As a guy who likes math and computers, and has made a pretty good living from both, this is very interesting. I’m going to pull down the VAERS data and start writing some programs to analyze it. There is something not right, not right at all here.
| ThunderSleeps wrote: |
As a guy who likes math and computers, and has made a pretty good living from both, this is very interesting. I’m going to pull down the VAERS data and start writing some programs to analyze it. There is something not right, not right at all here. |
Yes. I'm interested to see what you find. I'm pondering how deaths are distributed normally over time but not lot numbers. Something on the endge of my intincts. I know lots can be huge, but even lot size disparity versus lethality is its own question.
I am interested also.
You may be able to infer the lot size.
If VAERS has a serial number associated with the shot that is sequential, it is straightforward. For example, if there are 1000 reports that are all numbered between 2 million and 3 million, then the lot size is at least 1 million, and almost certainly not much bigger.
The serial numbers should be uniformly distributed. If they are clumped in certain ranges, then something is going on. One innocent explanation is that part of the lot was used - nursing homes, and part was not - firefighters. I’m assuming the serial numbers are assigned when the lot is produced, rather than when the dose is administered. The timing of the reports may provide additional info.
The inferred lot sizes should be somewhat consistent whether one uses all adverse events, deaths or other adverse events.
Denninger refers to normal distributions. I don’t know if he means usual or the formal probability distribution. It looks to me like a binomial distribution where the probability of an adverse event is itself a random variable.
Please ping me when you have some results.
Thanks.
L