Its here, but I bet you miss it and of course CNN doesn't make mention of it.

It’s important to note that no one, including AAA, recommends not getting these features because of repair costs. Systems like automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, and rear cross-traffic alerts can reduce your chances of getting in a crash in the first place. That’s one reason automatic emergency braking is now nearly universal on new cars and, in a few years, will be required in the United States.

Besides avoiding the need for repairs by reducing crashes, they also help prevent injury to vehicle occupants and pedestrians which is, after all, far more important than a dented fender.

Some of these systems can cut crash rates in half, said Greg Brannon, director of automotive engineering at AAA.

That last line is obviously a lie.

Were it not a lie then collision insurance, which pays when you are in a wreck to fix your car, would be going down in price, specifically for those vehicles with such features since it would reduce the crash rate "by half."

Instead the price of car insurance is skyrocketing.

These "features" are in fact worthless.

But the facts of insurance are simple.  Insurance companies are state-regulated and can only make a 10% profit.  If they make more the state will force them to reduce premiums.  Therefore there are only two ways for an insurance company to grow its profit in dollar terms across a given customer base: Either have more claims or more expensive claims.

Its not rocket science folks.  Tarted up vehicles full of these sensors, never mind $2,000 headlight assemblies instead of $200 ones that takes ordinary bulbs wildly increase collision repair costs.  If they actually reduced claims by the claimed dramatic amount then the total cost would go down to the insurance company and your premiums would go down too because state law forces that to happen when claim costs decrease.

These people are lying and of course CNN laps it up and feeds you to it on a spoon.

Oh, and incidentally, the same thing applies to health "insurance" as well.  Health insurance companies, for example, have been caught issuing bribes to pediatricians for children that are "vaccinated according to schedule", for example, and this extended to the Covid shots as well during the pandemic.  That is, rather than offer professional advice based upon what a physician believes is best for a given person instead they're bribed to do what an insurance company wants and, I remind you, the only way for an insurance company to make more money IS TO HAVE EITHER MORE CLAIMS OR MORE EXPENSIVE CLAIMS so spare me any LIES about how this scheme was "best for the person"; it must-certainly WAS AND IS NOT.

Insurance is a necessary evil but it is a felonious business as soon as the "insurance" firm is allowed, in any way, to influence the underlying thing being insured whatever it may be because such a firm always has as the only way to grow its business to either increase the number of claims or the cost of claims.

Always.

Seriously, read this and it ought to pop in and make sense.

"A number of things," she said. "We started to see patients who were experiencing very significant medical harms being rushed to the emergency room with lacerations requiring stitches. We had patients contact us who were begging to have body parts put back on within months of having surgeries."

She went on to claim, "The thing that kept happening is every time I would raise concerns and ask about the protocols and ask about the guidelines - this is just how the industry works, if a child says they're trans there's no questioning it. We just say, ‘Yep, you're trans, what would you like?’"

Why?

Simple, and for the same reason doctors and medical centers kept using Remdesivir even after the WHO ran a huge multi-national study that found it was worthless:  They got paid for it; the government paid for the drug and the hospital got to bill for it being administered, which is not cheap as it is an IV medication and they also got paid more the worse you got with no incentive to quickly and effectively treat you.

In the case of "transitioning" once you start you are a forced customer for life at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That's all they care about.

It is simply and only about the money.

You are just a mule that causes the money to flow.

Think not?

Its been known that statins cause Type II diabetes for a couple of decades.  Yet they're handed out like candy, despite the fact that diabetes kills a huge number of people but more important for the medical system it gains them hundreds of thousands of dollars first, so anything that they can find some reason to get you to do that will some time down the road lead you to that financial ruin, especially if you don't connect the two, they're all-in on because once again it is just about the money.

How about covid shots?  We knew pretty-quickly they didn't stop transmission nor did they last long in interdicting the disease either which was just perfect from the medical system's point of view in that you'd have to come back and get another one.  That it turned out to be even worse (and in a large percentage of people produces long-term and permanent -- even lethal -- damage) is icing on the cake but whether they knew that or not up front didn't matter -- all that mattered was that two would never be enough and every three or six months you'd have to come back for more.

