Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

[stickdog99]

https://www.creators.com/read/wayne-all ... 19-vaccine

"Hello Mr. Root,

I am a media reporter with The New York Times. My colleague and I are working on a story about false or misleading vaccine misinformation in the audio space ... You have said on Facebook that the vaccine 'doesn't work' and is 'a complete failure.' Do you have any comment?"

I want to share my response to The New York Times:

Sure, I have a comment. Every word I say is based on science and facts.

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is the only present scientific way of measuring deaths and injuries from any vaccine — including the COVID-19 vaccine. It's not my system. It's not based on politics. It has nothing to do with conservative or liberal opinions.

It is a science-based medical reporting system provided by the government and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is the only way of keeping track of deaths, crippling injuries and adverse reactions from any vaccine. It has been used for many decades.

No one in the medical community or media has EVER in history ignored or disparaged VAERS before — until now.

Here are the VAERS numbers: Over 17,000 Americans are reported dead from this vaccine — mostly from strokes, heart attacks and blood clots. Over 800,000 are reported injured, many of them hospitalized (over 83,000), many with life-threatening illness (over 18,000) and many others permanently disabled (over 26,000).

This information is all publicly available and provided by the CDC. This cannot be called "misleading" by anyone in the media. The very definition of "misleading" would be to either disparage or ignore VAERS and not report on it daily to your readers.

The number of deaths and significant injuries reported to VAERS is now dramatically higher than in the past 30-plus years combined. This has happened in only 10 months.

That's a fact. Facts cannot be "misleading."

Several times in America's recent history, the medical community has suspended or canceled a vaccine program over a small number of deaths. The first rule of medicine is "physician do no harm." At any sign of harm, a vaccine should and must be questioned and/or suspended.

Never before have we even imagined a vaccine would be linked to over 17,000 deaths and over 800,000 adverse reactions.

Yet, the official VAERS numbers have been blacked out from the mainstream media and social media — including your New York Times. Any time something is not discussed or debated and is disparaged as "misleading" because it is different from the official government narrative, I'd call that the very definition of "intolerance" at best, and tyranny at worst.

Even more facts and SCIENCE ...

Studies are in from many countries, but in particular the U.K. and Israel, reporting:

No. 1: The vaccine is in fact failing miserably — a huge majority of recent cases, hospitalizations and deaths are among double vaccinated individuals. FACT.

No. 2: Cases are slightly higher in countries with higher vaccination rates, and slightly lower in countries with lower vaccination rates.

These are factual, credible, scientific studies from multiple countries.

So yes, I question this vaccine, and yes, I am seriously worried about the proven deaths and injuries directly from this vaccine in the short term (as seen on the VAERS reporting system), and I'm especially worried about the long-term effects of this vaccine.

If The New York Times believes anything I've said is "misleading," then you clearly don't understand the definition of "science." I'm quoting only government, CDC and scientific studies from multiple countries.

More importantly, the very definition of "science" is asking questions and debating.

To not ask questions, especially in the face of so many Americans sick with COVID-19 who are double vaccinated, and so many dead or injured directly from the vaccine as reported by VAERS, would make someone either naive, gullible, blind, deaf or very dumb.

I'm proud that my time at Columbia University taught me to think critically, ask questions, never accept as fact what any government agency or authority figure says and always be a fearless debater.

By the way, I urge The New York Times to set up a debate on this topic. I'll be thrilled to debate any "expert" about this particular COVID-19 vaccine and the facts reported by VAERS and studies around the world. Let's do it.

[Harvey]

Streeb, obviously a lot of traffic on that page, probably the reason I can't access it directly at the moment. Here's the archived page for now.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211102150 ... /bmj.n2635

[Marionumber1]

To be clear, as worthwhile as VAERS is and as reprehensible as it is to ignore the worrying trends it shows, those concerns are discredited when we overstate what VAERS actually does. Calling it a "scientific way of measuring deaths and injuries from any vaccine" and claiming that every adverse effect logged in VAERS is "from this vaccine" is way too extreme of a claim, because correlation is not necessarily causation. VAERS merely logs that people experienced adverse reactions after getting the vaccine; further investigation is required in each case to determine if the reaction was caused by the vaccine, coincidentally occurred around the same time, or if there is perhaps some other confounding factor. Obviously there are hints that the causation does really exist, with even official sources acknowledging (while downplaying) serious side effects like myocarditis, and at a certain volume, it becomes hard to pass off all of these after-effects as coincidental. Nevertheless, claiming that VAERS outright proves the vaccine caused the reported effects is simply not accurate.

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^^^^

yes. I was irritated at portions of Root's reply, pasted above, precisely for the reasons you outline. It only assists in providing a viable counter to those that continue to be willfully or ignorantly in denial of current circumstances.

Relatedly:

@DrJuliePonesse
·
Nov 2

We are facing a pandemic not just of a virus but a pandemic of compliance and complacency, in a culture of silence, censorship, and institutionalized bullying.

Watch my full speech from The Faith and Democracy Series:

https://twitter.com/DrJuliePonesse/stat ... 28728?s=20

[Belligerent Savant]

.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/michaelt ... 03072-JPCA

Michael Tomlinson PhD FGIA

Governance and quality assurance consultant. Board Member Australian College of the Arts (Collarts), Academic Board Member VIT, Honorary (Principal) Fellow, LH Martin Institute at University of Melbourne

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Destroys the credibility of the research.
Any regulator will recognise this pattern in which expert staff raise concerns which are dismissed by management because of the commercial imperatives. It is the reddest of red flags. FDA knew about it and are culpable for not even mentioning it in their brief to the advisory committee that recommended approval.
Remember too that Pfizer led by the nose the authors of the trial report published in the NEJM: 'Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.'
The FDA raised no questions about data integrity and apparently neither did the so-called authors of the publication, or the peer reviewers.
Remember all the hoopla about 95% effectiveness? Based on this?! A compromised process from end to end.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/stupid ... nt-3469496

Stupid and Evil in Equal Measure
Mass containment as conspiracy and as emergent phenomenon.

Very soon, millions of children will be vaccinated against a virus that is less dangerous to them than influenza. These useless vaccinations will kill some of them, and they will not save any lives. As outrages go, this one is very far up there. It is also the latest in a long line: Many countries have for months observed a sustained trend of elevated mortality in younger demographics, almost surely the result of vaccine-induced myocarditis. It is now plain that the press will downplay indefinitely widespread economic and supply chain chaos, following months of unprecedented and totally pointless closures. Suddenly millions of people cannot leave their supposedly open, democratic countries, or engage in economic activity, without submitting to medical treatments they don’t want. On top of all this comes months of media hysteria and repeated population-wide house arrests—all to box in a virus that, as pandemics go, clocks in at merely somewhat-bad.

A big problem, is how to understand this. As a rule, I am open to all plausible theories, and I find many conspiratorial approaches to the Corona phenomenon to be spiritually or metaphorically accurate, even if I disagree with their details. By and large, though, I’ve resisted interpretations that detect a specific, malevolent plan behind these events. I’ve preferred to see this cascade of unrelenting, self-imposed destruction as the fruit of bureaucratic incompetence and elite stupidity. Many disagree with me, including friends like Sandpiper, who are not content with leaving the whole stage to failure. At the link you’ll find an abstract formulation of this view, which is particularly attractive, because it does not require that we accept any particular theory, but merely a model of what is happening. Sandpiper posits an “inner conspiracy” and an “outer conspiracy.” The outer conspiracy is “the way the agenda is sold … what the True Believers actually think they are doing.” The “inner conspiracy,” meanwhile, “is the small circle of people … who created the vision for their own benefit, because they have political goals they want to achieve.”

Think of John le Carré’s cold-war spy novel, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. As it opens, we find the British intelligence services beset by rampant bureaucratic chaos. Events progress, and we discover that all of this apparent stupidity and failure is the doing, directly or otherwise, of a Russian mole, or double agent, who has worked his way up the ranks over many years, and succeeded in turning the agency inside-out. There is the outer conspiracy—all the lower bureaucrats destroying their institution in a blind eagerness to curry favour with and carry water for the guys at the top. There is the inner conspiracy, of the mole—working towards a very different purpose.

All containment policies, since March 2020, flow from two fundamental premises, that together form a Pandemic Doctrine: 1) All pandemic infections are regrettable and to be prevented. 2) It is possible to control pandemics via social or medical technology.

Before 2020, nobody anywhere believed either of these things—not despite, but because of long experience with semi-regular pandemic influenza outbreaks. Today, however, the Pandemic Doctrine has become one of the highest Western political orthodoxies. Asking whether the Corona response is at root a conspiracy or a failure is a less specific way of asking where the Pandemic Doctrine came from. This is a more crucial matter than even the laboratory origins of SARS-2, and so of course many details are hidden from us. We can only locate its approximate origins, somewhere in the unsettling three-act history of lockdowns and their origins:

Act I, The Mad Scientists: China admits to the Wuhan outbreak at the end of December 2019, and immediately thereafter — from the earliest days of January 2020 — Western scientists begin to act in subtle yet crucial ways. Christian Drosten develops a PCR test for SARS-2 on the basis of social media reports, before the virus has even been sequenced. Our Pfizer/BioNTech spike-based mRNA vaccines are invented just a few weeks later. Here, building blocks for what is to come are laid, but in a quiet way, out sight.

Act II, Chinese Quarantine Theatre. China quarantines Hubei, weird virus apocalypse videos flood the internet, and there is tense quiet as the World Health Organisation sponsors a joint mission to study the effectiveness of these novel containment measures. China claims success, and at the end of February a Sinophile faction within the WHO wins out; the agency recommends lockdowns to the world. Important things start to happen everywhere and all at once. Here in Germany, for example, Drosten gets his daily state media Corona-Update podcast, which guides a great part of press coverage to this day. More broadly, European media begins to report very heavily on Corona. It is on the news every night. Countries start to get WHO-adjacent Corona tsars, and a lot of narratives are seeded. The WHO begins ringing the alarm about ventilators.

Act III, Lockdowns for the West: Of all the initiatives blossoming at the end of Act II, it is mass testing in Lombardy that bears first fruit. These operations uncover community transmission of SARS-2, and Hubei-style lockdowns are announced for all of Italy by 10 March. There follows a massive pro-lockdown propaganda blitz across social media and the press. Crucial elements are directed from China. From here our national stories diverge. I will follow the German thread, which I know best: Around the time Neil Ferguson publishes his panic modelling study, on 16 March, Drosten and the head of the Robert Koch Institut (the German equivalent of the American CDC) pressure our interior minister to come up with reasons to deepen and extend containment in Germany. There ensue widespread efforts within the public health sectors of the German government to promote lockdowns to the media, to elected politicians, and to other bureaucrats. These efforts benefit from Chinese advice, laundered through low-level cut-outs. By the end of March, mass containment is firmly established, and it persists to this day, as a matter of broad consensus within the bureaucracy, the press, academia, and the private sector.

China is the red thread running through all three acts. It is the source of the virus, and of the Pandemic Doctrine as well. The belief that every infection is regrettable and that suppression is possible was first modelled for the world in Hubei, and then taken up by all of our respective governments in turn, with Chinese advice and encouragement. They used their leverage with coordinating international organisations, particularly the WHO, and also their reach within Western academia, to seed this doctrine. It then became a great fire that consumed our bureaucracies. These are institutions which are optimised for uniting around consensus positions and propagating them internally. This is a great source of power for them.

And this is also important: The bureaucrats did not merely sign on to the Pandemic Doctrine. They were converted to it, from a prior set of nostrums, which held that respiratory viruses are inevitable, and the best thing you can do is not worry about them too much. Unconvincing people is very hard, but de-converting them is basically impossible. This is toothpaste that will never go back in the tube.

Everything since then, has been the autonomous force of the Pandemic Doctrine and its terrible demands. As containment policies have failed, one after the other, they have left a vortex of disconfirmed expectancy in their wake, turning early political and bureaucratic advocates of containment into truly deranged zealots. The policies themselves, though they are articles of faith, have little or no real-world effect, and this has had curious consequences. It became important for all countries to do as many useless things as possible, and more or less the same useless things as everyone else. Bureaucracies that rejected a specific measure risked being blamed for whatever happened next. And without controls, the failure of containment could be rewritten always and forever as success: “Imagine how many more deaths we would have had, if we never locked down.”

Because they are not fixed in place by any function, containment measures have in time decayed as concepts and acquired different purposes. Masks have devolved into accessories for political signalling, and also social and psychological crutches. The press have so overplayed the risk of Corona, as to make even supermarket shopping an unacceptable risk. Masks are how you can go to the hairdresser and send your kids to school, while also believing you are at any moment likely to contract a fatal disease and that by the very act of breathing your child may kill Oma. Many of our measures, powerless against the virus, have been repurposed in this way—as social and scientific fictions that allow the necessary routines of daily life to coexist with widespread virus hysteria.

The vaccines are just a further stage in this inevitable process. Lockdowns and the rest of it did not work. But the Pandemic Doctrine that demands lockdowns cannot be abandoned; there can only be new methods. From the erratic zeal with which our governments embraced vaccinations, you can take the measure of how desperately they hoped to escape the destructive cycle of periodic mass closures. But now the vaccines are also failing, and vaccine policies have begun to experience the very same decay in conception and drift in purpose that transformed the non-pharmaceutical interventions. Every day, the vaccines become less about reducing transmission or reducing hospitalisations, and more about a whole array of other things: About making a terrorised public feel comfortable going outside, about making the operation of schools socially and politically acceptable, about signalling that you are on the side of science and responsibility.

This is already too long, so there will have to be a second part.

To summarise the ground we have covered so far: It’s true that bureaucratic initiatives and policies tend to originate with a specific circle of people—the “inner conspiracy” of Sandpiper‘s conception. But there are at any given moment a million nascent inner conspiracies. Most of them die in the womb. A select few succeed in propagating themselves throughout the system, and throughout other systems too. Thereafter the inner conspiracy ceases to matter, and there is only the “outer conspiracy,” that is to say the autonomous undirected actions of a million nameless faceless bureaucrats, which nobody can any longer control. Any further inputs would require another successfully propagated inner conspiracy, and you can’t will those into being, anymore than you can will yourself into winning the lottery. They are lightning in a bottle.

None of this is to say that things are hopeless, only that mass containment is at root a social and political process, with properties of inertia. The policies themselves will continue to drift and decay, as the forces that drive them are expended. The Pandemic Doctrine was not a slow burn, like climate change or the campaign against carbohydrates. It was a massive explosion. The bureaucrats will never de-convert, but they will more and more turn their attention to other things, as success against Corona even on their own terms proves impossible.

To be continued.

UPDATE: Some in the comments (and on Twitter) complain that I’m not addressing Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Great Reset. That will come in Part 2. Here, I am interested in establishing how heavily bureaucratised Western governments operate in general, and what scope there is for manipulating or misdirecting their institutional apparatus.

Select Comments:

VeryVer

I work in a large govt bureaucracy -- we are beyond incompetent. It's hardly even possible to describe to outsiders the level of stupidity that we operate within. People don't believe it. I often describe it as a merry-go -round that can never stop turning, and no one is in charge of it. People jump on and off of it, people add things to it while it is turning, and sometimes things fall of it, but it can never be improved, or corrected, because it was broken from the beginning and no one can stop it. And the odd thing is that, individually, we are all aware of the problems (most of us) and all we feel frustrated with the system, but no one seems able to change anything, at any level of the power structure. A bureaucracy is like a cancer, it grows and grows, but without actually a plan or a leader. There is of course a "leader," but this person sits on the organization like a hat -- usually appointed from a completely different realm, with no real interest or ability to change anything or make waves. Occasionally this person tries to change something, but will meet with resistance from the rest of the organization. The only way to really change it is to fire large groups of people (remove the tumor) and start over, but no one wants to do that, either. So it sits and grows and grows. Because of where I work I have zero faith in the FDA or CDC to be doing their job of "protecting" us. They have every incentive to lie and cover their asses, and zero incentives to actually help. They know that the vax doesn't kill everyone immediately, and that's good enough for them. As long as the blame can pushed away from them personally, that's all that matters.

...


