"A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine."
Vaccines are the sacred cow of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It's unthinkable to even consider that vaccines may not be safe. Anything bad that happens shortly after a vaccine has been administered is just a coincidence and surely not due to the vaccine.
I have personally not made up my mind on vaccines as a whole, but I stopped getting flu shots a year or 2 before covid (after being raised on yearly shots) and I knew as soon as there were talks of a covid vaccine that I would not take it. When you see the religious zeal with which mainstream doctors defend vaccines, I think you have to consider the possibility that vaccine science is not nearly as settled as its portrayed to be, because religious zeal doesn't lead to optimal research - even if you don't want to go into the more sinister aspects, such as believing the "medical cartel wants to kill you", as the researcher in the interview put it.
I've had the following argument used in a discussion on the Covid vaxx "If someone has an adverse effect shortly after getting the vaccine, attributing it to the vaccine is the same as saying someone who drops dead soon after drinking a glass of water, died because of drinking water."
No, I'm not making this up. They really do believe vaccines are as safe as water.
That section of the interview you posted is so dark that I find it difficult to even really comprehend. I don't want to believe it. But the evidence does seem to point in one direction only. I'm finding that the more I look into the "public health" apparatus, the more concerned I am.
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Be careful. One you start understanding how much damage the vaccines are causing to the body and especially the brain, you might get to the point that many have: overall, vaccines haven't saved any lives.
This sounds heretical and most people will immediately reject it.
However, the anonymous interviewee above is not alone in his/her view:
But the immune system is also much more than an isolated component of the body, merely responsible for search-and-destroy missions. In fact, it interleaves with many of the other body systems, including the endocrine, nervous, and metabolic systems, with more connections undoubtedly to be discovered in time.
— Kuby's Immunology, 7th Edition, p. 1.
This naturally brings up the question, why is there so much chronic illness now?
Diet plays a role for sure but a close look will eventually lead you to the enormous damage that vaccines are causing. They are designed to alter the immune system for life so we should expect side effects that last a lifetime—including the exploding epidemic of vaccine-induced autism (aka brain damage that occurs during a sensitive developmental period of brain growth; currently at 1 in 36 children in the US, up from 4 in 10,000 40 years ago or so).
Feb 7, 2022·edited Feb 7, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
The original Expose article on the lot variation included this comment;
"It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands."
They would otherwise have no real opportunity to implement wide-scale mRNA experimentation in pursuit of immortality or ethnic bioweapons or whatever.
It also said the "hot" lots were distributed widely across the country, whereas the other lots were mainly used in one geographical area.
My main suspicion of the whole idea is that it really tends to exonerate the shot, as it implies that it's harmless, aside from the odd lot.
There is a clinical production line and a commercial production line. The clinical production line has higher quality and it is given to the Pfizer employees. Same with Moderna.
Further, those outlier states with lower adverse reactions are home to Pfizer headquarters where a majority of their 75k employees work. Except Massachusetts. Oh wait,...Moderna's headquarters is in Massachusetts where most of their employees work.
RFK,Jr did a three hour interview yesterday talking about he got involved with adverse events and vaccines. He also gives some historical background, and the motivations behind them. My grown children had all their required vaccines until middle school. When a new doctor at our family practice told me my children had a lot of ear infections because we didn't have a vaccine for them yet and wanted to give my nine year old boys the HPV jab, I told her we needed to have a longer conversation without them in the room about that. She backed off, but I was horrified this was her idea of "health."
Here's a link to the RFK interview. The interviewer isn't the best, but that happens.
If, after adjusting for reporting bias and age of recipients, there still remained a number of significant outlier batches, I struggle to understand how this pattern could happen by errors in say manufacturing or quality testing when the batch lot analysis is looking across three companies. Two are huge and long-standing drug manufacturers and one is brand new to mass manufacturing.
But while we are spitballing explanations for VAERS reporting ratios, don't we have to assume VAERS fatigue? Where early high reporting doctors simply gave up as they saw that VAERS reports were treated with contempt by officials and possibly exposed them to repercussions in the future as dissident vaccine non-believers? They are time consuming, filed under threat of legal penalties and ultimately seem to accomplish nothing. How would we measure VAERS fatigue versus those other factors?
