Of the 19,756 cases in VAERS where a patient's symptom is blood clots, only 17 (.09 of one percent) cases published to VAERS were NOT 'vaccinated' with the Covid 'vaccine'.

medalerts.org ^ | 2/5/2022 | vanity

[Steve_Seattle]

I don’t understand the 99.91% claim. There are more than 1,000 entries for the non-Covid vaccines, so the percentage should be about 95% (approx. 19,739/20,749), not 99.91%. That’s still a huge percentage, but not what the chart claims.

[Robert DeLong]

Let me see if I can help you here:

Below is the VAERS vaccination counts for blood clots:

The first column lists the vaccine type received. It starts with the vaccine for Covid-19, and is followed by the vaccine for HPV, and then the vaccine for Influenza, and so on, and so on.

, down the entire list The second column lists the number adverse reactions of blood clots for that vaccine type. For Covid-19 that number is 19,739.

In the third column is the percentage of blood clotting adverse effect that the Covid-19 vaccine represents of all of the vaccine types listed in the first column. That percentage is 99.91% of blood clotting adverse effects reported are because of the Covid-19 vaccine.

The remaining .09 percentage of the blood clotting adverse effects are attributed to, and distributed amongst, all of the other vaccines listed in the first column.

Thus, the 17 (.09%) are not of people who didn't get a vaccine, they are the number that didn't receive a Covid-19 vaccine shot. Instead, they had received one of the vaccines listed in the first column.

Does that help?

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Of the 19,756 cases in VAERS where a patient's symptom is blood clots, only 17 (.09 of one percent) cases published to VAERS were NOT 'vaccinated' with the Covid 'vaccine'., faucetman wrote:

“...cases published to VAERS...”

The poster was correct. Why would you publish to VAERS...” adverse events of the NON-VACCINATED?

 

Why leave out the words "with the Covid 'vaccine' as shown in the title? To make it sound impossible to understand?

All but 17 cases out of approx 20,000 case reports of clots published to VAERS were among patients vaccinated with the Covid 'vaccine'.

Patients experiencing blood clots post vaccination:

Almost 20,000 people 'vaccinated' with Covid 'shots'.

17 received vaccine(s) but not a Covid 'shot'.

Therefore 99.9% of blood clot cases published to VAERS are patients who had a Covid 'vaccination'.

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Of the 19,756 cases in VAERS where a patient's symptom is blood clots, only 17 (.09 of one percent) cases published to VAERS were NOT 'vaccinated' with the Covid 'vaccine'., Steve_Seattle wrote:

I don’t understand the 99.91% claim. There are more than 1,000 entries for the non-Covid vaccines, so the percentage should be about 95% (approx. 19,739/20,749), not 99.91%. That’s still a huge percentage, but not what the chart claims.

There were not 20,749 patient reports. Where did you get that number? Inserting incorrect numbers into the discussion of this pot can only confuse the issue and make it seem like it's harder to understand than it is.

 Of the 19,756 cases where Symptom is Thrombosis, only 17 ( .09 of one percent) cases  published to VAERS were NOT 'vaccinated' with the Covid 'vaccine'.

The chart is accurate.

[ransomnote]

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Of the 19,756 cases in VAERS where a patient's symptom is blood clots, only 17 (.09 of one percent) cases published to VAERS were NOT 'vaccinated' with the Covid 'vaccine'., faucetman wrote:

Again you people miss the point.

“NOT ‘vaccinated’ with the Covid ‘vaccine’.” They are talking about reports involving Covid, not ALL vaccines.

UNVACCINATED events need not report.

*

So you're going to keep insisting that the post means something it doesn't mean and perhaps, in doing so, diminish the importance of this crushing data? It's horrible for humanity, but you go ahead and fuss over terminology, often and loud.

ALMOST EVERY REPORT OF CLOTS POST VACCINATION IN VAERS' 30+ YEARS OF REPORTING ARE FOR PATIENTS RECEIVING COVID 'VACCINATIONS'.

ONLY 17 CASES, out of a total of 19,756 CASES, REPORTING CLOTS TO VAERS DID NOT RECEIVE A COVID 'VACCINATION'.

[Steve_Seattle]

I got the 20,749 figure by added the Covid vaccine number to the numbers for all of the other vaccines. I just eyeballed it, so that probably isn’t the exact number, but it was at least 1,000 - 1,020 more than the 19,000+ showing on the Covid row.

[bray]

Other than strokes and death it is perfectly safe.

[gitmo]

Don’t forget about constant lifelong seizures.

[Robert DeLong]

This is dealing just with blood clots adverse reactions listed in VAERS database.

About VAERS

Background and Public Health Importance Medical professionals working with vaccines

Established in 1990, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a national early warning system to detect possible safety problems in U.S.-licensed vaccines. VAERS is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). VAERS accepts and analyzes reports of adverse events (possible side effects) after a person has received a vaccination. Anyone can report an adverse event to VAERS. Healthcare professionals are required to report certain adverse events and vaccine manufacturers are required to report all adverse events that come to their attention.

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine. This way, VAERS can provide CDC and FDA with valuable information that additional work and evaluation is necessary to further assess a possible safety concern.

[Arcadian Empire]

The CDC and the FDA are the property of Big Pharma.

[zek157]

You do recognize that VAERS is used for all vaccine reactions? Not just covid. It’s been used for 30 years.

[Robert DeLong]

Where are you getting this table from:

'

I know the source is: https://i.imgur.com/2iQ1CRG.png

But when I calculate the percentage of 19,739 (Covid-19) to total 20,277, I get the Covid-19 percentage as being 97.35% not 99.91.

When I add up the percentages for all following Covid-19, and use the percentage I get for Covid-19 (97.35%), I come close to the 102.64 listed, but I get 102.77

When I add up the counts for all vaccines listed, I get 20,801, not 20,277, which is a difference of 524.

When I count up all the other vaccine numbers and leave of Covid19, I get a count of 1,062 + 19,739 = 20,801. Which is again is not 20,277.

Does the Covid-19 number represent that the patient received just the Covid-19 vaccine, or are the mixture of the Covid-19 + whatever other vaccine they were receiving also, included?

Regardless, I cannot match up numbers to the total number of 20,277.

Can you explain these discrepancies? Perhaps I am doing something wrong on reading the data wrong.

Also what is the 41,078 total number listed, and its corresponding percentage of 207.93% actually representing?

[ransomnote]

“Regardless, I cannot match up numbers to the total number of 20,277.”

Thre just isn’t 20,277 cases (patients). There are 19,756 separate cases (patients). There are 20,277 reports of vaccination injury - so there are more vaccine reports of injury than there are people because some individuals had more than one vaccine in a visit. Some people had 2 or more vaccinations. So if ‘Ed’ had a Covid vaccine, an influenza vaccine and a Pneumonia vaccine in a doctor’s visit, and later developed blood clots, that one patient would generate 3 different ‘vaccine injury reports’, one would be attributed to each specific vaccine received in the doctor’s visit.

[Robert DeLong]

Okay, I knew that some patients may have had multiple vaccinations, but I thought the totals were giving the number of patients, but they never provided the patient count in the table. So, that was why I couldn't make the numbers auditable without that number being available. Thanks for clearing that up. I knew there had to be an explanation. 🙂

So, what was the 41,000+ number representing?

[ransomnote]

I don’t know.
Original VAERS is Byzantine and the 3rd parties can post the data, warts and all.