FDA just shamefully approved MenQuadfi to be injected into infants 6 weeks to 2 yrs old based on a trial that compared it to Menveo. In the trial, 5.3% of infants receiving MenQuadfi and 3.6% of infants receiving Menveo had a serious adverse reaction (which means something very serious, see definition below). But because these rates were “similar,” this product was deemed “safe” by FDA because it assumes Menveo is “safe.”
But Menveo was licensed based on a trial in which Menactra (among other vaccines) was used as a control; and Menactra was licensed based on a trial in which Menomune was used as a control; and Menomune was not licensed based on a proper placebo-controlled trial. In fact – and this is mind twisting – the package insert for Menomune lists the clinical trial for Menactra (in which Menomume was used as the control) as the basis for its safety.
I couldn’t even dream of making this stuff up. This provides a good example of the vaccine safety pyramid scheme: -Menomune was licensed without a proper placebo-controlled trial and was then used as the control to license Menactra; -Menactra is then used as the control to license Menveo; -and then Menveo is used as the control to license MenQuadfi.
And then we get a trial with 5.3 % and 3.5% of infants suffering serious adverse reactions and no one bats an eye. They grant licensure. A pyramid scheme of safety, at the bottom of which there is no baseline on which safety is being judged. Just a get-it-licensed-to-profit shell game. FDA and pharma have nothing to lose here. We, as taxpayers, will pay for all of the harms suffered and, worst of all, the children who are injected and harmed and their families will really pay for the harms
Source: https://open.substack.com/pub/maryannedemasi/p/fda-branded-shameful-over-infant
And this is just a recent drug, the truth is, this whole "turtles all the way down" sort of scheme is pretty much how every childhood vaccine made the schedule. No placebo controls (that would be immoral), and if there are controls they're the older drug (or often many drugs) that follows the same non controlled pattern. Another modern trick is to test against the adjuvant (which causes harm in and of itself) so that the vaccine shows minor side effects by comparison, but they don't show the adjuvant against a placebo.
Its all a scam
I'm all for being alert and aware to the risks... Your math makes a bad assumption, though: A lot of these vaxxes use similar tech (part of their other financial pyramid scheme is renewing patents by adding one tiny thing to an existing thing, then insisting that is used instead of the now-public-domain one), so those who get fucked once, are much more likely to be fucked again, making two counts (the baseline math you're using), but one victim (the arguably more important stat).
5% is too high on its own. I play D&D, those 1's roll all the time. You don't need to fall into a fallacy of incidents == victims like the 2010s college rape epidemic alarmists.
You are making a worse assumption: That repeated does have no risk. That is just false and the Covid -19 "vaccine" shows it. The first dose might not show a problem, but the second or third can.
that is covered by the "at least one vaccine hospitalization". The math doesn't care if it is more than one. Any number of hospitalizations makes the statement true. Think about the complementary event: that none of the injections cause a severe reaction. That event is one minus the probability of a reaction, to the power of the number of trials for independent events. There is no reason to assume that vaccines in different categories have the same "tech". The payload is tailored to the disease, and the rest of the solution is just a saline solution and some preservatives and pH balance. Similarly, as mentioned above, there is no reason to assume that vaccines get safer somehow the more you take them. While the second and third does for a single vaccine are not independent, they are not risk free, and 3% chance of a reaction is a fine guess.