This is beyond weird that the pattern holds true across manufacturers. I don't believe the "kill shots" theory as part of population control because human population is going down of it's own accord anyway. There's no need to do something which will happen anyway. They've already done it.
The alternative is worse, there is no hypothesis as to why a random number of lots specifically are worse than others.
An alternative hypothesis is that the lots are identical, but something else like the patients, refrigeration, or administration negatively varies a lot.
We know that mRNA will get taken up by whatever cells it bumps into. Injected into your blood, it converts blood vessel cells, heart cells, or any cell that has a direct interface with the blood into spike factories to be killed by the immune system. If you have a microbruise, which happen all the time, it can get into any organ anywhere or into nerves.
So I think this shows batches going to places with different standards of care. One batch goes to Walmart where the technicians just jab it anywhere in the general vicinity of your arm and lots of people get it in their blood and die. Another goes to a hospital where actual nurses aspirate the needle and most people get it in their muscle.
Or vice versa, sometimes the people that do it everyday are better at it than the people that just studied how to do it. If administration is a big factor how would you even know where to go to have the best odds? I don't know.
If the lots were distributed evenly to every place doing injections then poor administration should be evenly distributed across batches, but that's not how it works.
Vaccines are purchased in bulk, so a whole batch or most of a batch might go to a specific customer.
Dr. John Campbell estimates that as many as 1 in 6000 or so injections are administered into a blood vessel so this should have a big effect on outcomes.
Or their ability to produce a consistent product is shit. The same batches went to different states and were still high on the adverse events reported.
This is a lot of speculation and no substance. In pharma, nothing leaves the door without meeting release specs. Every batch is tested, every incoming material is tested, every manufacturing suite is tested, and so on. You can't simply make up the release requirements on the fly either, because it's part of the batch record ("recipe") for the drug, and that's on file with the FDA. It's extremely unlikely that lots all labeled as the same drug product went out the door with entirely different contents.
We also lack data on any of the lots mentioned, which can influence these statistics. Was each lot fully administered, or were some underutilized? Drug product is sometimes lost in distribution (for example, it expires), in which case it's sent to destruction. What about lot sizes, were these all the same? Yields and batch sizes fluctuate, and the size of each lot almost definitely varies by some amount.
And all adverse events are reported to the manufacturer with the lot number (if available), mandatorily by law. Claiming lot outcomes are intentionally made difficult to discern is an outright lie.
That philosophy has saved my bacon before, and this time there is a chance it saved my life or prevented a major injury.
This is beyond weird that the pattern holds true across manufacturers. I don't believe the "kill shots" theory as part of population control because human population is going down of it's own accord anyway. There's no need to do something which will happen anyway. They've already done it.
The alternative is worse, there is no hypothesis as to why a random number of lots specifically are worse than others.
An alternative hypothesis is that the lots are identical, but something else like the patients, refrigeration, or administration negatively varies a lot.
We know that mRNA will get taken up by whatever cells it bumps into. Injected into your blood, it converts blood vessel cells, heart cells, or any cell that has a direct interface with the blood into spike factories to be killed by the immune system. If you have a microbruise, which happen all the time, it can get into any organ anywhere or into nerves.
So I think this shows batches going to places with different standards of care. One batch goes to Walmart where the technicians just jab it anywhere in the general vicinity of your arm and lots of people get it in their blood and die. Another goes to a hospital where actual nurses aspirate the needle and most people get it in their muscle.
Or vice versa, sometimes the people that do it everyday are better at it than the people that just studied how to do it. If administration is a big factor how would you even know where to go to have the best odds? I don't know.
Worth the read; thanks OP.
Is this because some nurses are injecting it incorrectly into the blood vessel?
Probably not, that's covered later in the article, you'd except a more normal distribution.
If the lots were distributed evenly to every place doing injections then poor administration should be evenly distributed across batches, but that's not how it works.
Vaccines are purchased in bulk, so a whole batch or most of a batch might go to a specific customer.
Dr. John Campbell estimates that as many as 1 in 6000 or so injections are administered into a blood vessel so this should have a big effect on outcomes.
Or their ability to produce a consistent product is shit. The same batches went to different states and were still high on the adverse events reported.
This is a lot of speculation and no substance. In pharma, nothing leaves the door without meeting release specs. Every batch is tested, every incoming material is tested, every manufacturing suite is tested, and so on. You can't simply make up the release requirements on the fly either, because it's part of the batch record ("recipe") for the drug, and that's on file with the FDA. It's extremely unlikely that lots all labeled as the same drug product went out the door with entirely different contents.
We also lack data on any of the lots mentioned, which can influence these statistics. Was each lot fully administered, or were some underutilized? Drug product is sometimes lost in distribution (for example, it expires), in which case it's sent to destruction. What about lot sizes, were these all the same? Yields and batch sizes fluctuate, and the size of each lot almost definitely varies by some amount.
And all adverse events are reported to the manufacturer with the lot number (if available), mandatorily by law. Claiming lot outcomes are intentionally made difficult to discern is an outright lie.