Re: the data & proof of placebo control studies during vaccine clinical trials


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: (filed) Oct 12, 2017
  • Location: New York, USA
  • Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • Case #:
  • Plaintiff: ICAN
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
  • Defendant: HHS, FDA
  • Trial Type: FOIA
  • Judge:
  • Status: Decided
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated: April 16, 2022



The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was sent a 19-page legal notice on October 12, 2017 by the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) requesting confirmation that certain obligations regarding vaccine safety required under the 1986 Act had been fulfilled or will be fulfilled. [1]

Specifically at issue is the use of placebo’s (inert substances) during clinical safety trials

The notice asked (HHS) to “[p]lease explain how HHS justifies licensing any pediatric vaccine without first conducting a long-term clinical trial in which the rate of adverse reactions is compared between the subject group and a control group receiving an inert placebo?” [3]

ICAN sought copies of the reports HHS was required to submit to Congress every two years, starting in 1988, detailing improvements it made to vaccine safety. ICAN was represented by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. [2]

ICAN was founded by Del Bigtree who hosts the weekly live online news program “The HighWire,” and is an Emmy-award winning producer of the CBS medical talk show “The Doctors.” He is producer of the groundbreaking documentary “Vaxxed: From Coverup to Catastrophe.” [2]

“The 1986 National Childhood Vaccination Injury Act granted economic immunity to pharmaceutical companies for vaccine injuries and hence eviscerated their economic incentive for them to take responsibility for vaccine safety,” says Bigtree. “Market forces driving vaccine safety were simply eliminated.” [2]

Congress therefore charged the Secretary of HHS with the explicit responsibility to assure vaccine safety. Biannual reports of HHS’s progress in improving vaccine safety were to be submitted to Congress. Yet, as ICAN has now proven, these reports were never created. [2]

The request included over 55 organizations whose members exceed five million Americans also voicing concern about vaccine safety. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents show that the agency took the notice very seriously calling upon all internal departments and resources to craft their response. According to the FOIA documents, all HHS operating divisions, The National Vaccine Program Office, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, and The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health all took part in the response. In Addition, FOIA email documents also state, “The National Vaccine Program Office staff has pulled together a draft response and is requesting that it be cleared with CDC, OGC, FDA, HRSA, NIH, and AHRQ for review prior to signature.”  [1]

Despite nine different government entities working on the response, their eventual January 18, 2018 reply was both lackluster and telling. Their brief 9-page response was unable to provide solid answers to the eleven questions asked of the agency concerning vaccine safety. The flimsily HHS reply triggered a deeply thorough 88-page response from ICAN laying out every detail concerning the problems and issues happening in regards to vaccine safety stemming from HHS. Its opening page writes: [1]

Given the gravity of HHS’s responsibility, it is deeply troubling that the majority of HHS’s letter contains little more than broad unsupported conclusory assertions. Most of these conclusory assertions do not withstand basic scrutiny. HHS’s responses even often contradict its own source materials.”  [1]

Among several concerning points, HHS choose to began their January reply by writing, “…many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” [1]

As defined by the CDC, a “placebo” is: “A substance or treatment that has no effect on human beings.” [1]

HHS’s response also claimed that safety in these trials was reviewed for a significant duration, without specifying any duration. [3]

Recently on his show The HighWire, host Del Bigtree began publicly unpacking ICAN’s 88-page response by focusing on pre-licensure vaccine safety trials. The HHS reply contradicted itself by first admitting,

Inert placebo controls are not required to understand the safety profile of a new vaccine, and are thus not required. In some cases, inclusion of placebo control groups is considered unethical.

Later in their same letter, HHS states, “Vaccines are held to strict standards of safety.” [1]

Bigtree stated: “They’ve now printed it. So now you know for a fact that they just admitted those products you’re injecting into your kids have never been compared to a control. An inert saline injection.”​ [1]

Furthermore, according to HHS’s childhood vaccine schedule, babies receive 3 injections of each of the following vaccines between day one and 6 months of life all untested against a placebo control. [1]



Even pro-vaccine luminaries like Dr. Stanley Plotkin, vaccine authority and author of Plotkin’s Vaccines, appears to be in agreement with ICAN. Emails from a recent FOIA request show Plotkin wrote in June 2018 correspondence, “One point I do agree with [Robert F] Kennedy [Jr] about: there should be more safety studies…”​ [1]




Vaccine manufacturers insist that their products are safe and effective, despite many in the public reporting otherwise (injuries). Control experiments are essential to understanding how a medical product performs. Until this FOIA request, there has not been a public disclosure of this information casting doubt as to the “Science” underpinning the safe and effective claim. This information could harm the faith in one or all vaccines, and could be potentially destructive to this industry.