I don't want the batch lot hypothesis to take away from the main concern that these vaccines are badly designed and cannot but do immense harm; however, I fully understand what Yeadon is searching for her: a thread of motive to explain what is going on. We see the lies and deceptions practiced in lock step surrounding covid. Many of those lies were literally rehearsed in pandemic exercises for more than 20 years - all of them included some type of quarantines and control of information. We see that these companies with close ties to the people funding the creation of covid rush out vaccines that very early on look potentially harmful and prove to be so. As the damage is being done, nothing is done to mitigate it. Nothing is done to slow it. Instead, they put their foot on the accelerator. It is hard to stretch greed and hubris out far enough to cover THIS much harm.
I've heard all the ideas that this is just a confluence of disparate motives. Indeed, all human activity is. That doesn't disprove that central and important players might have a very specific motive that guides them to influence those downstream to preferred directions. Yeadon is searching for that motive in the place most comfortable to him: the analysis of drug effects. Maybe some clue is there and maybe we have to look elsewhere, but I certainly don't feel like we have a very complete picture yet as to why this is happening.
I hate to use anecdotal stories but I work in this industry and know people who work at Moderna. They said they would take the pfizer vax because they didn't trust Moderna CMC.
From a manufacturing point of view, vaccines are much harder to purify than normal small molecule drugs. With a discrete single molecule or salt drug, you can get purity on large scale to the order of 99.99+% with enough work, and you can assess this purity in a reliable and repeatable fashion. In other words, the variance in purity for vaccines is going to be higher than your run of the mill small molecule drug. With the RNA vaccines, which are far more temperature sensitive, this problem is likely even worse given the long chain between manufacture and the delivery into a person's arm. Add to that, that these vaccines were only manufactured on this scale for the very first time in the Summer and Fall of 2020- they were literally rushing the batches and lots out the door for the vaccination push of mid Winter.
However, you are completely correct- there are so many potential confounding variables in the vaccination protocols and history as to make cause and effect determinations difficult to near impossible. It definitely merits more investigations.
The lots are also distributed internationally. So, the VAERS reporting on a lot means that it reports on that portion of a lot distributed in the US. I have observed same lot numbers being distributed both in the US and in Canada. I am sure the other countries too. As I wrote before (https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/cards-on-the-table-face-on-the-floor), we should demand full disclosure from the manufacturers as to the geographic and temporal distribution of the lots. Why is it such a secret, if these jabs are safe and effective? And with full immunity? Unless there is a malevolent element in it...
Thanks! I wasn't sure what to think about the hot lots, felt like something with a lot of "confounding variables", but I knew who would at some point untangle those variables and explain it as clearly as possible ...
It's pretty startling to be reminded of this claim the Japanese found magnetic elements in batches, given what a meme of derision that's become in Western MSM. I wonder if there's a term for this in the dictionary of propaganda (cf. "rednecks r eating horse paste l0l!"),
Regional differences in reporting propensity are likely huge. The following was written in the context of surgery, but can also apply to VAERS reporting:
"It is an uncomfortable fact that a patient’s odds of undergoing surgery often depend more on where he lives than on his clinical circumstances."
We may very well have a situation where a HL/BB is given to a segment of the population that is more prone to AEs, within a region with high standards of reporting, an vice versa, true?
"A: The people doing the investigation are not really interested in looking at the facts. They assume that the vaccines are safe. So, when they do investigate, they invariably come up with exonerations of the vaccines. They say, “This vaccine is safe.” But what do they base those judgments on? They base them on definitions and ideas which automatically rule out a condemnation of the vaccine."
Vaccines are the sacred cow of medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. It's unthinkable to even consider that vaccines may not be safe. Anything bad that happens shortly after a vaccine has been administered is just a coincidence and surely not due to the vaccine.
I have personally not made up my mind on vaccines as a whole, but I stopped getting flu shots a year or 2 before covid (after being raised on yearly shots) and I knew as soon as there were talks of a covid vaccine that I would not take it. When you see the religious zeal with which mainstream doctors defend vaccines, I think you have to consider the possibility that vaccine science is not nearly as settled as its portrayed to be, because religious zeal doesn't lead to optimal research - even if you don't want to go into the more sinister aspects, such as believing the "medical cartel wants to kill you", as the researcher in the interview put it.
I've had the following argument used in a discussion on the Covid vaxx "If someone has an adverse effect shortly after getting the vaccine, attributing it to the vaccine is the same as saying someone who drops dead soon after drinking a glass of water, died because of drinking water."
No, I'm not making this up. They really do believe vaccines are as safe as water.