JP Sand

I was living in California when the pandemic was declared in conjunction with immediate lockdowns, mask mandates, stay-at-home orders, closure of government offices, business closures, school closures, park closures, beach closures, bans on air travel, etc. California was the first state to lock down.

In my view, the public did not demand for any of these measures to be imposed. It ALL came from the top down - in one fell swoop. In fact, for the first couple of weeks most people did not appear to be particularly fearful; they were more quizzical, bemused, curious and inclined to wonder if it all wasn't overblown. It was like a sub-tropical version of a very long snow day.

The mood became more uncertain when "two weeks to flatten the curve" turned into successive "two MORE weeks to flatten the curve". But, at that stage it hadn't yet been politically polarized into Democrat versus Republican camps.

Mass hysteria was created gradually - from the top down - when politicians, establishment journalists and social media influencers sensationalized and polarized the situation into the central issue of the 2021 U.S. presidential election campaign. From my perspective, this political polarization of the "pandemic response" has engendered a particularly intractable and vitriolic form of mass hysteria which may be the most toxic American export of all time. Maybe the rest of the world would have gotten to the same bat-shit crazy place without the U.S., but maybe not.

...


Felix R Savage

Many have pointed to the stupidity and incompetence of bureaucracies as an argument against conspiracy. "These people couldn't organize a piss-up in a brewery. Now they're organizing a Great Reset / NWO? Pull the other one."

As anyone who's ever worked for the government can attest, the stupidity is real. That's enough to rule out a wide-ranging conspiracy masterminded by Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, the WEF Young Leaders of yesterday, whoever.

So let's look at this from the perspective of some small group of persons who actually do wish to change the world. Their motivations and ultimate goals can be left on one side for the moment. They want to remake society across the whole globe.

Existing structures of authority are in their way.

Their first priority, therefore, is to destroy these structures, and the obvious way to do that is to accelerate the stupidity. With a nudge here, a Reuters article there, a viral video over thataway, they *encourage* the incompetence, the self-seeking dishonesty, the structural imperative to Do Something, and all the other characteristics of the average democracy that our genial host describes so pithily above. This acceleration technique is ridiculously easy, given the built-in tendency of the bureaucracy to Do Something, anyway, and then keep on doing it. The lockdowns are pointless. The vaccines don't work. The vaccine passports are driving millions to the brink of suicidal rage. The economic disruptions are driving billions into poverty. From the point of view of our postulated protagonists, none of this matters. To be clear, they wouldn't care whether the lockdowns, vaccines, etc. worked or not; all they care about is the inevitable outcome of this "emergent phenomenon" (h/t El Gato Malo), viz., total loss of trust in authority by at least half of the population across most of the developed countries.

How many hours have YOU spent this week fantasizing about that happy day when your stupid, incompetent, genocidal government will be righteously overthrown by an uprising of the sane?

Yeah.

We may get our wish someday. If the vaccine injury numbers get worse and worse, or the normies wake up for some other reason, they may join us.

I reckon that'll go about as well as the storming of the Bastille.

Four years later, France had the Reign of Terror.

A couple of years after that, they got Napoleon.

So as we look forward to the day when all this unwinds, and the Faucis of the world are brought to justice, let us bear in mind that the Napoleon of the 21st century may be watching (and reading these very words), chuckling at how well it's going.

...

maisyrusselswart

I'm not sure where you and sandpiper diverge. The idea that the inner conspiracy is a flash that burns out quick but sets in motion the self-perpetuating, bureaucratic machine is compatible with standard conspiracy theorizing (see some of george webb's claims). In this sense, the inner conspiracy is like pulling the fire alarm so you can make your way up to waingro's room with some cover. Everyone, from first responders to guests, know what to do when they hear the alarm and they all act accordingly. You don't need to control them, they steer themselves.

The conspiracy theory about the virus being intentionally released to either oust trump or bring about a new world order (or whatever the theory posits), would function in the same way. The "inner conspiracy" only requires a sufficient destabilizing event to give bad actors room and cover to do whatever it is they want to do. The incompetence of the first responders or hotel guests isn't undercutting or defeating evidence of the conspiracy to kill waingro. That the first responders and guests continue to act as though there is a fire despite there being no evidence aside from a pulled fire alarm, doesn't tell us anything about what's happening in waingro's room.

Where the real incompetence of the conspirators will come into focus is in their attempt to realize whatever it is they're after. If all this was just about trump, then they obtained their endpoint and now they just have to ride out the consequences. If their goal is a new world order, or some combination of endpoints, we will see their incompetence put on full display as they attempt to convince the world to go along with them. These people are, imo, dangerously naive, incompetent, and generally drunk with hubris so this could still go very badly whether this sort of conspiracy is afoot or not. Either way, I dont see a disconnect between the sandpiper view and the retarded elite theory.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Since Jackson reported problems with Ventavia to the FDA in September 2020, Pfizer has hired Ventavia as a research subcontractor on four other vaccine clinical trials (covid-19 vaccine in children and young adults, pregnant women, and a booster dose, as well an RSV vaccine trial; NCT04816643, NCT04754594, NCT04955626, NCT05035212). The advisory committee for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to discuss the covid-19 paediatric vaccine trial on 2 November.

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635[/quote]


Just re-quoting that for emphasis.

[Joe Hillshoist]

This guy is a vaccine developer, and he is shilling his own product but its worth watching.

