The Infamous Pfizer Batch EN6201 - 1 in 33 Chance of Death

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Why is people soo surprised about it, why is people even complaining, it is an experiment and is still and experiment soo hey if you did not die from the jab I guess you were not a lucky chosen.

People keep forgetting over and over that anybody that took the jabs were agreeing to be experimented with.

I been telling for a while that it was warnings that no all batches of the darn jabs were the same.

Is more to come, That is why is called an experiment

a reply to: MapMistress

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

There is a new URF now? I haven't seen the new one. The original Lazarus report was closer to a 100 URF.


Using 126 or more would tripple it, and it would be 1 in 10. Those are pretty scaring odds even for a purposely toxic batch.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

There is a new URF now? I haven't seen the new one. The original Lazarus report was closer to a 100 URF.


Using 126 or more would tripple it, and it would be 1 in 10. Those are pretty scary odds even for a purposely toxic batch.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

There is a new URF now? I haven't seen the new one. The original Lazarus report was closer to a 100 URF.

This 'new' URF I have I calculated today.

Here's how:
I'm a retired software engineer; so I wrote a control that calculates URF.
The program queries a SQL server database (VASRS...complete, todays data) for the count of records containing 'anaphylaxis' as a symptom, and 'covid19' as the "vax_type". This returns the count of distinct records (1045).

The number of vaccines administered is entered manually, and a button pushed. When the query completes (takes a minute or so) those values (manual entry, and data lookup) are applied to this equation: result = MGH / ((anaph / curVaxx) * 1E6).

This will actually give two different URF's; 1) 59.03 for single doses, 2) 126.5 for all doses.

Since my anaphylaxis query did not differentiate 'vax dose series', we should probably use the larger value: 126.5

But, again, this is only my calculator and results.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
Thank you for posting.
This is how they apparently test Pfizer (and probably erery other mrna shot) in the Netherlands (and probaby everywhere).
Pfizer has full control over which samples can be checked.
www.ninefornews.nl...

Btw:
In Denmark they want to delete all corona measures because 'Omicron is just a flu'. Denmark is arguably the most vaccinated country in the world. And omicron bis is pulverizing all stats. Omicron will hopefully remain soft hearted, but that is not why Denmark is stopping the measures. I have the impression that in the most boosted countries, people are most susceptible to corona infection. Hopefully that isn't part of a hidden agenda either. Also btw: In Belgium: front page news: athletes are better screened for heart disease. There are fears of greatly shortened careers because of myocarditis. And corona is to blame… of course. I'm pretty sure the vaccines are the main culprit. Something is going very wrong.

a reply to: mysterioustranger

It's because you don't understand odds.

When you toss a coin and had tails ten times in a row, how high are the odds your next flip is not tails?

It's 50:50.

a reply to: marg6043

It was a shock-horror about a month ago when the insurance company said that the average death rate was up 40% but it is probably at about fifty % now and climbing. The Politicians will do everything to destroy the unvaccinated control group, they will be getting desperate by now. It will be time for a major diversion about now.

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

The OP is using the correct method, problem is the howbad.info website and 41x under reporting figures are clearly made up false data (i.e their methodology of lethality rate). I'd use the same method as the OP personally but wouldn't use the clearly false/misleading howbad.info or 41x claims.

If the under reporting was a factor of 126.5 then where are all the millions of dead bodies? It'd be well over 1 million in the US alone (8000+ x 126.5) which clearly hasn't happened and there's no evidence to support such wild claims.

Even the 41x under reporting assumption is a factor of 50 greater than the actual under-reporting rate backed by evidence and retro-active study.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I recently watched a Dr Meritt video where she mentions this study:
New insights into genetic susceptibility of COVID-19: an ACE2 and TMPRSS2 polymorphism analysis

In the study, it was found that the ACE2 receptor distribution is unevenly distributed across races:

We found that the distribution of deleterious variants in ACE2 differs among 9 populations in gnomAD (v3). Specifically, 39% (24/61) and 54% (33/61) of deleterious variants in ACE2 occur in African/African-American (AFR) and Non-Finnish European (EUR) populations, respectively (Fig. 1b). Prevalence of deleterious variants among Latino/Admixed American (AMR), East Asian (EAS), Finnish (FIN), and South Asian (SAS) populations is 2–10%, while Amish (AMI) and Ashkenazi Jewish (ASJ) populations do not appear to carry such variants in ACE2 coding regions

This shows that the white and black populations have the most ACE2 receptor uptake, which means that the spike proteins in the vaccines will affect them more.
As the OP mentioned, the toxicity differences by batch are not a coincidence. Neither is the choice to target the ACE2 receptors.

It would be interesting to see if the toxic batches were shipped to predominantly white and black neighborhoods, or to cities with high white or black populations.

I'm wondering if there is a genetic sequence this vaccine looks for that kills or seriously injures a person. For example I'm white and my entire family from my parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, cousins...etc and have had no adverse reactions. Yet my wife who is Hispanic and part Native American seven people in her family has died soon after taking the vaccine and they are all men. All her uncles died within weeks of each other and they all got vaccinated around the same time her cousin just got the vaccine and he is now in the ICU four days after injection and is on life support. I find it weird that so many in her family are having this happen soon after the vaccine as if they all share a genetic sequence that this vaccine reacts to. Are the batches that are having a high number of adverse reactions being sent to certain neighborhoods where the community share a certain gene that this virus may seriously react with? All this is above my paygrade, but my observations tell me something isn't right.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You're joking? Med Ergonomist, Med Assist, L.Pharm. Tech, Advanced Disaster Life Support, EMT, Incident Commander

DHS/FEMA/ CERT...and in a month...911-Dispatch in City.

How is it...you assume I don't understand odds?

Excuse me. I'd say if you could propose that to me?

