Its not hard to do it.

Cars that have engines that will blow up, or transmissions that will do so, inside of 50 or 100,000 miles.

DPFs that have 100,000 mile service lives -- and cost $3,000 or more to replace even though they're service items on diesel trucks because the manufacturer decided to place it inside the catalytic converter housing and make removing and replacing it extremely expensive and difficult as a result, instead of being a 30 minute job to unbolt two flanges and replace it in for under $1,000.

Homes with crap appliances and ****ty components that break within 2-3 years -- or even worse, crap framing and foundations.

Phones with batteries that have 300-500 cycle life expectations -- and must be charged daily -- but the batteries are not replaceable by the user.

And so on.

Just one legal change will stop it entirely in major purchases.  No, it won't stop it everywhere and it is everywhere but it will stop it in the things that drive up your cost of living to huge degrees -- including vehicles, communications and housing.

Its a one-sentence bill:

No entity may offer financing, irrespective of the means or indirection, for a term that extends beyond the 100%, parts and labor warranty coverage, allowing only an exclusion for physical abuse or damage by accident or malice.

An uncovered failure during the financing period terminates the entirety of the rest of the payment obligation in full, irrespective of the percentage of the remaining contract or the amount of the denied claim.

Enforcement is via the FTC as an unfair and deceptive business practice and any entity attempting collection via any means commits felony fraud upon the consumer and is liable for three times the harm done, including but not limited to reputational damage should credit reports be impacted or collection attempts made with statutory minimum damages of $10,000 per consumer so-harmed due to the dunned person which is collectable via suit in small claims with no capacity to remove it to the District or State court systems.

That's it.

Yes, this applies to financed used car sales as well.

You can sell all the en****ified things you'd like -- but only for cash.

Now the manufacturer or builder has to cut the bull**** and make products with a warranty that is all-inclusive, parts and labor including all components without exception, except for physical damage due to Act of God, accident, proved neglect or malicious act.  

If they don't then the maximum financing term is effectively zero.

If a car company cannot build vehicles with 200,000 mile drivelines that do not explode before that time that's fine, but since there is no "miles or months" on this the first guy who has an eight year financing contract and drives 25,000 miles a year when his truck blows in year five the other half of his contract is void -- he only pays for half the truck.

You sell a new house with ****ty 10 year three-tab shingles?  It can't be financed for more than ten years.

You sell cellphones with non-user-replaceable batteries?  You can't finance them through "payment systems" for more than 12 months, which is the expected battery cycle life with one charge a day, or everyone who buys one on said two year agreement, when the battery fails after a year and you won't cover it, has their rest of their obligation voided.

And so on.

One simple law, no more than three paragraphs.

Implementation?  Simple: A homebuilder must have posted surety against defects and failures during the mortgage period.  They selected the components and labor so its on them and since no builder can self-insure that across their entire "as built" base for that length of time they'll have to buy said insurance against it.  That's ok.  A carmaker can choose the length of their end-to-end warranty coverage but whatever they choose, and no mileage limits either, is the limit on financing.  A used car dealer must likewise offer same or only deal in cash.

A non-commercial seller (e.g. a private-party home sale) can take place but to get financing one of the parties is going to have to pony up for said coverage.  Since financing on third-party sales of real estate is typically the buyer's election as to terms and duration that's now part of the transaction cost and yes, this will mean inspections actually mean something since they'll go into the price of said coverage which the buyer will, of course, deduct from his calculation of present value -- justly so.  The only exception is of course bare land which has no such requirement since it can't "break" due to en****ification.

PS: No, you cannot sell burritos on Klarna.  Anyone trying to do that gets no payment at all since the burrito is **** before the first payment is due -- quite literally ****.

most of what government does is legitimate.  Pinky-promise.

Uh huh.

FMCS is a 230-employee agency that exists to serve as a voluntary mediator between unions and businesses. As an “independent agency,” its director nominally reports to the president, but the agency is so small that in effect, there is no oversight at all — and it showed, becoming a real-life caricature of all the excesses that the Department of Government Efficiency has alleged take place in government.

This reporter spent a year investigating the agency a decade ago, and I found egregious and self-serving violations of hiring, pay, contracting, and purchase card rules. One thing I could not discover is why the agency actually existed, other than to provide luxurious lifestyles for its employees. Endless junkets to resort destinations, which employees openly used to facilitate personal vacations, were justified as building awareness of the agency in the hopes that someone would actually want to use its voluntary services.

All of this was illegal.

