There are more awful incompetently designed and executed “studies” of unvaccinated populations compared to vaccinated populations carried out by antivaxxers than I can even count. I know. I’ve been shooting them down since at least 2005. (Anyone remember the dumpster-diving in the VAERS database by the not-so-dynamic duo of Geier père et fils?) The problem is that there are far more crappy antivax studies than even this single clear Plexiglass box of colored blinking lights can deal with. The torrent of bad antivax “science” is a veritable firehose—nay, a veritable tsunami—that one person just can’t handle, however fast and verbose he is at blogging and Twitter. Sadly, the COVID-19 pandemic has supercharged these tendencies, as crappy antivax studies have now morphed into crappy antivax studies about COVID-19 vaccines. Still, even in the midst of a deadly pandemic that in a little more than a year has killed over a half a million people in just the US alone, it’s depressing to see that the same old, same old is still a thing among antivaxxers, namely crappy surveys masquerading as “studies” of the unvaccinated that claim to find that the unvaccinated are oh-so-much “healthier” than the vaccinated. So it was that I came across an article on Vaxxter earlier this week, New survey of vaccine-free group exposes long-term impact of vaccination policies on public health by Greg Glaser and Pat O’Connell. Basically, the survey is called The Control Group Pilot Study, and apparently it was published late last year. Why Vaxxter is only getting around to it now, I don’t know, but let’s take a look:
In 2019, Joy Garner with The Control Group set out to answer that question by conducting a litigation survey of never-vaccinated people. They found that, in every case, the claims we hear from our vaunted government and TV experts about the risks and benefits of vaccines are demonstrably false.
In fact, they learned that the tiny, vaccine-free minority of Americans is far healthier overall than the vaccinated majority.
But did they? Did they really? I think you know the answer to that one. Also, note the gall, the arrogance. To Garner and her enabling attorneys, the unvaccinated are “the control group.” Everyone else is in the experimental group, apparently. It’s a not-so-subtle reiteration of the common antivaccine lie that vaccines are inadequately tested or untested; i.e., still “experimental.” I’m surprised that Vaxxter had the restraint not to drag the Nuremberg Code into it.
Next who the heck are the “architects” of The Control Group Pilot Study? First of all, a little Googling reveals that Greg Glaser is—surprise! surprise!—an attorney. A little more Googling finds his blog Vaccine Freedom Lawyer. Unsurprisingly, it’s chock full of antivaccine disinformation and COVID-19 nonsense, although it hasn’t been updated since May 2020. It does, however, also include links to the usual suspects of antivaccine sites, including the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Physicians for Informed Consent, and the like. (It should not be surprising that Glaser would advertise PIC. He is the general counsel for this particularly pernicious group of antivax physician-grifters.) A little more Googling pulled up a reference from our feathery friend Skeptical Raptor, about how Glaser had been involved in lawsuits against California’s school vaccine mandate. (Yet another surprise!) So, basically, he appears to be a “health freedom” and antivax attorney looking for cases to attack vaccine mandates, and The Control Group appears to be just his latest
grift vehicle grift for advancing such lawsuits Why do I say this?
Meet Joy Garner. Oddly enough, I had never heard of her before, either. At least, when I sat down to write this post I didn’t recall having heard of her before. It turns out that last year she filed a lawsuit against then-President Trump with Greg Glaser and Ray Flores as her attorneys that has—shall we say?—not gone well, as this update on the Control Group Litigation website updating the status of Joy Garner v. Trump indicates:
This week the court dismissed our case on the grounds of standing (i.e., saying we can’t sue the President for the constitutional violations alleged, but rather should sue someone else). We are appealing immediately to the 9th Circuit.
The President, as chief executive, manages multiple departments handling vaccines and their distribution (such as HHS, US Military, Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Justice). He is the ultimate wrongdoer with respect to the plaintiffs. Indeed, the President is the only party that can issue the nationwide order we’re requesting for national security to save America from the chronic illness trajectory. The numbers contained in our filings conclusively show vaccines are destroying our country. The President ultimately bears responsibility; there’s just no nice way to put that.
Surprisingly, the court dismissed our entire case without the government ever producing a single expert or any evidence whatsoever. The defense simply argued that the President cannot be held responsible for vaccine mandates by States.
