Confidently wrong about placebo (DT) controlled trials

Like it or not, RFK’s concerns about vaccine testing are now entering mainstream discourse. Whether you agree with him or not, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the issues he’s bringing to light. Here’s a case that shows why this discussion is long overdue.

Most people believe, quite reasonably, that vaccines undergo rigorous safety testing against true placebos. After all, isn’t that how we ensure medical products are safe? But the reality doesn’t always match this belief.

Let me illustrate with an example. I asked someone who confidently believes in the rigor of vaccine safety trials to show me a placebo-controlled trial for the INFANRIX vaccine, which is given to infants. “Here you go,” they replied, full of certainty, sharing a study that they were sure would prove their point

From the INFANRIX insert

But here’s where it gets interesting. The study they proudly presented is a textbook case of the exact opposite of what they were trying to demonstrate. The trial described itself as a “placebo (DT)-controlled” study. Sounds reassuring, right? But if you read the details (and even within the snippet of text they shared), you realize that the so-called “placebo” was not an inert substance, like saline. Instead, it was an active DT vaccine.

So, let’s think this through. Instead of comparing INFANRIX to a true placebo—something with no biological or medical activity—they compared it to another active vaccine. The safety outcomes were measured not against the absence of intervention but against another substance that could itself cause side effects. This fundamentally skews the results.

To make the logic crystal clear, let’s use a simple analogy. Imagine testing two brands of vodka for safety in kids. One group gets a shot of Absolut Vodka, and the other gets a shot of Grey Goose. Both groups have similar adverse outcomes, so you conclude, “Well, this vodka must be safe!” That would be absurd, right? Yet, when it comes to some vaccine trials, that’s exactly how the comparisons are being made. The assumption is that “well vodka has already proven to be safe” - and how did they prove it? In other trials….against different vodka.

This “placebo (DT)-controlled” label is not just misleading; it’s a semantic trick. By comparing two active substances, the study fails to show how INFANRIX performs compared to a true lack of medical intervention. And yet, the word “placebo” gives the impression of a rigorous, gold-standard test that simply wasn’t done.

This example isn’t an isolated case. It’s part of a broader pattern that I've come across repeatedly. People insist that all vaccines are rigorously tested against placebos, but this claim is based on how they think safety testing works, not how it often works in practice. The reality is that many vaccine trials don’t compare against inert placebos but against other active products, which undermines the validity of the safety data in a way most people aren’t aware of.

Now, some people argue that it’s unethical to use true placebos in vaccine trials because it would mean withholding a potentially life-saving intervention from the control group. I think that’s a debate worth having, and it’s more nuanced than either side might admit. But even if you agree with that ethical stance, there’s a different point that needs to be addressed: the public deserves to know what “placebo-controlled” actually means. If people believe that vaccines have been tested against true placebos and then discover that they haven’t, trust in public health will be severely damaged, hence the effort to fudge it by using weasel words like “placebo (DT)-controlled”.

Ultimately, the only way to maintain trust in medical science is to be honest and transparent about how these trials are conducted, and as a result, where we are blind to certain safety signals. Otherwise, people will feel deceived when the truth comes out, and rightfully so. What we’re seeing now is a resistance to acknowleding that all is not well inside the medical regulators. Most of my audience know there’s something deeply wrong, how we safetly get to a place where more people take a good look at this is the great challenge. Did this article help? It’s only really useful if it reaches a new audience.