I had thought of that possibility - that the "hot lots" were also the early lots and had fewer recipients just because the initial lot sizes were smaller. I'm quite surprised that the authors didn't include an analysis by date, as the date of reports should have been readily available. I guess I assumed that they probably did at least a cursory date-based analysis and found no reason to look further, but that's only because that's what *I* would do. Thanks for taking the time to dig into the VAERS data yourself and to share your findings with us.

I'm somewhat skeptical that they reduced the dose over time, given that the dosage was one of the parameters that was always clearly stated. I would not be at all surprised though to learn that the earlier lots caused more problems due to e.g. differences in overall formulation, in manufacturing practices and consistency, in handling practices, etc.

Ignoring all of the willful fraud and the dubiousness of the whole mRNA concept, the vaccine factories were producing a new product using techniques that had never previously been scaled, and were under immense pressure from corporate headquarters and global governments and international media to meet their promised delivery timelines and to scale up production as fast as possible. That's the sort of situation that always leads to cut corners and shoddy output, whatever it is that is being produced.