Interview with Joy Lucette Garner

On the Control Group Study, Unvaccinated Health, Chronic Disease, Autism, Maternal Vaccines, Birth Defects and much more.

• HEADLINE: “Scientists have discovered that when you compare apples to apples, there’s not much difference.”

• The probability that vaccines are not the actual cause of well-over 90% of the deadly and disabling conditions suffered by Americans is 1 in three times the number of atoms estimated to exist in the entire universe.

• The baseline rate for birth defects in children born to mothers who did not receive any vaccines during their pregnancies (but who may have received other injections, such as Rhogam) stood at 0.29% in 2020…According to our findings, it’s clear that if big pharma can find a way to vaccinate 100% of all pregnancies [currently 50%], they will cause over 6% of all babies to be born with birth defects. 

• In the entirely unvaccinated, we could not find a single case of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or even arthritis, not in any age-group.

Joy Lucette Garner

---

This substack has over 600 articles.

The second most read article of all, is this recent review of Joy Lucette Garner’s Control Group Study.

Vaccinated (60%) vs Unvaccinated (2.64%)

There is clearly a hunger for understanding The Poisoning and its aftermath.

The recent words of Bob Moran are relevant here again.

"The biggest problem that all of this comes down to is the refusal of most people to believe that people in power wish them harm, actively want to do harm to them. This is the hardest thing for most people to accept". - Bob Moran

Indeed, it is intentional. It is predatory.

Jason Christoff said this in our interview in response to my question:

3. You've spoken about the "one-two punch" of poison and mind control. Can you explain this concept and its implications?

It's not that difficult to understand. The average neurological system wants safety in the group, but if you can poison the animal... poisoned animals don't need less support, they need more. They need more group acceptance.

Think about it. If you're injured, or if I'm sick, you might need someone to get your shoes or make you a meal. You're not going to fare well without the group.

So injured animals need more group support. This is why they poison absolutely everything in our society. Any poison will do. Humans are like any other animal. The more injured they are, the more group pressure they'll succumb to. They can't fend for themselves.

This is what all the poison is about. Injectable poison, ingestible poison, Teflon pans... it's all poison…it adds more efficiency to any campaign the mind controllers roll out…Psychology Professor Dave Hodge was interviewed lately by Sarah Westall, a mind control researcher. Dave Hodge gives fortification to what I've understood for a very long time.

I’m very grateful for the opportunity to conduct and present this interview with Joy. It adds considerable context and depth to the Control Group study.

With immense thanks and gratitude to Joy Lucette Garner.

Joy’s Newsletter | Joy Lucette Garner | Substack

---

---

1. Joy, could you please share with us your background and the journey that led you to found the Control Group, and what motivated you to focus on the health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?

ANSWER: I was a tech inventor in the virtual reality space. But in 2019 I dropped that (and almost everything else I was up to) in order to document the health of the entirely unvaccinated population before the evidence could be further corrupted. I have two daughters and am also a grandmother, so I was obviously concerned about how the increasing vaccine mandates might affect my progeny, as well as the future of this Nation. Attempting to do “the science” without true controls (which had largely been ignored, but which are an absolute requirement in any toxicology study) was out of the question in my mind.

It appeared pharma and their minions were extremely desperate to eliminate/corrupt the evidence, i.e., the true controls who'd never been vaccinated. Their arguments for the new mandate laws made zero sense because, according to their own so-called science, “herd immunity” (to be had from vaccination?) should already have been achieved long ago for the diseases which they continued complaining about. Minor outbreaks of measles, mumps, and many other temporary infections, were used as a pretext. However, I kept learning that many (and sometimes all) of the “infected” had already been vaccinated for the specific diseases complained of. And mind you, it was pharma and their paid shills doing the complaining, not the public.

I knew vaccines came with inherent risks that had never been numerically quantified, and I also knew vaccines were not protecting people from these typically-mild and very-temporary infections. I wanted to know just exactly what percentage of the population was being injured by vaccines, because I could not find a shred of evidence to support their “rare” slogan, i.e., the unsubstantiated and subjective adjective, which is their only support for the false statement that vaccines are “safe.” It was obvious to me why they wouldn’t want a single person to remain unjabbed.

