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.
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.