Use of 'control' vaccines and mismatched groups expose malaria study as complete fraud

Tuesday, May 17, 2016 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer
Tags: malaria vaccines, scientific studies, control group

---

(NaturalNews) Sound science in medicine is becoming hard to come by these days, especially since drug companies and their financial backers are known to craft safety studies that arrive at preconceived, but false, conclusions. And the recent Phase III study on GlaxoSmithKline's (GSK) RTS,S malaria vaccine, which is being hailed by the media as a huge success in the fight against malaria, is a perfect example of a study deliberately manipulated to "prove" that an ineffective, unsafe vaccine is safe and effective.

Financially backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has already admitted that vaccinations are part of a plan to reduce the global population (https://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html), the malaria study's first major misstep is the use of a "control" vaccine. Rather than compare the effects of the experimental vaccine to no vaccine at all, which would have been the proper way to evaluate its effects, the study team instead chose to administer rabies and meningitis vaccines to children and babies in the control group.

Like all other vaccines, Sanofi-Paseur's VeroRab vaccine for rabies and Novartis Menjugate vaccine for meningitis -- these were the two "control" vaccines used in the study -- both contain various chemical additives and adjuvants that affect immune function. They can also be accompanied by negative side effects that range from milder conditions like blurred vision and muscle aching, to more serious conditions like Guillain-Barre syndrome and even death.

The study itself admits that the two "control" vaccines were known to have roughly the same risk of serious side effects as the malaria vaccine. This flawed comparison, of course, conveniently covers up any side effects brought about by the malaria vaccine by making it seem as though getting the vaccine is no more harmful than not getting it.

If you look at the details of the study for yourself, you will see that more than 1,600 of the roughly 10,000 children and babies that were given the malaria vaccine actually suffered very serious side effects, which translates into 16 percent of all the children who received the shot schedule -- but these facts were conveniently hidden from the study's conclusion thanks to its flawed methodology (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287).

Mismatched group sizes suggest that children who receive malaria vaccine are actually more likely to contract malaria than control children

Then there is the issue of mismatched group sizes. According to the data, 57 of 2,830 children in the RTS,S group developed at least one episode of severe malaria following the vaccine, while only 56 of 1,466 children in the "control" group did. As you can see, the number of children in the RTS,S malaria vaccine group was nearly double the amount in the "control" group.

Study authors used these figures to suggest that RTS,S has an efficacy rate of 47.3 percent, and the mainstream media ran with it. But if the two group sizes had been the same, it appears as though children in the "control" group were actually better protected from malaria than children in the malaria vaccine group. By nearly doubling the size of the RTS,S group, study authors were able to arrive at an artificial efficacy rate that favored the malaria vaccine.

These are just a few of the many details that the mainstream media failed to carefully evaluate prior to jumping on the pro-malaria vaccine bandwagon, but they are details we here at NaturalNews simply could not ignore. The basic truth of the matter is that nothing has been proven by this study other than the fact that GSK and the Gates Foundation appear to have a clear agenda to get the RTS,S malaria vaccine approved, regardless of whether or not it actually safe and effective.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1102287