But more to the point this is precisely how the United States sold the American people, and everyone else in the world, on our "involvement" at Maidan -- and set in motion what turned into a war with a huge number of dead Ukrainians.

Oh, you think not?  This is hyperbole?  Were you smoking weed while McCain was over there giving a speech, or perhaps while snipers were shooting protesting civilians -- exactly zero of whom, I remind you, in the decade since have been identified, arrested, tried and punished.  Is that not fairly decent evidence on who's "side" said snipers were?

What was the bottom-line argument for Maidan?

Yanukovych's looting, including allegedly a golden toilet, which became a symbol and synonym for that government's time in power, was both symbol and substance of why he was ejected from power by force.  He was ultimately deemed guilty of treason and there is an active Interpol warrant out for his arrest.

As I noted in a previous column the problem with fraud as a business model if it gets embedded into something is that it becomes an exponential function (Y^{^x}) which rapidly consumes and surpasses the legitimate output of that thing.  If, for example, 20% of a thing becomes fraud-as-a-business over five years that will consume the entirety of the legitimate output and half more, and over ten years it will rise to become more than FIVE TIMES the legitimate output of said thing.

You cannot "reform" any entity where such has occurred by nibbling around the edges; you can only excise every element of it and imprison those who engaged in it because you either stop it entirely or for all intents and purposes whatever "good" that original thing used to do is reduced to nothing on a percentage basis and if the good can be perverted to serve the fraud it will be and then you do actual harm.

Medical care anyone?  The kid with "measles" who died recently in fact died of pneumonia.  We've known for decades how you treat pneumonia; it nearly always has a bacterial component so you hit it with antibiotics (these days the correct choice is usually macrolides such as Zpak) and inhaled steroids such as budesonide -- and if you don't get an immediate response on the first antibiotic you hit it again with another one added into the mix.  Both are cheap and neither has any material probability of hurting the person if it turns out there is no secondary bacterial infection (unlikely but possible) and the damage is being caused directly by viral activity.  The reason the "Spanish flu" killed so many people was that we had no antibiotics at the time and thus if you developed pneumonia we had no effective treatment for it.

But in this case they didn't do that and the kid is dead.

Why?

Was it because the medical system -- including that hospital -- wanted a totem to stoke fear of measles among the population (and perhaps attack RFK politically) to drive more vaccine uptake and a kid that went into the hospital, got antibiotics and a few puffs off a budesonide inhaler, recovered and was discharged in two days with now-lifetime immunity to measles would not serve that purpose?

Good question.

And one we won't demand answers to, even though it has been known for decades that what they didn't do is what you do if someone presents with pneumonia rather than sticking them on a ventilator.

Another example of this crap in the medical system is AARP and UNH.  AARP now collects four times as much in kickbacks from sales of Medicare Advantage plans as it does in dues.  May I remind you that the anti-kickback statute I referenced before facially appears to apply here as this is a federally-funded medical program (Medicare) and the penalty for everyone involved in doing that sort of **** is supposed to be ten years in prison.

Now contemplate that "agency" (FMCS) referenced in the linked article at the top.  "Oh its just a small agency, a couple hundred people which is nothing."

Uh huh.

Every one of those employees and all the contractors they do business with needs a place to live.  Their wildly-accelerated "standard of living" as a result of said fraud ****ed every other person in that area by raising their cost of living because they were bidding up everything in the area due to their outrageously-expanded "income" -- all stolen in exchange for no legitimate work output.

The same applies to every teacher who is employed and gets a paycheck but in fact can't teach, as evidenced by, as one example, zero of several school's pupils being competent at grade level.  It is immaterial what the root cause of that is; the fact is that every single dime paid to said "teachers" was paid to them in exchange for nothing of value as measured by the expected output in student progress.

This is not "victimless" because every one of those teachers and administrators bids up the price of everything where they live and by doing so screws every other person who lives there.

The same applies to every employee of UNH and AARP, all of whom have wildly increased spending power as a result of these schemes, and every single person who lives anywhere near any of those employees has been getting it up the ass for two decades as a direct result.

I prefer prison to guillotines but the judiciary that is blocking putting a stop to this **** and every other government and private entity involved needs to understand quite-clearly that this sort of wild-eyed robbery and the inevitable mathematics if  they allow it to occur and continue is exactly how both a crazy Austrian painter, with all that followed and the current Ukraine war happened.

It will happen again if we do not cut it out right now as the curve has gone vertical on the cost to everyone.

So Roberts claims we should not impeach judges over political differences.

