When Snopes Comes After You for Telling the TRUTH:

After "The Control Group" study was peer-reviewed and published, "Snopes" writer "Alan Kasprak" contacted me in a (failed) attempt to "debunk" the study results. My responses below:

But first, here’s a mugshot of Alex Kasprak, Snopes’ “expert debunker”;-)

And below is my response to his ASININE “investigation” in his attempt to discredit the Control Group study:

July 8th, 2023

“Hello Alex, thanks for the questions. I will do my best to answer them. Before I do however, I have a question about your organization - which is widely known to immediately "debunk" just about anything that contradicts mainstream pharma narratives, and even any suggestions that maybe Biden was NOT the single most popular President in American history, i.e., the 81 million votes which Snopes claims were completely real votes. Biden could barely get 12 people to gather for him, even when he paid Bono to put on a free concert for his campaign. 

Because of claims like the above from Snopes, most people I know have zero confidence in anything Snopes has to say these days. And it also leads me to believe the only reason you've contacted me, is to see if it's possible to smear me and discredit the Control Group study because it shows something the mainstream establishment would prefer to keep hidden forever. So my question to you is this: Where does your FUNDING come from? 

I loved this one from Snopes: 

"Fact: Vaccines were rigorously tested and found to be safe"

HAHAHAHA! I personally worked through the Pfizer data dump (the one they wanted 75 years to release) and located the dark truth, which was that over 10% of the people they injected were "excluded" as "participants" from their final report, (i.e. they're never mentioned AT ALL in the report). There was ZERO follow-up to find out WHY these people refused to be jabbed again, or why they suddenly disappeared shortly after the jabs. Some of the reasons for "coding out" these people from the trial were appalling. When the "researchers" were made aware these people had DIED after injection, they were no longer considered a "participant" so this would skew the results in favor of "safety." In the end, Pfizer refused to acknowledge (in their final report) that over 10% of the jabbed "enrollees" were excluded entirely and never followed-up on. Instead, they reported that "of the participants" less than 1% were excluded. Word salad, but mostly just a blatant LIE. They decided that they would not refer to people they'd injected as "participants" so therefore, they thought they could get away with saying they'd excluded less than 1% of the people they'd actually jabbed. But Snopes trusts the vaccine makers;-) It's not as though they've got BILLIONS$ of reasons to lie and cheat. 

Snopes is FULLY aligned with Pharma's agenda in PERFECT lockstep. Snopes claims that vaccine injuries are merely a "conspiracy theory" promoted by lunatics, that the FDA, CDC & Fauci never lie to us. The World Economic Forum is your God to worship, along with their goals for a world were only THEY will own or control everything, (all of our stuff that they're not quite finished confiscating) and the rest us us will be "happy" eating bugs with no heat in the winter, and no air-conditioning in the summer. Expecting that these demons will let you dine at their table once you've done their bidding is a hopeless position. Demons never keep the promises they've made to their servants. Neither you or your loved ones will be spared the hell-on-earth which your organization promotes. 

But there is always a chance, no matter how small, that you have a soul and would not wish to do even more harm to humanity by supporting and promoting still more murderous lies, while only attacking those who fight to get the truth out. 

And now to your questions: 

A. Methodology: 

1. The study was initiated and conducted following the Federal Rules of Evidence for admissibility as a "product safety" survey. We did not expect to achieve such a robust sample from across 48 states, (95% of the states). Nor did we expect to produce such a small deviation (margin of error) well-below 0.04%. But we did achieve a mathematically reliable dataset proving CAUSE beyond any reasonable doubt. This is to say, the odds vaccines are NOT the cause of the disparity in long-term health outcomes between the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population and the entirely unvaccinated, are 1 in three times the number of atoms estimated to exist in the universe. But it's clear, mainstream "scientists" are already lining up to respond with "So you're telling me there's a chance" (it's caused by income, race, gender, etc.) just like Jim Carrey in Dumb & Dumber. Remember, the odds there were only "1 in a million" and this made audiences laugh hysterically at the how astoundingly stupid this guy was. 

Although we did not set out to "publish" the results, an international journal did later invite us to publish a paper on the study due to how accurate the dataset is. 

