Thanks for the posting.
I first saw this data on the Stew Peters show today (actually at Frankspeech.com). The lady reviewing the data said that 12 States only received the 'good lots'. That happenstance could have been coincidental.
She said that she was trying to find out the States who received the various lots, but at the time of the showing she did not know (and perhaps the data will never be available). It could be interesting, but it might also just be another random factoid.
Nonetheless, interesting if the VAERs anomalies (which show a much higher incidence seen on the CoVid shots vs prior vaccinations) are due to a quality control issue. I.e., some lots are relatively 'fine' (understanding that 'fine' means that they provide minimal protection against CoVid infections for a few months, but also minimal chances of negative side effects), but a few lots are virtual poison to the unlucky recipients.
Hopefully the digging through the data continues.
Albeit, since the VAERs data is suppressed (many adverse events never being reported), I'm not exactly sure how this muddies the data. I.e., maybe some of the lot to lot variance is due to the data not being reported on lots that were sent to particular locations. So of course the VAERs reports would show those lots as being fairly clean. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
“I.e., maybe some of the lot to lot variance is due to the data not being reported on lots that were sent to particular locations. So of course the VAERs reports would show those lots as being fairly clean. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”
__________
This would definitely need to be considered as a possibility.
Well put, BTW.