You Are 25X more likely to be injured, 20X more likely to die Post Covid Vax

Written by Steve Kirsch on August 12, 2022. Posted in Current News

When you combine this result with negative vaccine efficacy, the COVID shots are completely nonsensical. Nobody should take them. We couldn’t find a single supportive anecdote!

I recently learned about conservative radio show host Wayne Root’s stunning anecdotal evidence about the 200 people who attended his wedding. He tracked what happened just 8 months after the wedding: 26 were injured and 7 died in the vaccinated group but nothing happened to people in the unvaccinated group, even though Wayne estimated that most of the guests were unvaccinated.

I loved the setup: it’s an almost “as good as it gets real-life randomized trial.”

A single anecdote isn’t compelling. What is compelling is that others are observing the same huge event rates. Wayne is hardly an outlier.

And the fact we can’t seem to find any stories equally extreme on the opposite side has got to be very troubling for those supporting the “safe and effective” narrative.

This is the type of post-marketing research the CDC should be doing: they should follow matched (or randomly selected) groups of vaxxed and unvaxxed people over time to document injuries and deaths just like Wayne did. If Wayne can do this, why can’t the CDC? The signal is huge.

Since none of Wayne’s friends died pre-vaccine (Wayne is 61), this suggests that hypotheses such as this one are consistent with what Wayne observed:

In the year after you are vaccinated with the COVID “vaccines”

• you are 25X more likely to be injured and 20X more likely to die
• expect at least a seven percent rate of serious injury and a two percent chance of death

I validated that Wayne’s numbers weren’t just a fluke with surveys of my reader base. Over 600 readers responded and the numbers were very similar: 21 injuries and 5 deaths per 100 vaccinated, which is very close to the numbers reported by Wayne (assuming he had an even mix of vaxxed/unvaxxed guests).

An article on The Expose just claimed that 1 in every 246 Vaccinated People has died within 60 days of Covid-19 Vaccination in England according to the UK Government which is a factor of 5 lower than my hypothesis, but that’s just limited to the first 60 days after a single dose.

And then I went even further looking for anecdotal evidence that Wayne was wrong. I asked my 50,000 followers on Gab for opposite anecdotes. None of the 372 people had an anecdote supporting use of the vaccine. Stunning.

Just comparing the number of anecdotes on each side of the narrative makes it very clear that the vaccines are making things worse.

When you combine this with the evidence of negative vaccine efficacy (VE), such as this article on San Diego by my good friend Mathew Crawford, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that there isn’t any benefit at all in any dimension to support the use of the COVID “vaccines.”

I invite all fact checkers to:

1. Verify my data. The survey data, including the full contact info for each of the 600 respondents, is available for any fact checker to verify.
2. Do their own survey. Mine was done in full public view.
3. Explain why nobody I asked knew of any positive anecdotes.

When you combine all of this with the fact that

The COVID vaccines kill people at a rate that is 1,000X times higher than the Smallpox vaccine (which is deemed too unsafe to use),

it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that the “vaccines” should be stopped immediately.

Here is the punchline from the poll

If you’ve been vaccinated, you are:

• 25X more likely to be seriously injured compared to the COVID unvaxxed
• 20X more likely to die compared to the COVID unvaxxed

This means that Wayne’s results were in fact, pretty much in line with expectations based on what I discovered in the poll.

Since Wayne is a conservative, he’s going to have fewer friends who are vaccinated than the national average (70 percent).

If Wayne had only 125 vaccinated friends and 75 unvaccinated friends, here are the actuals and my prediction using the survey data in parens:

As you can see, the estimate (in parens) is quite close to what was observed suggesting we are close to the target in the survey of my followers.

The details

Here’s the data I used. That link doesn’t disclose name and contact info (for privacy reasons), but the contact info is available for any “fact checker” who wants to verify each record. The comments are most enlightening as well.

