Vaccinated (60%) vs Unvaccinated (2.64%)

33 Questions & Answers

A story on the unvaccinated seems a bit incomplete without bothering to include the data on the entirely unvaccinated population (of all ages) across 48 states, i.e., the Control Group study, for which a peer-reviewed and published paper can be seen here.

Total risk of at least one chronic condition after the age of 18 in the vaccinated is now over 60%. TRUE total baseline risk for those who have never once been exposed to any vaccines and those who've also avoided the "vitamin" K shot, is 2.64%. Take your pick. - Joy Garner

"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

Autism: The rate of autism in entirely unvaccinated individuals with no exposure to the Vitamin K shot or maternal vaccines was 0%, compared to the national rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020. – The Control Group Survey

---

Let’s start with Bob Moran’s clip.

We are going to take a look at the recently published paper titled:

Health versus Disorder, Disease, and Death: Unvaccinated Persons Are Incommensurably Healthier than Vaccinated

Health Versus Disorder Disease And Death Unvaccina

1.27MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

With thanks to Joy Garner, Founder of the Control Group

The Control Group

---

---

Analogy

Imagine two large orchards side by side. One orchard (representing the vaccinated population) has been treated with a new pesticide spray that's supposed to protect the trees from harmful insects. The other orchard (representing the unvaccinated population) has been left untreated.

The makers of the pesticide claim it's safe and effective, and that without it, the untreated orchard would be overrun with pests and produce little fruit. They've done studies comparing trees sprayed with their new pesticide to trees sprayed with older pesticides, showing little difference, and conclude their product is safe.

However, an independent researcher decides to compare the treated orchard to the untreated one. To everyone's surprise, they find that the untreated orchard is thriving. The trees there have far fewer diseases, produce more fruit, and are generally healthier than the treated orchard.

Moreover, they notice that even light exposure to the pesticide – like overspray on the edge of the untreated orchard – seems to cause problems. Trees receiving both the new spray and remnants of old sprays fare the worst.

The researcher also discovers that the official pest reporting system only catches a tiny fraction of the actual pest damage in the treated orchard.

This study is like that researcher's report. It's saying that contrary to popular belief and official claims, the untreated (unvaccinated) population is actually much healthier than the treated (vaccinated) one. It says that the treatment itself, meant to protect, is causing widespread harm, and that the system for monitoring this harm is deeply flawed.

Here's a 10-point summary of the most important aspects and data points from the study:

1. The Control Group Survey (CGS) found that only 5.97% of unvaccinated adults had any chronic condition, compared to 60% in the vaccinated population.

2. Among children under 18, 5.71% of unvaccinated children had at least one chronic condition, versus 27% of vaccinated children.

3. The study found zero cases of autism in fully unvaccinated individuals who also avoided the Vitamin K shot and maternal vaccines, compared to national autism rates of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020.

4. Exposure to the Vitamin K shot alone was associated with an 11.73% risk of at least one disorder/disease condition, a 344% increase over the baseline rate of 2.64% for those with no exposures.

5. Maternal vaccination during pregnancy was linked to a 21.05% risk of at least one condition in children, a 697% increase over the baseline rate.

6. The study calculated the odds that vaccines are not the cause of over 90% of disabling chronic conditions in adults at 1 in 245,083,100,778,672,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (p < 4.08E-63).

7. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was found to account for less than 1% of actual vaccine injuries and deaths, according to a cited study.

8. The study critiques conventional vaccine safety studies for using the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population as a baseline, potentially underestimating vaccine risks.

9. Glyphosate contamination was found in all live virus vaccines tested, with the MMR vaccine showing significantly higher levels.

10. The study concludes that avoiding vaccines and related pharmaceutical products is the most effective way to reduce the risk of chronic diseases, challenging the conventional narrative about vaccine safety and efficacy.

33 Questions & Answers

Question 1: What is the Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans (CGS) and what was its purpose?

The Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans (CGS) was a nationwide survey conducted in 2019/2020 to quantify the long-term health risks of total vaccine avoidance against the health outcomes observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed American population. Its purpose was to establish a baseline for disease risk in those without exposure to vaccination and to compare this with the health outcomes in the vaccinated population.

