Recently was in Peachtree Georgia and go to walmart for some shopping, of course i see swedish fish, my favorite candy, get some and notice they are hard and not that great. Ingredients have aspartame in it. Stuff I like to avoid, but i ain't no food waster.
Come back to my home state and look at swedish fish here, but they don't have aspartame. Interesting, are they poisoning different states with chemicals.
They did it with vaccines too. More based states were hit with worse posion.
Could it be that based states just reported more about injuries and woke states hide numbers of injured?
Good point. I never thought of that or heard of that idea.
If I remember correctly, there is a website that supposedly has different vax batches and the injuries reported to them.
If the data is true, then certain batches were deadlier than others, and this is the part I have a hard time believing, but supposedly these "bad batches" were sent to states that were more prominently red, or blue. I cant remember specifically.
Considering that this was a relatively untested technology. They proably tweaked the formulas bit by bit using the reactions as a guide to help them sort it out. ALl the while lying to everyone and telling them the science was settled lol.
Literally the largest mass clinical trial performed on the unsuspecting masses.
If you remember, this was during the ethereum boom when people were finding their medical information in the chain. I still think they had the number crunching networks helping sort the data.
Article slandering the guy who compiled the data.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/craig-paardekoopers-shady-site-shows-covid-anti-vaxxers-will-believe-anything
Adverse reaction databases could show that some batches are deadlier than others, but that does not prove that other batches are safer.
There is additional factor that heavily influence the data in such databases - was it allowed to create a records for adverse effects or not.
If different batches had different ingredients and so different outcomes, it is certainly a factor too.
So you have at least two unknown factors that could interfere with results to produce results you observe.
If we suppose that they know which batches are more harmful beforehand, then why they need multiple different batches at all?
And if they need different batches to find out most harmful, they obviously couldn't know beforehand what batch will be more harmful and couldn't administer them accordingly.
I think they didn't know outcomes, all experiment was about finding them, so average distribution of harmful and not so harmful results among the batches is constant, but in some places it was prohibited to even admit officially a possibility of adverse effects while other places post them into database. Obviously different batches was distibuted to different places.