In real “safety testing”, toxicologists don’t start by injecting all of the controls with the substance of interest, and then declaring the substance to be “safe” because the outcomes seen in the controls aren’t much different from the outcomes seen in their fraudulently-labeled controls. But then, true toxicological methodologies are never welcome in any vaccine safety study, which typically injects the “controls” with a fraudulently-labelled “placebo” - which is really just another vaccine, or a combination of aluminum (and/or some other toxin) and “saline.” They falsely call it a “saline placebo” injection, only mentioning the saline. They will never conduct a study wherein the “controls” are not injected at all, because this would make it impossible to rig the study.

2. Could you explain the methodology behind the Control Group Survey and how participants were selected?

ANSWER: We did not “select” any of the participants, other than the fact we only allowed entirely unvaccinated (post birth) people to participate, i.e., this was the only qualifier for participation. I already understood that over 99% of the U.S. population (“herd”) had been exposed to vaccines (at any level of exposure). And I already had access to published national, as well as statewide health stats, which established (numerically) the health outcomes of those who’d been exposed. In other words, we’ve already seen what happens to health of a population after 99% of them have been injected with this class of drug.

But what of the controls? Exactly how many were even left to study?

I put out public notices on social media, radio, podcasts, any sort of feed or show that was likely to have listeners/viewers/readers who had refuse all vaccines, urging those who’d never once been vaccinated, and/or those who’d never vaccinated their children, to share their health histories. There is zero chance of surveyor selection bias in this study because I wasn’t deciding who would participate, other than I didn’t allow vaccinated (post birth) people to participate. Again, our national stats are obviously close to 99% correct for the vaccine-exposed population’s health outcomes, so there was no reason to survey any of that population.

Please don’t be fooled by the word salad used to describe other studies and how they are conducted. Even when the words “randomly selected” are used to describe the method, there’s no getting around the “selected” part, which always leaves open the possibility of shenanigans resulting from the surveyor’s own bias.

3. Could you elaborate on the statistical methods used to ensure the validity of your results?

ANSWER: All equations relied upon are standard methods for arriving at numerical measures of accuracy based upon the size of the sample (percentage of the population of interest sampled) the sample means, and the standard deviation/s. They are all disclosed in fine detail within the Full Report, found HERE.

4. How did you calculate the risk ratios for chronic conditions in unvaccinated individuals, and what do those numbers reveal about vaccine safety?

ANSWER: I began by calculating the percentage of entirely unvaccinated living in the USA (in 2020) using CDC data-points spanning across 15 years, starting in 2001. This exposed a baseline trajectory which I used to calibrate progression models, also adjusting with digression models for those years where our own data exposed the reduction in the number of entirely unvaccinated people in some of the most populated states who'd recently passed harsh vaccine mandate laws, starting in about 2015. The calculated number of entirely unvaccinated was then subtracted from the total population for each year, again using progression and digression models for the changing total population numbers, which in most states increased, but which actually declined in some states during particular years.

All of this was done to established the sample rate for the population of interest, i.e., determining what percentage of the entirely unvaccinated population had participated in the study. This data was imperative for establishing that the confidence level in the calculated margin of error (or deviations across 48 states) did not exceed a particular range. In the end, the data produced a 99% confidence level that the margin of error does not exceed 0.01689%. This dataset proved exceptionally reliable as a representation of health outcomes for all entirely unvaccinated people living in the USA. Further, random dataset re-pooling and re-splitting across individual states (and also across multiple combined states as well as nationwide) exposed even more narrow deviations, thereby confirming that any inconsistencies and/or confounders which had affected the accuracy of the dataset were trivial because of how infinitesimal they were. The confidence level of the interval (i.e., span of uncertainty) is where one sees the reliability of the dataset as a representation of the entire population of interest.

Again, the Control Group dataset produced a 99% confidence level that the margin of error does not exceed 0.01689%.

This process assured that I had captured a very accurate picture of the health of the whole of this population of interest, and that, to whatever extent bias (or any other confounders) might have affected the dataset, it would be fully exposed by the deviations (or margins of error). A 99% confidence level that the margin of error for this entire dataset does not exceed 0.01689% is an exceptional level of accuracy, which has been audited repeatedly by multiple PhDs, none of which have found any flaw in the calculations. And not one critic of this study has been able to refute the math, instead only attacking me personally, or else making up illogical and unsupported arguments which only expose their complete ignorance of this particular branch of science.

