Can You Find the Smoking Gun?

People watching the Covid jab rollout around the world with a critical eye know that the vaccine makers are immune from prosecution for any injury or death that results from the uptake of their products. Although the US FDA supposedly fully approved the Pfizer Biontech jab marketed as Comirnaty, this was a bait and switch done mostly to compel jabs on US Service Members. No Comirnaty vaccine is available. Attempts to get Pfizer approved for children likewise may represent an attempt to get the shots on the children's vaccine schedule, which enjoys its own liability protection.

I don't think the EUA liability shield is anywhere near as bulletproof as it is made out to be. These companies are established corporate felons with track records of pushing dangerous products on consumers. They play statistical games and intentionally don't do research if it might reveal something they don't want to see. The CDC plays along, claiming that every death after a Covid jab is not associated, no matter how healthy the person was prior and how quickly afterwards they died. Autopsies are rarely done, and even if they are, it's not like you find a note inside the body that says "the vaccine did it!" There needs to be a plausible mechanism of action.

The vaccine makers liability shield goes away if criminal negligence (i.e. they had concerning red flags in trials that were intentionally buried) or criminal malfeasance can be shown. That brings me back to the bad batch issue with the Covid jabs.

An article by the Expose in November claimed that only 5% of Covid jab lots were responsible for 100% of reported VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) deaths. These bad batches were evenly distributed across all 50 US states and among all three major US vaccine makers. The odds of this happening by chance alone was near impossible. I wanted to examine this. First off, what could be causing this massive discrepancy? I will offer four theories.

1. The first is that this is a statistical relic of Simpson's paradox, which might exonerate the vaccine makers if true. Pfizer has intentionally hidden the denominator (i.e. the total number of doses administered, not shipped but actual jabs in people's arms) to make statistical analysis of adverse events difficult. The number of doses per lot that actually end up in people's arms could vary greatly, making the supermegadose lot look more dangerous through a simple law of numbers. As an example of this let's imagine that the "safe" lot was actually comprised of 500 vaccine doses, sent to a smattering of rural hospitals with expected low uptake. The MAGA folks out in Hicksville don't trust the jab, so only 90 doses from this lot end up in people's arms. Nothing real bad happens to this small group, so nothing gets reported to VAERS. Meanwhile, the "dangerous" lot has 100,000 doses in it and is flying off the shelves at some Dodgers blue drive up jab stadiums. All 100,000 doses are put in folk's arms, 90 die of something later and are all dutifully reported to VAERS, and 1000 more report serious side effects which are also all dutifully reported. Nothing to see here folks! Or perhaps there is something to see, as the safety profile of this big group might still be unacceptable for really bad adverse reactions like death. But it still would mean there is no difference in the composition of doses, just in the sizes of lots.

2. The second theory relates to VAERS over or underreporting. In this example Lot 1 and Lot 2 are the same size and distribution, but one lot is shipped close to some Anti-vaxxer U Memorial hospitals, while the other lot is shipped close to I Don't Know Nothing hospitals. This would mean that VAERS might be underreported by the I Don't Know Nothing Hospitals, making the side effect profile much much worse than it already is. So the media has argued instead that the Anti-vaxxer U hospitals are reporting every hangnail, stubbed toe and person hit by a bus as a vaccine adverse event. VAERS is easy to screen out for such a ridiculous assertion, but some hospitals or areas still might be reporting into it a lot more than others. 

3. The third theory is that there might be differences in storage, shipping or manufacturing processes that cause some hot vaccine lots. Vaccine Impact reported the standard size of a vaccine lot as 6000 doses, so in this example we assume standard size and distribution. The hot lot issue would show negligence on the vaccine makers part and should be investigated in detail to determine what causes some batches to be so dangerous. They would have plausible deniability however, and could scapegoat a few manufacturing sites or logistics companies. Does it show criminal intent? Probably not.

4. The fourth theory is the payload on criminal behavior. Let's assume that there were some Nazi eugenicist types out to run expiriments on the whole human population with the jabs. What would these mad scientists do? They would probably make a lot of batches pretty harmless (so not everyone drops dead in the streets right away) and then they would rejigger a small percentage of vaccine lots with all kinds of crazy stuff to run their real experiments (probably something to do with merging with AI, or mining cryptocurrency with electrical impulses in the human body like that 0606060606 patent I read about) Most of this mad science would be tracked by AI and very very few people would know what was actually going on. Would this prove criminal intent? Absolutely!

To overcome Simpson's paradox we need to know the denominator, i.e. the size of doses administered and the size of vaccine lots. I don't believe Pfizer would hide this information if it was favorable, but I don't know of a way to find it out. Does anyone have suggestions?

Theory two is somewhat refuted by the VAERS data themselves. Even adverse events like car accidents that pro Vaxxers love to use to prove VAERS is useless can actually show the opposite, if the car accident was caused by a stroke, heart attack, blood clot or other vaccine adverse event (motor vehicle accidents are up 26% in the USA, incidentally). Due to the difficulty and time consuming nature of reporting into the VAERS system and the many accounts of side effects being not recorded, this dataset is almost certainly underreported everywhere. It's just a matter of by how much.

Theory three is tricky because problems with cold storage would likely lead to ineffective doses, but not unsafe ones. I can't imagine anyone making a personal risk calculation to get the vaccine if either theory three or four is true. It would literally be playing a game of Russian shot roulette and hoping you don't encounter a loaded gun with each successive jab. If there's a 5% chance that I experience a serious adverse event or death, that probably negates the 1% relative risk reduction of getting Covid which I have a 99.7% chance of surviving anyways. 

I favor theory four for a lot of reasons. It's the only one that puts together insanely disparate real world anecdotes. Some vaxxed folks seem to be able to stick a magnet at the injection site and some claim that they have a WiFi signal being emitted from their body. Others adamantly deny this and "disprove" it with their vaxxed bodies. Some jabbed folks claim that they didn't feel a thing and insist this means the shots are safe. Some of those same people take a second or booster shot and then have a huge problem. There are stories of couples who got jabbed the same day with one dead and one having a stroke. Some scientists have found graphene oxide and Hydra vulgaris in vials. Others ignore this. Pfizer still won't list all of its ingredients.

None of the jabs seem to do a darned thing about getting Covid in any long run way. But this post is about safety, not effectiveness.

In order for the vax manufacturers to maintain total immunity from prosecution in the event of injury or death, they have to not be responsible for gross fraud or criminal negligence. I think there might be ways to chip away at this edifice, and the hot lot theory might be the most damning smoking gun. Any suggestions?