Vitamin K shots at birth. Are they safer than vaccines? Autism and a therapist's explanation for rising rates.
The founder of the Control Group shares what the findings were for Vitamin K shots at birth.
I consented to the vitamin K shots at birth for both of our sons due to ignorance and not realizing that all of these injections on the childhood schedule contain potentially harmful adjuvants, including aluminum.
When I have time, I enjoy reading comments on various substacks, and I learn so much. I have been meaning to share information from this commenter:
Joy Lucette Garner, a founder of the Control Group site, shared some vital information on a Dr. Exley post regarding the vitamin K shot and vaccines during pregnancy.
Joy’s Comments on Vaccines/Medications/Food-Like Products and Their Ingredients:
In the U.S. the FDA no longer requires them to list ALL of the ingredients. They're even putting aluminum oxides in "saline" and there is ZERO mention of this ingredient on the bags or other product inserts.
Aluminum oxides are now on the FDA's "excipients" list which the FDA claims are "generally accepted as safe" substances. And so, manufacturers don't have to list it on the ingredients lists anymore.
Another nice thing that made this list is propylene glycol or anti-freeze - which will land you in JAIL (for murder or attempted murder) if you're caught putting it in someone's coffee.
The simple fact is, we no longer have ANY idea what's inside of ANYTHING produced by pharma, or even General Mills & Kellogg's for that matter. They can also now add ground up bugs to our cereal products (as well as myriad other toxins) WITHOUT listing it as an ingredient AT ALL, even though the chitin (bug proteins) are KNOWN to be toxic to humans.
In this section, Joy responded to another commenter on the Exley post regarding Vitamin K shots at birth:
I am the founder of the Control Group. In 2020, we completed a nationwide (48 state) health study of entirely unvaccinated people of all ages.
69.1% of the entirely unvaccinated had not been exposed to the K-shot at birth. And only 2.64% of this group had ANY conditions, (generally mild ones) and there were ZERO autism cases.
However, in the entirely unvaccinated group who WERE exposed to the K-shot, the rate of chronic conditions jumped up to 11.73%, and this was the sub- group that included the only two cases of autism found in the study.
Again, NONE of the entirely unvaccinated (either post or pre-birth) who ALSO avoided the K-shot, had autism, even though this group represented 69.1% (the majority) of the total sample.
So the rate/risk of autism (and all other conditions) within each smaller sub-group comes into play. We had a group (of unvaccinated "post-birth") who had been exposed to BOTH the k-shot and pre-birth (pregnancy) vaccines. This was an even smaller minority within the study, at only 2.02%. The rate/risk of chronic conditions within THIS group was 30%!!!
Autism Findings From the Control Group Data
In the end, what we found the "worst offender" was pregnancy vaccines. But we ALSO found that the vitamin k-shot, standing ALONE can and DOES (1) cause autism (2) increased the risk of at least one condition from only 2.64% to 11.73% (a 344% increase in risk) and; (3) amplified the negative effects/risks of pregnancy vaccines.
Because we completely ruled out any post, OR pre-birth vaccines as a possible cause of autism in the "k-shot only" group, and yet DID find autism in this group, it's clear what the cause was in THAT case.
I am unsure why Chris (Exley) would discount the "vitamin" K-shot as a possible cause of health problems or neurological problems. Perhaps the types of k-shots given in the UK are lower in aluminum than they are in the U.S.? IDK about that.
But I DO know for a FACT that the k-shots being given to babies in the U.S. are massively increasing the risk of health conditions and brain disorders. I also know that the ones in the U.S. contain several times the amount of aluminum that is found in typical childhood vaccines. This is the REASON for the "black box" warning on the labels. SEE: https://www.drugs.com/pro/vitamin-k1.html
DEATH is one of the observed "side effects" of this chemical mix of toxins, which includes aluminum oxides.
Apparently, Chris has yet to read the Control Group study, even though a paper on it has been peer-reviewed and published in an international journal. SEE: https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40 - And please DO open and take a look at the full PDF with color (and other) graphs and also the mathematical detail in the text which proves the K-shots (standing ALONE) are massively increasing diseases and disabilities, which we all know lead to an agonizing life on the way to an EARLIER grave, (which is why they call these "co-MORBIDITIES").
