ecosophia | Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 99

As we proceed through the second year of these open posts, it's pretty clear that the official narrative is cracking as the toll of deaths and injuries from the Covid vaccines rises steadily and the vaccines themselves demonstrate their total uselessness at preventing Covid infection or transmission. It's still important to keep watch over the mis-, mal- and nonfeasance of our self-proclaimed health gruppenfuehrers, and the disastrous results of the Covid mania, but I think it's also time to begin thinking about what might be possible as the existing medical industry reels under the impact of its own self-inflicted injuries.

So it's time for another open post. The rules are the same as before:

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here.

3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue.

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. Also, please don't drag in current quarrels about sex, race, religions, etc. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules.

With that said, the floor is open for discussion.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Pfizer Vaccine Batches in the EU Were Placebos, Say Scientists

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/28/pfizer-vaccine-batches-in-the-eu-were-placebos-say-scientists/

Maybe they were placebos, because these vaxxes wouldn't cause harm...

-A Spaniard.

I'm sympathetic to the argument that placebo batches were released deliberately in order to mask just how harmful the real thing was. But I also think we should be cautious about these findings, until more data/confirmation comes out.

I've seen this one, and I'm waiting for more info to come in about it.

Geoff thinks the "How Bad Was My Batch" data contradicts the finding, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions about it.

https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/urgent-please-remove-all-reference

"30% were placebos" is actually not the main message I would take from this chart. Under-reporting in certain areas/times is certainly a possibility, as is the possibility that some lots would be less reactogenic than others (possibly due to poor quality control or poor handling).

The message that I would shout is about the blue line. Why is it that the worst batches were given to the fewest people? To me this says that someone was paying attention and stopping injection of those lots based on real-time reporting but was keeping that information quiet.

images

A horror on the blue line is many of those bad bathes were still being used a year later. None were withdrawm until much later when some countries starting banning all batches and destroying unused stock.

When the pharma/gov't supply contracts forbade anyone even the gov't health authorities from testing any vials and the buyers had pay for the whole contract even if part of the way thru the agencies had hard data showing noneffectiveness ... well:

- you can't fix the stupid
- can't fix the corrupt
- can't fix the evil

They evil and corrupt need to die off or metaphorically eat each other for their numbers to be reduced not to cause so much needless suffering and death. But so far not enough of their victims are awake for that to happen. I have sympathy for the stupid, deluded and deceived but not one iota for the evil or corrupt or the stupid in power jobs.

The "bad batch" data was already patently obvious by the end of CY 2021 Q1. No excuses.

If you look at the jab rollout as a testing exercise to determine lethality and effect for various blends and dose levels, the data and behavior make more sense. Remember, it never was a 'vaccine' and never had any therapeutic value, so normal safety controls had no relevance.

Then again, the requirement to transport at minus 60 degrees - assuming that was true, because once batches were broken out for distribution there's no way to keep them at minus 60, so how was the time period controlled from when a dose was unfrozen to when it was injected? - is unlikely to have been met in many situations.

Result? Recipients likely got some sort of toxic mush with varying amounts of mRNA and other bioweapon ingredients still active.

I've seen some things talking about how these lots were given to very few people, and that it shows things are working, but if true, then the authorities knew these injections were causing serious reactions, and hid it. I don't see any way this doesn't become explosive if it becomes common knowledge.

I thought there was someone earlyish on who was saying this was to do with reporting. I haven't found it in my files but I seem to remember something about some nurses who started entering the data by batch number, and then were told to stop because it was making everything look so bad, and that was the point where it became really very difficult to file reports with the adverse event reporting system at all? I know this is a very sketchy comment and I wish I could remember what I had heard this about. But it could be that kind of thing. Some people began compiling with reference to bacth number for convenience -- they were taken off that job -- other batches reports just didn't get logged at all? I am always thinking about the place where the stats meet the real world and all the things that can and have gone wrong in the process between health care delivery and neat data charts.

Mark,

A while ago I downloaded VAERs, grouped events & deaths into batches by lot number, and then plotted by date of injection. I didn't get around to publishing it anywhere, but the trend suggested the stronger batches were used first.

I then retrieved doses administered from Our World In Data to try and get a denominator. Combining the two, I got around 1/11,000 deaths per dose in Jan & Feb 2021. This dropped to 1/50,000 deaths per dose May-Sept 2021 and then tailed off (since it was early 2022 when I fetched the data). Note: don't take these numbers at face value, I can't guarantee I didn't make any mistakes.

It seems reasonable to me that they would start with a higher dose, when covid was considered a "deadly disease" and reduce the dose over time as it becomes more mild. It also follows that the worst manufacturing issues were likely to be early on.

It seems plausible that this hot-lots analysis has partly missed the obvious, in that the date of injection alone gives a good indication of the risk. Thoughts?

Martin F

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.

Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 99

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

reporting bias

no subject

no subject