In this prior post, a rough guess at how many total vaccine doses given since 1990 was arrived at, but here are the notes for how that estimate came to be:
In cell H1 is the source for net doses distributed for the 11 years from 1991 up to 2001, and, inside of those 11 years, the amount in 2000 was the highest. That amount was used in order to project each and every future year (from 2002 up to 2024) in order to make a guess at the total doses given in 34 years. 2024 made up for 1990 (missing year).
Cell C38 shows COVID shots comprised almost 10% of all shots given out since VAERS began. To get an idea of the share of all adverse event reports COVID shots would have — if there is a 100-fold (or more) increase in the propensity for COVID shots to lead to an adverse event compared to typical shots — here are the numbers:
Cell K7 shows that, when COVID shots are 100 times more likely to lead to a particular adverse event report, then COVID shots will make up 91.74% of the total of all reports for that particular adverse event. When COVID shots make it 200 times more likely to report a given adverse event, then COVID shots would be at 95.69%.
As discussed last time, for Superficial Vein Thrombosis (SVT), the percentage of all reports in VAERS comprised of COVID shot reports for SVT was 98.1% of all reports. Using the expected percentage share values in column K above reveals that COVID shots are approximately 500 times more likely to lead to SVT reports than other shots.
From the list of conditions in the prior post, here are those meeting the condition of having over 91.74% of total event reports being comprised of COVID shot reports, indicating that COVID shots have a propensity that is more than 100-fold greater to lead to those event reports:
Acute Myocardial Infarction
Bell’s Palsy
Coronary Artery Occlusion
Deep Vein Thrombosis
Myocarditis
Pericarditis
Pulmonary Embolism
Superficial Vein Thrombosis
These conditions are dangerous and any injection which has more than a 100-fold propensity to lead to these conditions — as compared to typical shots — should be taken off the market.
Thought Experiment
We don’t normally take actions which make us 100 times more likely to die or to be seriously harmed. An outrageous example is that: We don’t attempt to mountain climb without any training whatsoever. We don’t find it acceptable when things make us 100 times more likely to die or to be seriously harmed. We vehemently reject those things.
And if we don’t willfully choose to put ourselves into two orders of magnitude of more risk, then why should we accept it when public health officials tell us to take shots which have at least circumstantial evidence that they come with 100-fold higher risk?