K-shots ARE dangerous and they DO cause chronic and disabling conditions. The primary toxin they have in common with vaccines is the aluminum, which is an 'adjuvant' KNOWN to "trigger" the immune system, leading to immune-mediated inflammation and problems similar to the ones vaccines cause.
Links to Joy’s published research article and the site with the data
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/40
https://www.thecontrolgroup.org/
Autism Rising Rate and One Therapist’s Explanation
I was listening to a doctor on the Highwire show quite some time back, and he said that as a practicing pediatrician, he did, on rare occasions, see autism in the non-vaccinated.
So, we know that autism can occur even in a person who is free of any injection, but it is rare.
When my brain is fried, I sometimes read a light Quora question, but I usually avoid the ones about topics I know the responses will only raise my blood pressure. But I read one in which someone asked,
“Why is the autism rate rising?”
I knew I should not have read the response.
The response came from a therapist who explained that since autism is genetic and people with autism gravitate to math and sciences, one person with autism meets another person with autism at work, and they have kids.
The therapist rationalized that two people with autism will more likely produce autistic children since autism is genetic. (It could not possibly be related to anything else!)
And there you have the reason for the rising autistic population!
I am sure that response would suit the mainstream masses just fine.
It is a possibility; however, how do you know that both people have a genetic risk for autism?
How many autistic couples with children are there?
Perhaps one or both have genetic flaws that do not allow for proper detoxification, and this could cause a buildup of heavy metals.
Of all the autistic children that I currently know or have known, I can think of one who did have a mother who was probably on the spectrum as well. All the others, no way.
Bottom Line
There is a higher rate of autism amongst the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated, and getting vaccines during pregnancy can increase autism risk.
I would like to see a study that looks at vaccinated versus vaccinated and the rate of childhood illness, asthma, and allergies but also looks at these additional factors: What are the dietary and education comparisons between the vaccinated and un-vaxxed?
For instance, do un-vax children eat a healthier diet, and this impacts health outcomes. Are more un-vax children home-schooled and not in a daycare program, which also can contribute to health outcomes?
My guess is that the rate of childhood illnesses is multifactorial and related to vaccines, diet, and lifestyle factors.
Do you know anyone with autistic children? Would you say that one or both of the parents have autism or Aspergers?
Do you know any children fully vaccinated without health issues?
Show my posts some love, please!
It is just me writing, reading, researching, and seeing clients!
I do not use mainstream social media, so please share my posts so that more people can get informed on how to get and stay healthy.
This is NOT information allopathic practitioners will share with you.
Dr Paul Thomas from Portland, OR did a vaxxed/unvaxxed study. Within days of releasing it his medical license was suspended.
I was just re-reading your post and the questions you pose about diet, etc.. Basically, the possibility these things differ between the families that raise vaxxed or unvaxxinated kids, right? I would like to add some info from my own observations during my nationwide study of entirely unvaccinated, (both children and adults) across 48 states.
1. Most of the parents reporting for their entirely unvaccinated kid/s were also parents of vaccinated (older) kids. And these parents explained that they'd stopped vaccinating BECAUSE of the severe injuries (or even DEATH) which they'd witnessed shortly after vaccination of their 1st child, and/or 2nd, or even 3rd, or more. One mother I spoke to, explained that she had 5 kids, and only stopped injecting her children after her 4th had been injured! So this poor woman only had ONE healthy child out of 5, i.e., her youngest.
2. The fear surrounding "diet" and potential toxic hazards is quite LOW when it comes to unvaccinated kids, due to the fact they're generally NOT suffering from numerous health issues to begin with. Some parents with all unvaccinated kids (the lucky few) were actually quite cavalier about what their kids ate, because their kids were NOT medically "fragile."
3. There is zero evidence to substantiate the claim parents who trust vaccines (because they just don't have the data) to keep their kids "healthy" are therefore NOT "health conscious" enough to avoid other toxins, i.e., their kid's diets. Likewise, there is zero evidence that parents of entirely unvaccinated kids (who just happen to know how dangerous they actually are) are the only parents looking out for their kid's health in OTHER ways as well. The idea that a person who believes vaccines are safe and healthy (and who are taking vaccines FOR their health) would necessarily be a junk-food eater and never get any exercise either, just doesn't hold water.