One can also extrapolate from the “99% confidence level” that at worst, there could only be a less than 0.05% standard deviation from the sample mean, even if we had surveyed the entire population of entirely unvaccinated people living in the USA at that time.

A robust sample from the population of interest (which I had achieved) is expected to produce an accurate representation of that entire population. And so long as meaningful confounders are addressed at the outset (within the survey) and the precise variable of interest is strictly adhered to, one can expect reliable results. The calibrations done to determine the size of the population of interest was the baseline tool, as it established that I’d achieved a very robust representative sample.

The conclusions reached are displayed in the Control Group comparison graphs, which speak for themselves. 

5. In your research, what were the most striking health disparities you observed between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals?

ANSWER: It was all striking, across every measurable metric of health, as well as in the capacity for both physical and mental ability. Even a swift glance at the full graph set showing the disparities for the individual disorders (seen HERE) could not possibly be more obvious or clear in its message. In the entirely unvaccinated, we could not find a single case of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or even arthritis, not in any age-group. When we presume that serious (deadly and disabling) chronic conditions are "common" we are correct. However, they are only common within the 99.74% vaccine exposed population. Based upon the sample size we obtained from the entirely unvaccinated population, it’s mathematically impossible that the total risk for any of these more serious conditions could be above 1% if one remains entirely unvaccinated.

For example, if vaccines do not cause heart disease, (which is now understood to actually be an immune disorder, and not caused by eating eggs, butter, or a steak) our study would have produced a minimum of 100 unvaccinated adults with heart disease. Yet we found zero cases of heart disease within the entirely unvaccinated adults, in a country where 48% of all adults (over 18) now have some form of heart disease.

6. The survey suggests that the unvaccinated are significantly healthier. How do you address concerns about potential confounding factors in your findings?

ANSWER: People often conflate a variable with a confounder, and this causes confusion. The Control Group study addressed one particular variable of interest, i.e., whether or not the subject had ever been exposed to (injected with) a particular class of pharmaceutical drug. The most obvious potential confounder to this particular study, was the ‘variable’ of whether the subject had been exposed to related injectable drug products. So we addressed this and fully accounted for it. If we had not granulated down on these additional groups, these related injectable drugs would’ve appeared more innocent than they are, and remaining entirely unexposed would’ve appeared to allow for a slightly higher risk of chronic conditions than is true.

Critics (particularly the truly ignorant ones) presume that any variable (besides the variable of interest being studied) must always "confound” a health study, i.e. they claim that if one has failed to consider a human’s skin color, sex, or whether they have an expensive car in their driveway, then the study has somehow been “confounded.” But this is simply untrue when studying the toxicological outcomes of substances that have been injected into a subject.

The toxicologist injects the "treated" group with the substance of interest and leaves the controls completely alone until it’s time to measure (numerically quantify) the results, i.e., the differences between the groups. He doesn’t ask the rat about its income, gender confusion, or the color of their fur, unless he’s trying to determine how much more (or less) vulnerable the rats might be to the substance of toxicological interest, based upon these other “variables.”

There’s no reason to inject the control rats with anything at all. There’s no reason to try making the rat believe they might have been injected with “the real thing” let alone inquire as to the rat's income, education, race, etc., unless of course those are the "variables" of interest for that study, which is not ever going to be the case in a straight toxicology study. In a toxicology study, the only true “variable of interest” for the researcher, is whether or not the subject was exposed to the substance of interest. Failing to document which rats have beliefs about being injected, (or not being injected) does nothing to invalidate the results. This is because there is zero evidence to support any theory that one’s belief that the substance, standing alone, can injure them, or that such beliefs will somehow protect them from cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, etc.. Likewise, there is zero evidence to support any theory that one’s mere belief that the injection is “safe” (thereby causing them to get injected) will cause them to contract cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, etc..

