Previous article: HERE
VAERS just published these “new” Blue, Green, and harmless Yellow batches on November 1, 2024.
Original Study by Schmeling, Manniche, Hansen:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13998
I’ve been a little critical of this study because from the beginning more than 19 months ago when the study was first published in March 2023, I knew the “harmless”, “placebo”, “saline” yellow batches were anything but harmless, but rather were the very newest lot numbers aka batches onto the market. Some of the yellow lots still even had valid expiration dates, meaning they were still on the shelves and going into arms. The authors should have had a sense by vaccination dates the oldest and most toxic batches were the blue batches, while most of the green batches were rolled out during the biggest spike in uptake, and lastly the yellow batches which were the newest and some still going into arms at the moment data was acquired which I believe data was obtained by mid 2022? The observational window (vax date) was Dec 2020 - January 11, 2022.
Pay close attention to these so called “new” reports published in VAERS, you notice in this tranche almost all vaccination dates that fell outside of the study’s original observational window are from the yellow batch grouping. I’ve shown all the lot# expiration dates and it’s clear blue is the oldest, green is the next oldest and yellow were the newest lot numbers. This factoid about the expiration dates or age of the batches was not initially declared, mentioned, or even broached in the original study. It was not until the public and people like myself started to point out the obvious. I’m not sure the authors even had obtained the expiration dates of all lot numbers in the study before the study was actually published? I had almost all the expiration dates except for one lot number before the study was published. Maybe it was a luxury the the authors did not have?
So was it the VAERS THROTTLING (purposeful delay) in publishing that bamboozled and sabotaged this otherwise solid study?
Technically is was the global pharma cabal collusion that sunk this study. Although I do believe there exists “placebo” type lots, I more specifically these masters of inventory can spike vials within lots. Spiking an entire lot number is to simple of a task for the cabal. I’m just not in agreement that it’s this group of yellow or even green batches that are “placebo” or of low toxicity…
What really pisses me off is that Vibeke Manniche one of the main authors has been so disingenuous about sharing the raw data, and hasn’t even broached the concept of malfeasance, throttling, or willful misconduct from our pharmacovigilance systems and governments. Yeah she keeps lamenting about her government not sharing the data, but we don’t need anybody to tell us the cabal is clearly throttling what data we are getting. She definitely will not say shit about the 7 deaths coming from Denmark yellow batches, nor the 82 other deaths coming from all other countries via the “harmless” yellow batches.:
Don’t even get me started on the under-coding like report #35 in my opening meme. ID# 2797895 is a 49yr old female from Japan with myocarditis a very serious condition yet it’s classified as Not Serious aka safe & effective because no event level box is checked off. I wonder what the Denmark team does in these situations, do they do the old PhD dump & pump technique as well?
Here is a not serious safe & effective pericarditis from a harmless yellow batch from Denmark:
I love this Denmark study because it inadvertently exposed the under-coding, throttling, collusion, malfeasance and willful misconduct of captured pharmacovigilance agencies around the world. VAERS runs cover for the evil pharma cabal. God Bless.
Vibeke please be a lamb and cough up your raw data. We can collaborate and really figure out what is what and who is bullshitting who? I think somewhere in the middle, the manufacture is delaying most of the submissions to VAERS in my opinion. Sadly it’s just one big puppet show.