yes, the title is misleading, and that is a form of well-poisoning. That leads to the above comment: Oh not all batches were like that! Which leads to the erroneous conclusion that it must be safe after all, or something.

Agreed that not all batches were like that, but one must realize that these are not low numbers. Even a 1% death rate is normally completely unacceptable. That clinic should have been sending smoke signals to the Ministry if even one person died:

So in 2012 there was this study:

Among 13,033,274 vaccinated people, 15,455 deaths occurred between 0 and 60 days following vaccination. The mortality rate within 60 days of a vaccination visit was 442.5 deaths per 100,000 person-years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23790993/

That's more like 0.4% death rate (per year of the study), after introducing vaccine. That was considered 'safe' in those days. So for a clinic where n=246, the 'safe' death rate would have been 0.98: less than 1.

yes, the title is misleading, and that is a form of well-poisoning. That leads to the above comment,

But one must realize that these are not low numbers. Even a 1% death rate is normally completely unacceptable.

So in 2012 there was this study:

Among 13,033,274 vaccinated people, 15,455 deaths occurred between 0 and 60 days following vaccination. The mortality rate within 60 days of a vaccination visit was 442.5 deaths per 100,000 person-years.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23790993/

That's more like 0.4% death rate, after introducing vaccine. That was considered 'safe' in those days.