Danish Study Is Helping Prove VAERS Throttles Reports
In my initial summary analysis of the new VAERS March 2024 data drop, I used the Denmark Study’s focused on yellow “placebo” lots to show how reports are being throttled (purposeful delayed publishing). I realized this was not the best way to demonstrate the throttling
You see one of the biggest knocks on this study by other analysts close to the data was that the more mature the lots were (oldest vax dates), the more toxic the lots were.
Meaning the yellow “placebo” lots also had the most recent vaccination date in correlation. I also demonstrated the same phenomenon using the lot expiration dates.
The details of the look back period per the authors:
“We therefore examined rates of SAEs between different BNT162b2 vaccine batches administered in Denmark (population 5.8 million) from 27 December 2020 to 11 January 2022.”
Here we are more than two years later, reports associated with these lots are still being currently published in VAERS! It’s clear based on time stamps of VAERS received dates, the throttle job is being done at the manufacturer level cross-walking (submitting) to VAERS.
Ever since Nov 2022, VAERS has scrubbed off the critical foreign country data especially the summary narrative and split_type type field which included the two digit country code and the manufacturers internal time stamp.
If a foreign report associated to one of these lots in was outside the Eudravigilance and/or MHRA systems then we will continue to get the critical data, countries like Australia and Japan for example.
Here is all the blue, green, yellow lots published to VAERS Mar 1, 2024. (only 1 was from Japan, the rest from Europe):
By Vax Date:
A denialist of these examples by vax date might point to the two yellow lot reports where the vax date was after the look back period of Jan 2022. It’s not suspicious at all because it was lot# FM9088 with a lot expiration of Jan 2023.
Just emphasizes the original observation that reports haven’t finished being published in Eudravigilance, VAERS or Denmark’s system or however they compile data and send it off to Eudra.
Please do not gloss over the blur the CDC’s tells us about how foreign reports get into VAERS. They come from manufacturers via their subsidiaries, but everything passes through the manufacturer before it get’s to VAERS.
If anything at all, VAERS is NOT getting all serious reports directly from Denmark, Eudravigilance, or even the manufacturer because of the “serious and unexpected” loop hole.
Overall I’m tremendously happy the authors did the study and showed what they showed. On the other side of the spectrum they were trying to demonstrate hot lots not just “placebo” lots.
The analysis woke the world up, even though there were many of us in this space saying the exact same thing forever. I was the first to come out early right after Team Enigma did their hot lot analysis, and said it’s more like hot vials with lots.
It’s the word “placebo” that gets me fired up. I don’t think the pharma cartel would waste a opportunity rolling out placebos.
What about long term effects? What about a third testicle in 10-20 years? What about turning the frogs gay?
I know I’ll get some lip for the last sentence, but oh well I’m sorry if the truth hurts.
I think it’s easier to turn a kid on the spectrum gay.
That’s not even my original thought, I learned that from McCullough.
See more here substack.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About Covid 19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.