Uh, That's Not A Conspiracy Theory -- Vax Deaths by LOT NUMBER prove there is a HUGE PROBLEM

I have a PhD in Statistics and the results presented are very concerning, obviously.

One of the things statisticians do is remove all possible alternative explanations before reaching a conclusion. Although these data look bad, there is one possibility that needs to be considered:

Is VAERS reporting rate constant across time?
Is VAERS reporting rate constant for deaths vs. other reactions?
And is that difference constant across time?

If the answer to some of these questions is NO, we have a confound. If VAERS reporting rate was higher for a span of months, we are going to see more reactions, including deaths and non-deaths. If a vaccine lot number was in circulation during one of these higher-reporting spans, then it will BY DEFINITION have a higher death and incidence rate, simply because VAERS reporting is done more often.

Here’s a concrete example to explain, but keep in mind I’m not saying this exact situation is true. Suppose that VAERS system was functionally normally when the vaccine was released. Within days, VAERS gets buried in reports of bad reactions. Because this makes the pharma companies look bad, the VAERS system is “changed”, so that is harder to submit a complaint (speculation, but has been stated by some).

Also consider that the very process of submitting VAERS complaints (it takes 30 minutes?) may mean that actual VAERS death/incidence counts on record are UNDERESTIMATES, and this underestimation itself varies by the number of COVID cases / vaccine cases present.

TLDR: The notion that one vaccine Lot# caused more deaths than another is very concerning. As in immediate market halt concerning. BUT… as I stated above, there are several other reasons that certain lot #s may have more/less cases, because:

ease of VAERS reporting changed over time…
so proportion of actual VAERS reports varies over time..
and because lot numbers simply reflect different supply windows,
LOT#, by definition, will correlate with VAERS death reports.

The events were consistent over time.

But even if they weren't, it still couldn't explain such huge differences between the lots.

However, if the lots were not of the same size and some lots were as much as 20 times the size of other lots, then this data would be easy to explain.

The only thing that matters is adverse reactions per jabs distributed, the total number doesn't tell the whole story.

It would be like trying to compare the wealth of an average person from Switzerland to one from India by comparing the total GDP of thw two countries. Obviously you would get a wildly skewed result.

MRNA Vaxx is garbage science because you cant control how much vaxx will be produced by the host after it is introduced. Some overproduce and some underproduce. Am I getting this right?

I wonder if lots are sent to certain locations, such as one lot go to various CVS stores while another goes to the health department. The could lend credence to the theory that some people administering the shots are not properly trained. Like, the health department are probably RNs while CVS or the grocery store are just some pharma tech. They don't aspirate and they just stick it in the arm. If they get a vessel, that person will have issues.

The events were consistent over time.

But even if they weren't, it still couldn't explain such huge differences between the lots.

However, if the lots were not of the same size and some lots were as much as 20 times the size of other lots, then this data would be easy to explain.

The only thing that matters is adverse reactions per jabs distributed, the total number doesn't tell the whole story.

It would be like trying to compare the wealth of an average person from Switzerland to one from India by comparing the total GDP of thw two countries. Obviously you would get a wildly skewed result.