[Grizzly]

There is very little time left to try and PAUSE the world wide push to mandate transfection as a standard medical treatment under the guise of vaccination. This is a threat to the biology of all humanity. This review is written for parents, teachers, and policy makers. Informed consent of the governed is not being honored, and the real biology of the coronavirus pandemic is not available on TV.

https://gigaohmbiological.com/review

JC on a bike


Also,

Quebec drops vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. Hold the Line!
https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/doug-ford-refuses-to-make-covid-19-vaccines-mandatory-for-ontario-hospital-workers-1.5650760

https://globalnews.ca/news/8346947/quebec-drops-vaccine-mandate-among-health-care-workers/

[Belligerent Savant]

.

Sharing this here as added consideration. Caps are at source, not added by me.

There is an article floating around from The Expose -- https://theexpose.uk/2021/10/31/100-per ... -produced/ -- that makes an explosive claim: There is a wildly statistically-significant skew in the death rate from Covid-19 vaccines by lot number.

What originally got my attention was the tinfoil hat crowd screaming about lots being intentionally distributed to certain people to kill them -- in other words certain Covid-19 vaccine lots were for all intents and purposes poisoned. That was wildly unlikely so I set out to disprove it and apply some broom handles to the tinfoil hatters heads. What I found, however, was both interesting and deeply disturbing.

Lots are quite large, especially when you're dealing with 200 million people and 400 million doses. Assuming the lots are not preferentially assigned to certain cohorts (e.g. one goes to all nursing homes, etc) adverse reactions should thus be evenly distributed between lots; if they're not one of these things is almost-certainly true:

There is a serious manufacturing quality problem or you produced something without understanding how it would work in the body and thus failed to control for something you had to in order to wind up with reproduceable results. That is, some lots are ok, others are contaminated, have too much or too little of the active ingredient in them, some produce wildly more spike-protein than others in the body when injected, etc.

OR

Much worse, the lots are intentionally segregated to produce different results. This implies some sort of nefarious intent such as killing people on a differential basis or that the manufacturers are running unsanctioned experiments on a mass basis among the population at-large, since they know what is in each lot and intentionally varied the contents.

OR

Perhaps worst of all, reports are now being intentionally suppressed, the injury and death rate hasn't changed and there are lots with one of the two above problems but it is being intentionally not reported, having been detected almost-instantly and health providers were directed to not report anything serious (e.g. death) associated with the jabs.
Now let's talk about VAERS. You can grab the public data from it, but VAERS intentionally makes it difficult to discern differences in lot outcomes. Why? Because they separate out the specifics of the vax (the manufacturer, lot number, etc.) into a different file. This means that simply loading it into Excel does you no good and attempting to correlate and match the two tables in Excel itself is problematic due to the extreme size of the files -- in fact, it blew Excel up here when I tried to do it. But that's an external data-export problem; internally, within HHS, it is certainly not hard for them to run correlations.

Indeed the entire point of VAERS is to find said correlations before people get screwed in size and stop it from happening.

Let's step back a bit in history. VAERS came into being because back in the 1970s the producers of the DTP shot had a quality control problem. Some lots had way too much active ingredient in them and others had nearly none. This caused a crap ton of bad reactions by kids who got the jabs and parents sued. Liability insurance threatened to become unobtanium (gee, you figure, after you screw a bunch of kids who had to take mandatory shots?) and thus the manufacturers pulled the DTP jab and threatened to pull all vaccines from the market.

Congress responded to this threat of intentional panic sown by the pharmaceutical industry by giving the vaccine firms immunity and setting up a tax and arbitration system, basically, to pay families if they got screwed by vaccines. Rather than force the guilty parties to eat the injuries and deaths they caused Congress instead exempted the manufacturers from the consequences of their own negligence and socialized the losses with a small tax on each shot.

Part of this was VAERS. We know VAERS understates adverse events because it while it is allegedly "mandatory" it is subject to clinical judgment and there is a wild bias against believing that these jabs, or any jab for that matter, has bad side effects. In addition there is neither a civil or criminal penalty of any kind for failure to report. We now know some people who have had bad side effects from the Covid-19 jabs have shown up on social media after going to the doctor and then tried to find their own record, which is quite easy to do if you know the lot number from your card, what happened and the date the event happened -- their doctor never filed it. This does not really surprise me since filing those reports takes quite a bit of time and the doctor isn't paid for it by the government or anyone else, so even without bias there will be those who simply won't do the work unless there are severe penalties for not doing so. There are in fact no penalties whatsoever. The under-reporting does not have a reliable boundary on it, but estimates are that only somewhere between 3% and 10% of actual adverse events get into the database. That's right -- at best the adverse event rate is ten times that of what you find in VAERS.

But now it gets interesting because VAERS exports, it appears, were also set up, whether deliberately or by coincidink, to make it hard for ordinary people to find a future correlation between injury or death and vaccine lot number.

NOTE THAT THIS EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE -- THAT MANUFACTURERS HAD QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS ORIGINALLY -- IS WHY VAERS EXISTS. YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF CONGRESS WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM THIS WOULD BE THE EASIEST SORT OF THING TO MONITOR AND WOULD BE REGULARLY REPORTED. YOU'D ALSO THINK THERE WERE STRONG CIVIL AND EVEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NOT REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS.

You'd be wrong; the data is across two tables and uncorrelated as VAERS releases it and there is no quick-and-easy reporting on their site that groups events on a comparative basis by lot number. While it is possible to do this sort of analysis from their web page it's not easy.

(Further, and this also intentionally frustrates analysis, VAERS keeps no record nor reports on the number of shots administered per lot, making norming to some stable denominator literally impossible. If you think that's an accident I have a bridge for sale. It's a very nice bridge.)