This is not to say there aren’t differences in health outcomes along racial lines, or in people of different sexes, incomes, or even belief systems, based upon inherent vulnerabilities that can be uncovered if/when such things are carefully examined. We all understand there are differences between sexes and races in terms of which conditions they’re more/less vulnerable to. But continuing to study such variables in search of the actual cause of any disease, (or mistakenly calling these variables “confounders”) is an absurdity. Such studies produce no information with which we might prevent disease in humans. They are but an obfuscation, intended to falsely blame disease on race, income inequality, discrimination, etc., in an attempt to take the focus entirely off of the most obvious biological (toxicological) causes for disease, i.e., injection with toxins which are engineered to permanently alter the immune system, in ways which our “top scientists” still admit are “poorly understood.” They do however, acknowledge that these various toxic injections are known to “trigger” the immune system. And so, they proclaim that it’s always a good outcome when their poison injections cause a massive “immune response.” Injections of feces might cause a similar immune system-triggering response. This doesn’t mean it’s good for us. And it wouldn’t protect us from strep.

The Control Group study was not researching whether men/women, black/white, low-income/high-income are more/less vulnerable to certain types of vaccine injury, i.e., injury to our immune systems. The Control Group study set out to determine what the long-term health outcomes were in the entirely unvaccinated population, (true controls) in order to compare these outcomes against our 99.74% vaccine-exposed population in the USA.

We found that the deadly and disabling conditions which are now extremely common in the vaccine exposed population, are almost non-existent within the entirely unexposed population. Please, if you can, find me an entirely unvaccinated person, (a true control who also avoided all related pharmaceutical injections) with cancer, heart disease, arthritis, or diabetes. Good luck. Of the over 800K entirely unvaccinated people in the USA, you’re not likely to be able to locate any who have these horrid afflictions. If you search hard enough, you might find one or two (likely over the age of 80) but this would still mean that the risk for any of these deadly and/or disabling conditions is well below 1% if one remains entirely unvaccinated.

Vaccines are not the only possible cause. They’re just the primary cause of these diseases and disorders, all of which are now understood to be driven by an injured and confused immune system which attacks our own tissues, and fails us when we need it to attack a truly dangerous invader.

7. Many rely on government data to establish vaccine safety baselines. How does your survey's risk assessment compare to government-reported statistics on vaccine safety?

ANSWER: All national (government-funded) “baselines” for diseases that are considered to be normal, average/common, “natural background rates” have been established by gathering data from a population who is 99.74% vaccine-exposed. So when a new vaccine shows it doesn’t produce much difference in outcomes, it’s considered safe. HEADLINE: “Scientists have discovered that when you compare apples to apples, there’s not much difference.”

No comparisons can be made between the Control Group data and “government vaccine safety data”, on any level, due to the fact our government has never once endeavored to gather (let alone publish) any health data for the entirely unvaccinated population, i.e., the true Controls, which is the only way to establish any “baselines” or “natural background rates” for diseases and disorders. Additionally, any study which endeavors to document the health of the entirely unvaccinated population will not receive any governmental or academic support. Quite the contrary. If they can manage it, pharma-controlled powers will shut down any such attempted study ASAP by literally any means necessary. They do know what the vaccines are doing to us. They just don’t want us to know.

Further, the VAERS reports less than 1% of the injuries which actually occur shortly after injection. One must take those VAERS numbers and multiply them 100. And this still won’t get one any closer to the actual numbers, because the government has never once even pretended to make any attempt to gather (or permit reporting of) data on the long-term health effects of vaccination.

8. One of your conclusions points to vaccines as a primary cause of chronic diseases. Can you discuss the evidence that led you to this assertion?

ANSWER: Multiple concurring PhDs, including a Sr. Research Scientist at MIT, statisticians, mathematicians, etc.) have audited the raw data from the Control Group study, checked and re-checked my own math/equations, and also run their own mathematical models on all of it, against our national stats which have already documented the long-term health outcomes for the “treated” population, or the 99.74% exposed group. The probability that vaccines are not the actual cause of well-over 90% of the deadly and disabling conditions suffered by Americans is 1 in three times the number of atoms estimated to exist in the entire universe. The datasets, the odds ratios, and the math relied upon to calculate it, are irrefutable.

Now we could choose to play the pharma-shill (or Jim Carrey in the movie Dumb & Dumber) and respond with "So you're telling me there's a chance (vaccines are innocent)." Or we can acknowledge the evidence for what it's telling us. It's each person’s choice. Personally, I don’t prefer to play Jim Carrey’s astonishingly obtuse character from the Dumb & Dumber movie.