I’m sure Dorit Reiss will weigh in somewhere in the comments, but this looks like a really baseless lawsuit to me, even by antivax activist standards. I detested Trump as President as much as the next guy, but it’s true. The federal government doesn’t mandate vaccines for schools. States do. Even I know that. Sure, Glaser and Flores try to justify the Control Group litigation by arguing that the federal government does the following things:
- designing and producing vaccines that are mandated
- approving vaccines that are mandated
- purchasing vaccines that are mandated
- promoting vaccines that are mandated, and promoting the policy of mandates
- distributing vaccines that are mandated
- tracking vaccine injuries from mandated vaccines
- litigating vaccine injury cases from mandated vaccines
- setting regulations for interstate infectious disease control regarding mandated vaccines
- funding health departments to enforce mandates using police powers
- enforcing vaccine mandates on Federal properties and for Federally funded activities
Much of this might well be true, but it’s still ultimately the states that determine which vaccines are mandated for school, not the federal government. The federal government’s role in approving vaccines and recommending vaccines doesn’t mean that states have to agree. Yes, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) does make recommendations for the vaccines that children and adults should receive, but they are just that, recommendations. Physicians decide if and how to implement those recommendations in their practices, and states decide whether to accept ACIP recommendations and incorporate each recommended vaccine into its school mandates. True, most states usually do follow ACIP recommendations, but they don’t have to.
And guess what? The Control Group Pilot Study featured prominently in the plaintiff’s exhibits. For example, I screenshot this:
Yes, it’s the same old nonsense that antivaxxers have been promoting since time immemorial (or at least for 30 years) in which they confuse correlation with causation. I also note that these not-so-brilliant nonscientists use the same old antivax trope of exaggerating the number of vaccines in the CDC recommended vaccine schedule by counting every dose and then counting combination vaccines multiple times by separating out their components, so that DTaP, for instance, counts as three. Then, they only use two sources for the prevalence of chronic disease and two time points, and don’t even get me into the issues of time lag, such that somehow adult chronic disease prevalence in a year is supposed to correlate to the number of vaccines in the vaccine schedule of that same year, even though adults from those years would have had their vaccines according to the recommended vaccine schedule from decades before. I apologize to any statisticians or epidemiologists who see this figure (or any of the figures included in the litigation) for causing your neurons to apoptose in response to such innumerate nonsense. I swear, this “Control Group” disinformation is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “sickest generation” (because of vaccines) nonsense all over again, but only stupider.
But what about the survey itself? Vaxxter trots out a lot of the same old antivaccine tropes in its introduction, including the false claim that the Supreme Court ruled vaccines “unavoidably unsafe” (it didn’t); the risks of diseases vaccinated against don’t outweigh the risk of the vaccines (wrong); the usual tropes about VAERS that ignore other vaccine-safety monitoring systems; and more. The introduction to the survey itself is truly awe-inspiring in its lack of science being proclaimed as science coupled with extreme statistical innumeracy, all presented with maximal hysteria:
When in doubt, we must go back to the instruction manual. And this manual instructs us to actually apply the true scientific method to the problem if we wish to arrive at the correct answers. Because science has been so fully corrupted of late, people lose faith in science. But the scientific method is not to blame. It’s still the logical method for arriving at objective truths. The corruption of science is what has caused the problem. When 99% incorrect numbers are the basis for the math problem, (as seen in the VAERS data) there is no chance of arriving at a correct answer, unless of course, it’s in the context of “Common Core” mathematics. In which case, any answer can be correct, so long as the student obeys the illogical instructions they’re ordered to follow. If they follow the irrational orders correctly, the incorrect answer becomes acceptable. Even with the correct answer, if the orders were not followed, the correct answer is deemed incorrect. Hence, the objective truth is irrelevant and the only thing that matters, is the willingness of the student to blindly follow orders, no matter how irrational those orders are. In the end, the only “correct answer” is to follow orders.
Common Core math is similar to the so-called “science” of vaccine safety. The slogans, i.e., “rare” or (relatively) “safe”, are supported only by numbers that are over 99% incorrect. And this is the “science” we’re told we must blindly “trust”. No matter how irrational the orders, we must follow them and get our “shots”, in order to avoid being attacked as “anti- science” nut jobs. But that’s okay. Nobody needs to be an MD to count the number of the diagnoses doctors have already given. Nor does one require a medical degree to obtain historical data relevant to vaccination exposures which people are keenly aware of in their own lives and perfectly capable of reporting. The numbers our agencies have categorically refused to count, were counted anyway. And the researcher here is quite certain these agencies will be furious this accounting was done without their “approval”, which they would never have granted to anyone, given that this particular accounting exposes the numerically objective truth about the relative “safety” of vaccine exposure.
