Does VAERS Purposefully Obfuscate DATA Before Publication?
I have a PhD friend running vaersaware.com through Grok AI and It’s pretty interesting. Check it out:
I’ve volleyed back some ideas and comments our PhD friend and Grok is being trained and refined as we speak. I gave a little deeper explanation of vaersaware.com “ethical cleansing” concept and techniques and this visual below might be the best visual to demonstrate data obfuscation and manipulation before publication.
Hopefully this visual doesn’t need to much explanation, but considering the most severe adverse event of DEATH is the most scrutinized of all events, how is it that 31% comes from a unknown state? Nearly double the amount of all the other events?
16%< of unknown state location is already piss poor data collection in this millennium. You mean to say the IP address is coming from a unknown state? The area code of fax number or zip code of a report that was snail mailed in is coming from a unknown state? The frequency of death reports coming from hospitals, county and state health departments and manufacturers is probably greater than the other event levels. How can unknown state location be almost double? Common man!
You don’t need PhD to deduce down to a logical and probable explanation, but let’s get one and start deducing anyways.
In blurb #6 above you see the very reasonable 4-6 weeks initial adjudication phase where in theory reports are being vetted and additional information is being requested where applicable. However, I see almost the exact opposite of adjudicating. I see reports being published entirely to early like within 24 hours, or very delayed like well after a year of adjudication. You would think the reports VAERS holds onto for 6 months, 9 months, or more than a year would at least be complete? Nope.
VAERS uses the 4-6 weeks in the exact opposite of it’s intent. VaersAware has the wisdom to know the difference.
God Bless
