For this particular result, with the claim that ~20% of "adverse events" came from only 10 different batches (by the date 05/06/21 or a bit better, depending on when the 4chan poster pulled the data), one of the flaws was that the VAERS dataset has a tonne of typos, which wasn't corrected for here.
There were many batches with only one or two adverse event, which was very likely not accurate, rather, those AE's belonged to a different batch, and the doctor or however entered it into the VAERS system made a typo (i.e., think back to the stereotype of doctors and poor handwriting).
There were obvious counterparts to these single and double AE batches.
An hypothetical example would be a batch labelled "EK9237", which perhaps one or two doctors accidentally misspelled, whereas it was really meant to be "EK9231".
One analysis of the so-called "bad batches" claimed that ~80% of batches only had one or two AE's (i.e., tonnes of mis-labelling occurred, up to that time). Which, when re-categorized, would change the distribution significantly.
Not hard to guess when it is only number or letter off, for a 6-7 letter/number sequence, from another batch (with many adverse events reported).
At least two different groups digging into the VAERS data, looking into the "bad batch" possibility, came to this same conclusion.
Alternatively, flip it on it's head ... do you really believe that ~80% of batches, of some unknown number of doses each (thought to be in the 1000's, based on the way they manufacture/package/label similar medical products), have ONLY one or two adverse events (jab injuries) each?
That doesn't seem to match what we have seen with the "enhanced" amount of COVID cases for the jabbed, the jab injuries, etc.., because that would basically imply that ~80% of vaccines were super low dose or entire placebo.
I could see doctors copy and pasting batch from case to case- especially if they don't inow the batch- rather than leaving it blank. Though I could also see Pfizer performing experiments on people so....
Though I could also see Pfizer performing experiments on people so
My above claim doesn't rule this out.
This particular claim by this 4chan poster is false, though, there is still room (from other analysis of the VAERS batch data) for "funky stuff" to be going on, in respect to different batches having different toxicities.
Karl deninger did his own analysis matching batches to vaers. He chocked it up to them not being able to manufacture a consistent product or have it transported and administered properly.
Back when they announced the covid vaccine, 2 years ago. And I started researching into the technology.... it was considered a failure, many people over many years and decades have tried to get it to work. Yes on paper it sounds like it could be the next step in medical technologies. But its always been flawed. No one even took it seriously until a decade ago. And now all of a sudden they are making everyone get the shot.
One of the biggest things they touted about this technology, was the ability to tweak the "program" on the fly during production. Making it possible to change the formula much faster and efficiently than other manufacturing methods.
I always figured what they would do, is give everyone different tweaks of the formula, then feed all that data into super computers and they could get more data then they ever could by performing proper clinical trials and testing.
Considering how many people got it, I think its highly likely they got all the data they need to help advance this technology. How many old people did they kill with blood clots and heart attacks and then blame it on " pre existing " conditions though?
Did the ends justify the means? I really hope some of these people come back as cockroaches for a few millennia.
This is from an old analysis of the 'bad batches' which was flawed.
I went down this rabbit hole a few months back, much of the 'bad batches' claims were not at all clear whether they were true, or, to which degree.
Tell me more- how was it flawed?
For this particular result, with the claim that ~20% of "adverse events" came from only 10 different batches (by the date 05/06/21 or a bit better, depending on when the 4chan poster pulled the data), one of the flaws was that the VAERS dataset has a tonne of typos, which wasn't corrected for here.
There were many batches with only one or two adverse event, which was very likely not accurate, rather, those AE's belonged to a different batch, and the doctor or however entered it into the VAERS system made a typo (i.e., think back to the stereotype of doctors and poor handwriting).
There were obvious counterparts to these single and double AE batches.
An hypothetical example would be a batch labelled "EK9237", which perhaps one or two doctors accidentally misspelled, whereas it was really meant to be "EK9231".
One analysis of the so-called "bad batches" claimed that ~80% of batches only had one or two AE's (i.e., tonnes of mis-labelling occurred, up to that time). Which, when re-categorized, would change the distribution significantly.
I'm not buying it. They're saying there was an obvious error made by refute it using guesswork.
Not hard to guess when it is only number or letter off, for a 6-7 letter/number sequence, from another batch (with many adverse events reported).
At least two different groups digging into the VAERS data, looking into the "bad batch" possibility, came to this same conclusion.
Alternatively, flip it on it's head ... do you really believe that ~80% of batches, of some unknown number of doses each (thought to be in the 1000's, based on the way they manufacture/package/label similar medical products), have ONLY one or two adverse events (jab injuries) each?
That doesn't seem to match what we have seen with the "enhanced" amount of COVID cases for the jabbed, the jab injuries, etc.., because that would basically imply that ~80% of vaccines were super low dose or entire placebo.
I could see doctors copy and pasting batch from case to case- especially if they don't inow the batch- rather than leaving it blank. Though I could also see Pfizer performing experiments on people so....
My above claim doesn't rule this out.
This particular claim by this 4chan poster is false, though, there is still room (from other analysis of the VAERS batch data) for "funky stuff" to be going on, in respect to different batches having different toxicities.
Karl deninger did his own analysis matching batches to vaers. He chocked it up to them not being able to manufacture a consistent product or have it transported and administered properly.
Back when they announced the covid vaccine, 2 years ago. And I started researching into the technology.... it was considered a failure, many people over many years and decades have tried to get it to work. Yes on paper it sounds like it could be the next step in medical technologies. But its always been flawed. No one even took it seriously until a decade ago. And now all of a sudden they are making everyone get the shot.
One of the biggest things they touted about this technology, was the ability to tweak the "program" on the fly during production. Making it possible to change the formula much faster and efficiently than other manufacturing methods.
I always figured what they would do, is give everyone different tweaks of the formula, then feed all that data into super computers and they could get more data then they ever could by performing proper clinical trials and testing.
Considering how many people got it, I think its highly likely they got all the data they need to help advance this technology. How many old people did they kill with blood clots and heart attacks and then blame it on " pre existing " conditions though?
Did the ends justify the means? I really hope some of these people come back as cockroaches for a few millennia.