It is true that a small percentage of adverse events are reported, and certain providers are reporting multiple cases. However, you need to consider that many different providers are reporting adverse events in multiple states all from the same lot. For example, Moderna lot 039K20A had 4993 adverse events reported in 48 states. That's at least 48 providers reporting on the same lot.
48 states all reporting information on the same lot is suspect in itself. How do 48 states all end up with the same lot, and in large enough quantities that it reaches a location in each state that is aware of VAERS and will report issues? If that's not an error of some kind, then this lot must be absolutely massive.
Without knowing whether certain lots are much bigger than other lots, or how many lots exist in total for each vaccine in the US, statistically speaking, the lots are not comparable, and it would be difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this data.
Your point is good that a single lot here looks to be problematic and in this case, selection bias due to reporting is probably not a concern. But we don't know percentage 4,993 is of the total for the lot, and if that's any different from other lots.
I agree. Without knowing the size of these lots it is impossible to draw a conclusion. After doing a little research on the VAERs database, I asked my elderly mother which vaccines she received(I couldn't stop her). Her 1st two shots were both from lots that had a high number of AE reports. Now I am thinking that the suspect lots were much larger than the "safe" lots.
That's probably the case, or perhaps something else about them, like they had more doses currently administered from that lot. The newest lot will probably always look to be the safest.
It is true that a small percentage of adverse events are reported, and certain providers are reporting multiple cases. However, you need to consider that many different providers are reporting adverse events in multiple states all from the same lot. For example, Moderna lot 039K20A had 4993 adverse events reported in 48 states. That's at least 48 providers reporting on the same lot.
48 states all reporting information on the same lot is suspect in itself. How do 48 states all end up with the same lot, and in large enough quantities that it reaches a location in each state that is aware of VAERS and will report issues? If that's not an error of some kind, then this lot must be absolutely massive.
Without knowing whether certain lots are much bigger than other lots, or how many lots exist in total for each vaccine in the US, statistically speaking, the lots are not comparable, and it would be difficult to draw reliable conclusions from this data.
Your point is good that a single lot here looks to be problematic and in this case, selection bias due to reporting is probably not a concern. But we don't know percentage 4,993 is of the total for the lot, and if that's any different from other lots.
I agree. Without knowing the size of these lots it is impossible to draw a conclusion. After doing a little research on the VAERs database, I asked my elderly mother which vaccines she received(I couldn't stop her). Her 1st two shots were both from lots that had a high number of AE reports. Now I am thinking that the suspect lots were much larger than the "safe" lots.
That's probably the case, or perhaps something else about them, like they had more doses currently administered from that lot. The newest lot will probably always look to be the safest.