Another relevant question for which we do not yet have an answer: Are the denominators on all these lots the same? If not, could it be that certain lots are much larger than others; hence the uneven distribution of adverse events among lots?
That's been my thought on reading this and I'm not one to give cover here: but if one small vaccine lot with expected low uptake is only 500 doses with only 200 actually going into people's bodies while another mass inject lot is 100,000 doses with 99,000 going into people's bodies you'd get statistically this type of distribution too. There's still a reprehensible number of side effects...it just might not be the smoking gun without this information
Very interesting, and thank you for posting this. Back in 1985 a friend's infant (8 or 9 months of age at the time) received a pertussis vax that made her begin seizures, and ultimately, this beautiful little girl ended up extremely brain damaged. She's still alive, but has never been able to care for herself or even talk. The parents were involved in a big lawsuit with other people whose children had been similarly damaged, and as I remember, it was due to bad batches of the vaccines. I wish I could remember more details. The mother is now in her mid 70s (the father died a few years back), and I don't know what will happen to this girl when the mother is gone.
Very sad story. There are many people in that situation. My heart breaks for every single one of them.
As the Market Ticker pointed out, the entire reason for setting up the VAERS system was supposedly to help the CDC identify bad batches of vaccine. But when the CDC set the system up, it seems the agency deliberately de-coupled the reports of adverse events from the lot numbers -- probably at the bidding of the drug companies. So now it actually takes quite a bit of work (and some ingenuity) to correlate the injuries with the lot numbers. But a couple different researchers have done it now and gotten similar results.
That the CDC de-coupled reports from batch numbers is disgusting. Sometimes I feel like everything connected with drug companies is borderline criminal.
This may be a pedantic point, but it is not the industry that has been corrupted. Government is what has been corrupted. Yes, it was at the behest of the industry, but without government interference, specifically granting them immunity from liability, the vaccine industry would be a lot more careful about the quality of the product they produce, lest they be sued into bankruptcy. Do you think Pfizer, et al would be selling Covid vaccines at all without that liability shield?
I agree that nothing the industry is getting away with today would be possible had the government not made the fateful decision to grant the industry complete immunity from vaccine lawsuits. There is also no hope for reform unless/until that 1986 immunity law is repealed.
I'm going to disagree as our family was personally affected by the CDC's coverup of a heart-lung machine infecting patients during surgery with NTM. (This coverup was world wide as the device was made in Germany) We specifically asked at Emory about this and the head of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic surgery said not to worry.
Well, we have a nice two page letter, written by a sociopathic lawyer, that says oops we're sorry.
Interesting and very possible. It would also be a convenient explanation for the manufacturers to put the problem in a neat box: "it was a bad batch. We're correcting that, and need to ramp up production." If there is a coverup underway, "bad batch" could be a helpful narrative for the defense.
Yes, I agree, upon first hearing this story it sounded to me like it could possibly be a convenient excuse for widespread death and injury from these vaccines. However, upon further reflection, and reading The Market Ticker's report, it sounds more like a potentially insurmountable problem with this mRNA technology, of which both the industry and the government must be well aware. And yet, the mass vaccination and mandates continue. So, this would be a major scandal if true, no matter how you try to slice it.
Good evening. I believe this is one of the links that contains a good analysis by age group and concludes that the benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the risks for any age group, including the elderly.
Furthermore, if you listen to any of the talks by Dr. Peter McCullough, he emphasizes that the vaccines are no longer needed because of what we know now about the efficacy of early treatment. Here is the early treatment protocol that he and other doctors like him are advocating:
Thank you for your speedy, efficient reply. The Abstract for the Science Direct article you referenced, answered my question -- Vaccinated have 5 Times the Risk vs Covid-19 Infection.
"A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic."
Thanks for the link to The Market Ticker—a very thorough explanation. I suspect it will be ignored by the vaccinators as that is all they’re interested in: inject/infect everyone they possibly can, effectively eliminating the control group as they did in their brief trials.
