A US organization that took court action to get lot and dose data for the Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) COVID-19 vaccine, says early doses administered had higher ratios of severe reactions per dose, as was the case with Pfizer and Moderna shots. The Informed Consent Action Network broke the news January 8 that its legal team had "wrangled" detailed lot and dose data for the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines from the US Centres for Disease Control. On January 18, ICAN announced they also obtained similar data for the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) vaccine.The disclosure followed a two-and-a-half-year legal battle. While CDC released some lot data previously, ICAN’s legal persistence helped obtain the most complete dataset yet, which includes previously unreleased lot and dose data.ICAN shared the newly-acquired information with OpenVAERS, (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and its COVID-19 Vaccine Lots page. OpenVAERS has conducted its own assessment of the lot data and, according to that assessment, as with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, the most dangerous lots appear to be among the first shipped. “This information may finally permit members of the public to determine if the dose they or a loved one received was part of a potential “hot lot,’” ICAN explained online.“Of course, when numerous lots come back ‘hot’ it could just mean you have a ‘hot’ product. Hence this data could also assist in showing that it was not any particular lot that was hot, but rather the COVID-19 vaccine products themselves that were ‘hot!'”The information on Open VAERS suggested some lots had far more reported cases than others. Serious Adverse Events or SAEs were defined as emergency room visits, hospitalizations, permanent disability, life threatening, deaths and birth defects.Lot 1802070 of the J&J (Janssen) vaccine, released in March of 2021, had 129,000 doses, but had 300 SAEs. This gave it a ratio of 2,326 SAEs per million doses administered. By comparison batch 205A21A had just 350 SAEs per millionLot 1802070 also had the worst death ratio at 287 per million doses, compared to 30 deaths per million doses in Lot 1808986.Batch 032H20A of Moderna, issued in January of 2021, had 449 deaths per million doses, more than twice as bad as the second-worst lot, which had 190. Lot 024M20A had only 80 deaths per million doses.Pfizer lot EL9261, released in January of 2021, was its worst at 162 deaths per million doses, whereas lot EL8982 had only 75 deaths per million doses.Some lots had less than 10,000 doses, but most had more than 500,000 doses. Testimony to the National Citizens Inquiry on COVID-19 suggested quality control was hard to administer in vats of mass-produced mRNA vaccines, perhaps leaving some with higher concentrations of genetic material than in others.The OPEN Vaers findings suggested SAE reports varied widely by geography. Michigan had 600 SAE’s per million, followed by Montana at 475 and Kentucky at 455. Utah had just 141 SAEs per million doses.Previous efforts of this kind were made by Craig Paardekooper HowBadIsMyBatch.com and drew on data from the mainstream Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The Daily Beast called the Bad Batch site “misleading” in its article The Shady Site That Shows Anti-Vaxxers Will Believe Anything.However, VAERS has also suffered criticism. For vaccines, updates on previously reported cases are never visible to the public, but are recorded separately for internal purposes. This approach differs from the one VAERS takes on medical devices.ICAN encourages the public to pull the raw J&J data, the Moderna data, and the Pfizer data to decide for themselves. OpenVAERS’ analysis of the data is available here, here, and here.ICAN was founded in 2016 by Del Bigtree, a television producer who founded The High Wire. The ICAN team now has 20 people and employs legal action with the aim of providing everyone with informed consent.“We believe that by holding regulators accountable through our successful legal actions, individuals will become empowered to make truly informed decisions about their own health and the health of their families," the ICAN website explains.The site says ICAN's "an unprecedented legal strategy" won lawsuits against Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration."