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.
Good work. Let's hope your assumptions are correct. Dr. Ryan Cole has made the point that batches could have also been effected by temperature and storage. MRNA components are rendered ineffective with heat - shown by early claims the VAXXX must be kept very cold. If your (VAXXXT) batch sat in the trunk of someone's car in the heat --- you may get to live.
Thanks for the compliment. The assumptions were not my own but were made by the articles I linked.
Yup. I'm wondering if even distribution of VAXXX actually happened. Evidence seems to show the worst batches went to red states -- of course. That would maximize evil. Thanks for the informative post.
There's also a theory that the adverse effects are actually fairly uniform, but the reporting of them isn't. Since red states are less likely to cover up adverse events, you would see more of them being reported from there.
That is correct. Let's remember that all these probabilities are based upon original data that was derived from the VAERS system, which is already flawed and only captures a small percentage of vaxxine side effects. The vast majority of vaxxine injury does not get reported. Even though this data can give us an indication as far as signals, it should not be used to extrapolate overall safety numbers as far as risk. That could give the impression that the safety profile is much better than what the reality is. Data that would give us better risk evaluations is being held internally by either the government or the drug companies. But, this piece of a much larger picture that we do have, no matter how flawed, is a signal of harm that is damning and should not be discounted.
Does that then mean that the bad batches are double what was reported -- 10% instead of 5%?
Possibly. I don't know.
Dr. Tenpenny - She says right now there seems to be 4 levels of dying from the Covid jab now.
#1 Immediately or a few days after the jab.
#2 Death from the spike proteins - 2-3 months after the jab.
#3 Antibody Dep. Enhancement where your body battles itself. Years after the jab.
#4 Death due to chronic, long term disease from the jab, i.e. cancer. Long term.
In this worldwide human experiments they have found different ingredients in different lots. In the past, that alone would have been enough to stop production. And in the past if 10-15 people died from a vaccine, they would halt it's use.
Tenpenny also said within the same lots they are able to add different ingredients and change the components. They are allowed to do this because of "emergency mandates". They can change the formula of a lot up to 49%. They aren't obligated to notify ANYONE or any agency. There's no oversight.
They give saline to the big cheeses. I don't think they would do that for the average person. We unjabbed are the control group. Perhaps they added a technology that won't show up for a long time.
Tenpenny said we are just at the beginning of SADS. She predicts it will have a uptick spike in the shape of a hockey stick.
Like many of us said last year and prior, this EUA was their way to conduct clinical trials for their bullshit serum under the cover of a pandemic in order to cover up the inevitable deaths.
As a post here pointed out last month, drug companies are going to lose their patents on many vaccines hence their run to market something new, allegedly.
Good point. Damn, lots of war fog.
I believe the distribution was uneven. I feel like the WEF allowed the leaders in the cabinets they had penetrated to choose how many of their populous would be sacrificed to the climate agenda. Maybe they had to draw straws and the short straws got bad batches who knows. Trudeau acting like Canadians owe him something like he did us all a favor. It may come out in the future when he is facing the music that he negotiated that Canada would be mostly spared from the depop.
Time to start building gallows.
. I think the 5% figure is for immediate or very short term side effects. Anyone who got anything but a placebo will likely have some damage even if they don't die immediately. Mid and long term side effects may take years to realize, hence why they wanted the global "study" to continue thru 2024+. My FIL died in the fall vaxxed who knows how many times as he was in LTC for dementia already, his wife, daughter and both her kids all vaxxed (no idea how many times as we don't discuss it) but none of them are awake. My MIL has definite increase in memory issues since taking jabs, but otherwise seems fine. SIL has looked like death since taking both initial jabs in 2021, reacted horribly, but is somehow still alive. Her kids will likely take every jab requested of them for school in WA and for job in MI. The mRNA is far worse than a traditional jab which is also bad, and not to be a pessimist, but all the lab animals did die...
100% agree with you on the short term statement. We need autopsies/studies ASAP.