The CGS aimed to provide empirical evidence for assessing the risk-to-benefit ratio of vaccination, both at a population level and for individual risk assessment. It sought to challenge the claim that vaccine injuries are "rare" by providing concrete data on health outcomes in unvaccinated individuals.

Question 2: Who is Joy Garner, and what is her role in the CGS?

Joy Garner is the author of the paper and the founder of the Control Group. She is credited with conducting the Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans (CGS). As the founder and primary researcher, Garner was responsible for designing the study, collecting and analyzing the data, and presenting the findings in this paper.

Garner's role involved overseeing the entire research process, from conceptualization to implementation and analysis. She was also responsible for interpreting the results and drawing conclusions about the health impacts of vaccination based on the survey data.

Question 3: What methodology was used in conducting the Control Group Survey?

The Control Group Survey (CGS) employed a multi-faceted approach to data collection. Survey notices were posted on social media outlets, podcasts, and radio broadcasts across the nation and in foreign countries. In-person surveys were also conducted in key population centers. The data were collected through three main methods:

1. Completed mailed-in surveys

2. In-person interviews

3. Telephone follow-up conversations to complete some surveys

The survey focused on entirely unvaccinated individuals, collecting information on their current and historical health issues, mental conditions, and other health-related data. The vast majority of the CGS forms were handwritten in ink, with postmarked envelopes verifying the physical address of the source and the date of mailing.

Question 4: How were data analysis and statistical confidence established in the CGS?

Data analysis and statistical confidence in the CGS were established through several methods:

1. Sample size: The CGS achieved a 0.178% random sample of the unvaccinated control population from across 48 American states in all ages. This included a 0.2% sample of unvaccinated adults and a 0.175% sample of unvaccinated children.

2. Confidence level: The dataset produced a 99% confidence level with an interval (error) spanning less than 0.04% from the sample means (interval at 5.953 to 5.987).

3. Comparison: The accuracy of the CGS was compared to other national surveys, such as the National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), which had a smaller sample fraction for its population of interest.

4. Statistical calculations: The study used various statistical methods, including odds ratios, p-values, and finite population correction, to establish the significance of its findings.

Question 5: What statistical methods were used in the CGS, and what significance do the p-values hold?

The CGS employed several statistical methods to analyze the data:

1. P-values: The study calculated p-values to determine the statistical significance of the differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. For example, the odds that vaccines are not the cause of well over 90% of the disabling chronic conditions suffered by Americans over the age of 18 were calculated to be 1 in 245,083,100,778,672,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (or p < 4.08E-63).

2. Odds ratios: These were used to quantify the association between vaccination status and various health outcomes.

3. Confidence intervals: A 99% confidence level was established with a very narrow interval.

4. Finite population correction: This was applied to further refine the statistical analysis.

The extremely low p-values indicate that the observed differences in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are highly unlikely to have occurred by chance, suggesting a strong causal relationship between vaccination and chronic health conditions.

Question 6: How does the study compare its statistical significance to standards used in physics for proving theories?

The study compares its statistical significance to the gold standard threshold used in particle physics for proving the existence of theoretical particles. In particle physics, the standard is "five sigma," which represents a 1 in 3,500,000 chance that an observed event or outcome is due to mere chance.

The CGS findings far exceed this threshold. For example, the odds that vaccines are not the cause of over 90% of disabling chronic conditions in adults are calculated at 1 in 245,083,100,778,672,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (p < 4.08E-63). This level of certainty is described as "exponentially more certain than the highest threshold standard of proof relied upon in any branch of science in existence today."

The study argues that while the five sigma standard is used for unobservable theoretical particles, the health outcomes observed in the CGS are not theoretical, making the astronomical odds against vaccine innocence even more compelling.

Question 7: How does the health of unvaccinated individuals compare to that of vaccinated individuals according to the CGS?

According to the CGS, unvaccinated individuals are significantly healthier than their vaccinated counterparts across various health metrics:

1. Chronic conditions: Only 5.97% of unvaccinated adults had at least one chronic condition, compared to 60% of the general (vaccinated) adult population.

2. Multiple chronic conditions: 0.94% of unvaccinated children had multiple chronic conditions, compared to 6.66% of vaccinated children.