This gives away the game. First, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database is not, as this not-so-dynamic duo of “control group” lawyers seem to be arguing, the be-all and end-all of vaccine safety monitoring. Far from it! I hate having to repeat this over, but VAERS was always intended as an early warning system. It’s not intended, nor can it provide, the actual prevalence of vaccine adverse events, and it’s been gamed by antivaxxers for a very long time, particularly by greedy lawyers seeking to sue pharmaceutical companies for nonexistent “vaccine injury,” particularly autism. It’s also just plain not true that “only 1%” of adverse events are ever reported to VAERS.
The second paragraph, though, is where the game is truly given away. Forget all those doctors, Garner et al are saying. Science as done by actual scientists is bad, you can only trust the “people’s science”! How did The Control Group Pilot study claim to science? Here you go:
The survey was implemented in April of 2019 ending in June of 2020, with the immediate goal of obtaining raw health data exclusively from entirely unvaccinated subjects of all ages in as many American states as possible. The ultimate goal of this study, and that of a planned larger-scale follow-up study of similar construct, is to fill a major gap in available health data by establishing health outcomes specific to Americans who have not been exposed to vaccines. Data was also gathered to establish health outcomes associated with avoidance of the vitamin K-shot at birth and/or vaccination during pregnancy, in addition to complete avoidance of post-birth vaccination. This population of interest, i.e., the remaining entirely unvaccinated (post-birth) in all ages combined, is calculated at 0.26% (or less) of the entire population in the USA.2
Three methods of data collection were employed; (1) mailed-in surveys (2) on-site, in- person interviews, and (3) follow-up phone interviews. These methods are similar to those implemented in the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) 2017-2018. However, the Control Group survey, covering 48 American states, achieved a substantially higher sampling rate for our population of interest (entirely unvaccinated post-birth) who fell within the ages of 3-17, than did the NSCH study for its population of interest.3
And what did The Control Group Pilot Study claim to find? I’m sure you can guess. In fact, I thought about going through some of the graphs and “statistics” (if you can all them that), but they all show exactly what you think an antivax survey of the unvaccinated would show, that the unvaccinated are so very much healthier than the vaccinated, who are represented by statistics on chronic diseases and the like culled from various sources for the overall population, mainly the CDC. Can any of you tell me why the results of this survey are completely worthless? Yes? No?
I’ll go on. Consider how subjects were recruited for this “study”/survey. Basically, Garner blanketed antivaccine websites, Facebook groups, and social media with recruiting appeals like this and this:
And this is the sort of appeal these legal geniuses made:
We are now conducting the largest-ever epidemiological health study of unvaccinated people in preparation for a federal lawsuit to end all vaccine mandates Nationwide.
We are NOT asking for money. We need ACTION.
Even a few minutes of time WILL make a huge difference.
Over 43% of VACCINATED children in the USA are now suffering chronic, disabling, and even deadly diseases. Our early study responses are already proving that UNvaccinated kids have almost ZERO chronic health problems AND they are far LESS susceptible to serious INFECTIOUS diseases, particularly if they did not receive an aluminum-filled vitamin K shot at birth.
As this large % of vaccine injured kids reach the ages where they would otherwise have been entering the workforce, our Nation’s economy will COLLAPSE.
Many of these children require life-long 24 hour care. This is a NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
The vaccine programs represent an imminent and existential threat to the survival of our Nation. Our study is already definitely proving what the CAUSE of all this disease and destruction is.
We are targeting August 15th, 2019 for completion of this study and then we are headed into federal court. The primary pharma “legal argument” to defend vaccine mandates, which the US Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld, is that individual rights can be violated in the name of “public health”.
However, our study already proves vaccines are DESTROYING “public health”, also causing more serious INFECTIOUS diseases.
According to the Federal Judge’s Bench Guide, true CONTROL studies are the GOLD STANDARD of evidence for proving CAUSATION, requiring it to be given the most “weight”.
Previous comparative studies (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) have been too small, and dismissed as “statistically insignificant”.
But with the size of this study, we CAN win this, especially with Trump’s judicial appointments on board now. Our massive and now expanding study will be the most damning evidence big pharma has ever faced in a court of law.
Please consider having a spokesperson from The Control Group write an article for your publications, and/or please help spread the word about the study.
The larger our study, the more responses we get back, the more profound the evidence that vaccines are in fact the primary CAUSE of our Nation’s rapidly declining health.