Well, he's sort of right, except Trump was impeached twice (but not convicted either time) over exactly that, and in both cases the predicate of alleged misconduct was, as we now know, a manufactured political lie.

What was the punishment for this?  Nothing, of course.  And I remind you that impeachment is a political process, not a judicial one, as I repeatedly pointed out during both of them in the myriad podcasts I put out as my "daily grind" of the time.

However, impeachment is very clearly, from the record all the way back to the start of this Republic, legitimately invoked and used when judges (who are the most-commonly impeached group) engage in corrupt practices, defined generally as rank violations of the governing laws and rules of the Court over their behavior.

Bribery, official misconduct and similar all fall into that category.

So does failure to recuse when they, or their direct family members, are beneficiaries of one side or another of a case before them, as the rules of the courts they sit upon require them to recuse under that circumstance.

Now I have not looked at all of the injunctions issued by these judges in the current administration yet.  There's a lot of them.

But the most facially-outrageous and far-reaching injunctions and TROs, including those related to USAID and just recently the screamfest over deportation flights out of the country, I have looked into.  And in every case I've examined thus far I have found said violations and thus said "judge" was facially disqualified and required to recuse.

In those cases it was trivial, using nothing other than public information (e.g. IRS 990s) to find that the spouses and/or children, who are direct family members, are profiting directly from entities that are funded via one or the other's side of the case, and in every case I've looked into its been the moving party's interests that have buttered said family member's bread.

If Roberts doesn't want to stomp on clear, visible and obvious corruption then he's a part of it by his own willful and intentional acts and its time for the people to decide that the premise of this Republic has been irrevocably corrupted because we have allowed fraud as a business model to go on for so long without demanding the people doing it go to prison that there is no civil and polite way to reverse it anymore.

That's a ****ty deal but Roberts, personally is just as responsible for this as anyone else -- or do you not remember the decision he handed up with the PPACA (Obamacare) in which the Supremes found the law unconstitutional as it was a direct tax and thus prohibited by the Constitution and then they rewrote it from the bench to correct that infirmity, which they have no Constitutional capacity, per the Constitution itself, to do.

Well unlike so many of the people in this country I wasn't smoking weed the entire time, legal or not and thus I DO remember.

Roberts damn well better reconsider this as had better the rest of the Supremes.  And yes, I get it -- mathematics sucks sometimes, and this is one of them.  If you have, for example, a thing that has a million dollars of legitimate services provided and you allow 20% of that million to be added into it by fraud-as-a-business-model, you got a serious problem.

Why?

Because business must expand in revenue, profit and hopefully both, especially when its a public company or the shareholders get angry.  This in turn means the 20% grift becomes a compound function.

Got a calculator that does exponents?  You know, Y^^x? Yeah, do that over 5 and then 10 years.

Over five years cost expands to 249% of its original size and over 10 years the cost expands to 625% and that accounts only for the fraud, with nothing for actual inflation in the cost of said service or product.  In other words in just five years the actual thing you're delivering has its entire legitimate outcome plus a half again absorbed in said fraud and in another five the fraud exceeds the productive output of said thing by five times.

Incidentally the same grift exists in our Legislature and virtually every lawmaker is guilty of it.  Simply look at the involvement of family members of Congresspeople and how they make their money, never mind those who amass tens of millions of dollars after a half-dozen years with a $175,000 per year salary.  That of course is impossible through honest work.

If you want to know where the issue with medical care and college education has arisen from you need only look here, and that's not all of it.  So is the slush fund otherwise known as "USAID" and in the last four years the scams and grift around illegal immigration.

A prime example is found right here:

A partnership between AARP, the top interest group in the United States dedicated to the plight of seniors, is facing growing scrutiny over its partnership with UnitedHealthcare as the healthcare giant faces a growing number of controversies.

"AARP now makes over a billion dollars a year in corporate royalties, more than triple what they make in membership dues," American Commitment President Phil Kerpen told Fox News Digital. 

....

The reason is shameful. UnitedHealth kicks back 4.95 percent of premium income from AARP subscribers to AARP. 

Its everywhere, its the entire driver of our fiscal mess and if we don't stop ALL OF IT right now through judicial means, all of which incidentally is facially a felony as all of these schemes implicate multiple federal criminal statutes demanding hard prison time for EACH PERSON involved, including every single Executive, all that will be left is extrajudicial means and that will come when privation has permeated a sufficient percentage of the population.

If you want to know the best possible outcome if this is not stopped you need only look at what has been the case in Mexico for the last couple of decades where narco-terrorists have effectively seized 20% of the territory and corrupted the government.  Get on their wrong side and they execute you without a care in the world what anyone thinks about it and with an explicit wink from the government itself.