First, this data needs to be confirmed. If true, it could be a huge missing piece of the puzzle.
I should also note that most of the deaths reported to VAERS are the ones that occur very shortly after vaccination. The "bad batch" theory may only apply to serious adverse events, including death, that occur in close temporal proximity to vaccination. Some of these heart and clotting events seem to be occurring weeks or months later and may not be reported to VAERS at all.
This is all going to take time to sort out, but I don't think we can infer from this data that the "bad batches" are the only ones causing problems. They may be the ones that are causing the most immediate problems.
If you are seriously concerned about finding the true levels of vaccine-induced deaths/injuries etc... I'd suggest you put more focus on rigorous data sources like CMS data rather than VAERS reports of experiencing the Hulk symptoms (yes...some Dodo did post that on VAERS). given its known limitations, instead of completely ignoring these sources and basing many of your substacka argument almost entirely upon VAERS and anecdotal reports.
Statistics 101?? Can we move upto even that level of mathematics??
Quote... Wikipedia... Easy... Their 4th citation basically sums up most of your substack thoughts. Not all but a significant amount of it.
VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network are tools by which the CDC and FDA monitor vaccine safety[2] to fulfill their duty as regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public.
As it is based on submissions by the public, VAERS is susceptible to unverified reports, misattribution, underreporting, and inconsistent data quality.[3] Raw, unverified data from VAERS has often been used by the anti-vaccine community to justify misinformation regarding the safety of vaccines; it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused an adverse event, or how common the event might be.[4]
A major study from Harvard found that VAERS captures approx. one percent of all vaccine injuries. So, whatever you see in VAERS, multiply it by 100. That's how dangerous vaccines are. The traditional vaccines contain adjuvants which are basically poisons that cause your immune system to react. The result is molecular mimicry, which leads to autoimmune disease. These new mRNA vaccines are even much worse than traditional vaccines.
That's even more interesting. The Pfizer (don't know if this was also true of the Moderna) had to be kept and transported under very stringent temperature requirements, and I was recently wondering if those requirements had not been met, perhaps the vaccines got too warm, etc. But I don't believe the J&J required more than simple refrigeration.
The only thing I can think of, as I research this further today, is that the batch sizes may vary widely. If so, that could help explain large disparities in the number of injuries associated with each batch. If one batch is used to vax 3 million and another to vax 10,000, then we would expect to find many more injuries in the much larger batch.
I'm trying to find an answer to that question now.
While I agree with all your seven points, I think there is an even more important thing parents can do for their children getting the vaccine; before and after, give the child vitamins C and E,
because these anti-oxidants may reduce the damage done by the vaccine. Of course the doctors and vaccine manufactorers will oppose this advice because they do not want to admit that the vaccine is a toxin. So do not let them know you are doing it.
1) he needs to cool down the tune. It makes the article better
2) he needs to share his data and calculations and not just point to the ever changing VAERS website.
But most importantly,
3) why does he assume a normal distribution? I would not. I would assume a more Poisson distribution. So instead of plotting and sorting issues per batch he needs to plot # issues vs # of lots. Only then can you conclude this is real.
That said, bad batches is not unthinkable. Everything humans make has bad batches. So it is entirely likely someone messes up once in a while. Normally quality control would catch that, but who knows if they did not rush that either.
That article doesn't just say that specific batches are responsible for most of the AE's, it says that those specific batches were widely distributed, while the other batches were mostly sent to single states, so what we're looking at are not bad batches, but *spiked* batches.
This commenter makes a valid observation "It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands"
Another relevant question for which we do not yet have an answer: Are the denominators on all these lots the same? If not, could it be that certain lots are much larger than others; hence the uneven distribution of adverse events among lots?