3. Autism: The rate of autism in entirely unvaccinated individuals with no exposure to the Vitamin K shot or maternal vaccines was 0%, compared to the national rate of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020.

4. Overall health: The study concludes that unvaccinated persons are "incommensurably healthier" than vaccinated persons.

The study argues that these stark differences in health outcomes provide strong evidence that vaccines are causing chronic diseases and disorders, rather than preventing them.

Question 8: What are the main findings regarding chronic diseases and disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations?

The CGS reports several significant findings regarding chronic diseases and disorders in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations:

1. Prevalence: 60% of vaccinated adults have at least one chronic condition, compared to only 5.71% of unvaccinated adults.

2. Multiple conditions: 42% of vaccinated adults have two or more chronic conditions, versus 0.95% of unvaccinated adults.

3. Severe cases: 12% of vaccinated adults have five or more chronic conditions, while 0% of unvaccinated adults fall into this category.

4. Children's health: 27% of vaccinated children have at least one chronic condition, compared to 5.97% of unvaccinated children.

5. Autism: The study found no cases of autism in fully unvaccinated individuals who also avoided the Vitamin K shot and maternal vaccines.

These findings led the study to conclude that vaccines are not moving the population toward better health, but rather toward epidemic levels of lifelong debilitating chronic disorders.

Question 9: How are odds ratios used to demonstrate the significance of health outcomes in the study?

The study uses odds ratios to quantify the strength of association between vaccination status and various health outcomes. While specific odds ratios are not directly quoted in the provided text, the concept is used to illustrate the magnitude of difference in health outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

For example, the study calculates the odds that vaccines are not the cause of over 90% of disabling chronic conditions in adults. These odds are presented as 1 in an extremely large number (245,083,100,778,672,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000), effectively demonstrating the strength of the association between vaccination and chronic health conditions.

The use of odds ratios, combined with the extremely low p-values, is intended to show that the observed health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are not only statistically significant but also of substantial magnitude.

Question 10: What are the reported chronic disease rates in the US population, and how do they compare to the unvaccinated group?

The study reports significant differences in chronic disease rates between the general US population (which is 99.74% vaccinated) and the unvaccinated group:

General US population (vaccinated):

• 60% of adults have at least one chronic condition

• 42% of adults have two or more chronic conditions

• 12% of adults have five or more chronic conditions

• 27% of children have at least one chronic condition

Unvaccinated group:

• 5.71% of adults have at least one chronic condition

• 0.95% of adults have two or more chronic conditions

• 0% of adults have five or more chronic conditions

• 5.97% of children have at least one chronic condition

These comparisons show substantially lower rates of chronic diseases in the unvaccinated group across all categories. The study argues that these differences are too large to be attributed to chance and are likely caused by vaccination.

Question 11: What health outcome differences are noted between partially and fully unvaccinated groups?

The study notes differences in health outcomes between fully unvaccinated individuals and those who received some vaccine-related exposures:

1. Fully unvaccinated (no vaccines, no Vitamin K shot, no maternal vaccines): 2.64% reported any disorders or disease conditions.

2. Unvaccinated but exposed to Vitamin K shot and/or maternal vaccines: 13.32% reported at least one condition.

3. Unvaccinated but exposed to Vitamin K shot alone: 11.73% reported at least one condition.

4. Unvaccinated but exposed to maternal vaccines alone: 21.05% reported at least one condition.

5. Unvaccinated but exposed to both Vitamin K shot and maternal vaccines: 30% reported at least one condition.

These findings suggest that even partial exposure to vaccine-related substances is associated with increased health risks compared to complete avoidance.

Question 12: What does the study conclude about long-term health risks of vaccine avoidance?

The study concludes that vaccine avoidance is associated with significantly better long-term health outcomes. Key findings include:

1. Only 5.97% of unvaccinated adults had any chronic condition, compared to 60% in the vaccinated population.

2. Unvaccinated individuals showed lower rates of specific conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, allergies, developmental disabilities, birth defects, epilepsy, autism, ADHD, cancers, and arthritis.

3. The study argues that avoiding vaccines and related products (like the Vitamin K shot) is the most important preventative health measure one can take.