9. Your study mentions other factors, such as exposure to the vitamin K shot and maternal vaccines. Can you discuss how these factors play into the health outcomes observed in your research?

ANSWER: Again, this was just a toxicology (or product safety) study implementing the standard retrospective epidemiological model and methodology. Therefore, it was obvious at the start that injections of related pharmaceuticals could “confound” the results if not accounted for and delineated. As it turned out, only about 30% of the entirely unvaccinated (post-birth) had been exposed to any vaccines in utero or to the K-shots. And yet, this minority of the "unvaccinated" (post-birth) population accounted for the vast majority of the health conditions reported (close to 70%) within the unvaccinated (post-birth) population. 

Other points of interest from the K-shot and/or preg-vax groups are:

1. In the entirely unvaccinated population who also avoided both the K-shot and the pregnancy vaccines (close to 70% of the participants) there were zero cases of autism. However, the risk of autism within the post-birth unvaccinated with exposure to the K-shot alone, was 0.24%. The risk of autism within the group that was exposed to both the pregnancy vaccines and K-shots, came in at 4.76%!!! We can deduct from this data that avoiding all vaccines and all other related injections produces no risk of autism. And it does appear that although the K-shot alone can produce autism, this risk increases exponentially with exposure to vaccines during the pregnancy. 

2. Another interesting finding was in the birth defect rates. This was the first study to ever look at health outcomes within a group which had a 100% rate of exposure to vaccines while developing in the womb, in a Nation where 50% of all pregnancies are vaccinated. 

The baseline rate for birth defects in children born to mothers who did not receive any vaccines during their pregnancies (but who may have received other injections, such as Rhogam) stood at 0.29% in 2020. However, at this same time, the national average for birth defects stood at a little over 3% for all births. In the Control Group study, the babies born to the group of mothers who had a 100% rate of injection with vaccines during the pregnancy, produced a birth defect rate over 6%!

So again, 50% of all pregnancies in the USA are vaccinated, producing a birth defect rate of a little over 3% in all live births. According to our findings, it’s clear that if big pharma can find a way to vaccinate 100% of all pregnancies, they will cause over 6% of all babies to be born with birth defects. 

NOTE: Some of the birth defects noted in the pregnancy-vaccinated group were quite severe, including microcephaly (shrunken brain) duplicate kidneys, and other horrific problems. In follow-up phone calls, this fragile medical state was the most frequent explanation given for the mother’s refusal to vaccinate their already-injured baby after they were born. One mother even explained that seeing her deformed baby was first time she even suspected vaccines were dangerous - as she reflected on the injections she’d been given during the pregnancy and connected that with what she was now holding in her arms.

This is the thalidomide saga being played out all over again, only this time, it’s with vaccines, and the more recently-deployed vaccines are proving to be so deadly that most of the injured babies die before they are even born. Some studies are showing that 85% of the covid-vaxxed pregnancies are thereby ended. And there are no institutions even attempting to determine the health of the babies who survived these injections in utero.

10. What does your research suggest about the relationship between vaccines and the rising rates of autism and other developmental disorders? 

ANSWER: I am now most fervently disposing of the word "suggest" with regard to what this study has exposed. People are convicted and executed for murder with forensic probability numbers below 1 in 100K (odds that it wasn't their DNA). I’m also entirely done playing the game of "So you're telling me there's a chance (of innocence)” because the evidence clearly and profoundly demonstrates that the odds vaccines are not the actual cause of 90% of all deadly and disabling conditions (suffered by Americans, and so, obviously all other heavily-vaccinated populations) stands at 1 in three times the number of atoms estimated to exist in the entire universe - basically the highest number anyone's contemplated as having any relevance to the existence of anything. Only a moron bets/risks their health upon the safety of vaccines with odds like that. But clearly, most people have yet to learn what the odds are. They’re lulled into a false sense of “safety” with unsubstantiated (numerically unsupported) slogans like “rare” – which again, is the only support for the entirely fraudulent “safe” slogan.