2. The reason it was later stated that the data was an extremely accurate measure for the long-term health outcomes observed in the unvaccinated population, is because the dataset IS in fact a very accurate measure for this population of interest. It was not until after the dataset was run through extensive cross-referencing models (to detect any deviations) that we were able to see just how accurate the dataset turned out to be. You see, there are equations used to determine what the "expected" margin of error will be, (based merely upon the proposed sample size and population of interest) and there are other equations you apply to an actual dataset which will expose deviations from the means, thereby established by the data captured. If you're not a statistician, much of what I just stated here will have limited meaning to you. I spent 6 months studying statistics, (many late nights watching lectures from MIT, Harvard, etc.) and there's just no way to squeeze it all in here. All of the the standard and universally-accepted equations applied to the dataset are fully disclosed in the Full Report. The entire raw dataset is also published. It's all completely repeatable, on either a small scale or a large scale. 

B. Potential Bias: I'll cover all of your related questions here. 

There is zero evidence to suggest that a person's beliefs about vaccines (good or bad) will alter long-term health outcomes. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that people who believe vaccines are harmful, are any more, or less, likely to give accurate reports about their health than people who trust that all vaccines are perfectly safe and only improve their health. In fact, I found that the level of interest in locating the cause for whatever was ailing the unvaccinated population, made them far more likely to report everything they could possibly report, due to the fact they had personally already ruled out vaccines as the cause of their own issues, Again, we only surveyed entirely unvaccinated.  I got many calls and written inquiries from entirely unvaccinated who were searching for answers to the problems they do have.  Although the entirely unvaccinated don't have anywhere near as many disorders as the general (99.74% vaccine-exposed) population, they were hoping for a study that would identify any other potential causes. 

Feelings, beliefs, and thoughts about vaccines, do not cause a LACK of brain damage, cancers, diabetes, heart disease, etc. Nor do they cause any increase. And there is zero evidence to suggest that unvaccinated people are any more or less likely to lie about their health than vaccine-exposed people. Such an idea doesn't make any sense because the only reason people avoid vaccines is to protect their health. If their health was worse than their vaccinated counterparts, they would WANT to get vaccinated, and they would get vaccinated. A person in perfect health (or close to perfect) ordinarily does NOT want to do anything to injure themselves. And if avoiding vaccines caused massive destruction and death, the unvaccinated would be the first to know this;-)

Many of the parents in this study only stopped vaccinating their kids AFTER they'd witnessed one (or more) of their first kids severely injured immediately after vaccination. If there is anything "driving" the "anti-vax" movement, it's the parents who've witnessed their own children get jabbed and then never speaking again, or worse, ending up dead shortly thereafter. The real-world injuries and deaths are being WITNESSED by many people in real time. The fact our government has never ONCE conducted any studies comparing long-term health outcomes between true "controls" (entirely unvaccinated) and vaccine-exposed populations is NOT "evidence" that vaccines do not cause long-term health problems. A lack of study relating to a particular question, is not the answer to the question. It's merely evidence one is intentionally avoiding the correct answer, otherwise known as mens rea. The only verified (and never once refuted) study of the VAERS reporting rate proved that it reports "less than 1%" of the actual injuries and deaths occurring shortly after vaccination. SEE: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-support-public-health-vaccine-adverse-event-reporting-system 

Within the entirely unvaccinated population, we did obtain a random sample. You see, almost all entirely unvaccinated people DO belong to support groups who are fighting pharma's never-ending demand that ALL humans be repeatedly injected with as many vaccines as they wish to sell us, and that this process never end.  If we had approached the general population (which is 99.74% vaccine-exposed) it would have made no sense at all because 99.74% of them did not qualify as entirely unvaccinated. If one wishes to study a species unique to a particular consumption habit, one would go to where they feed. We targeted ONLY the population of interest. Within this population there was zero chance for surveyor bias due to the fact we did not choose the participants. Your personal theory that entirely unvaccinated people are "biased" against vaccines is correct. This is why they are not vaccinated. But there is zero evidence to support any theories that people who have reason to distrust vaccines are only healthier because they don't trust vaccines. They are healthier because they AVOID being injected with them. And there is zero evidence to support any theories that unvaccinated people are somehow less "ethical" in their reporting of health conditions. 

