There's a vax lot with higher association with anaphylaxis... and it's not 041L20A.
Update: I was prompted to look at the reporting location of the vax lots for the anaphylaxis reports based on the anomaly reported herein, and it turns out that the off chance under reporting thing I mentioned as a reason for the anomaly is very likely the reason for it. The vax lot EP9605 was only administered in France and the reports came from there. All but 2 of them: one was reported in Georgia and one had no location listed. I would guess, that the reporting rates of adverse events are simply better in France and this would explain the anomaly.
I was prompted to look into this following reading a Substack from Vinu Arumugham the other day. He made an interesting point about the ratios of two adverse events being different between vax lots. I decided I would reproduce what he was showing and to take it further. I didn’t take it as far as I will, but this is a good start.
Before I start, I am more in the camp that believes that most of the variation perceived between vax lots (in VAERS) can be attributed to differences in distribution and administration. However, check this out.
So what this bar plot shows are the ratios of the total number of reports of anaphylaxis to total number of reports of death, per vax lot. Now, it is important to understand how examining the ratios removes any deceptiveness that might be included with regard to vax lot size. Picture this: You have 100 reports of anaphylaxis and n doses in a particular vax lot. So you have 100/n reports of anaphylaxis. You also have 10 reports of death and n doses once again, since it is the same vax lot. So you have 10/n reports of death. Thus, you have a ratio of 100:10 (10:1) reports of anaphylaxis for vax lot ‘A’ that includes n doses of product. If you calculated this ratio for a number of vax lots and found anomalies between these ratios, ie: if the ratio was inverted for example in a particular vax lot, then this would not be explainable by vax lot size variation.
An inversion is precisely what was found by Vinu and confirmed here for the vax lot EP9605. It is very anomalous, in fact.
What could explain this anomaly?
The only explanation besides the off chance that underreporting is playing a role, is that this particular vax lot EP9605 has properties that makes it induce more anaphylactic reactions than all the other 29 vax lots that I used for this example.
Perhaps this vax lot was manufactured poorly and the PEG manifested in higher concentrations. Or maybe the LNPs were larger. I don’t know.
I am going to go deeper on this and look into far more adverse event types and...
Read More HERE
2 comments:
Good grief.
Sis is going to Germany for a visit, yeah I know, pretty perverse. New vax shots be taken. Simply refuses to believe they are harmful. First 20 days after are the most dangerous but the danger never goes away.
It wasn't by accident. This is an experiment. They did try to get rid of normals, when they realized how bad it really was turning out to be. But, then, I am pretty sure they knew which lots were the worst and how bad it would be. Some of them absolutely knew. Getting closer to figuring out how to kill certain groups, and subgroups, and the general population.
Thanks to all the participants! Your prize is a shortened life. But... seculars say they want fewer people, shorter lives, and such. Well, there you go.
Post a Comment