4. It concludes that vaccine avoidance reduces the risk of any chronic condition in adulthood to less than 5%, compared to 60% in the vaccinated population.

The study posits that these findings demonstrate the long-term health benefits of avoiding vaccines, challenging the conventional narrative about vaccine safety and efficacy.

Question 13: What effects do vaccines have on the immune system, according to the CGS?

According to the CGS, vaccines have detrimental effects on the immune system:

1. The study suggests that vaccines "seriously injure the immune systems of most people who are exposed to them."

2. This injury to the immune system is linked to the development of disabling and deadly chronic conditions.

3. The study argues that instead of strengthening immunity, vaccines are causing epidemic levels of lifelong debilitating chronic disorders.

4. It posits that the immune system damage caused by vaccines leads to a wide range of health problems, from allergies and autoimmune disorders to developmental disabilities and cancer.

5. The study concludes that the immune system effects of vaccines are long-term and progressive, leading to health destruction over time.

Question 14: How does the study address synergistic effects of multiple toxicant exposures?

The study addresses the synergistic effects of multiple toxicant exposures in several ways:

1. It acknowledges that the effects of toxicants are known to interact, sometimes in multiplicative ways, making their synergistic impact possibly many times more intense than if the toxicants were not concomitantly impacting the recipient.

2. The study points out that it's extremely unlikely for combinations of toxicants to cancel out their combined harmful effects.

3. It notes that as the number of combined toxicants increases beyond 5 or more, the likelihood of these effects being examined in systematic clinical safety studies rapidly drops to zero.

4. The study highlights that vaccines contain numerous toxicants, including excipients, adjuvants, and animal proteins, as well as unnamed or unknown components.

5. It argues that the interactions between these multiple toxicants in vaccines have not been adequately studied, particularly considering the different medical histories and genetic constitutions of vaccine recipients.

The study uses these points to critique the safety assessment of vaccines, suggesting that the synergistic effects of multiple toxicants in vaccines may be contributing to the observed health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

Question 15: What risks are associated with the Vitamin K shot given to newborns, according to the survey?

According to the survey, the Vitamin K shot given to newborns is associated with increased health risks. The study found that unvaccinated individuals who received only the Vitamin K shot had an 11.73% risk of at least one disorder/disease condition, which is a 344% increase over the baseline rate of 2.64% for those with zero exposure to any vaccines, no Vitamin K shot, and no maternal vaccines.

The study points out that the Vitamin K shot contains some of the same toxicants of interest as some vaccines, particularly the aluminum adjuvant. It also contains other ingredients such as benzyl alcohol, hydrochloric acid, synthetic vitamin K, polysorbate 80, propylene glycol, sodium acetate anhydrous, and vinegar. The presence of these substances, especially the aluminum adjuvant, is suggested to be responsible for the increased health risks associated with the Vitamin K shot.

• The very first injection - Vitamin K: "It’s just a vitamin" (substack.com)

• Murphy’s stellar “Vitamin K” story - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

Question 16: How does maternal vaccination during pregnancy affect health outcomes in children?

The study reports significant negative health impacts from maternal vaccination during pregnancy. In the group of unvaccinated (post-birth) individuals with exposure to maternal vaccines but no Vitamin K shot, 21.05% were reported to be suffering from at least one condition, an increase of 697% over the baseline rate of 2.64% for those with no exposures.

Even more concerning, the study found a 30% risk of at least one condition in the group with exposure to both the Vitamin K shot and maternal vaccines, which increased the risk by 1,036% above the baseline. These findings suggest that maternal vaccination during pregnancy may have substantial long-term health consequences for children, even if they receive no further vaccinations after birth.

Question 17: What connection does the study make between maternal vaccination and autism risk?

The study reports a strong connection between maternal vaccination and increased autism risk. In children between the ages of 3 to 17 years, the group with maternal vaccine exposure (with or without K shot) showed a 3.13% risk of autism. This risk increased to 4.76% in children who had exposure to both maternal vaccines and the Vitamin K shot, but no post-birth vaccines.

