The Vaccine Wars Part XVII
I really appreciate that you don’t paywall Mr. Crawford. I’m disabled and can’t afford anything like this anymore. I had already bought your book Why We Drive however, if that counts for anything. Great book. John Waters had talked about it in an interview with Dave Cullen.
Is there a possibility it is a plant to give someone their ah ha moment? Feed them false data and make them look stupid?
Or someone fiddling the books to make their point?
If not, the figures are horrendous but I don't see similar levels in the UK data. Not yet anyway.
Anyway, like you say, the data needs to be further analysed until a firm conclusion can be made.
I just offered some money. I don't even know how I found your substack page, but it has become central to my reading of the proverbial tea leaves. I really appreciate your intelligence and your humor.
When I first heard about these numbers I hesitated to get emotional about it, waiting for someone I trust to do the deeper dive I am not trained to do. Having you, Mr Kirsch and Dr Malone on it makes me feel like I will get the real numbers and not some weaponized fiction. Thank you
Subscribed, I really appreciate the quality of your work. The Campfire wiki is incredible, and I'm adding it to my children's homeschool curriculum. Thanks Mathew!
Given the importance and implications of this data (the entire multi-billion dollar q-vaccine program, the launch of an entirely new era of mRNA technology), we have to consider that not only the prior data itself could be fabricated, but also any tangential evidence from other sources purporting to support the readjusted numbers. These giant industries most certainly have the technological sophistication to retroactively alter history. We need to somehow verify that the readjusted data from the prior 5 years matches the on the ground reality at that time, and I fear any digital documentation is vulnerable to retroactive tampering.
The info presented here pretty much hits the nail on the head. I concur. Excellent character characterzation, on the others looking into this, in my opinion also. Can't wait for your upcoming analysis. Goody, goody, goody hand rub. God Speed and good luck. Looking forward to seeing you back soon.
thank you so much, Mathew... fyi, this St. Valentine's Day, watch the video and take action at your county courthouse, print off a document and give it to your County Prosecutor and/or mail it to them asap registered mail, this will be happening all across the USA, they have to act or be held accountable for dereliction of their duty, https://go.constitutionallawgroup.us/vday
Mathew , I think you didn’t include the argument that jessica rose made looking at the data . Which is the comparison of the revised DOD years to
Population baselines rates . Asking , if that is the case why are the military more sick then the non military population ?
Thank you Mathew. As always good sober reading. I’m looking forward to your analysis and will share your account as always.
"Retired marine turned COVID origins researcher Charles Rixey shares some observations about the data."
In his Feb 9th Twitter thread spreadsheet, Rixey mentions he included several "tan-orange" lines from the "Terminal CWO" video. That Jan 27th video is posted here: https://trmlx.com/dod-establishes-pattern-of-consistent-medical-fraud/ The underlying data can be downloaded from the Feb 1st post here: https://trmlx.com/dod-dmed-data-proves-theyve-known-theyre-poisoning-the-military/
Come on folks! A minimum subscription is $5/month. I consider it an incredible bargain for access to someone with the intelligence and access that Mathew has. This and one other site are the premier substacks for me.
Matthew - I appreciate that you are going to dig deeper into the DoD data and I will look forward to your findings. As to taking a break with publishing - I'm good with this because I still have to go back and read many of your previous - very detailed and very intriguing posts! I'll be set for at least a week! :-) Cheers and thank you!
Has anyone looked at data from earlier than 2016- say 2010 thru 2015? If so, was there a sudden drop-off from 2015 to 2016 when Renz’s original data were considered? That might indicate flawed 2016-2020 data. If there was little difference from 2015 to Renz’s 2016 data, then Renz’s data are likely right.
Nice work, as always.
Insightful analysis on the subjec/data by Jessica Rose se as well, specifically relating to miscaragies
This question isn't exactly related. Have you read harvardtothebighouse's take on the virus?
Thanks for your work.