Plaintiff’s Argument

Given the conflicting information coming from HHS, ICAN’s 88-page response pressured their assertions writing: [1]

It is troubling that HHS chose to begin its response by misstating that prior to licensure for children “ many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” At worst, HHS knowingly perpetuated this inaccurate claim but at best, HHS was unaware this claim was incorrect. This leaves the public to wonder what other critical assumptions underpinning HHS’s confidence in vaccine safety are incorrect.” [1]

ICAN’s original HHS notice directly pointed to concerns about the two Hepatitis B vaccines licensed for injection into one-day-old babies. Namely that the vaccines, according to the FDA’s own vaccine insert included in the original HHS notice, show that not only were the shots not tested against inert placebos, both vaccines were licensed after trials that solicited adverse reactions for only four days [Merck] and five days [GlaxoSmithKline] respectively after vaccination. To this point, HHS responded by referring back to the same inserts which contained the concerning data by simply writing, “Data relied upon in licensing infant use of hepatitis B vaccines is summarized in the respective package inserts.” [1]

ICAN’s response included a detailed chart containing every pediatric vaccine, citing to FDA documents, which indisputably proves that it was categorically false for HHS and the FDA to claim that “many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.” [3]

Perhaps one of the most damning findings referred to in ICAN’s 88-page HHS letter was titled HHS’s “Safety” Pyramid Scheme. Since inert placebo controls are not required and rarely used in vaccine safety testing, other vaccines take that role in what are referred to as “active controls.”  ICAN’s 88-page response to HHS points out to the agency the following: [1]

HHS’s own industry guidance for drug testing explains that an active control is only appropriate if it is a “drug whose effect is well-defined,” which means “historical placebo-controlled trials are available to define the active control effect.” Despite its own policy and guidance, HHS does not require this minimal assurance for vaccines.” [1]



 [SOURCE] Page 14 ICAN Response December 31, 2018

[SOURCE] Page 14 ICAN Response December 31, 2018


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…



The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) settled a court-ordered stipulation  admitting that they could not produce 30 years of required evidence showing they have made improvements in the manufacturing, testing, warning, field surveillance, adverse reaction reporting and research on vaccines in order to reduce the risk of adverse reactions as mandated by the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (1986 Act). [1]

LOS ANGELES, Sept. 14, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has admitted that, in direct violation of Federal law, it failed to provide a single vaccine safety report to Congress for thirty years, according to Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN).

HHS conceded that those reports do not exist and the Court entered an order confirming this concession. [2]



ICAN’s response:

“It is apparent that HHS doesn’t have a clue as to the actual safety profile of the now 39 doses, and growing, of vaccines given by one year of age, including in utero,” said Bigtree. “In 1986, a one-year old child received eleven doses. [2]

“HHS spends billions annually promoting vaccines and generates a steady stream of reports promoting vaccines,” Bigtree says. “Yet, when, despite Federal law, HHS cannot bother to complete the simple task of preparing a biennial report on vaccine safety, there is little hope HHS is tackling the much harder job of improving vaccine safety.” [2]

The 1986 Act shifted financial liability for vaccine injuries to the U.S. Government which has since 1986 paid over $3.9 billion for serious vaccine injuries. [2]

The reality is that none – save one – of the pediatric vaccines was licensed based on a placebo controlled clinical trial! … No proof has ever been provided. [3]

Further ICAN Lawsuits
  • ICAN also sued the FDA numerous times to force it to release clinical trial reports for other vaccines, including, for example, the chicken pox vaccine, which we explained in another recent legal update.
  • when the Phase III trial for AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine was underway in England using another vaccine (Menveo) as a control (instead of a placebo), ICAN filed a forceful petition demanding that the FDA mandate that all clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines use a placebo control as well as track safety long-term in a properly sized trial.