Our system of laws is supposed to prohibit this because all such exploitation is in fact fraud.

Telling someone "you're protected" when you have every reason to believe that protection is fleeting at best and in fact doesn't help anyone else (because it doesn't interrupt transmission) is active fraud.  Every single person who did that should be rotting in prison right now but nobody is.

Likewise, everyone prescribed a statin without being told that the drugs inevitably damage insulin response and in some cases cause diabetes directly, and thus their efficacy over a long period of time is dubious at best has comitted fraud and should be rotting in prison but nobody is.

And anyone telling someone they can "transition" without fully disclosing that at best you can cosmetically look like the other sex but that it is scientifically impossible to become the other sex or gain the sexual and physical functions of the other sex is committing fraud and every one of those people should be in prison but once again -- nobody is.

Until this stops you will bother be screwed financially and in many cases shoved in the hole.

Since government has refused to jail anyone for any of those over the last 30+ years despite the black letter law being clear..... what does that leave us with for options?

Well then I'm a racist and I wear the badge with pride:

A Boston, Massachusetts, hospital announced Tuesday that after finding Black mothers were more likely to be reported for child abuse and neglect if a toxicology report came back positive, it would be taking steps to reevaluate the process in order to avoid perpetuating "structural racism." 

"Black pregnant people are more likely to be drug tested and to be reported to child welfare systems than white pregnant people," said Mass General Brigham, a nonprofit health care system. 

Pregnant people eh?  Can you describe who might be pregnant accurately to begin with?  For instance there has never been a pregnant man nor will there ever be, so the correct description is pregnant women, not people.

Oh, and then it gets really rich:

"Substance use disorder (SUD) is a condition with significant racial and ethnic inequities, especially in the context of pregnancy, when more punitive approaches to substance use disproportionately affect Black individuals," the announcement said.

You mean because it is more-likely that black people might be using drugs?

The drugs are either there or they are not.  If they are there then they are, and the skin color of the woman (and/or child) is irrelevant.

The hospital said its new policy is in line with medical recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which opposes drug testing of individuals or infants without consent and discourages "the separation of parents from their children solely based on substance use disorder, either suspected or confirmed."

Oh really?

So a woman who deliberately exposes her pre-born infant to harmful and addictive drugs should be considered "fit" and "responsible" to be a parent with custody of said kid?  You're serious about this?

I do understand and support that a woman who is pregnant and is using prescription treatment for her addiction, but is not violating that treatment protocol, inevitably will expose the infant to the treatment drug.  Provided that she does not also consume the drug(s) in question for which she sought treatment I can support leaving her and the child alone because she's recognized the problem, affirmatively taken steps to address it and the exposure in that case is inevitable and, as near as we can tell, it is not particularly dangerous.

But none of that is true if the actual drug is found in the infant or, for that matter, in the mother during the pregnancy or at the time of birth.  In that case she has willingly and intentionally exposed her child to narcotics on a direct basis and is per-se unfit to have custody of that kid.

For a hospital system to declare otherwise is the very definition of malpractice, fraud, and in addition it violates mandatory reporting statutes which should expose said hospital personnel personally to felony criminal child endangerment charges and, if said kid is seriously harmed or dies every single one of them should be indicted and tried as accessories before the fact to murder and executed for said crime.

I've long held the position that if you are female, of child-bearing age and caught with narcotics in your system your options should be (1) prison or (2) permanent sterilization.  Why?  Because while you have the right to abuse your body that does not extend to others who cannot give consent, and a girl is born with every egg she will ever have, so once those eggs are "polluted" there's nothing you can do about it.

ENOUGH of this woke bullshit.

If someone who works at such a place is run over by someone's SUV -- twice just to make sure they didn't miss -- I will cheer and laugh at their family members when the funeral is held.  I've had it with so-called "medical professionals" suborning intentional harm such as occurred with Remdesivir and now they want to do it to infants who have no capacity to consent whatsoever.

FUCK YOU Mass General and every single rat bastard who is employed there along with their entire genetic line.

There is an article floating around from The Expose 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.

