Summing Up

Let's consider what we have seen over the preceding seven or eight pages.

​

One of the key things we were told when the vaccines were being rolled out - from no less than Brendan Murphy, our federal government's principal medical officer - was that you were more likely to win the lottery than be injured or die from the Pfizer vaccine. Many of us heard similar information from our own GPs. But as we have shown over preceding eight pages, this information was sadly very inaccurate indeed.

​

The idea of a lottery is a useful one to help us consider the probability of co-incidence as a basis to account for the matters we have examined.  

​

At Level 1, we considered the original rate at which Covid (the disease was effecting people - using the government's own data) and we saw that it was very low, around the same rate as the seasonal flu.  At the start we suggested it was logically possible for stupidity alone to account for poor decision making. Perhaps this was some type of mere co-incidence. We ask you therefore to consider if the rate of the disease was similar to the flu, how is this a pandemic? Let's assume in this first instance that it is a co-incidence even though the odds are against it. It is strange that a pandemic is called on such low numbers. But let's call it a co-incidence for Level 1 to start with.

​

At Level 2 we introduced the idea that there are well over 10,000 Australians who are putting in claims for Covid vaccine injury. This immediately presents us with figures to substantially disprove the official death and injury rates. (Go back and check the figures again.) Now some may attempt to argue that once again this is simply an unfortunate co-incidence. Now while this is logically possible, in the context of the preceding evidence being excused as a one off on the grounds of co-incidence, it no longer seems to be the act of a rational person to say that it's purely coincidental. Let's say there is a fifty fifty chance of this being co-incidental, or 1 in 2. 

​

But then in the second half of Level 2 we saw more details about how Australia's TGA were hiding information in comparision to the USA VAERS system. Other strange anomalies were also discussed, such as their age calculation for discounting vaccine deaths. This evidence for the purpose of probability of co-incidence would now suggest a minimum of 1 to 4 chance of this just being co-incidence.   

Let's proceed to Level 3. On this page we saw a number of key issues. What is the likelihood that many hundreds of doctors are willing to lose their medical licences for no reason at all.

My proposal is to simply double the odds. It's not a large increase. But such an increment makes sense. This then becomes 1 in 8 chance of these matters merely being co-incidental. 

​

However, at Level 3 we also saw that there are literally thousands of additional doctors who are in full agreement with those who have lost medical licences. What odds do we give for this in the context of all that has gone before. Once again, doubling seems appropriate. Consequently, this doubling means 1 in 16 probability for a co-incidental event in the context of all that has proceeded it. 

Level 4 dealt with the overwhelming evidence against lockdowns. (To merely double the odds on this point seems far to small of an incremental increase. But for the sake for argument let's continue the pattern.) Doubling the probability of this being merely co-incidental means 1 in 32. 

At Level 5 we saw how two drugs were denigrated by Australian medical authorities (and indeed various other world authorities) but the evidence for the ability of these drugs to save lives is overwhelming. The first of these was hydroxychloroquine. Fake studies appeared in medical journals. (Once again to simply double the odds seems a far to small of an increase.) But let's do this for fake studies appearing in the Lancet, let's give this a probability score or 1 in 64 for co-incidence.

Then we have the similar neglect of Ivermectin for which large numbers of highly skilled medical experts in their field have informed us that at least three quarter of those who died from Covid prior to the vaccine rollout would have survived. (Once again to merely double the odds again seems to small an increase.) But let's do this for the sake of all those that the vaccine industries ignored. Let's give this a co-incidence probability score or 1 in 128.       

​

At Level 6 we introduced the Lazarus report and the profound evidence of vaccine death and injury under-reporting. This Harvard report found that fewer than one percent of vaccine injuries are reported. Once again we will simply double the odds on this information be ignored by most media, governmental, and medical authorities in Australia. The probability score for this goes to 1 in 256. 

​

Also at Level 6 we had the two reports of high myocarditis rates and the manner in which these were dealt with by the media. The probability score for this as shear co-incidence now is 1 in 512.

​

At Level 7 a number of points were raised but let's deal with only one here; the maneuvering of South Australian authorities in the face of legal initiatives from members of those resisting vaccine mandates. This lifts our final co-incidence rating to 1 in 1,024. 

​

While many other points could be raised, this is sufficient to show that the odds for these things happening co-incidentally is extremely unlikely. 

​

As with the lotto, 1 marble is draw out of 40. You have a one in forty chance. But the next marble is drawn out of 39 and you have a 40 x 39 = 1560 chance of getting 2 correct numbers. As will lotto we need to multiply the odds together. When we do this we end up with a chance of co-incidence being less than 1 to 36,028,416,000,000,000.

​

If this was a murder investigation, the police would have decided a long time ago that foul play was involved.