We need to prioritize autopsies and studies ASAP by independent researchers. I think the 5% batch label is misleading/incorrect (it is just the start). I hope I am wrong tho.
And the Twittter docs showed NO testing period...Not even on animals.
I had to look up if Twitter dropped the Fauci files yet due to your post. From my quick search, it looks like the Fauci files have not dropped yet. The estimated date is sometime in February due to a "key researcher" that can only travel to Twitter in Feb. IMO, one of the playbooks the WHs use is saying that "x will drop on (insert date here)." And then come up with some excuse why it was delayed. Insert some FF happening to distract from the news. IMO, they are tracking the events and figuring out who is working in the shadows. Then drop the news/info. Looking forward to more information from the Twitter files. No animal studies is mind boggling to me tho...
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.
I'd guess that most providers weren't aware or willing to consider that these products were causing injury, so they would be biased against reporting. They would be more likely to gaslight the injured into not reporting it as an side effect. It would therefore stand to reason there are probably a greater percentage of bad batches than 5%.
I agree. That’s why I emphasized the assumptions from the posts.
Dr. Doug wrote this in 2020, he believes that your body can filter out the first shot if you don’t get another, but if you get the booster, you’re pretty much pwned. I’m thankful for those who are applying critical thinking and not just pulling BS out of their anus.
https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/2020/08/01/is-a-coronavirus-vaccine-a-ticking-time-bomb/
Thank you for the ciphering. Good meme material for the non-statistical types.
Thanks UF. I also want to thank you for the Sunday Funnies. It's the first thing I read when I come home from church.
I am also curious about the JnJ shot, which originally was a single dose, then they recommended it be supplemented with an mRNA booster. The clotting incidents from that shot, I read, were truly rare. I wonder what the chances of injury or death is to someone who only took the single JnJ jab.
By the way, nice probability analysis. Quant was my favorite math course in college.
so am I. no real info on the dangers of the J and J but a lot on Moderna, Pfizer and Astra Zeneca. had the J and J only. I am concerned and want info because that was the only shot that was non MNRA.
Yes it’s strange to me that I cannot find anything on J&J - positive or negative. Something tells me they did not want the J&J “counting” and needed the population to get the mRNA shots.
I suspected that as well. My husband had to get shot to keep his job. I told him it was his decision but I insisted he get J&J. No problem finding J&J. Then came boosters. It was nearly impossible to find J&J at that point. Finally found a pharmacy, but I firmly believe the goal was to get as much mRNA in people as they could.
Edit to add: just checked on vax stock locally in my area. 35 locations offer Moderna. 44 offer Pfizer. J&J? Eight.
Good questions that need to be looked into.
There was mention recently that the batches were watered down at the start so sudden death wouldn't stand out and prevent others from vaxxing.
I may very well be wrong, but I don't think that any of the boosters where placebos. When you have a study, patients receive the same formulation all of the way through the trial. They don't appear to care. They said you don't even have to use the same makers brand. I think all of the boosters are poison.
This is a good perspective, but this is also extremely incomplete because the batches are not perfectly randomly distributed as far as geography. In other words, I saw a study that stated that these batches were given out mostly in a swath of Northern states, specifically, I believe, montana, North dakota, minnesota, wisconsin, Michigan. So, assuming that the bad batches are mostly running around, say, where you live, I would imagine that the odds would be significantly higher.
There is one thing which I think will occur but would be difficult to model, so I'm just saying ti for completeness.
I expect the vax batches can interact and some only marginally bad vaxes may be exacerbated by later vaxes.
Good thing you are a maths teacher fren!
May I add that a large amount of people could have gotten bad batches, but their own bodily physiology and health could keep them alive?
Remember that a lot of people in good health have died suddenly.
My mathematical prowess has been shown for what it really is, LACKING! KEK
Very good post.
Let’s notice that the injury that ends with a fatal result (death) may require only 1 poisonous shot.