That's the best outcome if we don't stop this crap right now.

The worst is a dirty civil war where nobody is safe and getting your mail out of the box in the afternoon is a life-risking act.

For real.

Oh its better in Illinois (or insert some other state) than at the Federal level.

"This audit shows that the governor, that the program was rampant in overspending. It spent well in excess of 200% more than what was estimated in budgets and in appropriations," state Senate Republican leader John Curran told Fox News Digital in an interview. 

Faux liars, of course, call this "mismanagement."

It is not.  Spending in excess of appropriated limits is intentional and malicious theft from the taxpayer of the jurisdiction.

If I authorize you to spend $20 as a CEO and you spend $40 of the firm's money you stole the other $20.

That's a criminal act and in the amounts involved it is an extraordinarily serious felony.  Further, to the extent that anyone got paid those funds they are subject to clawback through legal process whether services and goods were provided or not since you never get title to a thing that is stolen.

If I steal a car and sell it to you then it matters not how long you've had it -- if the theft is discovered the vehicle is not yours as you never got actual title to it; it can and will be confiscated from you and returned to its lawful owner.

The same is true for money; no matter how much time passes until the people who had it stolen from them discover, or reasonably could discover, that it was stolen the clock does not start to run on criminal sanctions for the thief and title to the funds never passes to the person who stole it or those who got it as a result of the theft.

Oh, and the Governor deliberately tried to hide it:

"The governor was papering over this large spending with tax increases over the last several years, as well as COVID relief funds being spent on this rather than actually trying to rein in spending in the state of Illinois," Curran said. "Now that federal dollars have tapered off, we have a large budget deficit in Illinois this year and the governor is now being forced to try to end the program for all working adults."

That makes his actions obstruction of justice which is an additional felony.

Incidentally this EXACT bull**** below was Chief's argument for Biden ignoring the Supreme Court when it came to student loans.

Despite Pritzker's plan to cut funding for healthcare programs, he said during a Wednesday press conference that he supports some kind of universal health coverage: "The broader context is people need to get health care." 

Theft and obstruction of justice are ok if someone needs something?

No they're not, so **** you Pritzker -- with a cactus.

That is a bankrupt argument and if its your justification for deliberate obstruction we'll add that as proof of intent so there goes your argument that it was due to "accident" or "bad data."

YOU DID IT ON PURPOSE ****HEAD and off to prison you damn well have to go RIGHT ****ING NOW.

There is an article floating around from The Expose that makes an explosive claim: There is a wildly statistically-significant skew in the death rate from Covid-19 vaccines by lot number.

What originally got my attention was the tinfoil hat crowd screaming about lots being intentionally distributed to certain people to kill them -- in other words certain Covid-19 vaccine lots were for all intents and purposes poisoned.  That was wildly unlikely so I set out to disprove it and apply some broom handles to the tinfoil hatters heads.  What I found, however, was both interesting and deeply disturbing.

Lots are quite large, especially when you're dealing with 200 million people and 400 million doses.  Assuming the lots are not preferentially assigned to certain cohorts (e.g. one goes to all nursing homes, etc) adverse reactions should thus be evenly distributed between lots; if they're not one of these things is almost-certainly true:

• There is a serious manufacturing quality problem or you produced something without understanding how it would work in the body and thus failed to control for something you had to in order to wind up with reproduceable results.  That is, some lots are ok, others are contaminated, have too much or too little of the active ingredient in them, some produce wildly more spike-protein than others in the body when injected, etc.
  
  OR
  
  
• Much worse, the lots are intentionally segregated to produce different results. This implies some sort of nefarious intent such as killing people on a differential basis or that the manufacturers are running unsanctioned experiments on a mass basis among the population at-large, since they know what is in each lot and intentionally varied the contents.
  
  OR
  
  
• Perhaps worst of all, reports are now being intentionally suppressed, the injury and death rate hasn't changed and there are lots with one of the two above problems but it is being intentionally not reported, having been detected almost-instantly and health providers were directed to not report anything serious (e.g. death) associated with the jabs.

Now let's talk about VAERS.  You can grab the public data from it, but VAERS intentionally makes it difficult to discern differences in lot outcomes.  Why?  Because they separate out the specifics of the vax (the manufacturer, lot number, etc.) into a different file.  This means that simply loading it into Excel does you no good and attempting to correlate and match the two tables in Excel itself is problematic due to the extreme size of the files -- in fact, it blew Excel up here when I tried to do it.  But that's an external data-export problem; internally, within HHS, it is certainly not hard for them to run correlations.

