Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals 9: The DMED is Fake
The Vaccine Wars Part XXXVIII
"If I were to remain silent, I'd be guilty of complicity." -Albert Einstein
My articles covering the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED) story are here for reference.
Let me start by putting it simple: the DMED is fake.
This will be the most simplified version of the story, yet. I thought that the last version was simple, but I was asked to explain it even simpler. I mean…I hoped that more of the people with loud megaphones would click two links to vouch for the data change, but here we are weeks and weeks later, so I have new visual aids to help everyone see that the DMED is fake.
Understand that I'm only 99% sure of the following explanation. It might be that something I don't normally consider took place, like interference from time traveling aliens or a clerical mistake that went unnoticed for months or years while causing all medical data to be off by double-digit percentages, and that the Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) workgroup at the CDC using the data just sort of missed (because oops?). But what I'm saying is that we should investigate that. Am I right?
On a very serious level, this is very serious. And it appears that I do need your help making noise about it. So, please help make noise.
What Happened With DMED?
"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication." -Leonardo da Vinci
The DMED is a fake database.
Period.
That's the scandal.
Think it through. It's much simpler than wading through a bunch of percentages, trying to figure out how trustworthy the data might or might not be, or whether the "glitch" was real (it basically was, but it's a sideshow).
What about 1000 percent increases in illness?
There probably aren't thousand percent increases in overall injury and illness. But we can only be certain about what the DMED does show if we can get the DoD to reveal the actual real database that they swapped out for the fake database.
Here is what I [strongly] suspect we will see once we get ahold of the real 2016-2020 data:
Some large increases in illness, some small.
Immediately apparent safety signals.
Lots of vaccine injuries being categorized in the ICD-10 R codes in a way that obscures some of the increases.
Why do we think the 2016-2020 data is fake?
Correct question!
All recorded snapshots of 2016-2020 data changed as of the 2021 Medical Surveillance Monthly Report (MSMR), which is publicly available at the health.mil website. The data changed dramatically. The following figures appear on the second page of each of the MRMRs (I added the bolded pink-filled boxes):
We can see that the 2016-2018 ambulatory reporting rate for injury and illness was lower than 2015 rate…and then suddenly it was higher. A major update to a medical database like this would certainly come with an explanation, and we got none. And I think that the DoD is just fine with the "he-said-she-said" verbal jousting based on the "glitch" which I am nearly certain was real, but was a glitch in a fake database. In fact, it is very possible that the DoD left the glitch there to cause confusion.
Aside from the big picture totals, the current database contains some obvious bullshit, like a complete lack of increase in cases of Bell's palsy.
Why do we care again?
Because the DoD is part of the CDC's Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) workgroup. This is like the use of PRR to disguise safety signals, except that it's a far larger deal because it also involves massive health care data fraud that is a matter of national security. The primary purpose of DMED is to keep U.S. military and government leaders informed of troop health and readiness, which is to say that the integrity of DMED (and DMSS) exists (or existed) because the information it contains is a matter of national security.
Oh, right. Maybe this is really hard for people to understand.
Having spent more than a decade as an educational tech entrepreneur, writing thousands of pages of curriculum spanning middle school to undergraduate math topics and occasionally beyond, and several popular textbooks along the way, I feel like I have at least some sense of how people learn—and also why they don't. I'm fairly certain that in this case, most anyone who is willing to compare the numbers between the snapshots side-by-side, would see the point. In fact, this has been what happened as I talked with others. Watch starting at 12:55 for just one and a half minutes.
In this particular conversation, I'm talking with former marine, Charles Rixey, and Biologist J.J. Couey (13:26):
Dr. Couey: "Whaaaaat?! Whoa, now I understand it…Holy shit! I can't even believe it. Now I get it."
I posit that (1) people who look at the numbers side-by-side pretty much always get it, and (2) people who do not look at the numbers side-by-side sometimes still get it and sometimes don't.
Okay, so if the DMED numbers are faked, why aren't all the anti-vaxx celebrities and substack authors talking about this?
Great. Fucking. Question.
This is the kind of soft spot in the armor that could end the entire fight. Maybe quickly.
I had my head down spending hundreds of hours with data, writing articles, and presenting the data to various people in my circles. I assumed that the information would propagate through our network and would be cause (for those of us who want to see the experimental mass injection campaign stopped) to make a ton of noise. But when I came up for air, I found that wasn't happening, and I'm truly baffled.
This looks in every way like mass data fraud, and likely coordinated with knowledge of the CDC who was supposedly monitoring this data.
The Tragedy of Ignoring This Story
Not too long ago I was made aware of Todd Callender's interview with Reiner Fuellmich's team:
https://rumble.com/vytjl3-attorney-reiner-fuellmich-and-attorney-todd-callender.html
This is important because Fuellmich seems to be putting together something like a video documentary that will stand as record if the Public Health Nazi Reich falls. And here he interviews somebody about DMED whom I believe has only second hand knowledge of it (or else doesn't understand how to read it), and completely botches the facts.
"There's something very interesting you discovered when you worked with the U.S. Department of Defense and the COVID…injections aftermath."
