Hi Steve: Naturally, it is hard for me to know for sure what the issue is with the data he is showing. But, a couple things stick out to me and I will speculate based on what I know about the situation.
First, as I have posted several times before on March 30 Nexstar (a news service) reported that the CDC had said they had received over 205,000 “adverse events” reports. On that day VAERS, itself, was reporting that they had a total of 44,000+ “adverse events.”
I was very surprised; while I already understood at that time that VAERS was very behind and doing weekly “catch-up” with their numbers....this indicated that they had only reported on about 20% of what they had received.
The next week a different reporter from a different news source reported that the CDC had told them that they had received over 233,000 “adverse events” reports. On VAERS they reported that same day (they do weekly reports on Friday’s) that they now had a total of over 51,000 reports.
My thoughts were: Okay they are still only processing 5-7,000 reports per week; but THEY WERE RECEIVING 28,000 OR MORE PER WEEK. Yikes! So I posted about it. No one responded.
The CDC as far as I can tell never made the mistake again of disclosing the actual number of reports they received. Sort of like how they dealt with reporting the “breakthrough cases” numbers....disclosing initially and then when they dramatically increased went into a cover up mode...:-)
So the fact that in the info you highlighted over 200,000 already numbered blank sequential reports do not actually appear in the VAERS data is not really surprising to me. They have not been processed yet.
Second I noticed a heavy concentration of J&J reports that have been processed showing up interspersed with long sequences of numbers that are blank in your data. This reminded me that 2 weeks ago Alex Berenson suggested that mostly only new J&J VAERS reports were showing up in the new VAERS Friday reports. He suggested the CDC may be holding back on the mRNA reports. I think his guess as to why the J&J data was featured and the mRNA reports were minimal is probably wrong.
I think, and this is strictly speculation on my part, is that they are still hundreds of thousands of reports behind (all the blank; but numbered lines), but that once the panic that was created when the news came out about the blood clots that were killing young women they decided to move J&J reports to the head of the line. They were trying to get a handle on how common this adverse effect was and they still do not have the capacity to process more than about 30,000+ per week. So, mRNA went on a temporary hold.
Lets cut to the root problem. They're a lot of injuries and deaths from the vaccines far greater then all vaccines ever made
combined. They're not pausing this insanity.
They paused Janssen as you said, "I noticed a heavy concentration of J&J reports.... " Then they cut back on those reports and put Janssen back on the market. YET the two vaccines that have a higher injury and death rate doesn't miss a day on the market.
With that statement you made. It does seem you realize there is something wrong with the way they are conducting themselves. YET you say,
"(holding back while showing more of J&J until it was paused. Then holding back on J&J to release the pause) was probably wrong (because they're simply behind" They're creating a yoo-yoo effect on reporting at the prefect times.
Yet you stick with this statement "They were trying to get a handle on how common this adverse effect was (so they counted more J&J until they put it on pause.)"
Even if you're right.... You're missing the big picture. More deaths and injuries are a result of these vaccines then all vaccines combined AND They don't produce any antibodies. So, what the heck are they doing?
This is the same study that first said they had a 95% effectiveness they reported in December for Pfizer.
Peer-reviewed research from @TheLancet shows that the experimental vaccines reduce your chance of catching COVID-19 by:
Pfizer: 0.8%
Johnson & J: 1.2%
Moderna: 1.2%
AstraZeneca: 1.3%
So, basically NO prevention. No immunity. No antibodies.
https://archive.vn/4O1PI 