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 fuck 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 fucking 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 fucked?

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 assholes 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.

Caution: This is a fairly long and graph-heavy article. It also should be read while sitting down and without coffee or other beverages in your mouth where they can destroy things if sprayed all over the room, such as a keyboard or monitor.

Boy, we got problems here folks.

Remember the claim that Covid-19 killed 500,000+ Americans to excess!

Well..... did it?

I have a gift which has served me very well over the decades; it is part of what allows me to be an excellent programmer and data analyst.  I can look at a data set and intuitively know whether it has discontinuities in it and this leads me to be able to partition it up and work with it more-efficiently than most since I then know where to put my attention when it comes to analysis.  Of course I'm not always right when I see something that looks "off" at first, nobody is, but most of the time it proves up.  That same capacity means I can look at an assembly-language dump of a program and rather-quickly among a multi-hundred page green-bar listing hone in on, for example, where a tax rate that needs to be changed is likely stored and then develop and iterate on a very good set of guesses on how an unknown machine's instruction set is likely organized without a processor instruction manual -- and thus determine how to successfully change the reference and/or data.

Let's look at the CDC's own data, which is the organization telling us what happened, and see if we can find such a data discontinuity without using the Covid data claim itself.  That is, let's look at all the other most-common and thus distinctly-reported and highlighted reasons people die according to the CDC and stack 'em up .vs. 2019, which we will use as our control year, during which there was by their claims no Covid and thus which was the most-recent year we can use for reference.

We should be easily able to see the other morbidities we were all told killed people; all those other conditions that were potentiated by Covid.  Remember, according to the CDC only a vanishingly small number of people died with no other cause on their death certificate; ergo, those other causes, if they were not going to occur anyway, will be on the death certificates and materially elevated over the control year.

Indeed the CDC itself says that your base risk of death if you're under 18 is 1/50,000.  This is a very small risk; to put it in perspective the average under 18 person accepts the same risk of death by being present in automobiles over a few months time and accepts it again and again each and every few more months.  So these conditions, which are the ones that kill people often enough to be of special note and thus be individually reported out by the CDC over the last decade or so, are the ones that are most likely to elevate risk from Covid-19 to a degree that is material in overall death statistics.  This is logical, reasonable, and thus can be considered presumptively correct (in other words the presumption is that it's right; you'd have to present a sizeable body of scientific evidence to convince me otherwise.)

I remind you that there is no base risk of substance from this virus absent some other set of morbid conditions; you accept more risk than the virus presents to a healthy person, by a substantial amount, simply going to buy groceries in your car over a period of a few months.

In addition note that the late weeks in this data set are incomplete -- often badly so.  I went on a series of rants last year on my page here when people were saying the current week data said people weren't dying at all.  That's wasn't true then and isn't now; it takes time to get the reports and correlate them.

But it is for this specific reason that when you see indications of a potential signal in data sets like this you damn well better pay attention because by the time the proof is delivered, if you're doing something that can't be retracted, you will have screwed an utterly enormous number of people and there will be nothing you can do about it.

Each of these graphs has its "X" axis of calendar weeks.  The 2020/2021 line extends beyond "52" because it keeps going into the new year but again remember that the closer you get to "today" the greater the under-reporting risk because the data simply hasn't gotten to them yet.  Nonetheless, four months into 2021 we should expect that basically everything for 2020 is in fact complete.  You'll also notice that while a lot of conditions have seasonal curves to them this is not true for all, and the magnitude, where it is present, varies quite a bit.

We will start our analysis of potential comorbid conditions with cancer.  Cancer kills a lot of people.  We were told it was a major co-morbidity for Covid-19; ergo, we should see a serious cancer death increase that happened last year and into this year based on the claims of the CDC and others.

Huh?  How come there's no material change of any sort when it comes to the rate of cancer death in the age of Covid?  Total additional deaths were 10,928 out of 609,000.  That's statistically non-existent; a 2% increase is very-likely simply associated with our well-established demographic shift toward getting older.  If cancer makes you more-likely to die from Covid the elevation in risk is quite small -- statistically speaking it doesn't do much to make Covid-19 more deadly.