STATISTICAL VERIFICATION ON REPORTING ACCURACY: Because the Control Group dataset was run through multiple random splits and cross-referencing models, there was just no way to hide it if unvaccinated people were not accurately reporting their health outcomes. It would have shown up in the standard deviations across geographic and other variables. In other words, it would've been impossible for the target population to so accurately coordinate any attempt to skew the results. We do also have the original postmarked envelopes showing dates and zip codes. To whatever extent there were inaccuracies in reporting, these are all fully exposed in the deviations. And the margins/deviations here are TINY, evidencing that this dataset is a very accurate representation of the health of the population of interest. It was an exceptionally robust sample, and it was random as a study of this particular population. It was not "random" for the entire U.S. population, but we can safely assume our published national disease rates are a more than fair representation of the health of the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population. If you wish to question those stats, (or how random they could've been, since the surveyors were choosing the participants) you're free to do so. But those heath stats have nothing to do with the Control Group health stats, other than that; when you compare them against one another it's obvious what the primary CAUSE of America's catastrophically poor health is. It's a different population we surveyed, only a little over 800K left across all 50 states. But it's more than ample enough to produce a very robust random sample, which is what we did. If it had not been random, this too would've shown up markedly in the deviations. 

SNOPES QUESTION: “ [Is] It your contention that the only possible confounding variables for assessing a link between chronic disease and vaccination are vitamin k-shots and mother's being vaccinated during pregnancy? Why not collect data on weight, height, genetic conditions, family income, or other socio-economic factors as well? Why not collect data on weight, height, genetic conditions, family income, or other socio-economic factors as well?”

ANSWER: First, start with the logic as you've presented it above, PLEASE. Your suggestion here, is that how tall someone is, could be a "confounding" element in whether vaccines increase the risk of these disorders. Until YOU show me clear evidence that being too tall, or too short, determines whether or not someone will be injured by a vaccine, I would not consider that a "confounding" element that has anything to do with a vaccine injury. That's not to say I don’t believe a person's height could possibly affect their heath outcomes. But that was not the POINT of this particular study. If YOU want to believe that vaccines could not possibly cause injury UNLESS a person is of a certain race, height, income, (or whatever) that's YOUR job to prove.

Right now, the evidence proves that the single most imperative "preventative" health measure a person could possibly take, is simply to avoid all vaccines and related pharmaceuticals if they wish to enjoy a less than 6% risk of disease and disorder into adulthood, rather than face the 60% risk of disease available for those who indulge in vaccine injections. You're not "safe" from injury because you're tall, short, fat, skinny, black white, etc., although admittedly, there could be SLIGHT risk variations based upon some of these items, including genetics. 

I never believed that vaccines were the only possible cause of these diseases. And I still do not believe this. The question to be answered was simply this: "What is the RATE of these diseases and disorders in the entirely unvaccinated population, and what does this look like against our health stats for the 99.74% vaccine-exposed population? We set out to rule out ONE primary potential cause of disease and disorder, and see what the health of people who avoided these particular BIOLOGICAL exposures looked like. Obviously, other similar pharma products would potentially confound these results, based upon the questions we set out to answer. If you have data to back-up the idea that other things (height, race, income) are really what's responsible for this massive disparity in health outcomes, (between vaxxed and unvaxxed) then you are free to cite them. We gathered data on those biological exposures (i.e. other related exposures) that might confound the results which were relevant to the questions we sought answers to. It turned out that the ONLY autism cases were found in the group exposed to the K-shot and/or pregnancy vaccines. This was also true of major brain and organ deformities which were only found in the preg vax group.  

