Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals 7: Fact Checkers Miss the Point
The Vaccine Wars Part XXIX
How much clearer does it have to get that "fact checkers" are mouthpieces for whoever has money to pay them, and nothing like "journalists"? Here is where we were with "fact checking" at the start of February:
Controlled incompetence has been raised another level. A "charity" fact checking organization (I guess that's how payments to an org can be made to look less like direct payments for propaganda) called Full Fact published a brief "fact check" on the DMED story about a week ago. Please follow the smoke and mirrors to see how the sausage gets made…
First, I just want to mention that I don't even know what the claim is that's being fact checked. There is no document and no quote, and nothing the fact check links to makes the claim. Is this a giant straw man? The article links to Senator Johnson's hearing from January 24, but I've listened to the portion around 4:55:00 where Thomas Renz speaks, and I don't hear the claim of that level of death increase. Did I miss it?
Or was the false claim in a Daniel Horowitz article that seems to have been removed from Blaze Media? If I recall correctly, I read Daniel's article, and I don't recall a mortality claim like this, but it's possible that I'm not remembering correctly. That said, I've found Daniel to be generally reliable, and in this case, there is a notice where the article used to reside:
So, what did Daniel remove? And why is it important?
Fortunately, the wayback machine had stashed archives of Daniel's article. Unless I missed something, there is no claim either in the testimony at the Johnson hearing, nor in Daniel's article at The Blaze of an 1100% increase in deaths. So the fact check does appear to be entirely a straw man. I suspect that Daniel took his article down due to my investigation into the MSMR (linked at the start of this article), and the revelations that the initially queried data probably was not correct (I feel almost certain that it wasn't, but that it opened the right can of worms). However, that doesn't mean that the post-glitch data is correct. I am also almost certain that the current DMED data is the result of unlawful manipulation of the DMSS/DMED. And that should be of greater concern to an honest fact checker.
That said, it would be nice to see military death numbers! The VAERS reports do suggest that non-combat deaths may be up sharply, and the stories I'm seeing and hearing about suggest that enough soldiers are dying to raise alarm bells (Fort Bragg). Don't the fact checkers want the whole story? Or is their job to make it appear that there is no story worth investigating, and that the other "side" of the discussion is making incorrect claims?
What Actually Happened?
Let us review, and then add some new details.
The whistleblowers queried DMED and found sharp increases in rates of illness.
The DoD said, "nuh uh, that was glitch."
This may be a matter of deceiving without lying. I do believe that the queries that led to Renz's presentation at the Johnson hearing were not correct, but the nature of the so-called glitch is still not explained with any kind of evidence, so far as I'm aware.
The revelation that the MSMR report summaries were altered after the first few months of post-vaccination health data rolled in now stands as the story of primary import! So far as I know, the DoD has not commented on that story at all. And I'm honestly wondering whether they're in a strategy session trying to figure out what to say and what cards we hold (and where that's encrypted and stored, and with whom…and maybe on what blockchain).
Right around the time I was discovering the alteration of the summary data in the ambulatory reports in the MSMR, whistleblowing doctor Theresa Long was in court in Florida, testifying for the Navy Seal case against the Biden mandate. A lawyer shoved a four-page document in her face that was unsigned, and listed a cherry-picked handful of ICD-10 codes that made it look as if observations of increased illness were all just noise.
So, the DoD (or at least an unnamed person presumably at or in contact with the DoD) suddenly declares in court that the DMED data was corrupted all the way back in August, 2021! And nobody noticed?!
Isn't this database part of the CDC's safety surveillance monitoring system?
It's not just that something doesn't smell right in this story. It reeks.
I was told that the judge admonished the DoD's legal team for not even having an expert witness, so take this document with a grain of salt.
Not so fast! Sure, there are some decreases on this list, but even if the whistleblower queries were not the full data (which is probably true), I feel nearly certain that the 2016-2020 data was manipulated and is now significantly overstated. Not only that, but in my examination of the outputs so far, I think that those adverse events (AEs) most commonly associated with vaccination were massaged more than the rest of the numbers. Does anyone actually believe that any highly vaccinated population is experiencing fewer cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome?!
It doesn't add up.
Note that this list did not include myocarditis, pericarditis, mortality, or reference the R-codes.
Hypothesis: This is Planned Kayfabe
Throughout the pandemic, the march toward mass "vaccination" has involved a lot of artificial nonsense—often to the point of absurdity and beyond.
Right now I'm wondering if somebody in the DoD saw the rates of certain illnesses skyrocketing during the early months of 2021, made the decision to falsify the ambulatory reports for the May 2021 MSMR (jacking them up where needed to mask safety signals), then decided to pre-empt any investigation into the DMSS/DMED by leaving DMED in a sabotaged state, and with a fully prepared plan to muddy the waters with a "glitch" story.
Meanwhile, nobody is even willing to talk to the media (or "fact checkers"), or come to court to fully explain the data manipulations, and the CDC isn't publishing their own pulled data from these databases. Nobody at the top of the decision chain in the DoD seems willing to have a much-needed conversation about any of this, and nobody will even put their name beyond the extremely thin "fact checks" that…still haven't approached a word of any of what I've found to this point in time.
Sorry if I'm hard for the script writers to keep up with. I mean…sorry, not sorry.
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.
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:
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.