The "odds" are...you..are clueless.

*If we were clueless to odds...you wouldn't call us cause you need treatmenr. What are the odds?

100% to 911

originally posted by: PaladinRoden
I'm wondering if there is a genetic sequence this vaccine looks for that kills or seriously injures a person. For example I'm white and my entire family from my parents, grand parents, aunts, uncles, cousins...etc and have had no adverse reactions. Yet my wife who is Hispanic and part Native American seven people in her family has died soon after taking the vaccine and they are all men. All her uncles died within weeks of each other and they all got vaccinated around the same time her cousin just got the vaccine and he is now in the ICU four days after injection and is on life support. I find it weird that so many in her family are having this happen soon after the vaccine as if they all share a genetic sequence that this vaccine reacts to. Are the batches that are having a high number of adverse reactions being sent to certain neighborhoods where the community share a certain gene that this virus may seriously react with? All this is above my paygrade, but my observations tell me something isn't right.

Did you look up your batch number versus theirs?

The more toxic batches seems to be quick kills while the others may be slow kills, from things like cancer or vaids.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Jimy718

originally posted by: bastion
Using the claimed 41x underreporting measure with the claimed leathility list would mean the majority of batches are killing over 100% of recipients which is mathematically impossible.

The EN6021 batch cited in the OP has a claimed lethality of 3.94% which would bring it to 160% lethality rate - or 16 people dead for every 10 vaccines adminitstered rather than 1 in 33 (3%).

You should try using the same 'math' (method) as the OP. The result would be more like 10% or 1 in 10.

v1rtu0s0: You should use current data, that "URF" (under reporting factor) is more like 126.5 not 41 (calculated from current data, though I would like to limit it to 100).

The OP is using the correct method, problem is the howbad.info website and 41x under reporting figures are clearly made up false data (i.e their methodology of lethality rate). I'd use the same method as the OP personally but wouldn't use the clearly false/misleading howbad.info or 41x claims.

No argument on how bad "howbad" is. My browser should have had a stroke or something...I mean HTML is easy, and you don't even have to know it to build a decent web page.

What is wrong with the methodology used in the "41X" paper? It seemed that using anaphylaxis as a basis was a sound and innovative method.

If the under reporting was a factor of 126.5 then where are all the millions of dead bodies? It'd be well over 1 million in the US alone (8000+ x 126.5) which clearly hasn't happened and there's no evidence to support such wild claims.

Even the 41x under reporting assumption is a factor of 50 greater than the actual under-reporting rate backed by evidence and retro-active study.

Have any links to studies, papers?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0 is there anything on FA9099. My first shot gave me myocarditis and I still am not well 5.5 months later.

I’m in Canada, so I have no idea how these lot numbers compare.

originally posted by: macaronicaesar
a reply to: v1rtu0s0 is there anything on FA9099. My first shot gave me myocarditis and I still am not well 5.5 months later.

I’m in Canada, so I have no idea how these lot numbers compare.

101 ADRs and 2 deaths, 7 disabilities.

Using the 41x under reporting factor we can determine there were approximately 4000 adverse effects from this lot. 150k / 4k = 37.5. A close to 3% chance of a severe adverse effect. It's not the worst batch but it's not the best.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That kind of thing doesn’t even shock me anymore !

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Just curious. I got that batch, EN 6200, I checked after reading this. SHOCK

I got it 10 months ago. No adverse reaction at the time, just a sore arm for one day, no fever, no feeling bad, no nothing at all.

BUT, everyone around me is getting COVID 19, even though we are all triple vaxed. Me, nothing, healthier than ever actually.

So how long before I croak and of what?

This is not a joke, I really nearly died when I looked at my card and saw it was my batch number according to the website the OP directed us to.

What can I expect to die of now and how soon?

originally posted by: The2Billies
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Just curious. I got that batch, EN 6200, I checked after reading this. SHOCK

I got it 10 months ago. No adverse reaction at the time, just a sore arm for one day, no fever, no feeling bad, no nothing at all.

BUT, everyone around me is getting COVID 19, even though we are all triple vaxed. Me, nothing, healthier than ever actually.

So how long before I croak and of what?

This is not a joke, I really nearly died when I looked at my card and saw it was my batch number according to the website the OP directed us to.

What can I expect to die of now and how soon?

A lot of people will develop cancer or other issues like myocarditis which can stay hidden for a long time.

See this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's unknown if spike protein is the only culprit as a lot of scientists are observing the presence of graphene oxide in them also.

From a common sense perspective, the spike proteins bind with ACE2, and there is a high density of ACE2 in the heart, which is also the place all blood pumps through. When it binds with ACE2, this inflammation can trigger a t-cell response to destroy the pathogen and possibly the cell, causing scaring of cardiac tissue AKA myocarditis. Once heart tissue is scarred it doesn't ever get repaired, it's permanently damaged.

www.ahajournals.org...

The way these issues tend to manifest themselves seem to occur depending on where the spike concentrates in the body. The long term effects are unknown, but if cancer was going to manifest it could take a while.

Dr. Ryan Cole predicted the increase in cancers almost a year ago as he was seeing it in his practice.

There are some people using detox strategies with CDS/MMS/black seed oil/quercetin, etc, in an attempt to detox from spike proteins and graphene oxide. Some think it's possible to detox. Keep in mind that through reverse transcriptase the mRNA can become part of the nuclear DNA. Which means spike could be produced forever theoretically. DNA is like storage, mRNA like software, and the spike protein the application.

Theoretically CRISPR or PRIME editing could remove this mRNA sequence from nuclear DNA if one was to cut at the correct exomes. But as far as a an ongoing detox, that would be the best strategy, along with doing a lot of blood work and meeting with a cardiologist, and doctors of other specialties to constantly monitor yourself.