NOTE: A prior report on this topic is here.
When comparing a new value to a typical value for something, a two-fold increase is often a big deal. If you tried to buy a house, for instance, in a neighborhood where typical homes cost $300,000 — then when looking at a typical home on the block, you would get sticker-shock if the realtor said that the asking price is $600,000.
Value-doublings like that often indicate something is going on, such as a realtor trying to get one over on you and scam you out of money. Value-triplings are even more rare in real life, and rarer still are value-quadruplings and quintiplings. You’d likely lose your cool if the realtor wanted $1.5 million for a $300,000 home.
But with COVID shots compared to typical shots that people have been taking for decades in the past, the number of adverse event reports provides a new level of wow. When looking at adverse events where the onset occurred by the 4th day of taking the shot, there is a very high chance that the shot caused the adverse event.
For reports citing that the person had become “disabled” and that the onset had come on by Day 4 after the dose, here is the history of VAERS reports received, by year that the dose was given out:
[click to enlarge]
While people often say that VAERS data cannot be used in order to prove something, in doing so, they are relying on unspoken alternative reasons for the extra reports that were seen. But take a moment to ponder this:
What alternative reason can explain a value 124x higher than is typical?
Take your time.
Nothing?
Don’t worry, it doesn’t mean that you have an inability to grasp the nuances. That’s because there is no reasonable alternative explanation for something which has become 124x larger than it has been.
You can’t get “there” from “here”
Let’s take the median capture rate of spontaneous reporting systems such as VAERS:
6% of all background events eventually getting reported
If 6% of the background events are getting reported, but then all-of-a-sudden it was discovered that everyone, everywhere, was reporting every adverse event (a 100% capture rate), then you would only make it up to a value that was 17x normal. If you then correct for 3 times as many shots going out, then you make it to 50x normal.
But with these two adjustments, we did not even make it halfway up to the 124x that we were hoping to explain. Because adjustments cannot adjust us up to observations, it indicates that COVID shots are more dangerous — more than 2.4x more dangerous than typical shots are.
Here is the research output leading to the chart above:
Reference
[median capture rate of spontaneous reporting systems is 6% (a 94% under-reporting rate)] — Hazell L, Shakir SA. Under-reporting of adverse drug reactions : a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2006;29(5):385-96. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200629050-00003. PMID: 16689555. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16689555/
[124x typical reports of early-onset disability] — https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=VACY&DISABLE=Yes&NUMDAYS[]=0&NUMDAYS[]=1&NUMDAYS[]=2&NUMDAYS[]=3&NUMDAYS[]=4&VAX_YEAR_LOW=1995&VAX_YEAR_HIGH=2022
Great article. There certainly was not 100% reporting to VAERS. I have read articles and seen video testimonies of multiple hospital employees who were forbidden to file VAERS reports under intense threats of immediate termination.
These numbers can easily be attributed to an action, whereas medium and long term disablements certainly not reported as a vaccine injury, instead, put down to just bad luck.