Indeed the entire point of VAERS is to find said correlations before people get screwed in size and stop it from happening.

Let's step back a bit in history. VAERS came into being because back in the 1970s the producers of the DTP shot had a quality control problem.  Some lots had way too much active ingredient in them and others had nearly none.  This caused a crap ton of bad reactions by kids who got the jabs and parents sued.  Liability insurance threatened to become unobtanium (gee, you figure, after you screw a bunch of kids who had to take mandatory shots?) and thus the manufacturers pulled the DTP jab and threatened to pull all vaccines from the market.

Congress responded to this threat of intentional panic sown by the pharmaceutical industry by giving the vaccine firms immunity and setting up a tax and arbitration system, basically, to pay families if they got screwed by vaccines.  Rather than force the guilty parties to eat the injuries and deaths they caused Congress instead exempted the manufacturers from the consequences of their own negligence and socialized the losses with a small tax on each shot.

Part of this was VAERS.  We know VAERS understates adverse events because it while it is allegedly "mandatory" it is subject to clinical judgment and there is a wild bias against believing that these jabs, or any jab for that matter, has bad side effects.  In addition there is neither a civil or criminal penalty of any kind for failure to report.  We now know some people who have had bad side effects from the Covid-19 jabs have shown up on social media after going to the doctor and then tried to find their own record, which is quite easy to do if you know the lot number from your card, what happened and the date the event happened -- their doctor never filed it.  This does not really surprise me since filing those reports takes quite a bit of time and the doctor isn't paid for it by the government or anyone else, so even without bias there will be those who simply won't do the work unless there are severe penalties for not doing so.  There are in fact no penalties whatsoever.  The under-reporting does not have a reliable boundary on it, but estimates are that only somewhere between 3% and 10% of actual adverse events get into the database.  That's right -- at best the adverse event rate is ten times that of what you find in VAERS.

But now it gets interesting because VAERS exports, it appears, were also set up, whether deliberately or by coincidink, to make it hard for ordinary people to find a future correlation between injury or death and vaccine lot number.

NOTE THAT THIS EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE -- THAT MANUFACTURERS HAD QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS ORIGINALLY -- IS WHY VAERS EXISTS.  YOU WOULD THINK THAT IF CONGRESS WAS ACTUALLY INTERESTED IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM THIS WOULD BE THE EASIEST SORT OF THING TO MONITOR AND WOULD BE REGULARLY REPORTED.  YOU'D ALSO THINK THERE WERE STRONG CIVIL AND EVEN CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NOT REPORTING ADVERSE EVENTS.

You'd be wrong; the data is across two tables and uncorrelated as VAERS releases it and there is no quick-and-easy reporting on their site that groups events on a comparative basis by lot number.  While it is possible to do this sort of analysis from their web page it's not easy.

(Further, and this also intentionally frustrates analysis, VAERS keeps no record nor reports on the number of shots administered per lot, making norming to some stable denominator literally impossible.  If you think that's an accident I have a bridge for sale.  It's a very nice bridge.)

But, grasshopper, I have Postgres.  Indeed if you're reading this article it is because I both have it and know how to program against it; this blog is, in fact, stored in Postgres.

Postgres, like all databases, is very good at taking something that can be foreign-key related and correlating it.  In fact that's one of a database's prime strengths.  Isn't SQL, which I assume VAERS uses as well, wonderful?

So I did exactly that with the data found here for 2021.

And..... you aren't going to like it.

Having loaded the base table and manufacturer tables related by the VAERS-ID I ran this query:

karl=> select vax_lot(vaers_vax), count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and died='Y' and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' group by vax_lot(vaers_vax) order by count(vax_lot(vaers_vax)) desc;

This says:

Select the lot, and count the instances of that lot, from the VAERS data where the report ID is in the table of persons who had a bad reaction, said bad reaction was that they died, where the vaccine is a Covid-19 vaccine and where the manufacturer is MODERNA.  Order the results by the count of the deaths per lot in descending order.