That section of the interview you posted is so dark that I find it difficult to even really comprehend. I don't want to believe it. But the evidence does seem to point in one direction only. I'm finding that the more I look into the "public health" apparatus, the more concerned I am.
Be careful. One you start understanding how much damage the vaccines are causing to the body and especially the brain, you might get to the point that many have: overall, vaccines haven't saved any lives.
This sounds heretical and most people will immediately reject it.
However, the anonymous interviewee above is not alone in his/her view:
But the immune system is also much more than an isolated component of the body, merely responsible for search-and-destroy missions. In fact, it interleaves with many of the other body systems, including the endocrine, nervous, and metabolic systems, with more connections undoubtedly to be discovered in time.
— Kuby's Immunology, 7th Edition, p. 1.
This naturally brings up the question, why is there so much chronic illness now?
Diet plays a role for sure but a close look will eventually lead you to the enormous damage that vaccines are causing. They are designed to alter the immune system for life so we should expect side effects that last a lifetime—including the exploding epidemic of vaccine-induced autism (aka brain damage that occurs during a sensitive developmental period of brain growth; currently at 1 in 36 children in the US, up from 4 in 10,000 40 years ago or so).
-André Angelantoni
Protect Lead, The Vaccine Course
No need to overthink this, and I think both Mathew and Doctor Rose have it right.
_________________________________________________________________
Sent January 20th
Greetings Dr. Malone,
Have noted a possible error in the recent Vax lot toxicity analysis.
Since everyone seems to be hailing the analysis as a smoking gun, I'd not
want you to do so credulously without a deeper look.
Although the lot-toxicity correlation perfectly fits everyone's confirmation
biases - there are other possibilities that should be considered.
The lots and their toxicities have not been analyzed by lot release date.
I took a rough look with Moderna's vax expiry date lookup page, using
sequential expiration dates as proxies for roll-out dates.
https://tinyurl.com/5n83pekt
The most toxic lots seem to be the early lots whereas those least toxic are
those most recent. Expiry ranges varied, by the way, possibly by toxicity.
There is a negative correlation between lot roll-out date and toxicity, thus
toxicity may not be "an experiment inside an experiment" but due to
successive re-engineering to decrease toxicity.
Or - those who lined up early were oldsters more susceptible to toxicity.
Or - they were serially calibrating efficacy which is linked to toxicity.
As an aside, the past two years of red-pill dosing have drastically reordered
my assumed possibilities and probabilities. That reconfiguration of beliefs
feels good, like an operating system upgrade, but are we still being played
by some larger blue-pill dispensing operating system?
The original Expose article on the lot variation included this comment;
"It seems very likely that their is no single vaccine per manufacturer but that there are instead numerous derivations of each designed to test different properties."
"Why would the manufacturers not do this when they have been handed a no-liability exemption in relation to conducting any experiments they choose upon an unsuspecting population. The moreso given that various governments and media are committed to covering up any horrific outcomes and denying all links."
"The companies will never get a better chance to conduct such unfettered experiments on an entire population, no matter how unethical they may be. They appear to be grasping that opportunity with both hands."
They would otherwise have no real opportunity to implement wide-scale mRNA experimentation in pursuit of immortality or ethnic bioweapons or whatever.
It also said the "hot" lots were distributed widely across the country, whereas the other lots were mainly used in one geographical area.
My main suspicion of the whole idea is that it really tends to exonerate the shot, as it implies that it's harmless, aside from the odd lot.
There is a clinical production line and a commercial production line. The clinical production line has higher quality and it is given to the Pfizer employees. Same with Moderna.
Read about it here http://thehotstar.net/separatebatches.html
Further, those outlier states with lower adverse reactions are home to Pfizer headquarters where a majority of their 75k employees work. Except Massachusetts. Oh wait,...Moderna's headquarters is in Massachusetts where most of their employees work.
RFK,Jr did a three hour interview yesterday talking about he got involved with adverse events and vaccines. He also gives some historical background, and the motivations behind them. My grown children had all their required vaccines until middle school. When a new doctor at our family practice told me my children had a lot of ear infections because we didn't have a vaccine for them yet and wanted to give my nine year old boys the HPV jab, I told her we needed to have a longer conversation without them in the room about that. She backed off, but I was horrified this was her idea of "health."
Here's a link to the RFK interview. The interviewer isn't the best, but that happens.
https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/crave-uncovers-robert-f-kennedy-jr-full-3-hour-interview
If, after adjusting for reporting bias and age of recipients, there still remained a number of significant outlier batches, I struggle to understand how this pattern could happen by errors in say manufacturing or quality testing when the batch lot analysis is looking across three companies. Two are huge and long-standing drug manufacturers and one is brand new to mass manufacturing.
