The under-reporting factor is probably greater than the numbers you came up with. The people who reported to VAERS from V-Safe were at least aware of the connection between vax and injury, where a good portion of the public just aren’t. Literally no one I know personally makes the connection...including my brother in law who developed blood clots in his lungs along with kidney issues shortly after his shots.
Del Bigtree pointed out that the v-safe users are an interesting cohort. These are "early adopters" of the vaccines, keen and often ahead of mandated vaccination for decreasing age groups. So their bias in favour of the vaccines means that their reporting can't be attributed to grievance against the mandated programme...
Send to Walensky, Marks & Collins so that they can ignore it like everything else. Steve can show up on their doorsteps, as he has proved, and they will not open the door. Disgraceful.
My intuition tells me that the URF may be somewhat less for death. The Columbia U paper (Oct ‘21) estimated URF~20.
Ed Dowd reported that about 61000 mandated employees with group life policies died in 2021. It seems like good data because real $$ was paid out requiring a body and death certificate. It suggests a population of 61M mandated employees covered by group life.
I can’t know just what data are recorded for this population as they so compliantly contribute to excess mortality, to Klaus Schwab’s delight, no doubt.
I’m proposing a mighty big IF. WHAT IF the time T from the last shot to passing could be plotted against waning population for those who have died and tracked as more out of these 60M mandated employees die going forward. The quantity log T versus Z (inverse normal distribution of rank/(N+0.5) ) might indicate one or more trend lines of population depletion versus time.
It might tell us if Rochelle is likely to vote in 2024. It might tell us if groups stratified by age and number of boosters are on track to perish by immune escape over the next decade.
This would be easy with all required data recorded, unlikely though that may be, I can appreciate. The Columbia study seemed to have these data (weeks post vacs).
Just a thought. This is one way device lifetime is modeled, often works great. After all, our human population has been reduced to a bunch of gadgets with “failure modes.” The shots by all accounts induce a few prominent “failure modes” with likely distinct MTTF (mean time to failure).
It is also affected by childhood vaccine history, with ages 35 to 44 spiking excess mortality in Q3 ‘21 by 100%. Age 35 happened to be birth year 1986. This group would have been hammered by the exponential vaccine frenzy both from birth as well lots of “catch up” shots for older kids’ school attendance.
So I surmise sensitivity to death by COVID shots is influenced by prior vaccine damage, even remaining subclinical until the COVID shot coup-de-gras.
The MTTF projections would be valuable if such plots yielded meaningful regressions.
Nov 16, 2022·edited Nov 16, 2022Liked by Jessica Rose
The dichotomy between usual practice (mRNA/LNPjabbing) and enforcing a post hoc rigorous "scientific" experimental scrutiny of a temporally related jab injury or death means that any suggestion where there may be a <95% probability of confounding is auto-dismissed.
Instead of relying on the legal balance 50/50 of evidence, an ideological metric is imposed rendering it improbable that an adverse event will be causally related to the jab. And that is before the physical, financial and coercive impeding of reporting is applied.
Scam, assault and hide. There just aren't sufficient lamp posts in Christendom.
1,344,330 missed work or school due to the vaccine.
1,225,867 were unable to conduct normal activities.
I wonder if you have any clarity around whether these are exclusive categories, or if there is strong overlap. It seems easy to imagine most people ticking both boxes, since they cover the same ground.
Is there any way to figure the total headcount of the combined category, if they are indeed nonexclusive?
This is tremendous analytical work you are doing. And you have clearly and concisely described a complex process in layman’s terms. Really love your work.
''Taking the v-safe data as a standard reference, the AIFA spontaneous reporting system suffers from a rate of about 99.92%; that is, less than 1 in 1000 adverse events are reported to the system. Under reporting is even higher in the case of severe adverse events.''
You have nailed it again. You were early on an accurate assessment of the URF and now one more study has confirmed your results. In the past URF from VAERS was understood to be present and data was used appropriately to stop vaccines. Now there is a pro-vax group reminding us, "Anybody can call in, not just health care people and many of these are just ignorant, unhappy, anti-science, anti-vaxxers. Just ignore them cause the vaccines are just fine." Many, like Dr. Rose, knew this was happening but were ignored. It's getting harder to ignore us but we haven't quite broke through to the rulers yet. You'll know it's happening when that famous medical science journal "The Atlantic" starts have actual data about complications from vaccines.
The under-reporting factor is probably greater than the numbers you came up with. The people who reported to VAERS from V-Safe were at least aware of the connection between vax and injury, where a good portion of the public just aren’t. Literally no one I know personally makes the connection...including my brother in law who developed blood clots in his lungs along with kidney issues shortly after his shots.
