Best case scenario on the bad batches.

originally posted by: anonentity
Here we have a best-case outcome with regard to the bad batches being n the region of seven to fourteen percent.

The concept of a "bad batch" is actually something that's pretty well known in general, and there are mechanisms in place for tracing them back through the supply lines and forward through the distribution channels.

If there were real bad batches we'd be seeing clear pattens to deaths or injuries, both in terms of time and of geography. For example, we'd be seeing incidents centered on particular vaccination centers at specific times. Which we plainly aren't.

We'd also be seeing state or federal authorities moving in on the manufacturers or the ingredient suppliers to locate the source or any contamination and to ensure that there are no further bad batches. Which we plainly aren't.

The key thing that you seem to have forgotten is that the system in the US is geared towards limiting liability, not establishing culpability. This means that it's better for authorities to crack down than to cover up in instances like this, because if you crack down then someone else gets the blame, but if you cover up and are caught then you get the blame.

Or, to put it another way, if there were bad batches then the CDC will try to cover its own backside by going after the manufacturers or distributors, rather than trying to protect them, because protecting them would leave the CDC exposed to some of the blame.

originally posted by: anonentity
Here we have a best-case outcome with regard to the bad batches being n the region of seven to fourteen percent.

The concept of a "bad batch" is actually something that's pretty well known in general, and there are mechanisms in place for tracing them back through the supply lines and forward through the distribution channels.

If there were real bad batches we'd be seeing clear pattens to deaths or injuries, both in terms of time and of geography. For example, we'd be seeing incidents centered on particular vaccination centers at specific times. Which we plainly aren't.

We'd also be seeing state or federal authorities moving in on the manufacturers or the ingredient suppliers to locate the source or any contamination and to ensure that there are no further bad batches. Which we plainly aren't.

The key thing that you seem to have forgotten is that the system in the US is geared towards limiting liability, not establishing culpability. This means that it's better for authorities to crack down than to cover up in instances like this, because if you crack down then someone else gets the blame, but if you cover up and are caught then you get the blame.

Or, to put it another way, if there were bad batches then the CDC will try to cover its own backside by going after the manufacturers or distributors, rather than trying to protect them, because protecting them would leave the CDC exposed to some of the blame.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: anonentity

Source: trust me, bro.

How many hours a day do you and vIrTuOsO spend on this tripe?

What makes this even more comical, is that people like this never look at the big picture, they look at everything likes it's isolated to a small town with a corrupt mayor, rather than being on a national or even a global scale.

When you scale the problems that they describe up beyond the level of a small town they quickly fall apart because of the sheer number of people who would need to be involved.

For example, a single "batch" could potentially contain 10s of thousands of doses, and would be distributed across an entire metropolitan area, rather than randomly all over the country in small packages.

So, if one bad batch arrived in one district of NYC it could be split between a dozen care homes and you'd expect pretty much everyone in all of those care homes to receive it, and to react similarly. So rather than a few individuals being harmed in random locations that would be easy to miss, you'd see maybe hundreds of seniors all dying in a short space of time in a clearly defined radius.

It would be extremely difficult to miss and next to impossible to cover up.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Do you realize that your "Pfizer has been fined before" argument is also a strawman?

I have created an entire thread about Pfizer: Six scandals to remember.

They have been fined billions of dollars.

So not a strawman.

Your can't trust them with nothing. Including the 'vaccines'. One should be very skeptical about the 'vaccines' and the possibility of bad batches.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

That's why the above-average death rate is now way above the lives lost during the Vietnam war. We are not talking about that perhaps there were bad batches we are talking about how bad the damage will end up being. It isn't a matter of contention it is a matter of fact.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
I get the feeling you don't understand what a strawman is.

Pfizer's previous fines are a strawman here because the thread isn't about that but about "bad batches". So, while what you say about Pfizer is true, it doesn't actually refute the arguments you are trying to use it against.

a reply to: anonentity
The premise is based on there being bad batches in order to speculate and attribute current death rates to the covid vaccines.

That isn't a matter of fact.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
I get the feeling you don't understand what a strawman is.

Pfizer's previous fines are a strawman here because the thread isn't about that but about "bad batches". So, while what you say about Pfizer is true, it doesn't actually refute the arguments you are trying to use it against.

I haven't said anything about the batches. However I have said that given Pfizer's history nobody can trust them and it's possible that bad batches exist due to negligence or mistakes or both. Another reason for this are the billions of vaccines administered.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I haven't said anything about the batches.

But the premise of the thread is the batches and the arguments being made against the premise are about the batches and you trying to use Pfizer's shady history as an argument against that is a strawman.

Another reason for this are the billions of vaccines administered.

This is pure speculation and, like I pointed out earlier, the data on howbadismybatch doesn't really support that.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Do you realize that your "Pfizer has been fined before" argument is also a strawman?

Pfizer hasn't just been fined but convicted of fraud and for serious health damages of those who used their products.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Pfizer hasn't just been fined but convicted of fraud and for serious health damages of those who used their products.

Still doesn't change the fact that those cases are not what is being discussed here. It isn't even just Pfizer being discussed.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
I haven't said anything about the batches.

But the premise of the thread is the batches and the arguments being made against the premise are about the batches and you trying to use Pfizer's shady history as an argument against that is a strawman.

Another reason for this are the billions of vaccines administered.

This is pure speculation and, like I pointed out earlier, the data on howbadismybatch doesn't really support that.

Nope it isn't a strawman.

The vaccines and their quality or lack of quality are strongly associated with the companies that produce them. Prizer has been found guilty of fraud and several other serious offences in regards to their products that have caused serious health damage or death.

Bad batches is a real possibility and the number of vaccines administered is also a contributing factor.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Nope it isn't a strawman.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is and why this argument is a strawman in this thread.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Pfizer hasn't just been fined but convicted of fraud and for serious health damages of those who used their products.

Still doesn't change the fact that those cases are not what is being discussed here. It isn't even just Pfizer being discussed.

The same is true for the other Pharmaceutical companies. Bad batches is a subset of the vaccines and vaccines are linked directly with the pharmaceuticals.

So yes, the history of the pharmaceutical companies and the number of vaccines could well be contributing factors.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Nope it isn't a strawman.

Like I said, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is and why this argument is a strawman in this thread.

This is your own opinion only.

There are lot of strawman arguments around and are not mine. I have just covered two major realities that can contribute in bad batches. The history of pharmaceuticals and the number of vaccines administered.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
No it isn't just my opinion. Let's see if I can help you see why it is.

OP: "Here we have a best-case outcome with regard to the bad batches being n the region of seven to fourteen percent. The rest of the batches seemed benign."

Me: The data over at howbadismybatch doesn't really support the conclusions. I mention data in regards to Pfizer and this seemed to have made you kneejerk.

You: Pfizer has been accused, found guilty and fined for other things in the past. They can't be trusted.

While what you said is true, it doesn't support the OP or refute what I said about the data and the "bad batch theory".

You even go as far as adding that you have not mentioned the "bad batch theory" and say that the number of vaccines administered "might" be a contributing factor. I'd say it is because you realize that the Pfizer history strawman really doesn't refute anything.