That's been my thought on reading this and I'm not one to give cover here: but if one small vaccine lot with expected low uptake is only 500 doses with only 200 actually going into people's bodies while another mass inject lot is 100,000 doses with 99,000 going into people's bodies you'd get statistically this type of distribution too. There's still a reprehensible number of side effects...it just might not be the smoking gun without this information
Very interesting, and thank you for posting this. Back in 1985 a friend's infant (8 or 9 months of age at the time) received a pertussis vax that made her begin seizures, and ultimately, this beautiful little girl ended up extremely brain damaged. She's still alive, but has never been able to care for herself or even talk. The parents were involved in a big lawsuit with other people whose children had been similarly damaged, and as I remember, it was due to bad batches of the vaccines. I wish I could remember more details. The mother is now in her mid 70s (the father died a few years back), and I don't know what will happen to this girl when the mother is gone.
Very sad story. There are many people in that situation. My heart breaks for every single one of them.
As the Market Ticker pointed out, the entire reason for setting up the VAERS system was supposedly to help the CDC identify bad batches of vaccine. But when the CDC set the system up, it seems the agency deliberately de-coupled the reports of adverse events from the lot numbers -- probably at the bidding of the drug companies. So now it actually takes quite a bit of work (and some ingenuity) to correlate the injuries with the lot numbers. But a couple different researchers have done it now and gotten similar results.
That the CDC de-coupled reports from batch numbers is disgusting. Sometimes I feel like everything connected with drug companies is borderline criminal.
The industry has been corrupted. No doubt about it.
This may be a pedantic point, but it is not the industry that has been corrupted. Government is what has been corrupted. Yes, it was at the behest of the industry, but without government interference, specifically granting them immunity from liability, the vaccine industry would be a lot more careful about the quality of the product they produce, lest they be sued into bankruptcy. Do you think Pfizer, et al would be selling Covid vaccines at all without that liability shield?
I agree that nothing the industry is getting away with today would be possible had the government not made the fateful decision to grant the industry complete immunity from vaccine lawsuits. There is also no hope for reform unless/until that 1986 immunity law is repealed.
I'm going to disagree as our family was personally affected by the CDC's coverup of a heart-lung machine infecting patients during surgery with NTM. (This coverup was world wide as the device was made in Germany) We specifically asked at Emory about this and the head of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic surgery said not to worry.
Well, we have a nice two page letter, written by a sociopathic lawyer, that says oops we're sorry.
"The CDC's coverup". Is the CDC not a government agency?
Interesting and very possible. It would also be a convenient explanation for the manufacturers to put the problem in a neat box: "it was a bad batch. We're correcting that, and need to ramp up production." If there is a coverup underway, "bad batch" could be a helpful narrative for the defense.
Yes, I agree, upon first hearing this story it sounded to me like it could possibly be a convenient excuse for widespread death and injury from these vaccines. However, upon further reflection, and reading The Market Ticker's report, it sounds more like a potentially insurmountable problem with this mRNA technology, of which both the industry and the government must be well aware. And yet, the mass vaccination and mandates continue. So, this would be a major scandal if true, no matter how you try to slice it.
@DarbyShaw Would you happen to know where data can be found regarding Risk/Benefits in 65+ year olds, Covid-19 Vaccines vs Covid-19 Infections
Good evening. I believe this is one of the links that contains a good analysis by age group and concludes that the benefits of vaccination do not outweigh the risks for any age group, including the elderly.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X
Furthermore, if you listen to any of the talks by Dr. Peter McCullough, he emphasizes that the vaccines are no longer needed because of what we know now about the efficacy of early treatment. Here is the early treatment protocol that he and other doctors like him are advocating:
https://aapsonline.org/CovidPatientTreatmentGuide.pdf
Thank you for your speedy, efficient reply. The Abstract for the Science Direct article you referenced, answered my question -- Vaccinated have 5 Times the Risk vs Covid-19 Infection.
"A novel best-case scenario cost-benefit analysis showed very conservatively that there are five times the number of deaths attributable to each inoculation vs those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic."
Thanks for the link to The Market Ticker—a very thorough explanation. I suspect it will be ignored by the vaccinators as that is all they’re interested in: inject/infect everyone they possibly can, effectively eliminating the control group as they did in their brief trials.
