Why Vaccine Transparency Matters: A Call for Honest Research and Informed Consent

I practice evidence‑based care—and that starts with patients’ lived experiences. When families tell me something changed after a shot, I don’t shrug. I will write it down. I ask follow‑ups. I look for patterns. In medicine, anecdotes are how many safety questions first surface. They aren’t conclusive by themselves, but they are not disposable. They are the spark that should trigger better studies, better surveillance, and better answers. That’s what I want to talk about here: why we need stronger, more transparent vaccine research—from trial design to post‑marketing monitoring—and how patients can critically evaluate claims. I know this topic is emotionally charged and exacerbated by misinformation. I’m not asking you to accept my conclusions. I’m inviting you to examine the methods with me.

When Did My Views Start to Change

I didn’t set out to have a “controversial” view. I set out to be a good daughter and future mother, a good clinician, and an honest human.

I lost my mom to ovarian cancer when I was 17. It was not genetic. My mom had used Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder for feminine hygiene every day since she was 12. Like millions of women, she believed a product on the shelves was safe. Years later, investigative reporting and court disclosures showed that asbestos contamination in talc had been detected across decades and wasn’t disclosed to regulators or the public; meanwhile, the FDA failed for years to impose meaningful standards, and in 2019 it alerted the public when testing detected asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder, and it was finally recalled. The damage had already been done with lawsuits already filed. There are thousands of women and families like me who lost their loved ones due to knowing negligence of a company and agency. Still to this day, there has been no accountability. However you interpret the legal arguments and corporate press releases, my takeaway is simple: a product people trusted was allowed to harm families for far too long, permanently breaking my trust of these entities.

During COVID, I initially trusted official messaging. I fell victim to the emotional manipulation that you had to get the shot for the sake of greater good. Then I witnessed my best friend’s father be given an incorrect diagnosis on his death certificate, “COVID‑19.” I had seen his X‑ray, he had pneumonia, and in fact had several negative COVID tests before his passing. His wife fought it—and ultimately had it removed. That is when I found out that hospitals were profiting more for each COVID death. That experience didn’t “prove” anything universal, but it shook my trust and pushed me to re‑examine claims, methods, and incentives.

In my immunology courses and in real‑world practice, I learned a more nuanced truth: vaccines are not sterilizing—they don’t eliminate infections or transmissions. Early COVID‑19 vaccine trials measured reduction of symptomatic disease; but not elimination, and protection against infection waned with variant evolution. That’s different from the absolute promise many of us heard in public messaging. So if this was the case with COVID vaccinations, where else were there lies being told?

I’m sharing my story to explain why I ask hard questions—and why I think more transparent research is not a threat to science, but a path to trust.

Where I Recommend Non‑Healthcare Professionals Start

Research can be very nuanced and difficult to assess for validity, especially if you don’t know what you are looking for. You cannot just rely on the word of a study just because it is a Randomized Control Trial or Meta‑Analysis. There are so many factors to consider which is a reason that the science should never be settled. There are also valid claims and allegations that studies that were critical of vaccine safety have been suppressed and not published. This should be considered as we may not have all the evidence we need to make determinations on vaccines. Given that, anecdotal evidence should be taken seriously and allow us to not draw conclusions, but derive hypotheses and demand we test those out properly without suppression of the results.

First, to understand what concerns are being raised, I recommend watching the Vaxxed documentaries.

Below is a summary of each documentary’s focus.

Vaxxed (2016)

Central claim: A CDC scientist (“whistleblower”) allegedly revealed data manipulation in a 2004 Atlanta study on MMR vaccination and autism, particularly in African‑American boys vaccinated before age three. The film alleges suppression of an autism signal and broad institutional conflicts of interest.

https://youtu.be/3De3GR_ITS4?si=rzqFkNuBNq6TRwiX

Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth (2019)

Central claim: Mostly parental testimonies of post‑vaccination injuries, medical gaslighting, and a call for informed consent and medical freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/live/caf-sYshKkQ?si=I7Mw_vGQT5FmbOsr

Vaxxed III: The Awakening (2023)

Central claim: Continues to investigate institutional untrustworthiness, amplifies stories of chronic illness and faulty protocols leading to deaths during COVID, and asserts that authorities made false claims (e.g., that vaccines completely block infection).

https://www.youtube.com/live/ZTiczrXmBVw?si=ecJOwfVjFFTYjV1Y

Finally, to understand how information is being suppressed and not published in research, I recommend watching An Inconvenient Study.