Right there, the sample is biased beyond hope. Who saw this recruiting pitch? Antivaxxers who frequent antivaccine Facebook pages, other social media, and websites, that’s who.That’s a sample of people who will, by their very antivaccine nature, be biased in the direction of thinking that vaccines cause chronic health problems. Naturally, the “unvaccinated control group” without much, if any, in the way of chronic health problems will be far more likely to respond than those who might have a few chronic health issues. Moreover, the analysis was not done to take into effect potential confounders. Sure, The Control Group claims to have done so, but it didn’t. Not really. The only “confounders” looked for were:
The primary confounding biological factors present in the unvaccinated population today are exposures to the vitamin K-shot and/or maternal vaccines. Our Control Group data of unvaccinated (post-birth) has evidenced that, of those few Americans who have entirely avoided vaccine exposure since birth, more than 31% were exposed to the vitamin K-shot and/or their mothers were vaccinated during the pregnancy. The “vitamin” K-shot contains a powerful immune-system triggering vaccine-adjuvant, i.e., aluminum, (and other known toxins) with the potential to permanently-alter human physiology and cause immune system injury.32
Immediately after all hospital births in the USA today, parents are told by medical staff that the K-shot is just a “vitamin” and heavy pressure is applied to make sure their new baby is injected with it, along with any other injectable pharmaceuticals pushed at these facilities. Parents are falsely told their baby will “bleed to death” without the K-shot and false allegations of “medical neglect” are routinely levelled against parents who refuse. This would tend explain why parents who are concerned about vaccine-safety do not always reject these risky immune-system triggering “vitamin K” injections for their newborns. They are told it’s “just a vitamin” and they are threatened.
For purposes of this study, the maternal vaccines and vitamin K-shots are obvious potential confounders that have been stratified to establish relevant risk factors as compared to those who’ve avoided exposure to both of these pharmaceutical offerings, in addition to avoiding exposure to all post-birth vaccines. Although the unvaccinated (post-birth) who were exposed to the K-shot and/or maternal vaccines represent the minority of those surveyed, the vast majority of health conditions reported in the “unvaccinated” (post-birth) were found in those who were exposed to the K-shot, and/or maternal vaccines.
That’s it. Vitamin K shots and maternal vaccines were the only “confounders” examined. Now look at the actual survey:
That’s it. I kid you not. It’s a single page asking how many chronic diseases you have and what they are. It doesn’t even ask age, weight, race, or anything else. As far as antivaccine surveys go, this is even more utterly worthless than even the “vaxxed/unvaxxed” surveys done by Anthony Mawson and a German homeopath were! It’s a highly biased selection with no verification of answers of people who frequent antivaccine social media.
None of that stops Garner from defending The Control Group Pilot Study thusly:
I see some people think the survey’s not “scientific” enough. But the real point here is: According to WHO’s definition of “science” do you claim this? If you’re looking for The Control Group to fall in lock-step with the sort of “science” pharma has to offer you, we’re not you’re huckleberry.
READ ON, if you DARE;-)
“Scientific”? This is a general product safety survey. It is NOT being conducted for publication in a pharma-funded medical journal.
It IS being conducted based upon the Federal Rules of Evidence for submission under a particular branch of law. The Federal Courts do NOT require us to get the blessings of big pharma before it becomes admissible as evidence.
It is possible that the results could be skewed by some people, but this happens with ALL surveys, and we already have so many participants willing to identify themselves, (and even testify in court) that we will be able to show these affects are only minimal in our study.
Also, we are using PAPER hard-copy documents, and those are REALLY tough to fake.
Unlike the CHEAP and fraudulent online “epidemiological” studies the FDA conducts on their website, (which can ALL be rigged electronically) our survey can’t be “hacked”.
My brain hurt after reading this conglomeration of scientific ignorance. Again, a collection of anecdotes does not science make. At most it might generate hypotheses for study, but it certainly doesn’t “prove” anything. I do love her dismissal of the (very) legitimate criticism that her survey will be skewed with the rebuttal that all surveys are skewed to some extent. That is true, but real epidemiologists, social scientists, and pollsters doing surveys have spend decades developing methodology to try to minimize bias and “skewing” in the results of the polls and surveys that they administer. Garner clearly made zero attempt to do that—quite the opposite, in fact.
In the end, pandemic or no pandemic, antivaxxers continue to do what antivaxxers do, namely mangle science in the cause of their ideology that demands that vaccines be the cause of all sorts of horrible things while being of little or no value to those receiving them. This is just another example. As I like to say, antivaxxers gonna antivax, and conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy monger. I look forward now to following with great amusement (and likely annoyance) the progress of The Control Group Litigation as Garner, Glaser, and Flores continue their appeals.