47 Comments

Maybe when / if Republican's retake congress there will be hearings. Just kidding. If the past is any guide the Republicans will just be a kinder and gentler version of Democrats. When, not if, this occurs it will confirm it is the government against the people.

Expand full comment

Hopefully we can encourage some new blood to run in addition to Dr. Tyson. But yes, there are a scarce few doing the job for the people at the moment.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this well written article.

Another tactic I've noticed the "fact checkers" use is what I call, 'the one case that informs them all": if one person is lying, they all are. Note the report on the "hoax" by Channel 7 here in Australia:

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/anti-vaxxers-fabricate-sydney-boys-death-in-latest-covid-vaccination-scare-campaign-as-jab-rollout-for-children-continues--c-5422212

As many know. Reuters CEO was on pfizer's board. Here's one of their egregious "fact check" pieces: https://theparadise.ng/fact-check-recent-articles-covering-childrens-death-prove-that-covid-19-vaccines-are-unsafe-for-children/

No evidence the inoculations were responsible for the deaths, doesn't mean they weren't. The claim the inoculations couldn't be the cause of death because they weren't approved for that age group at the time doesn't rule them out either; there have been cases of under age children who've been injected, which isn't hard to believe for what is in many cases a drive through experience.

Expand full comment

Straw men are often a step toward poisoning the whole well.

Expand full comment

Is there pre 2016 data? I guess also I’m bothered that the discussion is limited to the ~5 year span… How far back does it go?

Expand full comment

2015 was the last year of ICD-9 codes, so while the data exists, it takes more work to compare, and I do not have fluid database access.

Expand full comment

Thanks for keeping us updated on this! I tried to take different pieces of this story and summarize it, of course you're a big part of it. I keep thinking I can't be shocked anymore, but what we're watching unfold is beyond insane.

https://etana.substack.com/p/military-madness?s=w

Expand full comment

Nice summary.

Expand full comment

Hi Mathew, glad someone else pointed out "wreaks" :) - also could you fix "shoved a four-page document in her fact" (face) I'd like to share this with someone who is typo-averse. Thank you for your good work!

Expand full comment

Thank you. Fixed.

Expand full comment

It's reeks not wreaks. I wouldn't even mention l it, but it's italicized for emphasis.

So, to sum up, the whistleblower queries were probably wrong, BUT also the DoD modified the data mid 2021 without mention and no one seems to have noticed until you dug into it now?

Expand full comment

Oops, thanks.

And yes, it would not have been easy for the whistleblowers to find the time to find and fully analyze all the data. I spent 120 hours over 8 days in mid February putting the pieces together, then more since, and tracking down complete and weird data angles is my primary talent.

Expand full comment

I'd have believed an explanation that the queries were wrong. I write a lot of SQL at my job and can see how someone whose job is not normally to extract data could mess up. But that wasn't the DoD's explanation.

Non user-caused data loss is very rare, and "corruption" would likely make a database unusable rather than missing a subset of records from prior years. And it would be returning errors that someone would have noticed unless the system is virtually never used.

If someone made me spitball a guess: I'd wonder if they created some sort of "adjustment" table, with bogus records for prior years so that query results would match the new doctored summaries in the 2021 editions. And they messed up trying to tie it in to the report interface the whistleblowers were using resulting in wildly inaccurate figures.

Expand full comment

Brings back memories! I think that’s a plausible explanation. They wouldn’t have had to do this if they hadn’t violated the Nurnberger Kodex. People in that age bracket do not do well with the jab, so they set themselves up.

Expand full comment

If I were going to game it, I'd be like hmm...I think we've been undercounting certain events in prior years, let's start changing the way we count in prior years by searching for certain key terms. We can't update the past medical records themselves, but we can make a new association table and update our reporting queries to include those in the tallies going forward.

If someone did that and messed up their queries and didn't really test them carefully, you'd get BS data.

Expand full comment

The goal was to destroy confidence in the data set so that it could not be used against their decision to inject the force, so BS data was what they needed. Mission accomplished.