Importantly, the study found zero cases of autism in individuals who had no exposure to vaccines (including maternal vaccines) or the Vitamin K shot. The authors argue that while an entirely unvaccinated (post-birth) child can become autistic, the fact that there were no autism cases in those without any vaccine-related exposures strongly suggests a causal link between maternal vaccination and autism risk.

Question 18: What does the CGS reveal about autism rates in vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations?

The CGS reveals stark differences in autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. In the entirely unvaccinated group with no exposure to the Vitamin K shot or maternal vaccines, the autism rate was 0% (0 of 1,024 individuals). This contrasts sharply with the reported national autism rates of 2.79% in 2019 and 3.49% in 2020.

However, the study found that even among the unvaccinated, those with some vaccine-related exposures showed increased autism rates. For example, in children aged 3-17 years with maternal vaccine exposure, the autism rate was 3.13%, rising to 4.76% in those exposed to both maternal vaccines and the Vitamin K shot. These findings suggest a strong link between vaccine-related exposures, particularly maternal vaccination, and autism risk.

Question 19: How does the study correlate glyphosate usage with autism rates?

The study references previous research showing a strong correlation between the rise in glyphosate usage on core crops and the increase in autism prevalence in the United States. Specifically, it cites a 2014 paper by Swanson et al. that demonstrated an extremely strong correlation (r = 0.99, p < 0.00000036) between glyphosate usage and autism prevalence in children aged 6 to 21 years.

While the CGS itself did not directly measure glyphosate exposure, it uses this correlation to support its argument about the potential link between environmental toxins, including those found in vaccines, and autism rates. The study suggests that the strong correlation between glyphosate usage and autism rates may be indicative of broader concerns about the impact of various toxins on neurological development.

• Glyphosate - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

• Interview with Stephanie Seneff Ph.D - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

Question 20: How is glyphosate contamination in vaccines linked to health outcomes?

The study discusses glyphosate contamination in vaccines as a potential factor contributing to negative health outcomes. It cites independent testing that found detectable levels of glyphosate in all live virus vaccines, with the MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine showing significantly higher levels than other vaccines. The presence of glyphosate is attributed to its use in the production of vaccine ingredients derived from animals fed glyphosate-contaminated feed.

The study suggests that the presence of glyphosate in vaccines may be particularly problematic because vaccines are injected, bypassing the gut mucosal barrier that typically helps to keep ingested glyphosate out of the circulation. While the CGS itself did not directly measure the health impacts of glyphosate in vaccines, it presents this information as part of its broader argument about the potential harmful effects of vaccine ingredients and contaminants.

Question 21: What role do aluminum adjuvants in vaccines play, according to the study?

The study identifies aluminum adjuvants as a key toxicant of interest in vaccines and the Vitamin K shot. While it doesn't provide detailed mechanisms, the study suggests that aluminum adjuvants contribute to the negative health outcomes observed in vaccinated individuals and those exposed to the Vitamin K shot.

The presence of aluminum adjuvants is highlighted as one of the reasons why even partial exposure to vaccine-related substances (such as the Vitamin K shot alone) is associated with increased health risks. The study implies that the aluminum adjuvant, along with other vaccine ingredients, may have synergistic effects that contribute to long-term health problems and immune system dysfunction.

• Interview with Dr Christopher Exley - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

• Aluminium “Safety” - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

• Imagine you are an Aluminum Atom - Lies are Unbekoming (substack.com)

Question 22: What specific concerns are raised about the MMR vaccine?

The study raises specific concerns about the MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine, particularly in relation to glyphosate contamination. It reports that independent testing found the MMR vaccine to have significantly higher levels of glyphosate than any other vaccine tested. This finding is presented as potentially significant given the reported links between the MMR vaccine and autism by some parents.

While the study doesn't provide direct evidence of harm from the MMR vaccine, it uses these findings to support its broader argument about the potential risks of vaccines. The higher levels of glyphosate in the MMR vaccine are presented as a possible factor in the reported adverse effects, particularly in relation to autism risk.

Question 23: How does the CGS challenge conventional claims about vaccine safety and efficacy?

The CGS challenges conventional claims about vaccine safety and efficacy by presenting data that shows significantly better health outcomes in unvaccinated individuals compared to the vaccinated population. It argues that the dramatically lower rates of chronic diseases and disorders in the unvaccinated group provide strong evidence that vaccines are causing, rather than preventing, a wide range of health problems.