A few minutes into the interview, Callendar begins talking about his lawsuit, and the witnesses, which include Dr. Peter McCullough and at least one of the (unnamed) DMED whistleblowers. And then (emphasis mine),
"...Everything that I'm telling you I can back up with…and I will…Let me get back to that…so when you see a 1100% increase in all-cause morbidity and mortality, that means that something systemic is causing this problem…"
Holy shit! Is he talking about DMED?! It certainly sounds like he's talking about DMED. But these are not numbers that I have seen. In fact, I have seen no DMED mortality data whatsoever or anything other than anecdotal reports of excess mortality (such as at Fort Bragg or the USS George Washington), so if he got that from the DMED whistleblowers, nobody shared that with me.
But I very much doubt that is the case. I believe I was told that all queries were shared with me. And if this was supposed to be backed up with some display of evidence during this interview, I missed that part, too.
This was the first time I even heard discussion of a claim that involves mortality with respect to DMED. And it gets smuggled into the phrase "morbidity and mortality". If we said "morbidity, mortality, and incidence of aliens popping out of the chests of soldiers," I guess the statement would be no more or less true, but it seems pretty seriously misleading if there is no actual mortality data involved. And unless I missed it, he never presents any numbers or sources.
Except that this isn't funny. But let's be clear: THIS IS JUST PLAIN WRONG! There is no credible DMED data showing an 1100% increase in injuries or illness. Saying so is both irresponsible and diverts attention from that which would force action on what is almost surely the real crime at hand.
This graphical comparison, which was on the Renz website for a while after the January 24 hearing with Senator Johnson, has multiple problems. Both of these graphs are based on fake or misunderstood data.
No matter whose story you buy, the 2016-2020 data is almost surely fake. Seems like a big deal, right?
Several of the graphs generated by the whistleblowers from the start seemed to confuse "first occurrences" and "all occurrences" and I explained this problem to at least most of the whistleblowers and lawyers I talked with. If you go to the doctor 10 times for a single ailment, there is 1 first occurrence record, but 10 all occurrence records. Putting these into a single graph is comparing apples to oranges.
Anything in the ballpark of a 1000% increase does not pass a sniff test. I have not seen that in other data sets.
Okay, so this is what the whistleblowers might have believed for a few weeks before I came in with a team of data professionals, but we unwound this mess three months ago. And if there is, or has ever been confusion about this, understand that I was always willing to get on a call and walk through it with anyone (I have done this with a lot of people).
And it's not just Todd Callendar spreading stories about DMED that seem quite baffling to me. Naomi Wolf was on Bannon's War Room a few days ago saying that, "...horrifically, the Department of Defense data shows that female soldiers' pregnancies are experiencing an absolutely catastrophic rate of abnormalities and detail problems…" Whoever told Naomi this was not acting responsibly. And Bannon's War Room has a large audience, which is to say that we missed a golden opportunity to further the correct story and spur action on an issue that affects the quasi-vaccine program, manufacturer liability, and national defense.
Edit: I want to mention here that Naomi called me early just as I was getting out of bed this morning wanting to understand best what happened with the DMED data, and we talked for half an hour. We may have a recorded conversation soon.
Understand that my team spent many hours on fertility data looking for any trend that we could find (even if the reference data was fake, a signal would still be a signal). We came up with nothing. That could be because,
We don't have the real reference data from 2016-2020 (so let's press for it!), or
The trends are too small to detect at this time (but still tragic).
There are no effects on pregnancy.
Obviously, I desperately want to get ahold of the real data and figure this out. But if somebody is feeding incorrect information about the data we have to journalists, that needs to end now. This is like the Pfizer vaccine data Aaron Siri FOIA'ed. We need to focus on getting it rather than assuming what it will look like.
I introduced a FOIA specialist to some attorneys a month and a week ago, but as of last week, no action had yet been taken. I'm open to talking with more lawyers to get this done.
In the meantime, can you help me make some noise about this?
Send this article to your members of Congress. Send it to your state lawmakers. Send it wherever it might make a difference. This is fraud. This is a soft spot on Smaug's underbelly.
Somebody fire!
Thank you so much for doing this, your work is invaluable. I'm not knees deep in the data and can't keep up with all of the statistics / maths / bio stuff involved so have just a peripheral understanding of what's happening here - but when I read your posts I come away feeling more educated.
I am also alarmed by certain vaccine skeptics being sloppy with their criticisms - It can end up giving ammo to those who want to write off skepticism of the Covid vaccines as "misinformation, dangerous, etc". It wouldn't surprise me if some fake memes / info are dropped into the ecosystem like with the Pfizer drops to cloud the reality of what's happening.
What you have discovered is massively important, but I think the reason it has failed to make waves is because it’s a more nuanced point that undermines the initial Renz disclosure. The Renz disclosure captured the imagination of those fighting for Covid truth because it was more in line with the cover-up tactics we’ve come to expect from the Covid perpetrators. As in “there were massive increases in the DMED data sets after the Covid vaccine, and when this was publicly disclosed, they attempted to hide it by retroactively manipulating the data pre-vaccine to make the rise in injury disappear.” This is a simple, easy to comprehend story and captured the imagination of the community. Once something sticks, it’s hard to course correct to a more accurate account of events. It’s unfortunate, but it plays a lot better than “no, you don’t understand, the DMED database itself is so hopelessly manipulated that it’s all fake. It’s fakeness is evidence in itself that something is vastly wrong and a huge deal as it renders our ability to accurately ascertain safety signals impossible, but we really can’t reach any definitive conclusions about the initial disclosure that captured all your imaginations until we get the real data.”