But, grasshopper, I have Postgres. Indeed if you're reading this article it is because I both have it and know how to program against it; this blog is, in fact, stored in Postgres.

Postgres, like all databases, is very good at taking something that can be foreign-key related and correlating it. In fact that's one of a database's prime strengths. Isn't SQL, which I assume VAERS uses as well, wonderful?

So I did exactly that with the data found here for 2021.

https://vaers.hhs.gov/data/datasets.html

And..... you aren't going to like it.

Having loaded the base table and manufacturer tables related by the VAERS-ID I ran this query:

karl=> select vax_lot(vaers_vax), count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and died='Y' and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' group by vax_lot(vaers_vax) order by count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) desc;

This says:

Select the lot, and count the instances of that lot, from the VAERS data where the report ID is in the table of persons who had a bad reaction, said bad reaction was that they died, where the vaccine is a Covid-19 vaccine and where the manufacturer is MODERNA. Order the results by the count of the deaths per lot in descending order.

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
039K20A | 87
013L20A | 66
012L20A | 64
010M20A | 62
037K20A | 49
029L20A | 48
012M20A | 46
024M20A | 44
027L20A | 44
015M20A | 43
025L20A | 42
026A21A | 41
013M20A | 41
016M20A | 41
022M20A | 41
030L20A | 40
026L20A | 39
007M20A | 39
013A21A | 36
011A21A | 36
031M20A | 35
032L20A | 35
010A21A | 33
011J20A | 33
030A21A | 33
028L20A | 32
011L20A | 32
004M20A | 32
025J20-2A | 31 << -- What's this? (see below)
041L20A | 31
011M20A | 31
031L20A | 30
032H20A | 29
030M20A | 28
042L20A | 27
Unknown | 27
006M20A | 27
012A21A | 25
002A21A | 25
043L20A | 24
032M20A | 24
023M20A | 23
040A21A | 23
027A21A | 23
017B21A | 22
036A21A | 20
unknown | 19
020B21A | 19
047A21A | 19
006B21A | 18
044A21A | 17
038K20A | 17
048A21A | 15
003A21A | 15
014M20A | 15
031A21A | 15
031B21A | 15
021B21A | 15
025A21A | 14
007B21A | 14
003B21A | 14
001A21A | 13
038A21A | 13
025B21A | 13
001B21A | 12
046A21A | 12
027B21A | 11
045A21A | 11
038B21A | 11
025J20A | 11
002C21A | 11
016B21A | 11
036B21A | 11
039B21A | 10
002B21A | 10
018B21A | 10
019B21A | 10
008B21A | 10
029K20A | 10
029A21A | 10
028A21A | 9
047B21A | 9
001C21A | 9
044B21A | 8
045B21A | 8
009C21A | 8
048B21A | 8
026B21A | 8
UNKNOWN | 7
039A21A | 7
040B21A | 7
046B21A | 7
032B21A | 7
038C21A | 6
030m20a | 6
027C21A | 6
008C21A | 6
006C21A | 6
004C21A | 6
047C21A | 6
007C21A | 5
025C21A | 5
042B21A | 5
043B21A | 5
025J202A | 5 << -- Same as the above one?
052E21A | 5
003C21A | 5
030B21A | 5
030a21a | 5
016C21A | 5
017C21A | 5
N/A | 5
NO LOT # AVAILA | 5
037A21B | 5
037B21A | 5
024m20a | 4
031l20a | 4
003b21a | 4
026a21a | 4
041B21A | 4
005C21A | 4
033C21A | 4
035C21A | 4
021C21A | 4
040a21a | 4
041C21A | 4
006D21A | 4
022C21A | 4
037k20a | 4
048C21A | 4
03M20A | 3
008B212A | 3
039k20a | 3
024C21A | 3
016m20a | 3
038k20a | 3
025b21a | 3
033B21A | 3
026C21A | 3
Moderna | 3
033c21a | 3
014C21A | 3
.....

There are 547 unique lot entries that have one or more deaths associated with them. Some of the lot numbers are in the wrong format or missing, as you can also see. That's not unusual and in fact implicates the ordinary failure to get things right when people fill out the input. For example "Moderna" in the above results is clearly not a lot number. I've made no attempt to "sanitize" the data set in this regard and, quite-clearly, neither has VAERS even months after the fact with their "alleged" follow-up on reports.

But there is a wild over-representation in deaths of just a few lots; in fact fewer than 50 lots account for all lots where more than 20 associated deaths accumulated and out of the 547 unique entries fewer than 100 account for all those with more than 10 deaths.

Evenly distribution my ass.

How about Pfizer?

