I appreciate how you balance along the line between accusation and inference from the given data. Part of me is curious about what you think is the goal in developing all this as evidence: do you believe, or hope, there is a court with an enforcement arm that will take what you present and exact justice? Or, do you believe, or hope, there is something greater about truth that requires its disclosure without expectation it will "lead somewhere"? Or, I don't know: maybe you choose from many other ways of feeling about this?
All of the connections to the web I'm open to seeing and sensing have lead me to doubt there is any hope or faith in me that a court on this earth will hear this evidence and find the guilty accurately charged and judged. This just is not the sort of place or planet for that sort of thing, anymore than a snow globe's kingdom needs a fire in a home to stay warm. But it does leave it wide open for what a person can choose to do, how to spend their time, whom to help or to resist, and why.
I think I've figured out why the powerful here want to enslave, destroy, and dissect, because these are also the things we the weak do without realizing it, too. So we have to learn something, and it's a choice to learn how to find and speak and live the truth.
I would think a court solution possible, except for this: many who are presumably on "our side" of this have refused to help, leaving me virtually isolated in the process. Some of them have sent me emails telling me not to proceed, and to stop my research. It's not that they have trouble believing me, and they've made that clear. They've given lame excuses like, "This won't be understood."
One worry that I have is that there is controlled opposition working behind my back. I have several emails that tell such a story, and some supportive data. But I've been holding onto that in hopes that enough of the crowd will come to its senses, stop being influenced or taking orders, and realize that this is it---it will fit with the insurance data that comes out. I can almost guarantee that. Nobody believes there are 1000% increases in illness, but anyone with their eyes open sees there are problems. And they're in the R-codes. If "our side" took a collective run at ferreting out R-code data from every source, or pushing the DoD with FOIAs or opening up Unissant to see what's under the hood, I think the entire narrative would fall apart.
Aug 22, 2022·edited Aug 22, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Not understood? In essence you showed that instead of lowering '21 data, they increased years '16-'20 to possibly hide the increase in '21.
Seems more, that some don't want to give up the original narrative of 1000% increase in X due to the vax.
But in this case time should be in our favor. They increased old values. Hence we ask why. If it is telemedicine, show me the data without telemedicine. Let's see how the trend looks without telemedicine and the trend within only telemedicine. If true, I suspect that will make '21 show up as an odd-ball in terms of less telemedicine in both '21 and more in-office, and as such hides the spike. And then we can discuss how realistic that would be. But perhaps the telemedicine is real, but (in part) a red herring just like the glitch.
But if I'm wrong - OK, then I'm wrong.
Either way, a new secretary of defense or interested congressman of the majority party with subpoena power can blow this open. Or a new whistleblower that cannot speak now, but will perhaps if the leadership changed and he/she won't be punished. May take 1 year, 2 years or more, but I doubt this stays hidden forever.
If anyone can make something with numbers and graphs that's confusing-as-hell-to-laypeople-not-numerically-inclined understandable, it's you. And there have been a lot of legal successes with ICAN / Aaron Siri's law firm. Going up against the DOD may be many other levels, but ICAN's work has restored some faith in the court system ...
Even before statistics 📊 📉 📈 whatever, one must ask what’s the point injecting all of military with a substance that has no long term data? It’s a fraud in my book. These people were not in any danger before the injections, but are obviously in danger after the injections. I mean there is no place to assume any good will there.
Good, organized data arguments help when intuitions clash. There are people in the world too naive to get it, yet. There are also people who want to look you in the eye and gas light you: tell you you're crazy. Destroying their game is worth a lot.
It is. But it's worth to know this was more then a bad gamble from the very start. And now when they start to tell us, oh we did not tell you this and we did not know that, factually it was their job to know.
That’s a pretty significant drop in active duty numbers from 2020 to 2021. I would dismiss it as a side effect of the mandate but wouldn’t there be a drop in the Reserve numbers as well? A 4.6% drop in active duty numbers should be a big story. Especially at a time when recruitment is down 40-60%. Something’s not right here. Thanks for the update on MSMR.