Kids who made a commitment to serve are facing dishonorable discharge unless they agree to be injected with something that does no good, and will certainly harm them. This is a clear violation of law, our code and international code. Since we are looking at the math: What percentage of the people in the DoD have stood up for these young people? How many places to the right of the decimal point?

Expand full comment

The fact that they are force injecting the military is one data point that I think points away from the idea that they are intentionally trying to harm (though I know there are plenty of points in the other direction as well). Though I suppose the optics of that would not be good if they didn't require it for troops.

It's quite possible that the anthrax vaccine is behind the "gulf war syndrome".

Expand full comment

The fact checkers most definitely don't want any info at all unless it confirms their preconceived notions.

Expand full comment

Here are some safe assumptions to make:

1. Those managing the CDC, FDA and DOD data about Covid-19 will not report any negative info about the mRNA gene manipulators because they think if they are honest about it now they will be cast into the societal pits of deplorables for lying about it for so long.

2. Any official "fact checkers" "false!" decisions about negative information about Covid Policy, corporations generally, banks, Democrats, legacy media, billionaires, the Military or the Intelligence community, the negative info is probably in fact true, as the official "fact checkers" think that one single decision reflecting negatively on any of the above will mean they will be cancelled and cast into the pits of the deplorables.

Expand full comment

One would imagine that sooner or later the vaccinations will cease. One would then expect to see a fall in reports. Then I suppose they can then adjust (all) the historical records back down again. Who can we trust anymore?

Expand full comment

Thanks for your great work. I believe the 1,100% increase in deaths is a statement bt attorney Todd Callender - not Tom Renz. Here's a link - https://www.weblyf.com/2022/03/us-military-mortality-rate-increased-to-1100-according-to-attorney-todd-callender/

Expand full comment

Thank you.

I think he was extrapolating inappropriately. However, I bet there is still a huge increase in noncombat deaths.

Expand full comment

If there is an increase in non combat deaths, it will show up in the number of DD1300's issued and the amount the Pentagon has spent on "death gratuity payments." What possible reason could the Pentagon have for keeping the monthly amount of death gratuity payments secret?

Expand full comment

I do not yet knowledge of the deaths, or know what is secret.

Expand full comment

I should be clearer.

It is almost certain that DOD will build a stone wall. With the DD 1300, the stone wall will be built out of i) a concern for privacy and ii) incompetence (DoD will say they "can't find" all of the DD1300's).

I cannot understand what DOD's excuse will be for not releasing the amount of "death gratuity" payments spent out of the "death gratuity" cost code over the past five years. There is no reason to keep that information secret.

Expand full comment

If 'fact checkers' need a source @BRebellion777 tweeter makes the claim of 1100% increase on Twitter with TikTok video featuring atty Todd Callender and at least have accurate source attribution. https://twitter.com/BRebellion777/status/1504834445588807688?t=40TPdB9B229qzKSfG__NSw&s=19

Expand full comment

The attorney's anonymous document was written by someone in DOD or one of their contractors. Giveaway: the term BLUF at the top. BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front. It is used in all DOD presentations.

Expand full comment

Most likely this is the case.

Expand full comment

At this point, the notion of “fact checking” has just become utter absurdity. Like so much else in this sorry tale.

Expand full comment

You state multiple times “if the whistleblower queries were not the full data (which is probably true)”… can you explain why you believe that to be the case? Your theory about intentionally sabotaging the 2016-20 data to muddy the waters seems plausible, but the simpler explanation is that the data was correct previously and had to be altered to explain away the 2021 data. Wouldn’t that also more easily explain why no one noticed a problem previously… because the numbers were actually legitimate?

Expand full comment

The data was not correct or complete. The MSMR reference data proved that. The problem now is that without an investigation into the manipulations that took place at that point, we cannot compute the numbers perfectly.

However, I will have some posts addressing various safety signals. There are still signals.

Expand full comment

Anyone else want to get put back in the matrix some days???

Expand full comment

No, but I get it. We live in interesting times.

This moment was always coming. Every bill comes due.

Expand full comment