Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Joy Lucette Garner's avatar

My calculation, after reading their "final report" and then digging to find the TRUTH, was that they murdered AT LEAST 10K (or 11% of the people who took their jabs in the experiment) during the trials. All of these were later "excluded" from being a "participant" EVEN THOUGH they'd been jabbed at least once. So because they were no longer considered to be "participants" they were never even MENTIONED in the final report. Instead, they said "Of the PARTICIPANTS (rather than "of everyone who took the shot") only 0.87% were excluded."

So there's your word salad. Since they decided to exclude them (after they DIED) they were no longer considered to be "participants" and therefore didn't need to be mentioned in the full/final report. It took me many hours of digging to locate their REAL exclusion list, i.e., the people who were no longer counted as "participants" but who DID get jabbed and then either DIED, or where so sick they REFUSED to take another jab.

They hid this document amongst thousands of mislabeled PDFs. I've linked to the specific document on my feed covering this issue.

Expand full comment
Lee Muller's avatar

So would this be an estimated variable added after an under-reporting factor (URF) is applied? If so, how may that estimated variable be added when number of deaths, life-threatening, permanent disability, or other serious events vary? Is there an estimated factor to be used on number of reports deleted, that indicates the difference between deleted unnecessarily vs. for a good legitimate reason?

Expand full comment
32 more comments...

No posts