Nine days after ICAN filed its petition, on June 30, 2020, the FDA changed course and issued emergency guidance to industry that all COVID-19 clinical trials must use a placebo control.

  • On July 17, 2020, ICAN sued the FDA in federal court demanding the entire clinical trial report for Menveo, just in case the agency was considering permitting this vaccine as a control in the AstraZeneca trial to be conducted in the United States.  On July 20, 2020, ICAN also filed a forceful amended petition with the FDA thanking it for requiring a placebo control group but demanding, among other things, that it also require that these clinical trials track all adverse events during the entire duration of the trial – not just for a limited time period.
  • Not long thereafter, in mid-September, in a highly unusual move, the full clinical trial protocols for the COVID-19 vaccines for which ICAN filed its petitions were released to the public.  See copies for each of the manufacturer’s vaccines: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson.  Those protocols revealed that some of ICAN’s demands regarding the duration for tracking vaccine safety had been met.



Tucker Carlson’s Explosive Interviview with RFK jr 26/11/2021

source: Odysee\AussieFighter

ICAN Lead Attorney, Aaron Siri on recent legal wins

source: theHighWire.com

Pandemic of the VACCINATED—75 Athletes Collapse from Heart Failure

source: Youtube\apidta



  1. The US Government Loses the Vaccine Debate
  2. ICAN vs. HHS: Key Legal Win Recasts Vaccine Debate
  3. ICAN v. FDA – ICAN Brings Lawsuit Related to “Placebo” in COVID-19 Clinical Trial



1986, Adverse Reaction, Babies, Bigtree, Congress, Control, Del, Experiment, FDA, Field Surveillance, FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, GlaxoSmithKline, Health and Human Services, Hepatitis B, HHS, HighWire, ICAN, Informed Consent Action Network, Injection, Kennedy, Manufacturing, Merck, National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, Nonprofit, Placebo, Plotkin, Reporting, RFK, Risk, Testing, US Department of, Warning 

Back to All Cases




Criminal Complaint: Abuse of Power

Re: the Legality of Representatives of the People to represent Private Interests against the interest of the People they are sworn to protect & represent that has led to the forced medical experimentation of the people against their will, along with other removal of inalienable Liberties


Back to All Cases

This is a Criminal Complaint holding members of the French Parliament responsible for deaths & damages caused by the Covid Measures & Medical Treatments – Jan 17 2022

Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.

Back to All Cases

MPs Abuse of Power Case

MPs Abuse of Power Case

MPs Abuse of Power Case

Re: the Legality of Representatives of the People to represent Private Interests against the interest of the People they are sworn to protect & represent that has led to the forced medical experimentation of the people against their will, along with other removal of inalienable Liberties


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: January 17, 2022
  • Location: Paris, France
  • Court: Judicial Tribunal of Paris
  • Case #: (in process of obtaining)
  • Plaintiff: Association BonSens.org, the International Association for Independent & Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB), the Collective of Resistant Mayors (CDMR), Collective of European Trade Unions and Professional Associations (CSAPE), Mr. Antoine MARTINEZ, General (2s) Air Force & the Freedom Health Union (SLS)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Me de Araujo-Recchia
  • Defendant: Senators, Deputies, Members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (CMP)
  • Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
  • Judge: Senior Investigating Judge of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD



Complaint before the Senior Investigating Judge of the Judicial Tribunal of Paris on behalf of the Association BonSens.org, the International Association for Independent and Benevolent Scientific Medicine (AIMSIB), the Collective of Resistant Mayors (CDMR), Collective of European Trade Unions and Professional Associations (CSAPE), Mr. Antoine MARTINEZ, General (2s) Air Force and the Freedom Health Union (SLS), against the parliamentarians who validated the law of 5 August relating to the management of health crises. [1]

This law aimed to force millions of professionals to undergo experimental gene therapy or risk losing their jobs. The plaintiff associations were informed that the parliamentarians of the Joint Committee (CMP) reached an agreement outside the framework of the CMP for the benefit of private interests in return for their vote for a bill that violates the French Constitution, international law and the rules of both Chambers that parliamentarians are bound to respect. [1]

the Complaint explains:

BonSens.org and AIMSIB have written numerous articles in order to alert the public authorities to the dangers linked to experimental genetically modified substances marketed by Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. The BonSens.org association has warned by all means (i.e. articles, open letters, registered letters) the members of parliament, and therefore in particular the members of parliament who are the main defendants, of the erroneous information they had concerning these pharmaceutical products.