To continue playing the "the study suggests" game is an absurdity which only misleads people about what the Control Group study proved with mathematical certainty. The Control Group data did not suggest vaccines are causing disease and disability. It has exposed the fact vaccines (and related pharma products) are the primary cause of our current epidemic of deadly and disabling health disorders, all of which are now understood to be driven by injured immune systems.

Across the board, one can look to the disease stats for all other heavily-vaccinated populations to see the exact same pattern. There's absolutely no reason to presume vaccines are only dangerous when injected into an American body. 

11. How does exposure to multiple vaccines or ingredients like aluminum and glyphosate potentially impact health, according to your findings?

ANSWER: The published paper on the Control Group study (HERE) contains "gradient" graphs conclusively showing that, when the number of exposures increases, so does the risk. This is the gold-standard evidence of toxicity according to toxicological science. Dr. Paul Thomas' study demonstrated the exact same thing, although in a more detailed manner, since he tracked the long-term health outcomes of his own patients based upon increasing levels of vaccine exposure during their time in his care. This demonstrated clearly (with more gradient levels) that the more injections the children had, the sicker they got. The patterns are irrefutable, i.e., the more injections, the more disease and disability. 

The fact vaccines all contain multiple toxins, which are well-understood to be dangerous to health, is well-confirmed, and irrefutable. On the one hand, the EPA will shut your business down if you spill one of these toxins, (less of it than is found in one vaccine vial). Yet on the other hand, the FDA proclaims it to be safe to inject this same substance directly into your body. Much like the contradictions we see in the fluoride debate, you’ll go to jail if you’re caught dumping the stuff in our “environment.” But it’s okay to dump it directly into our public water supplies. According to our “health” authorities, the only “safe” (or legal) place to dispose of these toxins, is inside of the human body.

Additionally, the FDA has listed many known toxins (such as aluminum oxides, propylene glycols, etc.) on their "excipients" list, which they fraudulently claim are "generally accepted as safe" substances, regardless of the clear science demonstrating their toxicity. And so, these items no longer need to be listed as an ingredient. The truth is, we are not told what’s in the vials, and we’re even outright lied to about the lack of particular toxins in the injections when we inquire about the presence of specific ingredients.

Further, pharma keeps changing the formulations and nomenclature in order to hide the actual ingredients. For instance, once people learned that mercury was in the jabs, pharma simply added the mercury to a new ingredient called “thimerosal”, and thereafter, they left the word “mercury” off of the label, in an attempt to hide the fact mercury is in the vials. Not everyone looked up the ingredients for thimerosal. The same goes for the ingredients found in the K-shot. There's no mention of the massive amount of aluminum contained in these shots, but one of the ingredients listed (under a different name) is made primarily from aluminum. And most people don't even know where to look for the truth. Even when we’re fervently searching for the truth, big tech and all mainstream academia will block us from finding it, while also replacing the truth with pages and pages of intentional misdirection, propaganda, and outright lies. And it all looks very "official" of course, complete with fraudulent "fact checker" headlines, all claiming that any studies showing vaccines are dangerous have been “debunked” - but without a shred of evidence to support their false allegations.

12.Critics may argue that the surveys self-reported data could introduce bias. How do you address concerns about the reliability and objectivity of the data collected?

For starters, the deviations across geographical and other variations are all fully visible and numerically accounted for in the deviation (or margin of error). Whether any inaccuracy was produced via bias, incorrect reporting, data input flaws, etc., or literally any other possible confounder, it was all fully exposed within the equations relied upon to establish the numerical values for the deviations. The purpose of these queries is to locate the extent to which any unaddressed confounders have actually impacted the accuracy of the study data, by establishing their numerical values. Thusly, the confidence intervals (based upon the sample means established with the data and the standard deviation thereby) are arrived at, in order to numerically quantify limits to the reliability of the dataset and establish the parameters thereof.

To put it another way, and as an example: If bias was causing unvaccinated people to outright lie about their health outcomes, it would have been impossible to coordinate the effort so perfectly across 48 states. All deviations (from the random and re-pooled sets) would’ve fully exposed the effort. Thereby, I would instantly have known exactly which state, city, town (or other common factor causing a large deviation) to investigate. And to whatever extent such incorrect reporting did affect the dataset, it’s fully exposed in the deviation/margin of error as calculated and reported. Again, the deviation of the sample means was repeatedly cross-check with random data splitting and re-pooling across 48 states, each with its own deviations, none of which exceeded the sample means deviation for the entire pooled dataset.

