VAERS ANALYSIS (one of several pieces of evidence)
Submitted as evidence for UK crime no. 6029679/21.
Summary of findings

Part 1: The following analysis shows that the SARS Cov 2 vaccine is approximately 91 times
more deadly than the flu vaccine.

Part 2: The analysis also highlights the number of adverse events associated with each SARS
Cov 2 vaccine manufacturer and shows that serious adverse events including death occur foreach manufacturer. While these adverse events occur across a wide range of vaccine batchnumbers, there are some batch numbers that show a disproportionately high number of serious
adverse events.

Part 1: Comparison of SARS Cov 2 vaccine with Flu vaccine
Preliminaries – VAERS Data
This analysis uses the US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data
[https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html]. Unfortunately, the UK equivalent system, known as
the Yellow card system, [ https://coronavirus-yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk], does not makehistorical data available for analysis.

The VAERS data comes with lots of caveats and it is very important to understand these when
performing analysis. For example, it is expected that not all vaccine adverse events arereported on the system and conservative estimates suggest that only 10% of events arereported which would mean that all numbers reported in this statement should be multiplied by
10. This multiplier is referred to as the under-reporting factor.

Other very detailed analysis by Steve Kirsch suggests that the under-reporting factor is as highas 41. This means that all figures reported here should be multiplied by 41[https://www.skirsch.com/covid/Deaths.pdf].

VAERS data, going back to 1990, is available for members of the public to download and acomprehensive user manual explains the meanings of the data fields and how to interpret thedata. [https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERSDataUseGuide_en_September2021.pdf]
For the purpose of this analysis, I define All Adverse Events as being composed of Serious
Adverse Events and Less Serious Adverse Events.

Serious Adverse Events refers to 3 categories of adverse event:1. adverse events that resulted in death;
2. adverse events that resulted in hospitalisations; and3. adverse events that resulted in life threatening conditionsLess Serious Adverse Events refers to all other adverse events.
The analysis covers the period from the start of the SARS Cov 2 vaccine rollout, midDecember 2020 up to 30 November 2021.

The analysis also uses Flu vaccine adverse events from the previous year when the SARS Cov
2 vaccine was not available but the SARS Cov 2 virus was present in the population, 01
January 2020 to 13 December 2020.

Adverse events analysis
Methodology
The following gives a data driven view of the extent to which the SARS Cov 2 vaccines cause
adverse events compared with the conventional flu vaccine.

The analysis compares adverse events reported for the SARS Cov 2 vaccine over the period
since the start of the vaccine roll out in the US: 14 December 2020 to 30 November 2021
(approximately 11.5 months), to the adverse events reported for the Flu vaccine, 1 year earlier,over the period: 01 January 2020 to 13 December 2020 (also, approximately 11.5 months).

It is important to note that the SARS Cov 2 virus was present in the population for both time
periods, but the SARS Cov 2 vaccine was only present in the later time period.

This means that the potential effect of the SARS Cov 2 virus on adverse events is the similar
for both time periods.

According to the CDC, approximately 50% of the US population was vaccinated with the Flu
vaccine over the time period analysed and approximately 70% of the US Population wasvaccinated for SARS Cov 2 over the time period analysed.

US Flu vaccination up-take data can be found at:https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/interactive.htm

US SARS Cov 2 vaccination up-take data can be found at:https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total
If we treat the level of adverse events associated with the Flu vaccine as the ‘gold standard’,
then we can compare SARS Cov 2 vaccine adverse events to this and get an insight into its
relative safety/danger.

Given that we know the percentage of the US population that took the Flu vaccination, andgiven that we know the percentage of the US population that took the SARS Cov 2vaccination, we can make meaningful comparisons between the two while taking account ofvaccine up-take differences in the two groups.

Analysis
Figure 1 below gives a summary of the adverse events reported as a consequence of the SARS
Cov 2 vaccines. There is a total of 50064 serious adverse events and 614681 less serious
adverse events giving an overall total of 664745 adverse events. These figures cover the time
period since the start of the vaccine roll out in the US [14 December 2020 to 30 November
2021 (approximately 11.5 months)]

Adverse Event TypePeople affectedDeaths

8898

Hospitalisations

31303

Life Threatening9863

Total Serious Events

50064

Less Serious Events

614681

Total Adverse Events

664745Figure 1: SARS Cov 2 vaccines - Adverse Events
As the VAERS system reports on all vaccines, we can compare the above with the Adverse
events reported for the Flu vaccine. In order to avoid ambiguity between the effects of theSARS Cov 2 vaccines and the Flu vaccines, we can choose the same time duration but 1 year
earlier: 01 January 2020 to 13 December 2020 (also, approximately 11.5 months).

For all intents and purposes, the only difference between these two time periods is thepresence of the SARS Cov 2 vaccine. Everything else is the same. It is the same population
demographic, it is the same time duration (11.5 months) and the SARS Cov 2 virus waspresent in both cases.
Figure 2 below gives a summary of the adverse events reported as a consequence of the Flu
vaccine, approximately 1 year earlier.