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
039K20A | 87
013L20A | 66
012L20A | 64
010M20A | 62
037K20A | 49
029L20A | 48
012M20A | 46
024M20A | 44
027L20A | 44
015M20A | 43
025L20A | 42
026A21A | 41
013M20A | 41
016M20A | 41
022M20A | 41
030L20A | 40
026L20A | 39
007M20A | 39
013A21A | 36
011A21A | 36
031M20A | 35
032L20A | 35
010A21A | 33
011J20A | 33
030A21A | 33
028L20A | 32
011L20A | 32
004M20A | 32
025J20-2A | 31 << -- What's this? (see below)
041L20A | 31
011M20A | 31
031L20A | 30
032H20A | 29
030M20A | 28
042L20A | 27
Unknown | 27
006M20A | 27
012A21A | 25
002A21A | 25
043L20A | 24
032M20A | 24
023M20A | 23
040A21A | 23
027A21A | 23
017B21A | 22
036A21A | 20
unknown | 19
020B21A | 19
047A21A | 19
006B21A | 18
044A21A | 17
038K20A | 17
048A21A | 15
003A21A | 15
014M20A | 15
031A21A | 15
031B21A | 15
021B21A | 15
025A21A | 14
007B21A | 14
003B21A | 14
001A21A | 13
038A21A | 13
025B21A | 13
001B21A | 12
046A21A | 12
027B21A | 11
045A21A | 11
038B21A | 11
025J20A | 11
002C21A | 11
016B21A | 11
036B21A | 11
039B21A | 10
002B21A | 10
018B21A | 10
019B21A | 10
008B21A | 10
029K20A | 10
029A21A | 10
028A21A | 9
047B21A | 9
001C21A | 9
044B21A | 8
045B21A | 8
009C21A | 8
048B21A | 8
026B21A | 8
UNKNOWN | 7
039A21A | 7
040B21A | 7
046B21A | 7
032B21A | 7
038C21A | 6
030m20a | 6
027C21A | 6
008C21A | 6
006C21A | 6
004C21A | 6
047C21A | 6
007C21A | 5
025C21A | 5
042B21A | 5
043B21A | 5
025J202A | 5  << -- Same as the above one?
052E21A | 5
003C21A | 5
030B21A | 5
030a21a | 5
016C21A | 5
017C21A | 5
N/A | 5
NO LOT # AVAILA | 5
037A21B | 5
037B21A | 5
024m20a | 4
031l20a | 4
003b21a | 4
026a21a | 4
041B21A | 4
005C21A | 4
033C21A | 4
035C21A | 4
021C21A | 4
040a21a | 4
041C21A | 4
006D21A | 4
022C21A | 4
037k20a | 4
048C21A | 4
03M20A | 3
008B212A | 3
039k20a | 3
024C21A | 3
016m20a | 3
038k20a | 3
025b21a | 3
033B21A | 3
026C21A | 3
Moderna | 3
033c21a | 3
014C21A | 3
.....

There are 547 unique lot entries that have one or more deaths associated with them.  Some of the lot numbers are in the wrong format or missing, as you can also see.  That's not unusual and in fact implicates the ordinary failure to get things right when people fill out the input.  For example "Moderna" in the above results is clearly not a lot number.  I've made no attempt to "sanitize" the data set in this regard and, quite-clearly, neither has VAERS even months after the fact with their "alleged" follow-up on reports.

But there is a wild over-representation in deaths of just a few lots; in fact fewer than 50 lots account for all lots where more than 20 associated deaths accumulated and out of the 547 unique entries fewer than 100 account for all those with more than 10 deaths.

Evenly distribution my ass.

How about Pfizer?

vax_lot | count
-----------------+-------
EN6201 | 117
EN5318 | 99
EN6200 | 97
EN6198 | 89
EL3248 | 86
EL9261 | 84
EM9810 | 82
EN6202 | 75
EL9269 | 75
EL3302 | 69
EL3249 | 67
EL8982 | 67
EN6208 | 59
EL9267 | 58
EL9264 | 57
EL0140 | 54
EN6199 | 54
EJ1686 | 51
EL9265 | 50
EL1283 | 48
ER2613 | 48
EN6204 | 47
EN6205 | 45
EK9231 | 43
EL3246 | 43
EN6207 | 41
EN6203 | 41
ER8732 | 40
EL1284 | 39
EL0142 | 38
EJ1685 | 38
ER8737 | 37
EN9581 | 36
EN6206 | 35
EP7533 | 35
EL9262 | 34
EL9266 | 33
EL3247 | 32
ER8727 | 28
EP6955 | 27
ER8730 | 26
EW0150 | 25
EK5730 | 24
EP7534 | 24
EM9809 | 22
EK4176 | 22
EH9899 | 21
EW0171 | 21
unknown | 20
ER8731 | 19
ER8735 | 18
EW0172 | 18
EL9263 | 17
EW0151 | 15
ER8733 | 15
EW0158 | 14
EW0164 | 14
EW0162 | 14
EW0169 | 14
ER8729 | 13
ER8734 | 13
Unknown | 13
EW0153 | 13
EW0167 | 12
EW0168 | 10
EW0161 | 10
EW0182 | 9
NO LOT # AVAILA | 8
EW0181 | 8
EW0186 | 8
ER8736 | 8
EW0191 | 8
FF2589 | 7
EW0173 | 6
EW0175 | 6
FA7485 | 6
EW0177 | 6
FD0809 | 6
301308A | 6
EW0170 | 6
FC3182 | 6
EW0217 | 6
EK41765 | 5
EW0196 | 5
EW0176 | 5
EW0183 | 4
EN 5318 | 4
el3249 | 4
EW0178 | 4
EW0179 | 4
EW0187 | 4
FA6780 | 4
FA7484 | 4
EN 6207 | 4

