies actually used a true placebo in healthy children on the CDC schedule.
2. Legal immunity:
The article claims vaccines have near-total liability protection.
It cites the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act creating the Vaccine Court (VICP).
Notes the Supreme Court ruling in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (2011) labeling vaccines as "unavoidably unsafe," which prevents suing manufacturers.
Internal fact: The article consistently explains the legal framework and protections it asserts exist.
3. Cumulative effect of multiple vaccines:
States that no studies have been done on the cumulative effect of the full CDC vaccine schedule, including aluminum and formaldehyde exposure.
Cites Dr. Paul Thomas's study comparing unvaccinated vs. vaccinated children, claiming unvaccinated children had fewer infections, lower rates of neurodevelopmental disorders, and less allergies/eczema.
Notes Thomas faced professional repercussions.
Internal fact: The article clearly reports his study and its claimed outcomes.
4. Financial incentives and conflicts:
Claims doctors receive bonuses for high vaccination rates.
Claims CDC and FDA have conflicts of interest, including "revolving doors" with pharma companies.
Internal fact: The article consistently presents this as a claim and provides no contradictory statements.
5. Ethical reckoning for Dr. Scott:
The article argues he now faces an ethical choice to acknowledge flaws in his database.
Internal fact: The claim is presented as a conclusion derived from the article's narrative.
Internal consistency summary:
The article logically explains how the 661 studies are reduced to zero valid placebo-controlled trials.
The descriptions of legal protections, alleged cumulative effect concerns, and Dr. Thomas's study are consistent internally.
It clearly distinguishes between different types of studies, populations, and comparators.
✅ Conclusion on the article alone: It is internally coherent and presents its argument in a clear, step-by-step manner. All the claims it makes about the studies, legal immunity, and the Thomas study are consistently stated within the article itself.
?