Adverse Event Type

People affectedDeaths

70

Hospitalisations

279

Life Threatening

87

Total Serious Events

436

Less Serious Events

10512

Total Adverse Events

10948

Figure 2: Flu vaccines - Adverse Events

Comparison of the raw numbers between the two vaccines is very alarming.
It could be argued that the reason for the much smaller number of Flu adverse events is aconsequence of the Flu vaccine up-take. However, as noted above, approximately 50% of theUS population was vaccinated for Flu over the analysis time period.

Similarly, as noted above, approximately 70% of the US population has received at least 1
dose of SARS Cov 2 vaccine.

Therefore, if we expect that the safety of the SARS Cov 2 vaccine should be similar to that ofthe ‘gold standard’ Flu vaccine, we would expect the adverse event numbers for SARS Cov 2vaccine to be only 1.4 times more than the figures for the Flu vaccine because 1.4 times more
people have received the SARS Cov 2 vaccine.

The 1.4 factor comes by dividing the percentage of population vaccinated for SARS Cov
2 by the percentage of the population vaccinated for Flu, i.e. (70/50 = 1.4).

Implications
Adjustment for population up-take of the Flu vaccine allows us to make direct comparisons
between the two vaccines, as if the vaccine up-take was the same for both groups.
Figure 3 below gives the adverse event figures for the SARS Cov 2 vaccine and the Flu
vaccine taken from Figures 1 & 2 above (columns A and C). It also gives the Flu vaccine
adverse events figures for the adjusted case reflecting what these figures would be expected tobe if the up-take of the Flu vaccine had been 70%, i.e. the same as the SARS Cov 2 vaccine,Column B.

A SARS Cov 2 Vaccine additional risk factor (column D) can be calculated by dividing
Column C by Column B

SARS Cov 2Flu Vaccine

VaccinePeoplePeopleAdverse Event

affected

affected if

Type50% up-the up-taketakewas 70%A

B

C

DDeaths

7098

8898

91

Hospitalisations

279

391

31303

80

87

122

9863

81

436

610

50064

82

10512

14717

614681

42

10948

15327

66474543

Peopleaffected 70%up-take

SARS Cov
2 Vaccine
additionalrisk factor

LiveThreatening
Total Serious
EventsLess Serious
EventsTotal Adverse
EventsFigure 3: Calculation of SARS Cov 2 Vaccine additional risk factor

The calculation shows that:

1. a person is 91 times more likely to die as a consequence of taking a SARS Cov 2vaccine compared with a flu vaccine.

2. a person is 80 times more likely to be hospitalised as a consequence of taking aSARS Cov 2 vaccine compared with a flu vaccine.

3. a person is 81 times more likely to develop a life threatening condition as aconsequence of taking a SARS Cov 2 vaccine compared with a flu vaccine.

4. a person is 82 times more likely to experience a serious adverse event as aconsequence of taking a SARS Cov 2 vaccine compared with a flu vaccine.

5. a person is 42 times more likely to experience a less serious adverse event as aconsequence of taking a SARS Cov 2 vaccine compared with a flu vaccine.

The above analysis clearly demonstrates that the SARS Cov 2 vaccine is significantly moredangerous than the conventional flu vaccine.

As mentioned above, it important to keep in mind that the actual figures are almost certainly
under reported. The actual figures could 10 to 40 times higher.

The fact that the SARS Cov 2 vaccine is roughly 91 times more likely to result in death
compared with the flu vaccine is surely a serious cause for concern.

Part 2: Analysis of Adverse Events by Manufacturer and Batch number
The following analysis looks at serious adverse events caused by Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen.

There are 9 charts altogether corresponding to the 3 serious adverse event types (death,hospitalisation and life threatening event) for each of the 3 pharmaceutical companies. These
are attached at Appendix 1.

Each chart tells a similar story:1) The charts demonstrate that there is a relatively large number of vaccine batches(also referred to as vaccine lots, or VAX_LOT) associated with a given adverse
event.

2) It shows that there are batches where there are significantly more adverse events thanthat which would reasonably be expected. This may indicate an issue with vaccine
production.

3) For Chart 1 below it can be seen that the worst batch, EN6201, is associated with
135 deaths whereas the average number of deaths per batch is 13.

4) For this example, there was a total of 4840 deaths across 362 vaccine batches.

It can be seen that all 9 charts follow a similar pattern as described.

Appendix 1: Series of 9 Charts

Chart 1: Number of deaths across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Pfizer vaccine

Chart 2: Number of deaths across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Moderna vaccine

Chart 3: Number of deaths across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Janssen vaccine

Chart 4: Number of hospitalisations across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Pfizervaccine

Chart 5: Number of hospitalisations across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Modernavaccine

Chart 6: Number of hospitalisations across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1 Janssenvaccine

Chart 7: Number of life threatening events across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1
Pfizer vaccine

Chart 8: Number of life threatening events across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1
Moderna vaccine

Chart 9: Number of life threatening events across vaccine batches, patient had at least 1
Janssen vaccine