Ok, ok, sepsis was allegedly one of the ways that Covid kills you; multiple-organ failure due to septic shock.  Therefore there should be a really, really big increase in sepsis over the previous 2019 year, right?

Ok, there was a very small increase - 2,470 deaths, a six percent increase.  That's a fairly significant increase in percentage terms but the total number of people who die from this cause, in whole or part, is quite small.  The original weeks, when we didn't know much of anything about Covid-19, gave us a pretty big spike; about 15% over what it was the previous year, but then it settled down and, while there was a burst of associated death in the summer that was quickly attenuated too.  It appears our medical system figured out how to stop sepsis from being a major factor pretty quickly and we stopped people that had The Coof from dying, in part, from sepsis. That doesn't account for the problem.

Moving on how about my favorite one..... fat-ass disease.  You know, Dieeeeeebeeeetus, otherwise known for most people as you keep eating shit for decades and it eventually kills you.  Yeah, virtue-signaling, "healthy at any size" bullshit disease?  Yes, I know, a small (under 10%) percentage of people with diabetes are Type I and that's not their fault in any way; Type I is an autoimmune disorder and while you may choose not to manage it other than by chasing carbs with insulin the actual cause isn't something you did.  But Type II is, in the main caused by being a fat-ass, which is 100% voluntary and a decision you can change at any point.

Oh look!  The blue line is above the red line, and materially so!  In fact in the spring it was really nasty, good for about 700 extra deaths in one week, and it's been 300 or so on average since.  That's fairly significant but, 300 deaths a week x 52 weeks is... 15,712 corpses or a 15% increase over 2019 levels.  Hmmm...... ok, we found some of it but for 90% of the people with the condition it's a lifestyle choice and not my concern nor is it any of my responsibility to mitigate your increased level of risk if you make said choice.

Next up is Alzheimer's.  You would not expect Covid-19 to have anything to do with that, but forcing people into isolation who are progressively becoming more-compromised both mentally and physically damn well might, essentially killing them through neglect and "I don't give a fuck about you" style prison treatment.  We didn't do any of that, did we?

Covid-19 didn't kill those people, our governments, our mayors, both Presidents and we did.  We're bastards and we slaughtered innocent old people through intentional neglect because we refused to implement isolation protocols for the workers in the facilities and find ways for those who loved and care for these older Americans to have said care, comfort and contact with their loved ones.  We're monsters and they died as a result of us, not from a virus.  But even so.... it doesn't account for anywhere near the rest of the dead people.  Every one of them is sad, but it is what it is.  This accounts for 14,567 additional dead bodies, an 11% increase.  Some of that is also likely demographics but you can bet we murdered some of those folks -- we just didn't do it with a virus.

Next up -- Influenza!  You know, our old buddy the flu?  Remember, we were told the flu "disappeared."  Did it?

Heh wait a minute..... there were lots of flu deaths in 2020 weren't there?  In fact it was only a bit below baseline this year so far, although in 2021 it looks to be running low.  Then again, was I noted, beware the latest weeks; they're behind, so I can't draw any firm conclusions.  But this much is clear: Did Covid-19 actually kill those people in those other weeks or did the flu kill them?  Good question; remember that dying with something doesn't mean you died of something.  Did we autopsy those people to find out which was which?  You know damn well we did not and the two are quite-closely related.  The total?  5,095 additional dead bodies, a 9% increase.

How about COPD/Emphysema and related things?  You'd think those folks would have gotten hammered.  After all, someone with either condition has severely-compromised oxygen transport to start with because their lungs are screwed, and we know that people choke to death with Covid, right?  So sufferers of both diseases should have gotten it straight up the pooper and fallen like flies.

Wait, WUT?

The death rate from these two diseases in the spring and early summer tracked below 2019?  And then again as we went into the winter "death season" from Covid, again, it tracked materially below the baseline?  Would someone care to explain this one?  Indeed, there were 1,965 fewer deaths, a 1.27% decrease.  Since when is COPD, emphysema and other related lung disorders protective against a respiratory virus?