Pharma's logic has always been that if ONE autism case is documented in the "unvaccinated" population, this means vaccines cannot possibly cause autism. As irrational as that conclusion is, we addressed it by asking questions about other exposures. If an "unvaccinated" kid had autism (or any other number of problems) we wanted to know that we had truly ruled out vaccines and their active ingredients as a possible cause. Other things CAN cause autism. But this does not mean vaccines cannot cause autism. Our interests was in the RATE of autism. Two additional things appear to be causing autism besides regular vaccination. One of them is the aluminum-filled "vitamin" K-shot, and the other is when the mother gets vaccinated during the pregnancy. Without any exposure to vaccines, (post or pre-birth) and without any exposure to the aluminum adjuvant found in the K-shot, the rate of autism would have to be well-below 0.01% based upon the size of our sample. We couldn't locate one case in the entirely unexposed, but there could be some out there somewhere. It's the RATE that matters here. It's a simple evaluation really, whether applied to an individual, or to broad public health policy. If one wishes to have a risk of autism in excess of 3%, by all means, get vaccinated. If one wishes to keep that risk below 0.01% then AVOID these products and all related products. 

We were not attempting to determine whether sex, height, income, race, gender, or "other factors" were the cause of diseases and disorders. (That would be a different study;-) By eliminating vaccines (and related pharmaceuticals) as a possible cause of negative health outcomes within the entirely unvaccinated population, we could see clearly that this one thing made a HUGE difference in long-term health outcomes when compared to the health of the 99.74% vaccine exposed American population, no matter the race, height, gender, income, etc. 

When conducting a toxicological study, they check to see if the exposed rats get sick or die in greater numbers than the unexposed "control" rats.  They don't ask the rats how many fancy vacations they've had recently, whether they're confused about their gender, whether they're descendants of a certain family-line of rats with more pigment, (race)  how tall they are, etc.  If the biological exposures could NOT explain the outcomes observed between the two groups, a toxicologist might THEN explore other possible confounders to better understand what's happening. When the results show that the rats exposed to the treatment have tons of serious health problems and the controls have almost none of these problems, the logical conclusion is that the treatment/exposure was the CAUSE of the disparity in outcomes. Whether or not the rats are rich or poor, or how they feel about the injections, would never come up though;-)  

I know it may come as a shock to many, but repeatedly injecting a substance into your body can affect your long-term health, whether you're poor/rich, black/white, gender confused, etc.. There IS such a thing as a BIOLOGICAL cause for health problems. Socioeconomic studies are engineered to find something to blame OTHER than the most obvious causes, in order to further socioeconomic agendas, (social engineering). If we were looking to rule out disparities in "income" as a possible cause of disease, we would have conducted a different study. Anyone who wants it can get tons of funding for any study that will blame our health problems on a lack of a Mercedes in the driveway, or any other obscure and absurd cause. Any study that suggests something other than vaccines are what's destroying our immune systems will get endless funding from pharma and their servants in our federal agencies. And anyone who fervently attacks those who present evidence contrary to pharma slogans like "totally safe and totally effective" can also expect lots of $$ for their time. 

We didn't study whether income or race play a role. We studied whether vaccines (and related pharmaceuticals) played a role, and we enumerated how much of a role they play in causing this huge disparity in long-term health outcomes.

Granulating down to whether or not an entirely unvaccinated person who is also rich, is healthier than a poor unvaccinated person, would be an obtuse pursuit, given that the extremely low rate of any disease or disorder within the entirely unvaccinated population (no matter their age, race, or income level) is well-below 6%. And yet, the rate of disease and disorder is well-over 50% within the vaccine-exposed population of all ages, all races, and all income levels. I suppose I could always go back and try to determine what the races and income levels are within the unvaccinated population. And who knows, maybe their health outcomes might vary slightly along those lines. But to what end? We already see a MASSIVE reduction in over-all negative health outcomes just from eliminating just this one class of pharmaceutical product. I'm truly not interested in locating additional obscure potential causes until after this one has been remedied.

Justifications for more social engineering projects from the government is the reason people pursue such things. I am entirely unconvinced that one's race or height can explain away the fact that more than 50% of vaccine-exposed Americans are now suffering from deadly and disabling diseases while the unexposed are almost perfectly healthy for life. In the vaccine-exposed population, over 48% of Americans over the age of 18 were suffering from some form of heart disease, and over 10% were suffering from diabetes before 2020, and the rates were only increasing exponentially every decade. But none of these numbers reflect what's happening to the health of entirely unvaccinated Americans, who make up only 0.26% of the population. 

Question: What connection, if any, do these organizations have with each other? Does Blue Levitation Ventures fund either The Control Group or Patriot Force?