Further, there is zero evidence to suggest that people who happen to suspect vaccines are dangerous (and so avoid them) are less honest than those who trust vaccines. Therefore, one cannot argue that the national health stats, (which are also survey based) are somehow more reliable than the Control Group dataset. Likewise, there is zero evidence to suggest that anyone is less (or more) physically vulnerable to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, etc., solely because of their beliefs about vaccines, whether those beliefs are positive or negative.

I believe the onus is on the critics to produce evidence that bias has in fact affected the Control Group dataset, if any they have. If such existed, it could’ve easily been validated by simply auditing the raw data, which has been publicly available online for years now. But the critics never do delve into the actual evidence, and they never produce anything to support their unsubstantiated allegations of bias. The onus is also on the critics to demonstrate how any of the data or the standard equations used to establish the accuracy of the Control Group dataset, are in anyway incorrect. It’s all fully disclosed, and fully repeatable. Simply stating that the study didn’t account for potential bias, (or other variable that’s fraudulently been conflated with the word “confounder”) without any knowledge of the math used to guarantee a minimum level of reliability, is not a “scientific” argument against the accuracy of the dataset. It’s merely an unfounded attack and nothing more, born purely of ignorance.

13. The Control Group's findings challenge the long-standing narrative of vaccines being "safe and effective." How do you navigate public skepticism and the mass media's portrayal of health information to present your research?

ANSWER: My only option is to continually speak logically about the facts, the data, and the evidence. Not everyone who hears is able to understand, or even wants to understand. Many just lash out because they hate the messenger of this bad news, since it doesn’t bode well for the 99.74% who cannot now become “unvaccinated.” Many who criticize, do so only from either ignorance of the subject upon which they comment, and/or from nefarious intent, and with zero regard for truth, let alone human health.

14. Dr. Douglas Hulstedt, an expert witness for the Control Group, has faced allegations from the state medical board for providing vaccine exemptions. What has his experience revealed about the challenges doctors face when they go against mainstream medical guidelines?

ANSWER: Dr. Doug Hulstedt is a fine doctor, and an extremely ethical person, who is perhaps one of the most severe cases, exemplifying the ongoing persecution of doctors who actually do strive to protect health and heal. He was ultimately accused of failing to adhere to the (deadly) “standards of care” which his conscience would not permit him to do, due to the fact he knows these standards (basically dictated to medical boards and the AMA by big pharma) are extremely destructive to human health.

He was attacked by the state medical board for speaking the truth about vaccines and refusing to harm his patients. In addition to serving as a witness for the Control Group lawsuit, Doug also testified in a family matter where one of the parents was attacking the fitness of the other, (in an attempt to gain 100% custody) over a medical vaccine exemption Doug had written for the child. Shortly after the Judge (moron judge) ordered that the child must be brought up to date on vaccines (meaning many at one time) both the dissenting parent (father) and his child (son) were found dead.

The allegation was that the dissenting parent had murdered his own son and then killed himself. But his made no sense. A parent who cares enough to protect their child's health is not going to murder that same child, let alone commit suicide. This parent would simply start locating and deploying every detox method available for the child (who was forced to get vaccinated) or else completely abscond with the child upon notice of the (moron) judge's orders. But no way would that parent murder their child in response to an order to get the kid vaccinated. The so-called “investigation” of these deaths stunk to high-hell, and the investigator’s conclusions starkly contradicted the actual evidence.

Immediately after these deaths, the medical board and the MSM went after Doug, attempting to implicate him (and the entire vaccine-truth-community) in the deaths, claiming that Doug was the head of an "anti-vax murder/suicide cult" which had caused the father to murder his own son, and then kill himself. The message was pre-canned, i.e., the headlines were intended to send a message that; if you go “anti-vax” you will become insane and start murdering your own children. The entire setup was so OBVIOUS. They'd already written their headlines (to be released upon finding the bodies) before the bodies were found. The lengths to which the pharma cabal will go to press their destructive agenda is beyond the comprehension of most.

