Alphabetic Toxicity2
Alphabetic Toxicity2
Alphabetic Toxicity2
By Craig Paardekooper
All the Pfizer batch codes were ordered alphabetically. For each Pfizer batch the number of adverse reports in VAERS
was divided by the size of the batch shipped in doses, in order to get adverse reactions per dose shipped. This is not
per dose used, but per dose shipped.
This dataset was reduced to 127 records after removing records with batch codes containing * or ?
This is simply from an ordering of batch codes by alphabet from A to Z. Here is how the adverse reactions per dose
varied.
The chart shows a very clear pattern where number of reports of adverse events per doses shipped decreases
steadily over the whole of 2021
Using Machine Learning to Get a Read-out on Toxicity
A Change in Uptake
1. Fewer people were taking the vaccines as time passed, so a larger % of batches would remained unused, and
consequently batches of equal size would register fewer adverse reports.
1. The initial recipients were the aged, who would be more vulnerable to any physical stress or harm caused by
the jabs.
2. The initial recipients had more comorbidities, and/or were in care. So their physiology was already
compromised.
To assess whether the trend is due to change in toxicity rather than change in uptake, the % of reports indicating a
serious outcome can be used. If this still falls over time, then that would indicate that a higher % of the early batches
were causing severe outcomes.
Here it can be seen that for the first 35 Pfizer batch codes in alpha numeric sequence, many of these batches have a
high % of reports of death, compared to subsequent Pfizer batches. The % of reports resulting in an outcome of
death is elevated in these early batches. All of them were above 1 % – most between 2% and 5%. When we look at
the subsequent batches between ordinal positions 35 and 52, we see that the % of reports resulting in death is
focused between 1% and 2 %. After batch 52, nearly all subsequent batches are focused in the 0 to 1 % range.
So there appears to be a significant decline in % of reports with an outcome of death between the batches from 0 to
80 in ordinal position.
Size of Batch and Toxicity
Here is a chart of the size of the batches vs their ordinal position in the alpha numeric batch code sequence –
As you can see, the early batches (batches 0 to 36), were smaller than subsequent batches. So as a general rule, we
can say that the smaller batches were more toxic because a higher % of reports for these batches eventuated in
death. Now here is a curious thing. In the subsequent batches you can see that most of the sizes are in the range of
about 3 million doses, but there are three batches that have a small size in the range of 600,000 each – these are
batch 40, batch 62 and batch 85.
Batch 40 also happens to have a high % (5 %) of reports resulting in death ! And both Batch 62, and batch 85 are
associated with peaks of death.
The other odd thing about these 3 small batches is that they were introduced periodically – every 22 or 23 batches.
Its possible that highly toxic batches were small, so that they could target small populations, whilst larger batches
were low toxicity, so that they would garner the support of the majority !
In the next chart you can see Toxicity plotted against batch size. Notice that the smaller batches form a distinct
cluster separated from the larger batches. Also notice that they have an elevated toxicity compared to the larger
batches. This toxicity also forms a distinct cluster – because it begins where the lower toxicity range of the larger
batches ends.
In the above chart, toxicity is measured by adverse reactions / batch size (doses shipped), where each dot is a batch.
The % of reports with hospitalization for each batch, where batches are ordered alpha numerically. This chart is very
similar to the chart for reports with death. Notice that in both cases the highest % of severe effects are occurring for
batches 15 to 40, and after 40 there is a steady decline.
The Life Threatening chart above shows a decline in life threatening conditions that parallels the decline in
hospitalizations and deaths. Note that there appears to be a higher line running parallel to the main decline, and this
higher line consists of batches 40, 62, 85, 97 – all of which are small batches interspersed amongst the large ones.
A Test to Determine if Change in Age of Recipients is the Reason
If the results are filtered for people of specific ages, and it is found that people of any chosen age still demonstrate a
higher % of serious outcomes for early batches, then this would show that the effect was independent of age of
recipients.
A Change in Toxicity
1. Improved formulation
2. Reduced dosages
3. Decay of harmful ingredients
Conclusion
As you can see from the results above, there is a steady and constant decline in reports of adverse reactions per
doses shipped for each batch when ordered alpha numerically.
Using the snake analogy, when bitten by a relatively harmless snake one would expect fewer occasions to visit a
hospital compared to when one is bitten by a snake with potent venom. So it is logical that a more toxic batch will
produce a higher percentage of reports where there is a severe outcome. When I looked at the % of report with an
outcome of –
1. Death or
2. Disability or
3. Hospitalization or
4. Life Threatening illness
in every case the initial batches generated a significantly higher % of reports where the outcomes was severe –
followed by a steady decline in severe outcomes over the subsequent large batches.
In conclusion, COVID-19 vaccine effects display large variability between batches. The product is therefore
inconsistent from one batch to another.
So much is Unknown
It should always be remembered that you have a fundamental legal right to refuse ANY medical intervention. This is a
legal and constitutional right, and cannot be superseded by ANY health regulation, pandemic treaty or any new laws
passed by government.
In a situation like this, were a new experimental gene therapy is being rolled out, with a mechanism that is known to
be harmful, then you have a right to say no. When so little is known it is not even possible to exercise informed
consent.