There is ZERO "cross-funding" between any of these organizations. If you're looking for "impure" motives, why not turn that suspicion towards those who make hundredsofbillions$ off of vaccine sales, for at least a minute? Or are you one who believes hundreds of billions in profits could NEVER motivate anyone to LIE, cheat, abuse, censor, etc.? Only those who produce evidence which contradicts the "safe" slogan are attacked, no matter that they had ZERO to gain for telling the truth, and everything to lose for telling the truth. Will your coverage ever once mention the billions of motivations the vaccine industry has to lie? No wonder your Snopes brand is so fully destroyed and discredited. You don't seem to understand that the organization you work for, (which most people assume is largely funded by people/Nazis like George Soros) is basically a joke in this age, just like CNN. 

Question: How did the Control Group select Jan-Willem van den Bergh to do an independent review of the study in preparation for litigation in Garner v. Biden (2022). Who funded his work?

My lead counsel found him and asked him to review (thoroughly audit) the Control Group data, and to run it through his own models in order to verify. I have not been provided with any data relevant to any source for any payments Jan-Willem van den Bergh may, or may not have, received. But it doesn't appear the pharma industry pays his bills;-) 

Question: Does Children's Health Defense or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fund The Control Group or support it in any substantial way outside of hosting and promoting your research?

No. Although RFK's group did file a supporting Amicus Brief before SCOTUS in our attempt to obtain a nationwide injunction against all vaccine mandates - which we first filed in 2020 against then-President Trump. Trump was our only named defendant - as he was in charge of the executive branch agencies, including the FDA, CDC, etc. I hated "warp speed";-) 

Question: In a January 2023 interview, you stated that your "background is in the tech world — Inventor, patent holder… mostly video games, virtual reality arena." This appears to refer to your patent for a treadmill-based video game controller that was the primary product of your company GameRunner. Do you hold any other patents or have any other experience in the video game or virtual reality arena? 

No, at least not as an "inventor." I have drafted many technical papers, (for others and a few for Gamerunner) but my most recent inventions have not yet been disclosed to the patent office. My entire life was not spent in tech. Didn't head there until about 2004. 

Question: Have your views on "purporting to be an expert" changed as a result of your work with The Control Group? 

Yes. To my knowledge, there is not one other who has conducted a nationwide survey of entirely unvaccinated, let alone one with such an astounding level of accuracy. However, unlike pharma's "experts" my conclusions are based upon DATA. They're not just an "expert opinion" to protect and advance the interests of  my benefactors, because I have none. There is NOBODY within the vaccine-promotion industry who is in any way qualified to make the claim vaccines do not harm us. And none of them are in any way qualified to use the term "rare" when admitting to "some" of the harms. Without ever once counting the victims of vaccine injury (both short, and long-term injuries) there are no numbers upon which to objectively apply any adjective which describes the frequency of events. People cannot honestly claim something is "rare" when they've never once made any attempt to actually COUNT it;-) No long-term studies are done (with our tax dollars) to make any determination of the long-term health effects of vaccination on public health. Read any vaccine insert and you'll see this is the truth of it. NO long-term studies. NONE. 

It's the lack of formal credentials in this arena which requires me to lean entirely on the data and evidence, rather than on any purported authority as an expert. But I am the leading expert on the health data of entirely unvaccinated population in America as of 2020. 

It would be nice to think you were actually interested in the truth. However, based upon your organization's history of supporting the establishment narratives about just about everything, (whether true or not) I have to assume you're just looking for more material for a hit job on me, and nothing more. I will still hope that there is some shred of decency in you personally, such that you might actually want to represent the truth. One nice thing here, is that you and your masters don't get to threaten my "medical license" because I don't have one;-) 

I wish you well, and I do hope you find peace with yourself because you've decided that humanity deserves better than to have our rights stripped from us as retribution for our refusal to be injected with whatever the government wants to inject us with. 

Godspeed, 

Joy Garner, founder of The Control Group

- END of Q&A with Alex-

To my knowledge, Alex has yet to publish his “debunking” story against The Control Group Study. I am grateful that he contacted me for answers before moving on the story.