But while we are spitballing explanations for VAERS reporting ratios, don't we have to assume VAERS fatigue? Where early high reporting doctors simply gave up as they saw that VAERS reports were treated with contempt by officials and possibly exposed them to repercussions in the future as dissident vaccine non-believers? They are time consuming, filed under threat of legal penalties and ultimately seem to accomplish nothing. How would we measure VAERS fatigue versus those other factors?
I don't want the batch lot hypothesis to take away from the main concern that these vaccines are badly designed and cannot but do immense harm; however, I fully understand what Yeadon is searching for her: a thread of motive to explain what is going on. We see the lies and deceptions practiced in lock step surrounding covid. Many of those lies were literally rehearsed in pandemic exercises for more than 20 years - all of them included some type of quarantines and control of information. We see that these companies with close ties to the people funding the creation of covid rush out vaccines that very early on look potentially harmful and prove to be so. As the damage is being done, nothing is done to mitigate it. Nothing is done to slow it. Instead, they put their foot on the accelerator. It is hard to stretch greed and hubris out far enough to cover THIS much harm.
I've heard all the ideas that this is just a confluence of disparate motives. Indeed, all human activity is. That doesn't disprove that central and important players might have a very specific motive that guides them to influence those downstream to preferred directions. Yeadon is searching for that motive in the place most comfortable to him: the analysis of drug effects. Maybe some clue is there and maybe we have to look elsewhere, but I certainly don't feel like we have a very complete picture yet as to why this is happening.
I hate to use anecdotal stories but I work in this industry and know people who work at Moderna. They said they would take the pfizer vax because they didn't trust Moderna CMC.
"Not tested. OCABR Reviewed. Limited batch quantity allocated for use in Pfizer Australia employee vaccination program." Hmm.
https://jessicar.substack.com/p/special-aussie-batches-made-just
From a manufacturing point of view, vaccines are much harder to purify than normal small molecule drugs. With a discrete single molecule or salt drug, you can get purity on large scale to the order of 99.99+% with enough work, and you can assess this purity in a reliable and repeatable fashion. In other words, the variance in purity for vaccines is going to be higher than your run of the mill small molecule drug. With the RNA vaccines, which are far more temperature sensitive, this problem is likely even worse given the long chain between manufacture and the delivery into a person's arm. Add to that, that these vaccines were only manufactured on this scale for the very first time in the Summer and Fall of 2020- they were literally rushing the batches and lots out the door for the vaccination push of mid Winter.
However, you are completely correct- there are so many potential confounding variables in the vaccination protocols and history as to make cause and effect determinations difficult to near impossible. It definitely merits more investigations.
The lots are also distributed internationally. So, the VAERS reporting on a lot means that it reports on that portion of a lot distributed in the US. I have observed same lot numbers being distributed both in the US and in Canada. I am sure the other countries too. As I wrote before (https://live2fightanotherday.substack.com/p/cards-on-the-table-face-on-the-floor), we should demand full disclosure from the manufacturers as to the geographic and temporal distribution of the lots. Why is it such a secret, if these jabs are safe and effective? And with full immunity? Unless there is a malevolent element in it...
Thanks! I wasn't sure what to think about the hot lots, felt like something with a lot of "confounding variables", but I knew who would at some point untangle those variables and explain it as clearly as possible ...
Thanks for this excellent dissection. I think the Yeadon hypothesis, that it's some kind of dosage controlled experiment to poison, is too paranoid.
Variation of reporting of AEs by batch is a great explanation. I have speculated whether varying quality in the observance of storage standards might play a role (https://kstomb1.substack.com/p/a-brief-musing-on-mrna-batches-and).
It's pretty startling to be reminded of this claim the Japanese found magnetic elements in batches, given what a meme of derision that's become in Western MSM. I wonder if there's a term for this in the dictionary of propaganda (cf. "rednecks r eating horse paste l0l!"),
Regional differences in reporting propensity are likely huge. The following was written in the context of surgery, but can also apply to VAERS reporting:
"It is an uncomfortable fact that a patient’s odds of undergoing surgery often depend more on where he lives than on his clinical circumstances."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4211114/
We may very well have a situation where a HL/BB is given to a segment of the population that is more prone to AEs, within a region with high standards of reporting, an vice versa, true?