Furthermore, the study critiques the methods used to establish vaccine safety, arguing that the synergistic effects of multiple vaccine ingredients are not adequately studied. It also challenges the claim that vaccine injuries are "rare," suggesting instead that they are common and have long-term impacts on health. By presenting these findings, the CGS fundamentally questions the current narrative about the overall benefits of vaccination programs.

Question 24: How does the study critique conventional vaccine science and safety studies?

The study critiques conventional vaccine science and safety studies on several fronts. It argues that mainstream vaccine science uses faulty baseline rates for diseases and disabilities, basing them on the rates observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population. This approach, the study contends, leads to an underestimation of vaccine risks because new vaccines are compared to similarly injurious vaccines already on the market rather than to a truly unvaccinated population.

Additionally, the study criticizes the lack of comprehensive safety testing for vaccine ingredients and their interactions. It points out that as the number of toxicants in vaccines increases beyond five, the likelihood of their interactions being examined in systematic clinical safety studies rapidly drops to zero. The study also highlights the exclusion of certain populations (like institutionalized children) from some vaccine safety surveys, arguing that this may lead to an underestimation of vaccine injuries.

Question 25: How does the study critique the use of placebos in vaccine trials?

The study critiques the use of placebos in vaccine trials by arguing that what are often referred to as "placebos" in these trials are actually other vaccines or substances containing similar toxic ingredients. It contends that when comparing new vaccine injuries to old vaccine injuries, there is likely to be far less difference than if the vaccine-injured persons were compared against persons who never received any vaccine.

This approach, according to the study, leads to a false declaration of safety for new vaccines. If the injuries from the new product are not significantly worse than the injuries from similarly injurious vaccine products already on the market, the new product is deemed "safe." The study argues that this method of comparison obscures the true risks of vaccines and fails to establish genuine safety profiles for new vaccine products.

On Corrupting Placebos: A feature, not a bug. (substack.com)

Question 26: How does the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) factor into vaccine safety assessments?

The study critically examines the role of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) in vaccine safety assessments. It cites an authoritative study by Lazarus et al. (2010) which found that VAERS accounts for less than 1% of the actual injuries and deaths observed shortly after vaccination. This severe underreporting, the study argues, undermines the reliability of VAERS as a tool for assessing vaccine safety.

Furthermore, the study points out that VAERS provides no data relevant to the frequency of long-term health damage produced by vaccine exposure. It notes that despite the findings of the Lazarus study, no improvements were made to the VAERS methodology for collecting or reporting data about vaccine injuries. This critique challenges the common assertion that vaccine injuries are "rare," suggesting instead that the current reporting system grossly underestimates the true extent of vaccine-related adverse events.

Question 27: How does the CDC explain the causes of chronic diseases, and how does this contrast with the CGS findings?

According to the study, the CDC attributes the high rates of chronic diseases in the U.S. population primarily to "lifestyle risks" such as tobacco use, poor nutrition, lack of physical activity, and excessive alcohol use. This explanation stands in stark contrast to the findings of the CGS, which suggest that vaccination status is a primary factor in the development of chronic diseases.

The CGS findings indicate that unvaccinated individuals have significantly lower rates of chronic diseases compared to the vaccinated population, regardless of lifestyle factors. While the CDC focuses on individual behaviors as the main drivers of chronic disease, the CGS argues that the introduction of vaccines and related pharmaceutical products is the most significant factor in the rising rates of chronic conditions. This fundamental disagreement challenges the prevailing narrative about the causes of the chronic disease epidemic in the United States.

Question 28: What connection does the study make between healthcare costs, the pharmaceutical industry, and vaccination?

The study draws a direct connection between rising healthcare costs, the pharmaceutical industry, and widespread vaccination. It notes that the CDC itself reports that chronic life-threatening diseases and disorders are exceedingly common in the US population and are becoming even more so, driving annual healthcare costs to $4.1 trillion.