At the time I did the calculation, there were 631 records submitted that passed basic sanity checks, all from different people.

vaxxed: 4910, 1039, 235 (total, injured, dead)
unvaxxed: 3475, 29, 8 (total, injured, dead)

Vaxxed
1039/4910 = 21.1 percent injured
235/4910 = 4.7 percent dead
Unvaxxed
29/3475 = 0.83 percent injured
8/3475 = 0.23 percent dead

Implications (from 2021 to present). If you are vaccinated, you are:
21.1/.83 = 25 X more likely to be injured
4.7/.23 = 20 X more likely to be killed

Note: the people taking the survey did not make any judgments at all as to causality. They just entered numbers observed for each category. You can see from the comments that they were appalled by what they observed.

So we have quite a stunning result that is easy to remember: you are >20X more likely to be injured or die if you’ve been vaccinated.

Adjusting the numbers based on the bias of my followers

Now we need to possibly adjust the numbers because my followers do not represent a random cross section of America.

Let’s look at the makeup of my followers:

So this just results in a higher percentage of unvaccinated responses in the survey since I’m basically asking unvaccinated people. If I was doing a survey on percentage vaccinated in America, surveying my followers would be a very bad idea! But for this topic, where we are looking at the injury rate of vaxxed compared to unvaxed, having mostly all unvaccinated responders doesn’t skew the results at all; it simply means I have more unvaxed data points in my ratio (and even with the skew, there are still more total vaxxed data points).

Also, my followers will have higher awareness of injury and death around them than the typical blue pilled person, so the numbers will likely be closer to the truth. They aren’t going to make up injuries that are not present but they are less likely to miss injuries that ARE present.

Finally, we are looking at the damage ratios of the vaxxed vs. unvaxxed so again, this is invariant of the mix of the responders (vaxxed vs. unvaxxed).

Because I have ~two percent vaccine injured, that’s lower than surveys show for neutral audiences so if we applied a correction, we’d have to make the vaccine numbers worse!

I likely have a smarter and healthier group of readers than normal, so that might skew the numbers somewhat. If my readers are much less likely to die than average, then that could explain the much larger effect of the vaccine on them.

The biggest bias is respondent bias. Unlike a survey company, I didn’t pick the respondents. I asked my readers to complete the poll. You are much more likely to fill out the poll if you have a compelling story to tell. This is why my numbers are much higher than normal.

So we have an upper bound. For that reason, it is unlikely that the actual numbers are worse than this:

Vaxxed
1039/4910 = 21.1 percent injured
235/4910 = 4.7 percent dead

But here’s the really interesting point. If Wayne had 125 vaccinated guests out of 200, then the figures we got match his observations.

So while these numbers seem very high, they do match Wayne’s numbers.

Note that we didn’t track the age of our readers or the people they reported. That would be a much tougher survey to complete.

There is also likely to be some bias in that people who have seen damages may be more likely to fill out the survey than people who haven’t seen any damages at all. So if anything our survey might overstate the percentages.

However, the fact that our numbers are pretty close to what Wayne observed suggests we are over the target.

Data inconsistency

These numbers aren’t consistent with other numbers. Which one is right? We don’t have enough trustable information to answer that question right now.

Tracking numbers outside the family unit

This “problem” is happening to pretty everyone who is aware of what is going on around them.

Read this post by Anita Jader. She’s exceptional because she’s been very methodical about tracking what’s happening around her.

Have you ever seen a post like this in your life? I have not. That alone should tell you that something is very wrong. She lists 18 unusual events happening to people she’s in touch with and then asks, “How much more do you need before you’ll see an association?”

If the vaccine is safe and effective, the anecdotes are hard to explain. The lack of anecdotes on the pro-vaccine side again suggests we are over the target.

For fact checkers

The full dataset is available to any fact checker who is willing to verify the entries, signs an NDA to keep the names and contacts private, and who guarantees to publish the result, even if it is counter-narrative. After all, it’s important for America to know the truth, isn’t it? That’s what the fact checkers are supposed to do!

Summary

The all-cause morbidity and mortality data that anyone can collect (just like I did) is consistent with other evidence and shows that COVID vaccine program should be stopped immediately.

This is also obvious when looking for negative anecdotes vs. positive anecdotes. I couldn’t find a single positive anecdote. None of the 876 anecdotes from my readers individually supported use of the vaccine and in aggregate, there was no comparison. See for yourself and read the comments as well.

See more here: substack.com

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.