I'll answer that for you -- when they're using inhaled steroids like Budesonide and those drugs stop the virus from causing serious harm.  So tell me again why we haven't been handing that out to people who get Covid at the first sign of trouble, given that one of the obvious highest-risk groups of people died less often over the last year despite a raging pandemic respiratory virus circulating everywhere?  Gee, wouldn't it have been nice if we used the data we already had via natural experiment across roughly 20 million Americans with an extreme morbidity bearing on respiratory infection to stop people from being killed?  We had this data before the fall and winter surge and deliberately refused to use it.  Indeed it was that data that prompted the Australian-led study which we refused to sign onto and promote here in the US.

I remind you that if we had done so, and handing that readily-available drug out to anyone testing Covid positive had stopped the death equally as well as it did in the COPD/Emphysema group all of the EUAs would have been illegal to issue and there would be no vaccines or need for them as the death toll would have returned to baseline or below immediately and permanently and the pandemic would have been over.  This was an intentional decision as the data was right under everyone's nose all the way back to the summer months of 2020 including Fauci, Azar, the FDA and the staff of the CDC.

I know, I know!  We must have misclassified a bunch of people and they're in the "other respiratory disease" bucket!  That is definitely where the excess death showed up.  It has to be; this is a respiratory virus and so that only makes sense.  Whew, we found it!

Uh, well, maybe not.  There were only 1,838 more dead people in that classification, a 4% increase.  Meh.

Ok, ok, I know, I know, seriously immune compromised people, such as those with Lupus, all dropped like flies.  Remember, that's a serious comorbidity too according to..... everyone who is a so-called expert.  So all those people died.

Oh wait.... they're not dead at rates higher than were seen in 2019?  WTF?  Heh, wait a minute -- aren't most of those people taking Plaquenil?  You do know what Plaquenil is, right?  Hydroxychloroquine, otherwise known as HCQ.  You have to wonder; there's exactly zero evidence that Covid nailed them at all and most of them are in fact using that eeee-viile drug that the CDC, FDA and Pharma all say doesn't work.  Well if it doesn't work and being immune compromised is a risk factor how come there is nearly zero excess death among those people?  Either being immune compromised is not a comorbidity or HCQ looks to be pretty damned protective of people with a serious comorbidity.  Duh.  Yes, there were 1,818 more dead people.  Count 'em folks, they did not drop like flies; that resulted in only a 3% increase for a condition that was expected to be a death sentence if infected by Covid-19.

The most-likely explanation for their lack of death is the drug a huge percentage of them are using.

That would be two drugs now validated by natural experiment and intentionally ignored by all of these goons eh?

All right, all right, I know, I know..... heart attacks got lots of people.  It's gotta show up somewhere; it must be heart attacks.

Hmmmm.... yes, there was a really, really ugly spike in the first few weeks wasn't there?  About 3,000 of them one week, which is really awful.  That, times 53 weeks, would be..... about 150,000 corpses.  Except.... it didn't stay that bad, did it?  No, but it was elevated, and materially-so over the entire year.  This is problematic though because it goes to what I was talking about the science now saying that spike protein itself is pathogenic, and in the form of causing blood clots.  Clots, of course, cause heart attacks and then the question will become are the vaccines going to cause lots of heart attacks too?  Better keep an eye on this one because that elevation level is very material, unlike all the rest of them we've seen so far.  And here we have real death: to be specific, 47,973 more corpses resulting in a 7% increase, so whatever those folks are taking it sure didn't help.  THAT is an ugly number especially considering that heart disease is already up there with the worst of the "why you died" list.

Let's talk strokes; they're nasty too in the general sense.  So did they take a similar hit?

Uh, yeah they did.  A couple hundred extra dead people a week is nothing to sneeze at and also bears watching in the coming months because once again you can't tell much about the most-recent weeks yet.... or can you?  In 2020 we did have 12,404 more fatal strokes and that too is an ugly number of slightly larger magnitude in percentage terms than for heart attacks, an 8% increase.

What's the common thread between heart attacks and strokes?  Clotting.

And finally, the "aw crap we don't know what it was" column:

Ummmm.... Yeah.

Note that in 2020 this accounted for a grand total of 9,635 more bodies.  But in 2021, well.....