Del Bigtree pointed out that the v-safe users are an interesting cohort. These are "early adopters" of the vaccines, keen and often ahead of mandated vaccination for decreasing age groups. So their bias in favour of the vaccines means that their reporting can't be attributed to grievance against the mandated programme...
Send to Walensky, Marks & Collins so that they can ignore it like everything else. Steve can show up on their doorsteps, as he has proved, and they will not open the door. Disgraceful.
There has been nothing less than a 10,000' tsunami of evidence of guilt regarding COVID crimes.
And the waves intensify by the day.
Good. :)
My intuition tells me that the URF may be somewhat less for death. The Columbia U paper (Oct ‘21) estimated URF~20.
Ed Dowd reported that about 61000 mandated employees with group life policies died in 2021. It seems like good data because real $$ was paid out requiring a body and death certificate. It suggests a population of 61M mandated employees covered by group life.
I can’t know just what data are recorded for this population as they so compliantly contribute to excess mortality, to Klaus Schwab’s delight, no doubt.
I’m proposing a mighty big IF. WHAT IF the time T from the last shot to passing could be plotted against waning population for those who have died and tracked as more out of these 60M mandated employees die going forward. The quantity log T versus Z (inverse normal distribution of rank/(N+0.5) ) might indicate one or more trend lines of population depletion versus time.
It might tell us if Rochelle is likely to vote in 2024. It might tell us if groups stratified by age and number of boosters are on track to perish by immune escape over the next decade.
This would be easy with all required data recorded, unlikely though that may be, I can appreciate. The Columbia study seemed to have these data (weeks post vacs).
Just a thought. This is one way device lifetime is modeled, often works great. After all, our human population has been reduced to a bunch of gadgets with “failure modes.” The shots by all accounts induce a few prominent “failure modes” with likely distinct MTTF (mean time to failure).
It is also affected by childhood vaccine history, with ages 35 to 44 spiking excess mortality in Q3 ‘21 by 100%. Age 35 happened to be birth year 1986. This group would have been hammered by the exponential vaccine frenzy both from birth as well lots of “catch up” shots for older kids’ school attendance.
So I surmise sensitivity to death by COVID shots is influenced by prior vaccine damage, even remaining subclinical until the COVID shot coup-de-gras.
The MTTF projections would be valuable if such plots yielded meaningful regressions.
Fantastic sleuthing and reporting by you two. Damning conclusions, for sure.
Thank you, Jessica. Amazing reporting, as always.
Steve Kirsch noted that his emails are now blocked by the CDC.
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/the-cdc-is-now-blocking-my-emails
The dichotomy between usual practice (mRNA/LNPjabbing) and enforcing a post hoc rigorous "scientific" experimental scrutiny of a temporally related jab injury or death means that any suggestion where there may be a <95% probability of confounding is auto-dismissed.
Instead of relying on the legal balance 50/50 of evidence, an ideological metric is imposed rendering it improbable that an adverse event will be causally related to the jab. And that is before the physical, financial and coercive impeding of reporting is applied.
Scam, assault and hide. There just aren't sufficient lamp posts in Christendom.
1,344,330 missed work or school due to the vaccine.
1,225,867 were unable to conduct normal activities.
I wonder if you have any clarity around whether these are exclusive categories, or if there is strong overlap. It seems easy to imagine most people ticking both boxes, since they cover the same ground.
Is there any way to figure the total headcount of the combined category, if they are indeed nonexclusive?
This winter will be the test
This is tremendous analytical work you are doing. And you have clearly and concisely described a complex process in layman’s terms. Really love your work.
Well done Jessica. I recall another recent paper looking at V-SAFE and under-reporting.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/23/18/10881
''Taking the v-safe data as a standard reference, the AIFA spontaneous reporting system suffers from a rate of about 99.92%; that is, less than 1 in 1000 adverse events are reported to the system. Under reporting is even higher in the case of severe adverse events.''
All power to you! You are doing God's work. Your true colours are shining through.
Rather than sending this to NIH/FDA, send it to Senators Johnson and Paul.
Also send it to your local Congressman, particularly if he is a Democrat. (She/Her also included!)
You have nailed it again. You were early on an accurate assessment of the URF and now one more study has confirmed your results. In the past URF from VAERS was understood to be present and data was used appropriately to stop vaccines. Now there is a pro-vax group reminding us, "Anybody can call in, not just health care people and many of these are just ignorant, unhappy, anti-science, anti-vaxxers. Just ignore them cause the vaccines are just fine." Many, like Dr. Rose, knew this was happening but were ignored. It's getting harder to ignore us but we haven't quite broke through to the rulers yet. You'll know it's happening when that famous medical science journal "The Atlantic" starts have actual data about complications from vaccines.
Congrats! Keep up your Vitaly Important work!