Comments 1 - 14 of 14 Search these comments
Experimental mRNA vaccine being mass manufactured for the first time. Meanwhile, dead/attuned virus vaccines are not given EUAs. It's all bullshit.
And they accounted for the fact that some lots go to certain groups, like all old people, and age didnt pan out as an explanation - the lots # itself seems to be the variable?
Maybe the explanation is that they were trying vax variations on people without telling them? Using the public as guinea pigs?
Was anyone able to determine the sizes of the lots?
That is my suspicion, given Nuttboxers yesterday post about Slovenia.
It's weird - it's still accessible but not showing up at the MT front page anymore
it may save lives if they can find an effective treatment faster.
My money is on lot sizes not explaining this away, unless they intentionally lie about the lot sizes...
Hircus saysit may save lives if they can find an effective treatment faster.
Like Ivermectin?
They aren't trying to save lives.
Denninger analyzes death from various vaccine lots and the death distribution is statistically improbable. Long read, but worth it.
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. [similar results for all vaccines analyzed]
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.