I haven't found anything regarding injection statistics for the Reserves, but this recent story about the Guard adds some information:
"Guard soldiers were ordered to be vaccinated by July 1, far later than most other services. ... But unlike active-duty formations, there is no policy requiring Guardsmen who refuse vaccination to be separated from service, meaning that the passed deadline has left states uncertain about what steps to take next. ... "The National Guard and Reserve have a lot less leverage over their service members than active duty because it's not their primary source of income," added Grogan, who studies National Guard issues."
I could see Active Component folks transitioning to the Guard when their contracts expire, based on this.
Still even before we even think about outcomes one must ask what is the purpose in the first place. This is a fertile population that has presumably more then 50 years to live! There is no reason in the world 🌎 🌍 to inject them with a substance without understanding the long term effects. Moreover even the short term effect was bad. More vaccinated died in the clinical trial. Armies had nothing to gain everything to lose by injecting the soldiers.
This was an attack on every injected nation in the first place. Even before we count the deaths and injuries.
I agree completely. I think the order to inject them was unlawful, and I think the "leadership" showed zero loyalty down the chain of command. I'm retired from the Army, a physician and public health professional, and I've been horrified.
I can buy the idea that they brought in a new source of data, and applied it retroactively. This is a data warehouse from many different data sources. The R-code increase is a separate issue, a sudden in crease in "unknown" issues says to me "we're pretty sure it's the vaccine but we're not supposed to say that".
Wouldn't telemedicine visits be for less serious maladies? If so, wouldn't we see this in the data? Like, the milder maladies went up when the telemedicine data was added. But not the more serious maladies, which required in-person visits.
"Don't they pay over $100M a year to Unissant to run this database? (Um, can I bid on that contract, now?) "
I was in a meeting once about $4 million the local park board was spending to hire a contractor to remove cattails from a local pond. I raised my hand and said, "I'll do it for a million."
I assume you should be able to get whatever statistics you want for that kind of money? That seems like even more, the inflated cost of DOD contractors.
Telemedicine sounds like they were searching for an answer and settled on one.
I wonder why so many people are incurious about these stories and the overall lack of data. We've been hearing that we need to make all teaching decisions be data driven and evidence based in the public (government) (un) education system for years. One of the classes offered to teachers was titled "show me the data". Well, why aren't Americans demanding this with all the COVID and frankly every program we pay for. It's frustrating.
It's an ongoing attempt to explain an anomaly in published data.
It is far more transparent and honest than have been any efforts made by, eg, CDC in recent years, which is why they're planning to restructure to "improve the culture and restore public trust," according to the CNN story.
Isn't it better to know if an institution is or is not trustworthy?
If an institution is untrustworthy, should we have faith in it?
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish : Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'
I suspect the telemedicine data is somewhat real, just like the glitch is real. But it seems that a telemedicine visit is not the same as a regular visit. I've used telemedicine, but that was always for quick simple things. Basically, the equivalent for email, but where you would want to just have an interactive chat and perhaps show something. Or to get a referal.
But for serious things for me and my family, you go in. I suspect for many people, there is such a triage where one decides whether one wants to go in person or just get a video or phone call, based on seriousness. Or at least overall over a large set of people there would be such a causal relation
That also brings up, what is telemedicine? Is an email consultation also a telemedicine? Are such incidents counted as telemedicine? That would be comparing apples to oranges.
So why not give both data sets, where we show physical and telemedicine. That way we can see better what is going on.
I suspect the telemedicine is real, a sit they did add this, but as it is kind of apples to oranges, an excellent way of hiding a peak ...
(Although that would in my theory mean telemedicine went down in 2021, assuming actual injuries and hence actual office visits would be up. So still puzzling ...)
I have a question. If a covid vaccine is non-sterilizing, then comparing vaccinated and covid groups looks to be a logical error, since there is no exclusion. The same individuals may be in both groups.
E.g., hypothetical example
5 vaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
5 unvaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
10 total cases of myocarditis from covid
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
And if you compare the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
Same results both ways.
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid, you get a relative harm of 1.0.
If the rates of myocarditis (normalized by things like age), were higher for those who were vaccinated vs not, that would be evidence. No logical error.
