None... you can't have a control group because it would be unethical. If you think most of science or most of medicine is supported by double-blind control group studies then you're just showing your ignorance.
Show me adjuvant that's poisonous at the doses given.
Looking around on the internet is not 'research', research is sitting in a lab and actually conducting research lol. Not even I have done true published research on vaccines. But education is a matter of more than just cherry-picking the information you want to believe in. So yes we live in an information age. An age where there is so much information you can literally choose the reality you want to live in and just look at the information that supports that reality. The aspect of a formal education that you're so clearly missing is the part where you're sat down and taught how to assess information, data and claims objectively.
If you think science is an echo chamber then you're, again, showing your ignorance. Science is a brutal field. People make and break decade long careers by disagreeing with eachother. This is why when they do come to a consensus it's all the more incredible. Because there's no valid argument left. If there was someone would grab hold of it and make a career off looking into it.
I said the science is settled because it is. This doesn't mean people aren't reassessing it... i think you're confusing the word 'settled' with the word' proven'.
I'm not even going to bother going on more but one thing is clear. You're running headlong into about every misconception about 'science', 'research' and 'evidence' that is the hallmark of the anti-vax and anti-science (be it anti-GMO or anti-climate change or flat earth) bandwagon. You're understanding of what science is, how it works and how to interpret it is so critically flawed that your conclusions are worse than worthless.
If you're interested in criticizing a field and being taken seriously, go into the field. Maybe if you get a formal education, you'll start to see the value of not relying solely on youtube conspiracy videos. If you want to start try the book "Bad Science"
You seem to have the elitist attitude of the ‘educated.’ I haven’t said anything about my experience and nor should I need to but I can assure you it’s much different than you assume. You are residing headlong in the echo chamber; because you’re a ‘medical student’ your opinion and thought on the subjects is correct. This is the shame that we live in. You drip arrogance with how you talk and that’s unfortunate. You assume that my position is inferior. That’s ok, you remain shadowed in your tower.
My points are quite valid and shared by many who keep an open mind.
It’s amusing that they say it’s unethical to study a group of unvaccinated individuals health outcomes versus ones that are vaccinated. Where is the ethics violation? You are not harming someone who chooses not to vaccinate so it’s unethical to show that the vaccines are harming those who get them?
The Stanford prison experiment was an ethics violation. Comparing non vaccinated to vaccinated is absolutely not an unethical situation. Can you explain your point of view for its ethics?
I'm not even going to pretend I think we're equal. That's a joke. But it's not about formal education or being a medical student. It's about being able to look at things objectively, that's a skill that can be gained with or without the ivory tower.
Your points are shared mostly by stoners and "woke" middle-upper class white women.
You asked for a double-blind control trial mate... that's not simply studying 'a group of unvaccinated individuals'... how do you not get that? Those studies have been done, they're just retroactive chart reviews and population studies. We have that data, it's one of the biggest sets of data that show that things like herd immunity work, but require thresholds of vaccination near 92-95%.
The study you've asked for means you need to take people, split them into two groups and then administer injections to each group. One group gets a vaccination one group gets a placebo. That means people don't know if they have or haven't been vaccinated. Which means they don't know their risks, nor do their schools or families or friends. This is the first ethical issue, but it's not even the biggest.
The biggest ethical issue is that to do that above you'd have to ask people to forgo the protection a vaccination can offer in order to participate in the trial. Now the only group of people who'd consider doing that are anti-vaxers but they probably won't be too happy knowing 50% of them will get the vaccination. So we're back to the normal population of normal people who aren't batshit crazy.
Research cannot be done in such a way as to risk or cause harm to patients or participants (unless you practice on yourself). This is why so many trials are cut short. Once it's clear which of two methods being tested are clearly superior it's unethical to continue the trial... because you're denying half your trial arm the best possible medical care.
Now I'm done lecturing. This information is year one of any science degree. If you'd really done your research you'd know this. Since you so clearly despise formal education go to coursera, or Khan achademy or just wikipedia and look up HOW research is conducted.