Did Dr. Hulscher & Dr. McCullough Go Deep Enough Into Their "Highly Lethal Batch Analysis"? No!
Good enough, but still getting bamboozled by VAERS tricks and the Simpleton data dump & pumps... as many ~130 reports left out consideration...
Here is the Peer Reviewed Study in question:
https://ijirms.in/index.php/ijirms/article/view/2035
Here is CHD’s (Nevradakis) write-up about the study:
VaersAware.com Deep Dive:
Here is the “discussion” part of this peer reviewed analysis to show how VAERS “throttling” purposeful delay of publication dampens most studies, and no fault of authors…:
Let me start by saying Pfizer Lot# EW0175 had an expiration date of May 29, 2022 and was heavily administered around Apr-May 2021
This was also a pretty big lot number in terms of doses shipped (~2.63M) with heaviest concentration in Houston, Austin, and Dallas as per ICAN’s hard won FOIA for information:
There is a years worth of VAERS reports that have come in from the publication date of this “peer reviewed” study this month Feb 2025 to the look back observation window cut off date February 2024. Laymen would assume this is not a big deal because of how old this Pfizer lot# EW0175 truly is. This lot practically existed in the initial rollout!
With all the cards on the table, why is there a 2 death discrepancy between this study of 29 deaths and 31 deaths which is ascribed to this lot number today?
Let me show you just the two extra deaths that came in the year it took Hulscher/McCullough to prepare this manuscript.
Ok, so these two deaths were not included in this peer reviewed study, but at least the first example shows severe throttling (purposeful delay) and at face value we need to say it’s at the hospital level not sending to VAERS in a reasonable time manner? Disclosure: I believe VAERS sits on reports and literally just manipulates “Entered/Received” date.
The first example is a VAERS trick that is no fault of the authors, the second example shows no malfeasance because of the long delay from vax to date of death, heck EW0175 wasn’t even the last shot given… However the 1 year gap from observation to peer reviewed publication is not desirable at all but understandable.
VaersAware.com has about 130 more reports that were not considered in this analysis nor "howbadismybatch” primarily because of simple typo errors in the lot number structure.
We are showing at least 1,852 total reports and we’ll take the Pepsi Challenge with anyone!
I present these 31 examples of simple LOT# typos that were not included in this study, and probably not howbadismybatch because no data modeling or ethical data cleansing is preformed…:
This last example is not so simple, but a good example and time to say that vaersaware also used/uses a trained Python algorithm and takes into consideration all other lot#s, vax location, vax dates, and makes a determination based on some strong fuzzy logic. Also notice that Chest Pain and Office visit level might also cause exclusion by itself, but in the real world this victim’s report may have been submitted before a clinical diagnosis of carditis and blood clots could be determined?? I consider this report to be under-coded because this report is not officially considered serious. I digress.
Conclusion:
Somebody please help me I’m not sure what a “peer reviewed” paper really means? Is that peer the 2nd author? Is the peer from the magazine? Because if I were peer reviewing this manuscript I’d give it a B- and say good enough.
Hulscher, McCullough, CHD, Howbadismybatch call me because I’m here to help and not undermine anybody. If we are ever going to get to the bottom of this entire scam and now help RFKjr out, we can not continue to do these simpleton VAERS dump & pumps. VAERS is running cover for big pharma and using well meaning people to propagate this “ethical” pharmacovigilance system forward. VAERS is anything but ethical. God Bless.
Bobby! Fire 3 and hire me!
Please support The Eagle, I’m hungry for some salmon! God Bless
https://www.vaersaware.com/donate
Need help finding your VAERS report?
https://www.vaersaware.com/findmyreportrequest
Please sign Federal Investigation Petition:
There's a whole book on peer review and several chapters in other books. I did peer review for a while and I was unusual in being independent of "sponsors" through research funding. That was 30 or 40 years ago. Peer review these days often means "well qualified peers in knowledge of the folks writing the article, hired by the journal, and related to the political leanings of the journal or the journal's sponsors." In other words, it is a faux dependent reviewer. The entire journal industry is deep state and needs to be flushed, or maybe the new word is DOGEed.
Hulscher's not a doctor. Also, alot of "new" journals are appearing.