Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) is an outfit that seeks transparency in adverse event reporting, so that people can make an informed decision. As the 5-page link shows, they obtained the CDC data from V-SAFE — an active surveillance network meant to augment the passive surveillance already being carried out through the VAERS system.
Of 10,108,273 users of V-SAFE, about 70,000 were hospitalized (0.7%), which makes their experience automatically a “serious adverse event” or serious AE, for short.
That’s approximately 7,000 serious AE’s per million V-SAFE users.
That “serious AE signal” is 740 times the typical serious AE signal in the VAERS system, where there are 9.6 serious AE reports per million doses distributed. If V-SAFE is 10 times more sensitive than VAERS in its ability to detect adverse events, then that’d mean that COVID jabs are 74 times more dangerous than typical jabs.
Here are notes showing that 9.6 serious AE reports per million doses are typical:
[cell I18 has the highlighted value]
Sensitivity Analysis
Critics and detractors may claim that V-SAFE is more than 10 times more sensitive than VAERS — although they’d be hard-pressed to try to prove it. Also, and more likely, they’d claim that the average V-SAFE user had about two doses during the program, rather than the one dose which the VAERS data uses.
But even if you cut the serious AE reporting rate down to 3,500 per million V-SAFE users, the “serious AE signal” from V-SAFE is still 360 times the typical signal from VAERS — and that’d still mean that COVID jabs are 36 times more dangerous than typical jabs.
Note how it is that, even if you assume that the average V-SAFE user got 3 jabs, it is STILL the case that the signal is 240 times the typical VAERS signal — implying that, with the assumed 10-fold increase in sensitivity, the COVID jabs are STILL 24 times more dangerous.
Reference
[11 years of VAERS data] — CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5201a1.htm