TOP LINE
A recently published peer-reviewed study comparing rates of chronic illnesses (such as heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, etc.) amongst unvaccinated Americans with those vaccinated with a varying number of vaccines finds the former group presents with health issues at far lower rates. The study’s lead author also notes that vaccine trials use faulty baselines, as their control groups do not consist of wholly unvaccinated individuals.
Although it’s now an unequivocal fact that the COVID-19 “vaccines”—which are actually “undisclosed military countermeasures”—are neither safe nor effective, many people still defend conventional vaccines as useful and necessary. In a new interview with pharmaceutical industry veteran Sasha Latypova, however, inventor and scientist Joy Garner describes in detail a new peer-reviewed study she and others have authored evincing how that is undoubtedly not the case. In fact, on the contrary, Joy refers to the “vaccines” on the childhood schedule in the U.S. as “soft kill” bioweapons. As opposed to the COVID injections, which she says are “warp speed kill” bioweapons.
In her interview with Latypova—immediately above—Garner outlines the findings from her and her colleagues’ study published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Vaccine Research. For those unfamiliar, IJVR is, according to Symbiosis Online Publishing, an international, open access, scholarly journal that publishes peer-reviewed articles on vaccine research. (The journal produced its first issue in 2019.)
For her study, Garner distributed a health data survey to both Americans vaccinated with the normal schedule of vaccines, as well as people wholly, or almost wholly unvaccinated; soliciting reports of chronic health conditions such as: heart disease, diabetes, digestive disorders, eczema, asthma, allergies, developmental disabilities, epilepsy, autism, ADHD, cancers, and arthritis. Lo and behold, when Garner compared the survey results from the vaccinated with the unvaccinated, she found the former group was, in general, far more likely to suffer from these chronic conditions.
“I set out to do the control group study… because I knew that’s where the evidence [of vaccine harms] was,” Garner tells Latypova. She says she knew that “pharma wasn’t using true controls,” noting that “even if [the industry’s vaccine trials] do use somebody in a trial who’s not vaccinated at that time [i.e. they get a saline injection during the study period] it doesn’t really matter because they’ve already gotten a bunch of vaccines. So they’re not truly a control.” This is important to note, Garner says, because this means that any normally used “control group” in this context is already suffering from a higher number of chronic diseases compared to their completely unvaccinated counterparts.
Expectedly, Garner notes that the truly unvaccinated portion of Americans—that is, those who’ve received no vaccines—is, relatively speaking, tiny. “It comes out to approximately 0.26%” of the American population, Garner says. She adds “That’s all we have left of the controls.” Despite the tiny percentage, in absolute terms, that still means there are more than 800,000 fully unvaccinated Americans that can be used for comparison.
In all, Garner says she and her colleagues were able to survey, at random, 2% of the 800,000-strong control group, and compare their results with results from “published national disease rates” amongst the 99.74% of the U.S. population that is “vaccine-exposed.” Meaning they’ve had some number of vaccines greater than one.
“Based upon the size of the random sample of adult controls, 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 are 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),” Garner writes in her study. “This profound evidence of cause is exponentially more certain than the highest threshold standard of proof relied upon in any branch of science in existence today.”
Garner also notes in her study that vaccine trials use faulty baseline rates that make it appear as if a given vaccine doesn’t up one’s chances of developing a chronic condition. “Mainstream vaccine science bases the natural background rates for diseases and disabilities upon the rates observed in the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population,” the study notes. “When comparing new vaccine injuries to old vaccine injuries, however, there is apt to be far less difference than if the vaccine injured persons were compared against persons who never received any vaccine. And yet, the comparison of new injurious vaccines to similarly injurious vaccines already on the market, has been the actual basis for CDC sponsored ‘placebo versus vaccine’ or ‘treatment versus control’ studies of new vaccine products.”
Furthermore, Garner also notes that vaccines administered during a woman’s pregnancy greatly increase the odds that her child will have a birth defect. “The rate of birth defects if you’re entirely unvaccinated during pregnancy, if the mother avoids pregnancy vaccines, the risk of birth defects is 0.29% as opposed to well over 6% if the mother gets exposed to a vaccine while she’s pregnant,” Garner tells Latypova. Garner also claims that the CDC has “never done a study to compare the outcomes between unvaccinated during pregnancy and vaccinated during pregnancy.”
Garner specifically references the “K shot” in her study, as well as her interview with Latypova, noting that the injection, like other vaccines, is associated with a huge uptick in chronic health conditions for recipients. “The vast majority of the incidence of health conditions within the unvaccinated population were found within that smaller subset who had received either the K shot, the pregnancy vaccine, or both,” Garner tells Latypova.
For those unfamiliar, the K shot is ostensibly an injection of Vitamin K that the CDC says “is needed for blood to clot normally.” As Garner notes in her study, however, the K shots contain “the same immune-system-triggering aluminum adjuvant found in vaccines, as well as other known toxicants.” (The CDC readily brings up a possible link between the K shot and cancer, and evidence of adverse events after administration of the injection is also easy enough to find online.)
In conclusion, Garner notes in her study that while “It is generally claimed that unvaccinated persons have higher rates of infection with ‘vaccine preventable’ diseases than do those who are vaccinated,” the exact opposite is true. “On the whole,” Garner writes, “there is no reason to doubt the essential findings of the CGS [ Control Group Survey of Unvaccinated Americans]: people who avoid the vaccines and the vitamin K shot are much healthier than those who accept the false narrative promoted by the CDC.”
Feature image: Joy Garner / IJVR
Related News