Pfizer has 395 unique lot numbers associated with at least one death and, again, there are a few that are obviously bogus.  But again, evenly distribution my ass; there is a wild over-representation with one lot, EN6201, being associated with 117 deaths and fewer than 20 are associated with more than 50.

For grins and giggles let's look at the age distribution for 039K20A -- the worst Moderna lot.

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='039K20A' and age_yrs is not null;
      avg
---------------------
 51.4922202119410700
(1 row)

Ok, so the average age of people who got that shot, had a bad reaction (and had a valid age in the table) is 51.

How about for 030A21A which had 33 deaths?

karl=> select avg(age_yrs) from vaers, vaers_vax where vaers_id(vaers) = vaers_id(vaers_vax) and vax_type='COVID19' and vax_manu(vaers_vax)='MODERNA' and vax_lot(vaers_vax)='030A21A' and age_yrs is not null;

       avg
---------------------
 61.1097014925373134
(1 row)

Well there goes the argument that we jabbed all the old people in nursing homes with the really nasty outcome lot and they died but it not caused by the jab and the second lot, which had a much lower rate, all went into younger people's arms and that's why they didn't die.  Uh, no, actually when it comes to the age of the people who got jabbed in these two instances its the other way around; the second lot, which was less deadly, had bad reactions in older people on average yet fewer died -- and significantly so too (by 10 years.)

What's worse is that the "hot" lots for deaths also are "hot" for total adverse events.  If the deaths were not related to general pathology from a given lot there would be no correlation -- but there is.  Oops.

In addition there is no solid correlation between the "bad" lots and first report of trouble.  The absolute worst of Moderna had a bad report in the first days of January.  But -- another lot of their vaccine with only 172 reports against it (1/20th the rate of the worst for total adverse events) had its first adverse event report on January 6th.

What is evenly-distributed with a reasonable bump for the original huge uptake rate?  When people died.

What the actual **** is going on here?  You're going to try to tell me that the CDC, NIH and FDA don't know about this?  I can suck this data into a database, run 30 seconds of queries against it and instantly identify a wildly-elevated death and hazard rate associated with certain lot numbers when the distribution of those associations should be reasonably-even, or at least something close to it, across all the lots produced and used?  Then I look to try to find the obvious potential "clean" explanation (the higher death rate lot could have gone into older people) and it's simply not there when one looks at all adverse event reports.  I have Moderna lots with the same average age of persons who died but ten times times the number of associated deaths.

Then I look at reported date of death and.... its reasonably close to an even distribution.  So no, it wasn't all those old people getting killed at once in the first month.  So much for that attempted explanation.

Oh if you're interested the nastiest lot was literally everywhere in terms of states reporting adverse events against it; no, they didn't concentrate them in one state or region either.

The outcome distribution isn't "sort of close" when most of the lots have a single-digit number of associated deaths.

Isn't it also interesting that when one removes the "dead" flag the same sort of correlation shows up?  That is, there are plenty of lots with nearly nothing reported against them.  For Moderna within the first page of results (~85 lots) there is more than a three times difference in total adverse events.  The worst lot, 039K20A with 87 deaths, is not only worst for deaths; it also has more than 4,000 total adverse event reports against it.  For context if you drill down a couple hundred entries in that report the number of total adverse events against another lot, 025C21A number 417 with five deaths.

Are you really going to try to tell me that a mass-produced and distributed jab has a roughly ten times adverse event rate between two lots and seventeen times the death rate between the same two, you can't explain it by "older people getting one lot and not the other" and this is not a screaming indication that something that cannot be explained as random chance has occurred?