Now a good amount of that disappears back into the other classifications over time, so setting off nuclear alarm sirens isn't quite called for yet.  But anyone who tells you that there's no safety signal when you have a very large spike that is now nearly four months old and unresolved into other cataloged conditions has rocks in their head.  That's just flat-out bullshit considering that we now have over a year's worth of experience with Covid-19.

Yes, there's backlog, there's late reporting and there's updated reports that come in over time.  All true and maybe that finding will all disappear back into the other charts over the next six months or so.  But by God it had better, because if it does not and the so-called "authorities" ignore it there's your evidence, correlated exactly with when we started stabbing people en-masse, that people were dying of those stabs and if it continues then the presumptive linked causal factor is going to be established since there is no other material "unknown" that has materially changed during that time period.

I still can't find 500,000 excess deaths caused by Covid in 2020; they're simply not there among the diseases the CDC reported out and since the base risk is 1/50,000 even across half the population being infected we could only account for 3,000 deaths.  It is thus clear that if in fact Covid-19 has killed anywhere near the number of people claimed those other morbid conditions, all of which are serious diseases standing alone, have to account for the increase between them.

Indeed the most-common, by far (40% of additional deaths by disease) were due to heart attacks and the next was diabetes at 13%.  Between diabetes and heart attacks, both almost-exclusively due to lifestyle choices and thus your personal decisions, 53% of the excess 120,475 deaths are accounted for.  If we add in strokes, which also are largely lifestyle-related then we're at about 2/3rds.

Among those diseases that are allegedly "the biggest comorbid factors" I can find only 120,475 more deaths that Covid-19 may have contributed to and which included those diseases as a causal factor in total.  Did Covid-19 cause all of those 120,000 additional deaths or were they caused by, in the case of diabetes, strokes and heart attacks for example, the additional 50lbs that a material percentage of people put on during the lockdowns (and over 20lbs on average!) from eating takeout trash full of fast carbs and being involuntarily cooped up in their homes?  We do not know so this can only describe an upper boundary or caused mortality -- not a lower one.

This analysis doesn't mean even more people didn't die with Covid, but an alleged "Covid" death that wasn't accompanied by one of the CDC's specifically-called out diseases.  The CDC "selects" these specific categories and ICD codes, I remind you, because they're particularly large percentages of the whole among diseases that kill people.  When the CDC says that only a few thousand people died of Covid alone this data is rather interesting wouldn't you say?

After all being shot while Covid positive, or ODing, dying in a car wreck or wrapping your motorcycle around a telephone pole in no way implies you died of Covid, does it?  To so-imply or state is to deliberately deceive the public and inculcate fear; it is a lie.

Yet the media and government have in fact said it did because they have repeatedly claimed more than four times the number of people who the CDC links to specific diseases in fact died "of" Covid-19.

The CDC's own data proves they lied.

Further, they claim that we had "no evidence" for the effectiveness of repurposed drugs; that's also a bald lie in that there are at least two which are specifically used en-masse by millions in the group of people in two of these morbidity buckets and both of them saw materially less death than was expected.  In other words we had very strong observational evidence across a huge body of people that these drugs are protective and did nothing with that information.  Had we acted and had those drugs proved effective the EUAs for vaccines would have been illegal, there would have been no need or desire for vaccines at all and a huge number of people who are currently dead would still be alive.

To be blunt: By the CDC's own data the FDA, NIH, CDC, Fauci and others lied and as a direct result people died.

Do you think they're being honest about the safety of the jabs given these facts?  After all it's your ass since they made sure you couldn't sue or prosecute anyone if they get caught lying again.

The CDC's published source files from which you can reproduce these results on your own are found here and here.

PS: How long before, if the "unknown" data verifies, Mr. Puddinhead is forced to go on TV and eulogize all those who died due to taking shots predicated on a bogus premise, specifically one crafted before we had the science on the fact that the spike protein itself is pathogenic, as is now known -- and thus any such attempt would inevitably harm or kill a significant number of people -- more than the non-morbid percentage who die from natural infection, since their body is able to prevent the infection from becoming systemic.