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
EN6201 | 117
EN5318 | 99
EN6200 | 97
EN6198 | 89
EL3248 | 86
EL9261 | 84
EM9810 | 82
EN6202 | 75
EL9269 | 75
EL3302 | 69
EL3249 | 67
EL8982 | 67
EN6208 | 59
EL9267 | 58
EL9264 | 57
EL0140 | 54
EN6199 | 54
EJ1686 | 51
EL9265 | 50
EL1283 | 48
ER2613 | 48
EN6204 | 47
EN6205 | 45
EK9231 | 43
EL3246 | 43
EN6207 | 41
EN6203 | 41
ER8732 | 40
EL1284 | 39
EL0142 | 38
EJ1685 | 38
ER8737 | 37
EN9581 | 36
EN6206 | 35
EP7533 | 35
EL9262 | 34
EL9266 | 33
EL3247 | 32
ER8727 | 28
EP6955 | 27
ER8730 | 26
EW0150 | 25
EK5730 | 24
EP7534 | 24
EM9809 | 22
EK4176 | 22
EH9899 | 21
EW0171 | 21
unknown | 20
ER8731 | 19
ER8735 | 18
EW0172 | 18
EL9263 | 17
EW0151 | 15
ER8733 | 15
EW0158 | 14
EW0164 | 14
EW0162 | 14
EW0169 | 14
ER8729 | 13
ER8734 | 13
Unknown | 13
EW0153 | 13
EW0167 | 12
EW0168 | 10
EW0161 | 10
EW0182 | 9
NO LOT # AVAILA | 8
EW0181 | 8
EW0186 | 8
ER8736 | 8
EW0191 | 8
FF2589 | 7
EW0173 | 6
EW0175 | 6
FA7485 | 6
EW0177 | 6
FD0809 | 6
301308A | 6
EW0170 | 6
FC3182 | 6
EW0217 | 6
EK41765 | 5
EW0196 | 5
EW0176 | 5
EW0183 | 4
EN 5318 | 4
el3249 | 4
EW0178 | 4
EW0179 | 4
EW0187 | 4
FA6780 | 4
FA7484 | 4
EN 6207 | 4

Pfizer has 395 unique lot numbers associated with at least one death and, again, there are a few that are obviously bogus. But again, evenly distribution my ass; there is a wild over-representation with one lot, EN6201, being associated with 117 deaths and fewer than 20 are associated with more than 50.

For grins and giggles let's look at the age distribution for 039K20A -- the worst Moderna lot.

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='039K20A' and age_yrs is not null;
avg
---------------------
51.4922202119410700
(1 row)

Ok, so the average age of people who got that shot, had a bad reaction (and had a valid age in the table) is 51.

How about for 030A21A which had 33 deaths?

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='030A21A' and age_yrs is not null;

avg
---------------------
61.1097014925373134
(1 row)

Well there goes the argument that we jabbed all the old people in nursing homes with the really nasty outcome lot and they died but it not caused by the jab and the second lot, which had a much lower rate, all went into younger people's arms and that's why they didn't die. Uh, no, actually when it comes to the age of the people who got jabbed in these two instances its the other way around; the second lot, which was less deadly, had bad reactions in older people on average yet fewer died -- and significantly so too (by 10 years.)

What's worse is that the "hot" lots for deaths also are "hot" for total adverse events. If the deaths were not related to general pathology from a given lot there would be no correlation -- but there is. Oops.

In addition there is no solid correlation between the "bad" lots and first report of trouble. The absolute worst of Moderna had a bad report in the first days of January. But -- another lot of their vaccine with only 172 reports against it (1/20th the rate of the worst for total adverse events) had its first adverse event report on January 6th.

What is evenly-distributed with a reasonable bump for the original huge uptake rate? When people died.



What the actual **** is going on here? You're going to try to tell me that the CDC, NIH and FDA don't know about this? I can suck this data into a database, run 30 seconds of queries against it and instantly identify a wildly-elevated death and hazard rate associated with certain lot numbers when the distribution of those associations should be reasonably-even, or at least something close to it, across all the lots produced and used? Then I look to try to find the obvious potential "clean" explanation (the higher death rate lot could have gone into older people) and it's simply not there when one looks at all adverse event reports. I have Moderna lots with the same average age of persons who died but ten times times the number of associated deaths.

Then I look at reported date of death and.... its reasonably close to an even distribution. So no, it wasn't all those old people getting killed at once in the first month. So much for that attempted explanation.

Oh if you're interested the nastiest lot was literally everywhere in terms of states reporting adverse events against it; no, they didn't concentrate them in one state or region either.

The outcome distribution isn't "sort of close" when most of the lots have a single-digit number of associated deaths.

Isn't it also interesting that when one removes the "dead" flag the same sort of correlation shows up? That is, there are plenty of lots with nearly nothing reported against them. For Moderna within the first page of results (~85 lots) there is more than a three times difference in total adverse events. The worst lot, 039K20A with 87 deaths, is not only worst for deaths; it also has more than 4,000 total adverse event reports against it. For context if you drill down a couple hundred entries in that report the number of total adverse events against another lot, 025C21A number 417 with five deaths.

Are you really going to try to tell me that a mass-produced and distributed jab has a roughly ten times adverse event rate between two lots and seventeen times the death rate between the same two, you can't explain it by "older people getting one lot and not the other" and this is not a screaming indication that something that cannot be explained as random chance has occurred?

Here, in pictures, since some of you need to be hit upside the head with a ****ing railroad tie before you wake up:



That's Pfizer deaths by lot, worst-to-best. Look normal to you? Remember, zero deaths in a given lot doesn't come up since it's not in the system.

How about adverse events of all sorts?



(Yes, there are invalid lot numbers, particularly in the second graph, with lots of "1s". The left side however is what it is.)

There's a much-larger problem. Have a look at Moderna's chart of the same thing. First, deaths:



And AE's..



These are different companies!

Want even worse news?

JANSSEN, which is an entirely different technology, has the same curve.



and



What do we have here folks?

Is there something inherent in the production of the "instructions", however they're delivered, that results in a non-deterministic outcome within a batch of jabs which was not controlled for, perhaps because it isn't understood SINCE WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE IN MAN OR BEAST and if it goes wrong you're ****ed?

