Kevin McKernan / David Speicher's Adulterated Lots Analysis Not As Tight As Is Could Be?
Should have called the Eagle too!
Full manuscript HERE.
I’m not going to make a nice scatter plot interactive dashboard out of this analysis because I wasn’t invited and don’t want to spend a lot of time on this, but I need to ask, who peer reviewed this thing?
Let’s jump to page 14 on this manuscript which is a nice overview summary page:
Here is page 17 and it’s a bit confusing?
Confusing because AS0709D is not in page 14 and is probably a typo and should be AS0709B? Lot FM7380 has 29 reports per this manuscript, but there is actually 31 reports and one of those missing reports was a DEATH!!!
Is this not a DEATH against lot# FM7380? There is no mention of this death on page 17. Somebody did the ol’ dump & pump routine. I think when someone did a quick “R” language query she didn’t account for upper and lower case? Better run your queries again boys and girls… I could just give the list of 31 reports but I don’t want to do other peoples work for them.
Let’s move on to lot# FN7934 where per the manuscript there are 42 reports, 1 dead (supposedly).
Doesn’t that look like two deaths to you for lot# FN7934? The ol’ dump & pump strikes again! So sorry, as a consolation I will give ya’ll the list of 45 reports so you can double check your resources and vet that I am sincere, genuine, authentic and without wax.
I won’t bother beating up on this analysis any further, I just hope the team goes back to the drawing board and polishes this manuscript up. Data cleansing aka data modeling will only strengthen the message being conveyed. Also I will just point out there is a couple of typos in lot# expiration dates and a couple lot#’s new enough that (exp in 2023 & 2024) reports should continue to come in considering the VAERS report “throttling” aka purposeful delay in publication. I’m not smart enough to know the science stuff, but it “looks” great. God Bless
I gather the manuscript might be edited and corrected with your valuable contribution, as long as the authors are directly contacted.
I wonder what your intention is with this substack. I don’t know anything about your relationship with the authors, but in my opinion it would be way more constructive to contact the authors directly instead of writing this substack to the public which undermines their credibility.