It's like comparing the survival rate of two groups: one got hit by a car, the other got hit by a car then stabbed. If the group that got stabbed has a lower survival rate, it's evidence that stabbings are harmful.
I appreciate how you balance along the line between accusation and inference from the given data. Part of me is curious about what you think is the goal in developing all this as evidence: do you believe, or hope, there is a court with an enforcement arm that will take what you present and exact justice? Or, do you believe, or hope, there is something greater about truth that requires its disclosure without expectation it will "lead somewhere"? Or, I don't know: maybe you choose from many other ways of feeling about this?
All of the connections to the web I'm open to seeing and sensing have lead me to doubt there is any hope or faith in me that a court on this earth will hear this evidence and find the guilty accurately charged and judged. This just is not the sort of place or planet for that sort of thing, anymore than a snow globe's kingdom needs a fire in a home to stay warm. But it does leave it wide open for what a person can choose to do, how to spend their time, whom to help or to resist, and why.
I think I've figured out why the powerful here want to enslave, destroy, and dissect, because these are also the things we the weak do without realizing it, too. So we have to learn something, and it's a choice to learn how to find and speak and live the truth.
I would think a court solution possible, except for this: many who are presumably on "our side" of this have refused to help, leaving me virtually isolated in the process. Some of them have sent me emails telling me not to proceed, and to stop my research. It's not that they have trouble believing me, and they've made that clear. They've given lame excuses like, "This won't be understood."
One worry that I have is that there is controlled opposition working behind my back. I have several emails that tell such a story, and some supportive data. But I've been holding onto that in hopes that enough of the crowd will come to its senses, stop being influenced or taking orders, and realize that this is it---it will fit with the insurance data that comes out. I can almost guarantee that. Nobody believes there are 1000% increases in illness, but anyone with their eyes open sees there are problems. And they're in the R-codes. If "our side" took a collective run at ferreting out R-code data from every source, or pushing the DoD with FOIAs or opening up Unissant to see what's under the hood, I think the entire narrative would fall apart.
Not understood? In essence you showed that instead of lowering '21 data, they increased years '16-'20 to possibly hide the increase in '21.
Seems more, that some don't want to give up the original narrative of 1000% increase in X due to the vax.
But in this case time should be in our favor. They increased old values. Hence we ask why. If it is telemedicine, show me the data without telemedicine. Let's see how the trend looks without telemedicine and the trend within only telemedicine. If true, I suspect that will make '21 show up as an odd-ball in terms of less telemedicine in both '21 and more in-office, and as such hides the spike. And then we can discuss how realistic that would be. But perhaps the telemedicine is real, but (in part) a red herring just like the glitch.
But if I'm wrong - OK, then I'm wrong.
Either way, a new secretary of defense or interested congressman of the majority party with subpoena power can blow this open. Or a new whistleblower that cannot speak now, but will perhaps if the leadership changed and he/she won't be punished. May take 1 year, 2 years or more, but I doubt this stays hidden forever.
If anyone can make something with numbers and graphs that's confusing-as-hell-to-laypeople-not-numerically-inclined understandable, it's you. And there have been a lot of legal successes with ICAN / Aaron Siri's law firm. Going up against the DOD may be many other levels, but ICAN's work has restored some faith in the court system ...
Even before statistics 📊 📉 📈 whatever, one must ask what’s the point injecting all of military with a substance that has no long term data? It’s a fraud in my book. These people were not in any danger before the injections, but are obviously in danger after the injections. I mean there is no place to assume any good will there.
Good, organized data arguments help when intuitions clash. There are people in the world too naive to get it, yet. There are also people who want to look you in the eye and gas light you: tell you you're crazy. Destroying their game is worth a lot.
It is. But it's worth to know this was more then a bad gamble from the very start. And now when they start to tell us, oh we did not tell you this and we did not know that, factually it was their job to know.
Anyone who tells the young and pregnant, or child, to take a medicine with no long term safety data, for a virus that primarily kills the old...
Don't have good intentions, period.
That’s a pretty significant drop in active duty numbers from 2020 to 2021. I would dismiss it as a side effect of the mandate but wouldn’t there be a drop in the Reserve numbers as well? A 4.6% drop in active duty numbers should be a big story. Especially at a time when recruitment is down 40-60%. Something’s not right here. Thanks for the update on MSMR.