The association BonSens.org and the AIMSIB have repeatedly warned that these products endangered the lives of others, involved serious risks of physical and psychological harm, and that these products were likely to lead to the death of thousands of citizens in the short and medium term. The letters were accompanied by factual evidence and international studies with a high level of scientific evidence.

In an interview the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Me de Araujo-Recchia elaborates:

It was a question of renewing the health pass (disguised vaccination obligation) and deciding on the vaccination obligation of many professionals (health professionals, firemen, soldiers among others).

In this way, the parliamentarians in question have condemned millions of French people to choose between their job/social life and their health. Indeed, it is not a question of submitting to a compulsory vaccination with a safe product for which there is ten years of hindsight and which is intended to protect against a fatal disease with no available treatment.

It is actually about forcing millions of French people to undergo a clinical trial of biological drugs (i.e. gene therapies that fall into the category of biological drugs under EU law), which had an impressive list of side effects even before they were put on the market.


The report of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) of October 2020 shows this very well: there was already talk of myocarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease etc.

These pharmaceutical products are the subject of millions of adverse reaction reports:
– 2,880,653 records reported on the WHO VigiAcces database,
19,387 deaths as of 18 December 2021 and 1,275,634 adverse reactions, 363,774 of which are serious, on the European pharmacovigilance website EudraVigilance.

These data are extremely alarming compared to the data from all conventional vaccination campaigns combined, bearing in mind that in the field of pharmacovigilance, reports actually concern 1-10% of actual effects according to internal studies by Health Human Services and Harvard).


Medical Rights

point 5 of the Nuremberg Code:

” 5. The experiment must not be attempted when there is a priori reason to believe that it will result in the death or disability of the subject.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights echoed this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, which states: no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” This prohibition is now so universally recognised that some courts and scholars have considered this right to informed consent as a matter of customary international law. (….). “

It is also important to note that France is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the OVIEDO Convention and that these texts are binding.


Human Rights

Citizens are holders of rights, they make society, pay taxes and social charges and respect the laws.

If we only have duties, and freedoms are taken away, then this is modern slavery and totalitarianism.

Moreover, according to Article 16 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789:

“Any society in which the guarantee of rights is not assured, nor the separation of powers determined, has no constitution.”



In this case, the plaintiffs believe that the actions of the accused parliamentarians made them accomplices in poisoning and crimes against humanity. They participate in a criminal association. [1]


Plaintiff’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

In the PAPON case, the Council of State considered that the faults of this public agent were committed within the framework of his service, that they are not deprived of any link with the latter.

However, because of their “particular seriousness”, they have the character of an inexcusable personal fault, which makes them detachable from the functions performed.

Consequently, Mr Maurice Papon is found guilty of complicity in a crime against humanity.

The criminal liability of an accomplice to crimes against humanity only requires, from a moral point of view, proof of the intention to commit the common law crimes that serve as a basis for crimes against humanity.





de Araujo Recchia Interview

source: Tristan Edelman

Corona Ausschuss 78

source: Corona-Ausschuss

Pandemic in France

source: MikeNadi

Me de Araujo-Recchia: Génocide

source: Me de Araujo-Recchia



  1. Contribution from the Plaintiff’s Lawyer Me de Araujo-Recchia
  2. French Lawyer Files Complaint Against MPs Who Voted for Mandatory Injection of Workers



binding international law, Conflicts of Interest, crime against humanity, FDA, France, French Constitution, gene therapy, human rights related to vaccination, immunity, informed consent, Mary Holland, Mc Cullough, MPs, Nuremberg Code, Oviedo Convention, Papon Case, Parliamentarians, rules of chambers, senior investigation judge, separation of powers, side effects

Back to All Cases