This investigated a Henry Ford Health analysis that circulated publicly in 2025–2026 and was featured in the film as evidence that vaccines increase chronic conditions in children, but was never published. It features hidden camera footage of the head researcher Dr. Marcus Zervos who stated why he believed it should be published, but he wouldn’t do so.

Here’s what’s on record:

Henry Ford Health publicly stated the internal draft had serious methodological flaws and was never submitted for peer review; they condemned misinformation around the film. However, the film disputes this by proving that the study was done following CDC standards for a retroactive vaccine study.

If we want trust, the fix isn’t “believe us.” The fix is pre‑register protocols, publish methods and data, and report negative results—so anyone can reproduce or refute a claim on the merits.

https://youtu.be/AIO7dBv1jX0?si=RG9B5Wa_Q1I93_zP

You can also watch congressional testimony by Aaron Siri on the topic of the Henry Ford Study, which includes rebuttal arguments by Jake Scott, MD.

https://www.youtube.com/live/gD7Hz51xSl4?si=-CiPuX74Dc8pHGKc

Let me be clear, do these documentaries prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. This is anecdotal evidence; whilst a very robust amount of it, it still is not scientific fact. This is why we need advocacy for these research studies to be done properly. There is an ethics argument to this. However, after you’ve watched these documentaries, I would recommend you ask yourself: What is less ethical—not giving someone in a placebo group a vaccine to lessen the symptoms of illness if they become infected, or not studying the millions of claims of vaccine injury and fatalities and continuing with the same protocols?

From Here, Where Should You Investigate Further?

I would start with reading the vaccine inserts. It is no secret that all drugs come with side effects. We see that with the constant inundation of pharmaceutical commercials that legally have to tell you what the drug could do to you. But what is different about vaccines is that they actually don’t have to tell you what can happen to you from it. In 1986, the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act was passed, absolving vaccine manufacturers of liability of injury due to their product. Supporters of this thought this was great to prevent lawsuits from stopping the public from getting vaccinations. However, this disrupts a very important check and balance of a company’s interest in making a high‑quality and safe product. Furthermore, it puts responsibility on the taxpayer to pay out vaccine injury claims.

Given all of this, you can still find valuable ingredient information and information on the possible adverse reactions that you could get based on current research and trials. Some of these even include the exact illness the vaccine is meant to prevent.

Once you have gone through this information with an open mind, you should have a better understanding of what vaccine skeptics are asking. We are asking for transparency, proper informed consent, and more than anything, unbiased studies published no matter the outcome.

What Is My Stance Based on All of My Knowledge and Experience

I have reviewed all evidence that is thrown into the ring to substantiate the claim of an “overwhelming body of evidence proving safety.” I believe that claim is an exaggeration. Personally, I cannot trust a safety study without a proper inert placebo, especially having sat directly across the table from parents who believe beyond a shadow of a doubt the vaccine harmed their child, tearfully describing to me watching them shut down directly following administration. Until proper safety studies are done, I cannot get behind mass vaccination efforts, especially considering the known toxic adjuvants that are used in current vaccinations. Anecdotally, my own health has gotten exponentially better since avoiding vaccines. Every year I got the flu shot, and each year I had at least one horrible flu or other colds that knocked me down throughout the year. As soon as I stopped flu vaccinations, I have not had any cold & flu symptoms other than a dry throat very infrequently. Just enough to let me know my immune system is doing it's job! Now I focus on supporting my immune system with nutrition and targeted supplementation when necessary.
I am simply advocating for stronger study designs, fuller datasets, and more transparency.

How to Read a Vaccine Study: Crash Course

• Control group: Saline? Active placebo? Comparator vaccine? Adjuvants? Is the choice justified scientifically?

• Outcomes: Pre‑specified? Clinically meaningful? Time windows adequate for the claim?

• Bias & confounding: Is there proper adjustment? Are groups comparable at baseline?

• Scale & follow‑up: Big enough to detect rare events? Is there post‑marketing confirmation?

• Replication & transparency: Are data shared? Have multiple independent teams reproduced the finding?

Final Thought

I don’t believe in silencing questions. Informed consent requires informed people—and informed people deserve clear methods, full data, and honest limitations. If we build that culture, trust follows.