>>13673649But that can't be true because they are ignoring the trend. The trend shows 20x more deaths than the past 20 years of 20+ different real vaccine shots combined. It's not even a question that it's disproportionate 100x now. It's easily 500x and it's entirely ignored. The trend is clearly not "useful" for them to come to conclusions.
*read below btw my reply to other anon applies to this too
>>13673763>If you jab 200 million people, you expect thousands of deaths even if they got a sugar pill instead of a shot. It's normal. >If they die more often than expected, that's something to look into, and that's why that data is being collectedWe have 20x more deaths in VAERS since covid than the past 20 years combined across at least 2 dozen real vaccines.
>b-b-b-b-but muh doctors are required by law to report now!2.8 million died from all causes in 2019
Lets say 2.4 mil over 18 years old died for convenience.
That is 200k die per month
If half the US over 18 got the jab, that is 100k per month die who had the jab at some point
On average, 1 in 9 of them will therefore die within one month of the jab "naturally" if everything balances out (it would be a bell curve distribution of course, some would naturall die the next day, some 9 months later etc, but average dying a month later over a 9 month timespan would be 1/9th)*
so 1/9 X 10k = 11k people get the jab and die a month later on average naturally since the jab rollout.
Throw out a certain % from that by however much you want for accidental deaths, say 10%
So, since jab rollout we should be roughly expecting 10k natural deaths from people who coincidentally took the jab 1 month prior.
Over a 9 month period we had 14k VAERS deaths reported. There's clear concern that the deaths reported are higher than expected natural deaths even when doctors are forced to report. 2k deaths were reported within 48 hours too, That is unthinkable and I might make a post on it.