In the Russian roulette the first fatal shot ends the game, because the failure is immediate.
In case of the vaxx we don’t look at the probability of “1 poisonous”. We look at ANY. If ANY shot was poisonous - it can have fatal results after some time.
To calculate “ANY was poisonous” it’s as easy as to subtract:
ANY was poisonous = 100% - “all nonpoisonous”
which it’s increasing with the number of shots.
The conclusion is (and you can notice it just looking at “all nonpoisonous” figure only) that the longer you play the game - the chances to survive decrease.
And that’s what it makes it so similar to the Russian roulette.
My point exactly at the end of the post.
Oh, yes. True.
There's also a theory that the adverse effects are actually fairly uniform, but the reporting of them isn't. A large percentage of the adverse reactions reported are from red states, which are less likely to cover up adverse events than blue states.
I respectfully disagree with the false hope conjecture. The numbers were a conservative estimate based on two articles. The percents here show that few will not be affected by depop op. If the true number was just 1% higher, then the numbers are more astronomical. In the real world, the percentage of bad batches is probably much higher. If you check the chart that was the 4th link of my post, even the batches that produced fewer injuries/deaths were too high for public consumption.
I agree. Can you imagine what the numbers would be with a higher percentage?
“4-6% will be lost forever”………
I’m not sure your math is correct.
If I take 2 shots both having a 95/5 ratio my chance of poison is still 5%, not 10%.
It doesn’t work that. The formula I provided is the way to do the calculation. Many others who posted comments and have a meth background confirm this. You can also look the formula up.
I'm sure that was a typo, but I did laugh at "meth background."
I agree to disagree, here’s an example of my math:
If you have a potential to take 100 shots and 5 out of that batch are poison you have a 5% chance to get poison. This we both agree on.
If you double your potential to 200 shots (2 batches of 100) and 10 of those are poison this is still a 5% chance. You’re saying it’s a 10% chance but that’s not how statistics work. You tell me to look it up and I’m sure I’m right so I’m not going to. So let’s agree to disagree.
Otherwise your points are well put together, I enjoyed reading, I didn’t make it a point to say that in my first comment so I apologize. Sometimes I just dive into my point without giving kudos and that’s something I’m working on myself about.
I don't mean to insult you, but you should take courses in basic, then intermediate, statistics or probability. I taught it for 10 of my 41 years as a hs math teacher.
Any speculation as to whether the “bad batches” were released at a particular time and if they are continuing?
So the other 95% are good? Define GOOD.
They didn’t mean to kill people. Some batches just got too warm. Gotcha!
Do we know if batches are the same size? Or if the % of bad batches is moving in one direction or the other over time?
I'm pretty sure that the 5% are the 4-6% that are totally brainwashed and lost forever.
So wait your basing this all of 2 memes that said that 5% of vaccines were bad???
Like what sources do you have to back up the 5% number? As someone once said “When you see ‘anonymous source,’ stop reading the story, it is fiction!”
Like yall, are we so stupid as to get our facts from anonymous sources in a meme??? Can we go back to "dont believe everything you read on the internet"??
Not two memes, but two articles that had a lot of data linked to it. Check out the links I included in the beginning.
Yeah that "howbad" site is pretty much just a meme. Go look up that picture of the child with herpies thats on that page. The docutors that worked on the case literally dont ever mention covid or the vaccine but it was "a vaccine injury"???
They also just site themselves as the source several time "read our report on the home page" which just isnt how things work.
Even by their own report their misrepresenting their own data, "On p21 of this report, we read that 8152 of these cases reported an outbreak of Herpes Zoster. So a whopping 20% of the reported adverse reactions recorded an outbreak of Herpes" Herpes Zoster (vzv) is not the same as herpes (hsv) , zoster is shingles, hsv is herpes.
Vzv comes from being exposed to chicken pox, like that baby was in the womb. And if were not worry about small numbers of deaths, like with how many people died of covid, shingles has a whooping 100 deaths a year world wide. Sp very deadly