They will ignore it only if we let them.
First, this data needs to be confirmed. If true, it could be a huge missing piece of the puzzle.
I should also note that most of the deaths reported to VAERS are the ones that occur very shortly after vaccination. The "bad batch" theory may only apply to serious adverse events, including death, that occur in close temporal proximity to vaccination. Some of these heart and clotting events seem to be occurring weeks or months later and may not be reported to VAERS at all.
This is all going to take time to sort out, but I don't think we can infer from this data that the "bad batches" are the only ones causing problems. They may be the ones that are causing the most immediate problems.
If you are seriously concerned about finding the true levels of vaccine-induced deaths/injuries etc... I'd suggest you put more focus on rigorous data sources like CMS data rather than VAERS reports of experiencing the Hulk symptoms (yes...some Dodo did post that on VAERS). given its known limitations, instead of completely ignoring these sources and basing many of your substacka argument almost entirely upon VAERS and anecdotal reports.
Statistics 101?? Can we move upto even that level of mathematics??
If you don't like VAERS, tell the CDC. It's their system, not mine.
Quote... Wikipedia... Easy... Their 4th citation basically sums up most of your substack thoughts. Not all but a significant amount of it.
VAERS, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) Network are tools by which the CDC and FDA monitor vaccine safety[2] to fulfill their duty as regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public.
As it is based on submissions by the public, VAERS is susceptible to unverified reports, misattribution, underreporting, and inconsistent data quality.[3] Raw, unverified data from VAERS has often been used by the anti-vaccine community to justify misinformation regarding the safety of vaccines; it is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused an adverse event, or how common the event might be.[4]
A major study from Harvard found that VAERS captures approx. one percent of all vaccine injuries. So, whatever you see in VAERS, multiply it by 100. That's how dangerous vaccines are. The traditional vaccines contain adjuvants which are basically poisons that cause your immune system to react. The result is molecular mimicry, which leads to autoimmune disease. These new mRNA vaccines are even much worse than traditional vaccines.
Done. Thank you for the email addresses.
Thank you!
DITTO
Post-script: The Market Ticker has also analyzed J. & J. and found the exact same thing.
That's even more interesting. The Pfizer (don't know if this was also true of the Moderna) had to be kept and transported under very stringent temperature requirements, and I was recently wondering if those requirements had not been met, perhaps the vaccines got too warm, etc. But I don't believe the J&J required more than simple refrigeration.
The only thing I can think of, as I research this further today, is that the batch sizes may vary widely. If so, that could help explain large disparities in the number of injuries associated with each batch. If one batch is used to vax 3 million and another to vax 10,000, then we would expect to find many more injuries in the much larger batch.
I'm trying to find an answer to that question now.
Thank you for your efficient, speedy reply.
While I agree with all your seven points, I think there is an even more important thing parents can do for their children getting the vaccine; before and after, give the child vitamins C and E,
because these anti-oxidants may reduce the damage done by the vaccine. Of course the doctors and vaccine manufactorers will oppose this advice because they do not want to admit that the vaccine is a toxin. So do not let them know you are doing it.
His analysis is interesting, but I see 3 flaws:
1) he needs to cool down the tune. It makes the article better
2) he needs to share his data and calculations and not just point to the ever changing VAERS website.
But most importantly,
3) why does he assume a normal distribution? I would not. I would assume a more Poisson distribution. So instead of plotting and sorting issues per batch he needs to plot # issues vs # of lots. Only then can you conclude this is real.
That said, bad batches is not unthinkable. Everything humans make has bad batches. So it is entirely likely someone messes up once in a while. Normally quality control would catch that, but who knows if they did not rush that either.
That article doesn't just say that specific batches are responsible for most of the AE's, it says that those specific batches were widely distributed, while the other batches were mostly sent to single states, so what we're looking at are not bad batches, but *spiked* batches.
This commenter makes a valid observation "It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands"