First, here are the two posts claiming the 5% figure:
https://greatawakening.win/p/16a9v4XS1j/5-of-covid-vax-lot-s-are-respons/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/16a9v3RWc8/whats-in-your-wallet/c/
and two good links that I gleaned from the comments:
https://knollfrank.github.io/HowBadIsMyBatch/batchCodeTable.html
Now, assuming this 5% figure is true and that the bad batches were randomly distributed worldwide, here is the probability distribution that a person who took both clot shots and all boosters on the time scale propagandized by the government and the mockingbird media of getting a poisonous shot.
The formula for the probability distribution of 2 events is: nCrp^rq^(n-r) where n is the number of vaccine doses taken, r is the number that is poisonous, p is the probability that the batch is not poisonous which would be .95 and q is the probability that the batch is poisonous which would be .05. For those of you who are not math literate, the C is the formula for combinations.
So a person who had only one shot, the probability is nonpoisonous: 95%, poisonous 5%
From here on out, all calculations are rounded to the nearest whole percent.
A person who had two shots, the probabilities are: both nonpoisonous: 90%, 1 poisonous: 10%, both poisonous 0% (actually 0.25%)
A person who had three shots, the probabilities are: all nonpoisonous: 86%, 1 poisonous: 14%, 2 poisonous: 1%, all 3 poisonous: 0% (actually 1/80th of a %) The reason why the total is above 100% is due to rounding error.
A person who had 4 shots, the probabilities are: all nonpoisonous: 81%, 1 poisonous: 17%, 2 poisonous: 1%, 3 poisonous: 0.05%, all 4 poisonous: 1/1600 of a %
A person who had 5 shots, the probabilities are: all nonpoisonous: 77%, 1 poisonous: 20%, 2 poisonous: 2%
A person who had 6 shots, the probabilities are:
all nonpoisonous: 74%, 1 poisonous: 23%, 2 poisonous: 3%
A person who had 7 shots, the probabilities are: all nonpoisonous: 70%, 1 poisonous: 26%, 2 poisonous: 4%
A person who had 8 shots, the probabilities are:
all nonpoisonous: 66%, 1 poisonous: 28%, 2 poisonous: 5%, 3 poisonous 1%
I'll stop here since I doubt that no one has yet had 8 shots. If you look at the figures, you can see that people getting these shots are playing a game of Russian roulette with the odds increasing going against their favor. Remember though that this relies on two key assumptions made at the beginning of this post.
As you can see, a person who takes 8 shots risks a 2 out of 3 chance of NOT getting poisoned. I you presented this person with a bowl of 300 M&Ms and told them that 1 out of 3 of them was poisonous, would they reach in and take a handleful?
What got me was how the probability of getting only one poisonous shot out of many rose with each shot taken. After all, it only takes one to cause an injury or death. I'm sure that others here on GAW can add other interpretations of these numbers and I welcome them to do so. I just wanted to throw this out there are continue the discussion that was started yesterday.
Thanks for doing the stats on that.
The things is, I'm not convinced they were all non-poisonous. Some are toxic, some aren't, but they were all intended to do harm. Your numbers are probably pretty close for a toxic shot.
So what complicates things is taking into account the probabilities of some people to cope with a non-toxic, but health degrading shot, and how many before the vax sends them over the cliff?
All good questions and points. I based these numbers on what was mentioned in the linked articles in the posts. I, too, believe the numbers are much worse. The 4th link in my post is a UK study that examined reported injuries and deaths from all distributed vaxxes. It has 486 pages of data ranging from most reported injuries to the least. I went to the last page and the numbers I found there were too much for public distribution.
Honestly, I appreciate what you did here. As an engineer, I understand perfectly well the assumptions required to provide valid data. I tend to focus on pattern recognition, which is more in my wheel-house, and the patterns I'm seeing are not good. It would take more time than I have to pull it all together though, and some of the things that paint the picture are not what others would consider significant - in time that changes, but by then the insignificant cracks don't matter, the dam has burst.
Great analysis and digging. You should make this an independent post each and every week.