A shot by shot basis? perhaps you have a point but the shots have never before been pushed like they are now, and that alone tells you something. would you have surgery to fix something that will heal on its own?
What I mean is we know there have been given about 120+ million shots these last 12-18 months and the vaers database has exploded. If there have been given 120m shots in the last 32 years, then yes, the vaers data signifies a greater causality between the shot and an adverse reaction. If there have not been given that many shots the last 32 years, then there will naturally be less in the vaers database. We don't need a shot by shot basis, we need the number of shots in the denominator, to assess if the increase in vaers reporting is significant or not.
I get what you are saying.. But you also have to consider that Vaccines are a business enterprise, therefore each year to keep growing you have to administer more shots.. Or in another sense since the population is growing, you need to administer more shots just to maintain your market share... Perhaps I would be more agreeable to your suggestion were you to suggest comparing the percentage of side effects now vs.32 years ago indexed/corrected for population growth... But when companies become focused on meeting/beating) growth projections (something that emerged in the '90s when quarterly profit and revenue became the daily talking points of Cramer and his ilk) then desperate people like Andy Fastow and the people who had to satisfy him began to act like communists and feudal lords doing whatever they had to to meet the numbers whether it was cooking the books or cutting corners in safety and regulatory requirements...
You're never going to get clean data from this, how are you going to control between inclination to dissemble the injuries in various years etc and even if you did, the vaxxed would ignore it so it's all moot at this stage.
Life insurers are seeing major bumps to non-covid deaths in healthy age brackets, that's the data you go with.
We don't need clean data, if we assume the quality of vaers reporting is constant. We need to take the number of vaers reports and divide by the number of shots in the two time periods, the article above refers to. Otherwise we cannot compare.
In order to make this comparison valid, we need the number of shots doled out, both now and in the previous 32 years of vaers.
A shot by shot basis? perhaps you have a point but the shots have never before been pushed like they are now, and that alone tells you something. would you have surgery to fix something that will heal on its own?
What I mean is we know there have been given about 120+ million shots these last 12-18 months and the vaers database has exploded. If there have been given 120m shots in the last 32 years, then yes, the vaers data signifies a greater causality between the shot and an adverse reaction. If there have not been given that many shots the last 32 years, then there will naturally be less in the vaers database. We don't need a shot by shot basis, we need the number of shots in the denominator, to assess if the increase in vaers reporting is significant or not.
I get what you are saying.. But you also have to consider that Vaccines are a business enterprise, therefore each year to keep growing you have to administer more shots.. Or in another sense since the population is growing, you need to administer more shots just to maintain your market share... Perhaps I would be more agreeable to your suggestion were you to suggest comparing the percentage of side effects now vs.32 years ago indexed/corrected for population growth... But when companies become focused on meeting/beating) growth projections (something that emerged in the '90s when quarterly profit and revenue became the daily talking points of Cramer and his ilk) then desperate people like Andy Fastow and the people who had to satisfy him began to act like communists and feudal lords doing whatever they had to to meet the numbers whether it was cooking the books or cutting corners in safety and regulatory requirements...
You're never going to get clean data from this, how are you going to control between inclination to dissemble the injuries in various years etc and even if you did, the vaxxed would ignore it so it's all moot at this stage.
Life insurers are seeing major bumps to non-covid deaths in healthy age brackets, that's the data you go with.
So pretty much everyone is in on the covid/vaccine scam... except the life insurers?
Claims going up doesn't mean claims being paid Sir.
We don't need clean data, if we assume the quality of vaers reporting is constant. We need to take the number of vaers reports and divide by the number of shots in the two time periods, the article above refers to. Otherwise we cannot compare.