@Guerin - It is not uncommon at all to NOT limit distribution in terms of area or state by lot, and there's zero evidence it was here. One of the worst lots has AE reports from 49 states. When you get into lots with few AE reports of course you're going to see a bad "fill rate" on the state map, but that does not imply you didn't distribute it there. You need statistical power (lots of reports) to be able to make that statement, and where we have statistical power it appears they widely distributed all of the lots.

@Sillerjf - I don't buy coordination; someone would blow the whistle, as there are too many people who have to know. The most-likely explanation is what I put forward in the article: This sort of vectored process, using the body to produce the thing that is the antigen, is medically unsound and cannot be done safely if the thing produced is pathogenic because you cannot exert sufficient manufacturing control to prevent this sort of outcome.

It's not individual susceptibility -- if it was then there would be no "hot" lots; the bad would be everywhere. It isn't, therefore it can't be individual susceptibility. In a small sample size random chance could produce that but not across 100 million+ people. No way.

----------