Let me see if I understand your point Albert. Keep kicking that horse!! Is it:
As of Friday July 7, 2023, there were still “Blue, Green, Yellow” lot number reports, the one's referenced in the Denmark study, that have only just recently been published by the CDC and appear as "new reports" in VAERS. These infact are "delayed to be published" reports (throttled) not "new" in so much as a recent adverse event, they are old adverse events that the public is only now becoming aware of. The Denmark study cut off on January 11, 2022, but since this time new reports continue to trickle in, which their adverse event date falls within the assessment time frame of Denmark study. Add to this these “Blue, Green, Yellow” lot numbers expired long ago, as such the "new" VAERS reports can't be for a recent vaccination.
(Curious, how many more reports have dropped on top of the 411 out of interest?)
So. Are you saying the Denmark study is "antiquated" because they are drawing conclusions from a snap-shot in time and not all the possible data? But in truth they can't get all the data, because more relavent reports have since dropped, continue to drop and there is no way of knowing how much more is to come? But also in the "yellow dot" lot numbers you've seen adverse events with suggests those batches definitely are not placebo.
Am I understanding you correctly.
But in general, if I am reading your work correctly, you've witnessed that the publishing of VAERS reports is so corrupt with delays, missed fields, hidden data (in text fields and not check boxes), etc, that no conclusions can be drawn except to say the CDC is tampering with data in many ways?
I remember Deborah Conrad, in her interview with The Highwire, explaining the complexity of filling in a VAERS report. It seems impossible that someone could submit a report without filling in all fields and checking boxes, especially the simple thing of capturing the age of the person. It is highly sketchy to believe so many "unknown age" fields to be submitted.
Among the flaws of the Danish study my Schmeling, Manniche and Riis Hansen, is lack of Lot identification for Blue, Green and Yellow dots on a graph with 3 lines fitted. If this information had been provided, even as a supplemental appendix, people would have begun more critical scrutiny earlier and the whole German "Placebo" story would have died rapidly. Albert has helped immensely by showing the Drop dates and other rich content such as VAERS report numbers for each Lot by country. Some of us have access to preserved unedited reports originating in Denmark, sent to VAERS before the suppression began in November 2022. I have published many of them on Twitter so people can see the rich detail.
Let me see if I understand your point Albert. Keep kicking that horse!! Is it:
As of Friday July 7, 2023, there were still “Blue, Green, Yellow” lot number reports, the one's referenced in the Denmark study, that have only just recently been published by the CDC and appear as "new reports" in VAERS. These infact are "delayed to be published" reports (throttled) not "new" in so much as a recent adverse event, they are old adverse events that the public is only now becoming aware of. The Denmark study cut off on January 11, 2022, but since this time new reports continue to trickle in, which their adverse event date falls within the assessment time frame of Denmark study. Add to this these “Blue, Green, Yellow” lot numbers expired long ago, as such the "new" VAERS reports can't be for a recent vaccination.
(Curious, how many more reports have dropped on top of the 411 out of interest?)
So. Are you saying the Denmark study is "antiquated" because they are drawing conclusions from a snap-shot in time and not all the possible data? But in truth they can't get all the data, because more relavent reports have since dropped, continue to drop and there is no way of knowing how much more is to come? But also in the "yellow dot" lot numbers you've seen adverse events with suggests those batches definitely are not placebo.
Am I understanding you correctly.
But in general, if I am reading your work correctly, you've witnessed that the publishing of VAERS reports is so corrupt with delays, missed fields, hidden data (in text fields and not check boxes), etc, that no conclusions can be drawn except to say the CDC is tampering with data in many ways?
I remember Deborah Conrad, in her interview with The Highwire, explaining the complexity of filling in a VAERS report. It seems impossible that someone could submit a report without filling in all fields and checking boxes, especially the simple thing of capturing the age of the person. It is highly sketchy to believe so many "unknown age" fields to be submitted.
https://totalityofevidence.com/deborah-conrad-vaers-whistleblower/
Among the flaws of the Danish study my Schmeling, Manniche and Riis Hansen, is lack of Lot identification for Blue, Green and Yellow dots on a graph with 3 lines fitted. If this information had been provided, even as a supplemental appendix, people would have begun more critical scrutiny earlier and the whole German "Placebo" story would have died rapidly. Albert has helped immensely by showing the Drop dates and other rich content such as VAERS report numbers for each Lot by country. Some of us have access to preserved unedited reports originating in Denmark, sent to VAERS before the suppression began in November 2022. I have published many of them on Twitter so people can see the rich detail.
Thanks Geoff, that's helpful....I seriously can't read and keep up with everything.