Here, in pictures, since some of you need to be hit upside the head with a ****ing railroad tie before you wake up:

That's Pfizer deaths by lot, worst-to-best.  Look normal to you?  Remember, zero deaths in a given lot doesn't come up since it's not in the system.

How about adverse events of all sorts?

(Yes, there are invalid lot numbers, particularly in the second graph, with lots of "1s".  The left side however is what it is.)

There's a much-larger problem.  Have a look at Moderna's chart of the same thing.  First, deaths:

And AE's....

These are different companies!

Want even worse news?

JANSSEN, which is an entirely different technology, has the same curve.

and

What do we have here folks?

Is there something inherent in the production of the "instructions", however they're delivered, that results in a non-deterministic outcome within a batch of jabs which was not controlled for, perhaps because it isn't understood SINCE WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE IN MAN OR BEAST and if it goes wrong you're ****ed?

This is a power-law (exponential) distribution; it is not a step-function nor normally or evenly distributed.  Those don't happen with allegedly consistent manufacturing processes and the potential confounding factor that could be an innocent explanation (all the bad ones were early and killed all the old people early who died of "something" but it wasn't the vaccines since they all got the jab first) has been invalidated because the dates of death are in fact reasonably distributed.

Have doctors been told to stop reporting?  Note that HHS can issue such an order under the PREP Act and there is no judicial review if they do that.  Did they?

This demands an explanation.  Three different firms all using spike proteins, two using a different technology than the third, all three causing the body to produce the spike rather than deliver it directly and all three of them have a wild skew of some lots that hose people left and right while the others, statistically, do not screw people.

This data also eliminates the hypothesis put forward that lack of aspiration technique is responsible -- that is, that occasional accidental penetration of a vein results in systemic distribution.  That would not be lot-specific.

Next question, which VAERS cannot answer: Is there an effectiveness difference between the lots that screw people and those that do not?

Are we done being stupid yet?  Statistically all of the adverse events of any sort are in a handful of lots irrespective of the brand.  The rest generate a few bad outcomes while a very, very small number of lots generate a huge percentage of the harm.  And no, that's not tied to age bracketing (therefore who got it first either); some of the worst have average age distributions that are less than lots with lower adverse event rates.  It is also not tied to when used either since one of the "better" lots has a first-AE report right at the start of January -- as do the "bad" lots.

The only thing all three of these vaccines have in common is that all three of them rely on the human body to produce the spike protein that is then attacked by the immune system and produces antibodies; none of them directly introduce the offending substance into the body.  The mechanism of induction is different between the J&J and Pfizer/Moderna formulations but all exhibit the same problem.  The differential shown in the data is wildly beyond reasonable explanation related to the cohort dosed and the reported person's average age for the full set of events (not just deaths) does not correlate with elevated risk in a given lot either so it is clearly not related to the age of the person jabbed (e.g. "certain lots all went to nursing homes since they were first.")  While the highest AE rate lots all have early use dates so do some of the low-AE rate lots so the attempt to explain the data away as "but the highest risk got it first" fails as well.

In other words the best-fit hypothesis is that causing the body to produce part of a pathogen when that part has pathological capacity (as we know is the case for the spike) cannot be controlled adequately through commercial manufacturing process at-scale.  This means that no vector-based, irrespective of how (e.g. viral vector or mRNA), not-directly-infused coronavirus jab will ever have an acceptable safety profile because some lots will be "hot" and harm crazy percentages of those they're given to with no way to know in advance.  The basic premise used here -- to have the body produce the agent the immune system identifies rather than directly introduce it where you can control the quantity, is a failure. 

The entire premise of calling something that does this a "vaccine" is bogus and in the context of a coronavirus this may never be able to be done safely.

Something is very wrong here folks and the people running VAERS either aren't looking on purpose, know damn well its happening and are saying nothing about it on purpose -- never mind segregating the data in such a fashion that casual perusal of their downloads won't find it -- or saw it immediately and suppressed reporting on purpose.

If these firms were not immune from civil and even criminal prosecution as a result of what Biden and Trump did the plaintiff's bar would have been crawling up *******s months ago.

This ought to be rammed up every politician's ass along with every single person at the CDC, NIH and FDA.  They know this is going on; it took me minutes to analyze and find this.

What the HELL is going on here?

THESE SHOTS MUST BE WITHDRAWN NOW until what has happened is fully explained and, if applicable, accountability is obtained for those injured or killed as a result.  If embargoing of reports is proved, and its entirely possible that is the case, everyone involved must go to prison now and the entire program must be permanently scrapped.

THERE IS NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS DATA THAT REDUCES TO RANDOM CHANCE.