However, the study argues that while the CDC promotes pharmaceuticals, including vaccines, as the solution to the nation's chronic disease issues, these very products are in fact the primary causal factors of the health crisis. The CGS findings suggest that by avoiding vaccines and related pharmaceutical products, individuals could dramatically reduce their risk of chronic conditions, potentially leading to significant reductions in healthcare costs. This perspective implies that the current approach to public health, heavily reliant on vaccination and pharmaceutical interventions, may be perpetuating a cycle of poor health and high healthcare costs.

Question 29: How do state vaccine policies impact unvaccinated populations, according to the study?

The study indicates that state vaccine policies have a significant impact on unvaccinated populations. It notes that after 2015, there was a sharp decline in the rate of total vaccine avoidance in children under 18 years due to the passage of harsh new vaccine mandate laws in the most populated states. This trend suggests that stricter vaccine policies are reducing the number of entirely unvaccinated individuals.

The study also mentions that in two states, Iowa and Mississippi, the entirely unvaccinated numbers dropped so close to zero that it made no sense to persist in trying to locate unvaccinated persons in those states for the survey. This observation highlights how state-level policies can effectively eliminate the option of remaining unvaccinated, potentially impacting the ability to conduct comparative health studies between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in the future.

Question 30: What legal and ethical considerations are mentioned regarding the health survey?

The study mentions several legal and ethical considerations regarding the health survey. It notes that the study was initiated as a product safety survey, conducted in accordance with the requirements of the federal rules of evidence for admissibility in product safety actions. This approach suggests an intention to use the survey results in legal proceedings related to vaccine safety.

Additionally, the study emphasizes privacy protection for participants. It states that all personally identifying information would be redacted before any documents were copied or shared, and that originals would be kept in a secured location until destroyed. The study also notes that while surveyors might need to testify under oath to authenticate that respondents were real people who swore their answers were truthful, the law does not require sharing the identities of respondents with anyone, even when submitting the surveys as evidence in court. These measures indicate a commitment to protecting participants' privacy while maintaining the legal validity of the survey data.

Question 31: How does the paper apply toxicology principles to the interpretation of vaccine ingredients and their effects?

The paper applies basic toxicology principles to interpret the effects of vaccine ingredients. It states that the general rule in toxicology is that, all else being equal, incrementing toxicant exposures must trend toward a greater number and severity of disorders, diseases, and deaths with algebraic certainty. This principle is applied to vaccines, maternal shots during pregnancies, and the vitamin K shot given to neonates.

The study also discusses the concept of synergistic effects of multiple toxicants, noting that these effects can be multiplicative and potentially many times more intense than if the toxicants were acting in isolation. It points out that as the number of combined toxicants increases beyond five, the likelihood of their interactions being examined in systematic clinical safety studies rapidly drops to zero. This application of toxicology principles leads the study to question the safety of vaccines, which contain multiple ingredients and potential contaminants.

Question 32: What alternative health perspectives does the study present?

The primary alternative health perspective presented in the study is the idea that avoiding vaccines and related pharmaceutical products is the most effective way to prevent chronic diseases and maintain good health. The study suggests that by remaining unvaccinated, individuals can significantly reduce their risk of developing a wide range of chronic conditions.

This perspective challenges the conventional medical approach that promotes vaccination as a key preventive health measure. Instead, the study proposes that the avoidance of vaccines and related products should be considered the "number one most imperative preventative 'health measure' anyone can take to reduce their risk of disabling and deadly diseases and disorders." This alternative view is based on the study's findings of significantly better health outcomes in unvaccinated individuals compared to the vaccinated population.

Question 33: How does the paper critique the CDC's use of baseline disease rates in vaccine studies?

The paper criticizes the CDC's use of baseline disease rates in vaccine studies, arguing that these rates are fundamentally flawed. It states that mainstream vaccine science bases the natural background rates for diseases and disabilities upon the rates observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population. This approach, according to the study, leads to a significant underestimation of vaccine risks.

The study argues that when comparing new vaccine injuries to old vaccine injuries, there is likely to be far less difference than if the vaccine-injured persons were compared against persons who never received any vaccine. As a result, new vaccines can be declared "safe" if they do not significantly increase the risk of illness or death compared to the already elevated baseline rates in the vaccinated population. The study contends that this method obscures the true impact of vaccines on health and fails to establish a genuine safety profile for vaccine products.

---

---

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.