This is a power-law (exponential) distribution; it is not a step-function nor normally or evenly distributed. Those don't happen with allegedly consistent manufacturing processes and the potential confounding factor that could be an innocent explanation (all the bad ones were early and killed all the old people early who died of "something" but it wasn't the vaccines since they all got the jab first) has been invalidated because the dates of death are in fact reasonably distributed.

Have doctors been told to stop reporting? Note that HHS can issue such an order under the PREP Act and there is no judicial review if they do that. Did they?

This demands an explanation. Three different firms all using spike proteins, two using a different technology than the third, all three causing the body to produce the spike rather than deliver it directly and all three of them have a wild skew of some lots that hose people left and right while the others, statistically, do not screw people.

This data also eliminates the hypothesis put forward that lack of aspiration technique is responsible -- that is, that occasional accidental penetration of a vein results in systemic distribution. That would not be lot-specific.

Next question, which VAERS cannot answer: Is there an effectiveness difference between the lots that screw people and those that do not?

Are we done being stupid yet? Statistically all of the adverse events of any sort are in a handful of lots irrespective of the brand. The rest generate a few bad outcomes while a very, very small number of lots generate a huge percentage of the harm. And no, that's not tied to age bracketing (therefore who got it first either); some of the worst have average age distributions that are less than lots with lower adverse event rates. It is also not tied to when used either since one of the "better" lots has a first-AE report right at the start of January -- as do the "bad" lots.

The only thing all three of these vaccines have in common is that all three of them rely on the human body to produce the spike protein that is then attacked by the immune system and produces antibodies; none of them directly introduce the offending substance into the body. The mechanism of induction is different between the J&J and Pfizer/Moderna formulations but all exhibit the same problem. The differential shown in the data is wildly beyond reasonable explanation related to the cohort dosed and the reported person's average age for the full set of events (not just deaths) does not correlate with elevated risk in a given lot either so it is clearly not related to the age of the person jabbed (e.g. "certain lots all went to nursing homes since they were first.") While the highest AE rate lots all have early use dates so do some of the low-AE rate lots so the attempt to explain the data away as "but the highest risk got it first" fails as well.

In other words the best-fit hypothesis is that causing the body to produce part of a pathogen when that part has pathological capacity (as we know is the case for the spike) cannot be controlled adequately through commercial manufacturing process at-scale. This means that no vector-based, irrespective of how (e.g. viral vector or mRNA), not-directly-infused coronavirus jab will ever have an acceptable safety profile because some lots will be "hot" and harm crazy percentages of those they're given to with no way to know in advance. The basic premise used here -- to have the body produce the agent the immune system identifies rather than directly introduce it where you can control the quantity, is a failure.

The entire premise of calling something that does this a "vaccine" is bogus and in the context of a coronavirus this may never be able to be done safely.

Something is very wrong here folks and the people running VAERS either aren't looking on purpose, know damn well its happening and are saying nothing about it on purpose -- never mind segregating the data in such a fashion that casual perusal of their downloads won't find it -- or saw it immediately and suppressed reporting on purpose.

If these firms were not immune from civil and even criminal prosecution as a result of what Biden and Trump did the plaintiff's bar would have been crawling up *******s months ago.

This ought to be rammed up every politician's ass along with every single person at the CDC, NIH and FDA. They know this is going on; it took me minutes to analyze and find this.

What the HELL is going on here?

THESE SHOTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN NOW until what has happened is fully explained and, if applicable, accountability is obtained for those injured or killed as a result. If embargoing of reports is proved, and its entirely possible that is the case, everyone involved must go to prison now and the entire program must be permanently scrapped.

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS DATA THAT REDUCES TO RANDOM CHANCE.

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=244109

From the comments:

My suspicion is that since ZERO of these jabs actually contain spike, but all cause the body to make it, there is an uncontrolled element in the production of the lot that causes some of them to do so on a wildly more-prolific basis.

Thus if you draw the short straw on the lot you get you're ****ed but there is no way to know in advance because by the time the reports show up the lot has been expended.

[Belligerent Savant]

.

'What Percent Of CDC Employees Are Vaccinated?': Cassidy Grills Walensky At Senate Hearing
466K views · 7 hours ago

[Grizzly]

https://twitter.com/freedomisrael_/status/1456133768763297792?s=21
So just going to leave this little gem here. This sub will love this predictive programming

[conniption]

Full interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò-full about Planet Lockdown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Am7SRryXFVg
Viruswaarheid OVERVIEW
• Streamed live on Oct 3, 2021 • Full interview with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò-full about Planet Lockdown

[stickdog99]

Just a couple of Jeff Wells' recent classics:

"Net-Zero is people!”

If you think the expectation to surrender bodily autonomy is no big deal I have some exciting news about what became of your mental autonomy.

An abundance of a caution, as a way of life, will kill ya. An abundance of caution, with respect to everything except mRNA, is insanity.

There are simpletons and maniacs right now who have a better estimate of our situation than many sophisticated minds because they're unembarrassed to call evil, evil.

It's becoming a pandemic of the unboostered.

“He hasn’t come across any heroin since September... Is this goodbye to heroin?" That Afghanistan supply chain has really broken down.

A couple of days ago Boris Johnson openly declared that cash is a target in the rebranded Ruling Class War and the only people who appear to have noticed are the people who've known it all along.

Should people ever discover that they and their children are being dispossessed, tortured and murdered they may feel compelled to do something about it. So it's fortunate for a few that most prefer denial, even unto death, over such a burden of duty.

[stickdog99]