That video was very seriously flawed. It's basic premise is impossible.

I downloaded the VAERS data and tried to recreate his results.

It's impossible that '1 in 200 batches' were a problem, because there are only (roughly) 300 real batch numbers.

The remaining 40,000+ (false) 'batches' are various typos, or entries like 'N/A', or 'Unknown', 'idk', etc. One-third of all the entries were simply blank. These false batches are identified as 'a huge number of safe batches', each with only one or two entries. But they don't actually exist. They are data errors.

If he removed (or corrected) all the typos, he would be left with (roughly) 300 batches -- but he would still have no way of knowing if those batches were of the same total size (and therefore analytically comparable). The CDC specifically states that it will not release that information to the public.

Just because this (very flawed) video supports our point of view, it doesn't mean we shouldn't check to see if it is a proper analysis. And it isn't.

That video was very seriously flawed. It's basic premise is impossible.

I downloaded the VAERS data and tried to recreate his results.

It's impossible that '1 in 200 batches' were a problem, because there are only (roughly) 300 real batch numbers.

The remaining 40,000+ (false) 'batches' are various typos, or entries like 'N/A', or 'Unknown', 'idk', etc. One-third of all the entries were simply blank. These false batches are identified as 'a huge number of safe batches', each with only one or two entries. But they don't actually exist. They are data errors.

If he removed (or corrected) all the typos, he would be left with (roughly) 300 batches -- but he would still have no way of knowing if those batches were of the same total size. The CDC specifically states that it will not release that information to the public.

Just because this (very flawed) video supports our point of view, it doesn't mean we shouldn't check to see if it is a proper analysis. And it isn't.