4. The presumption that a "variable" is equivalent to a "confounder" is false. The variable OF INTEREST could be exposure to a PARTICULAR substance, and/or related substances. And if there is a MASSIVE difference in outcomes based upon this ONE variable, (like drinking from the same dirty water supply vs. people who drink from another cleaner one) then you have located CAUSE. Process of elimination is present here, i.e., the people who DON'T get sick are the ones drinking from the clean water supply. Basically, when you remove the ONE suspected cause, and the problem is ameliorated, then you know what cause it. Here again, CAUSE is proven. And this cause is exposed even though the researcher didn't make sure that every other "variable" between the two populations matched perfectly. This is because they were just variables, they weren't CONFOUNDERS. In an epidemiological water-supply study, you'd only call it a "confounder" if people were going to another location for their drinking water. All that said, we still ask: "Can differences in income, race, diet, etc., alter long-term health outcomes? Yes. But the differences would only be minimal. And the CDC claims the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to be in the tiny "anti-vaxxer" club. Of course the way they frame it, "rich" people are somehow making poor people sicker;-) Always framed to start class-warfare, and thereby justify raising taxes to pay for MORE "healthcare" programs that ultimately worsen the health of the poor.
THE VARIABLE OF INTEREST & ELIMINATING SUSPECTED CAUSE:
The Control Group study focused on the two PRIMARY potential "confounders" that might affect a "vaxxed v. unvaxxed" study, i.e., (1) k-shots, and (2) those who'd been exposed to vaccines during pregnancy. Being that the results showed there is only a 1 in 3 times the number of ATOMS estimated to exist in the entire universe that vaccines are NOT the actual cause of well-over 90% of the deadly and disabling diseases suffered by Americans today, it's fair to say we're identified the PRIMARY cause, the ACTUAL cause, of MOST illnesses and disabilities.
Now, if we FIRST eliminated well over 90% of the disease and disability by stopping ALL vaccine use, THEN we could further reduce the disease/disability burden by identifying the OTHER things that cause problems. It seems to me that with this profound and conclusive evidence (showing the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of our problems) we might want to first stop the MOST OBVIOUS cause of all these health problems immediately, rather than first claiming such evidence is of limited value UNLESS it includes things like diet, income, etc..
We've ALREADY proven that regardless of the OTHER variables, merely eliminating vaccines (and the K-shot/related pharma products) will instantly and massively reduce the risk of ANY health problems. When well-over 90% of the problems go away as a direct result of eliminating vaccines (and related products) we ALREADY know what's causing over 90% of the problems. Again, a variable doesn't mean "confounder." It just means variable. Whether it's a variable of interest is the real question. And this particular variable (vaxxed v. unvaxxed) is the variable that will NEVER "interest" pharma, nor any of their servants in academia, government, or ANY of our so-called "health" agencies.
This is not to say it's a good idea to eat garbage. I'm sure that if the Control Group had compared diets within the entirely unvaccinated population, (and K-shot free as well) we would've seen that 2.64% (over-all rate of chronic conditions in adults and children) drop EVEN LOWER in those who maintained perfect diets. But the fact is, we ALREADY know it's a good idea to avoid toxins and eat healthy. We didn't need yet another study for that. We needed to know (and prove) how much higher your risk of deadly and disabling diseases would be if you DID get exposed to vaccines (and related pharma products) regardless of what you're eating. We were interested in this ONE variable.
I'm not going to conduct a study to determine if bad food makes you sick, even when you're unvaccinated. I already KNOW that eating bad food is not helpful. What I wanted to know, was how much healthier people are if they ONLY avoid pharma injections. And the difference in long-term health outcomes is STAGGERING. So if you're entirely unvaccinated AND your diet is perfect, maybe you can drop that 2.64% risk of problems down to 1%? Even less? Maybe.
But what about the 60% rate of chronic conditions in the VACCINE-EXPOSED adult population? Should we ignore that until AFTER we determine why 2.64% of entirely unvaccinated people still get some problems. (generally mild, i.e., essentially zero heart trouble, zero diabetes, ZERO cancers, etc.)????
I'm not going to worry about the MINOR problems a few unvaccinated people have (and what caused those) until AFTER we rid ourselves of the PRIMARY cause of well-over 90% of all deadly and disabling diseases we're currently suffering, and which are on a trajectory to END this nation before 2030.