Again, Doug is a good man, a brave man, willing to do the right thing no matter the threats. I am blessed to know him.

15. The Control Group is taking legal action against federal mandates related to COVID-19 vaccinations. Can you explain the goals of this lawsuit and how you hope it will impact public health policies?

ANSWER: The Control Group lawsuit, filed in late 2020 shortly before they rolled out the covid jabs, sought to obtain a nationwide injunction prohibiting vaccine mandates. The judge dismissed the case under the fraudulent premise that the executive branch of the federal government (the CDC, FDA, NIH, etc.) has never had anything to do with any of the vaccine programs of which we'd complained. This same judge later vacated his dismissal order and disqualified himself from the case when we confronted him with evidence of his own personal financial conflicts of interest, i.e., a great deal of pharma blood money in his wallet, and still more to gain as the covid jabs were rolled out.

And just as we thought we might get a chance to move forward, (and maybe even get to show the evidence) the 9th Circuit stepped in, claiming the conflicted judge had no jurisdiction to vacate his own dismissal orders, (another legal fraud, which contradicted relevant rules and case law). The only good thing about the 9th Circuit’s absurd action was that, after they denied my lawyers the right to argue my case (because they'd refused the covid vaccine!) we now had direct access to the U.S. Supreme Court - which we then confronted 4 times, the last time with evidence of the financial conflicts of interest for every single SCOTUS justice.

Given the evidence and the circumstances, the only lawful or ethical action/option available to SCOTUS was to disqualify themselves from the case before deciding whether to hear it, and the appointment of a panel of truly unconflicted judges to review the case. SCOTUS violated these ethical mandates and simply refused to address any of it, even refusing to so much as comment on the irrefutable evidence we’d presented exposing their own conflicts of interest.

Where do you go after you learn (via direct personal experience) that the highest court in the nation is fully corrupted, dripping with pharma blood money, and fully onboard with the agenda to physically destroy the American people? Please do help me with the answer to this.

The good news here, is that there’s now a new bill, the “N.I.C.E. Act” which stands for the National Informed Consent Exemption Act, rapidly gaining support in the U.S. Congress and which was based upon the injunctive relief we demanded in the lawsuit. When passed, the Act will prohibit all vaccine mandates nationwide. It will not be introduced until after the general election, and probably only if Trump takes the White House, due to the fact there is zero chance Kamala would sign it into law. It is presumed Trump would not hesitate, as he has always been consistently opposed to vaccine mandates, regardless of his other contradictory statements on the subject of vaccination.

16. Finally, what are you currently focused on, and how can people stay in touch with your work or get involved with the Control Group?

ANSWER: My current focus is on identifying mechanisms and strategies for reaching the people who are, as of yet, unaware of how destructive and deadly vaccines and related pharmaceutical products are to human health. I believe there is too much of an “echo chamber” effect going on right now, where those in this particular arena of concern are mostly just talking to each other, rather than to those who are most at risk of (additional) physical destruction from these drug injections, due to the censorship, the endless propaganda and outright lies pouring out of these health agencies, the media, and the big tech internet controllers, all of whom are in bed together for the purpose of enforcing this depopulation agenda.

I am currently considering the option of paper communications, (hard copy, which served me well in the Control Group study) and locating ways to target (for education) particular groups/professions which I believe are vital to this “information war” we’re in. The Control Group graphs are intended to convey “risk factors” in order to allow people to make truly informed choices about vaccination. So I’m working through how we can drastically lower the cost of copying and delivering these imperatives to key players, as well as to more of the general public. I already know that a pediatrician who’s making a ton of money off of injecting all of his patients is going to pray to God nobody finds out he actually saw the risks. But perhaps a large enough percentage of them (to make a difference) will suddenly realize why their patients only keep getting sicker, and actually prefer not to make money off of this suffering.

I’m brainstorming at this point. I do want to hear from people who have ideas. One thing is for sure, it all stops when we stop rolling up our sleeves. And once the people doing the injecting are directly confronted and clearly informed of the truth, many of them will stop.

The best way to reach me is through my website: thecontrolgroup.org . I generally answer all valid emails through the contact portal found there. Or, one can write me directly at info.cg@thecontrolgroup.org

I also have a Substack HERE.

---

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.