I haven't found anything regarding injection statistics for the Reserves, but this recent story about the Guard adds some information:
"Guard soldiers were ordered to be vaccinated by July 1, far later than most other services. ... But unlike active-duty formations, there is no policy requiring Guardsmen who refuse vaccination to be separated from service, meaning that the passed deadline has left states uncertain about what steps to take next. ... "The National Guard and Reserve have a lot less leverage over their service members than active duty because it's not their primary source of income," added Grogan, who studies National Guard issues."
I could see Active Component folks transitioning to the Guard when their contracts expire, based on this.
https://news.yahoo.com/military-faces-national-guard-refusals-113644491.html
Still even before we even think about outcomes one must ask what is the purpose in the first place. This is a fertile population that has presumably more then 50 years to live! There is no reason in the world 🌎 🌍 to inject them with a substance without understanding the long term effects. Moreover even the short term effect was bad. More vaccinated died in the clinical trial. Armies had nothing to gain everything to lose by injecting the soldiers.
This was an attack on every injected nation in the first place. Even before we count the deaths and injuries.
I agree completely. I think the order to inject them was unlawful, and I think the "leadership" showed zero loyalty down the chain of command. I'm retired from the Army, a physician and public health professional, and I've been horrified.
I can buy the idea that they brought in a new source of data, and applied it retroactively. This is a data warehouse from many different data sources. The R-code increase is a separate issue, a sudden in crease in "unknown" issues says to me "we're pretty sure it's the vaccine but we're not supposed to say that".
Wouldn't telemedicine visits be for less serious maladies? If so, wouldn't we see this in the data? Like, the milder maladies went up when the telemedicine data was added. But not the more serious maladies, which required in-person visits.
"Don't they pay over $100M a year to Unissant to run this database? (Um, can I bid on that contract, now?) "
I was in a meeting once about $4 million the local park board was spending to hire a contractor to remove cattails from a local pond. I raised my hand and said, "I'll do it for a million."
I assume you should be able to get whatever statistics you want for that kind of money? That seems like even more, the inflated cost of DOD contractors.
Telemedicine sounds like they were searching for an answer and settled on one.
Gaslighting is .
*Us
That typo makes me think of something like a dream store/firm for propagandists:
Gaslighting Is Us
Gaslighters Are Us
I wonder why so many people are incurious about these stories and the overall lack of data. We've been hearing that we need to make all teaching decisions be data driven and evidence based in the public (government) (un) education system for years. One of the classes offered to teachers was titled "show me the data". Well, why aren't Americans demanding this with all the COVID and frankly every program we pay for. It's frustrating.
This is an attempt to get everyone to question all the data and ultimately get people to lose faith/trust in all of our institutions.
It's an ongoing attempt to explain an anomaly in published data.
It is far more transparent and honest than have been any efforts made by, eg, CDC in recent years, which is why they're planning to restructure to "improve the culture and restore public trust," according to the CNN story.
Isn't it better to know if an institution is or is not trustworthy?
If an institution is untrustworthy, should we have faith in it?
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish : Sometimes when I try to understand a person's motives, I play a little game. I assume the worst. What's the worst reason they could possibly have for saying what they say and doing what they do? Then I ask myself, 'How well does that reason explain what they say and what they do?'
I suspect the telemedicine data is somewhat real, just like the glitch is real. But it seems that a telemedicine visit is not the same as a regular visit. I've used telemedicine, but that was always for quick simple things. Basically, the equivalent for email, but where you would want to just have an interactive chat and perhaps show something. Or to get a referal.
But for serious things for me and my family, you go in. I suspect for many people, there is such a triage where one decides whether one wants to go in person or just get a video or phone call, based on seriousness. Or at least overall over a large set of people there would be such a causal relation
That also brings up, what is telemedicine? Is an email consultation also a telemedicine? Are such incidents counted as telemedicine? That would be comparing apples to oranges.
So why not give both data sets, where we show physical and telemedicine. That way we can see better what is going on.
I suspect the telemedicine is real, a sit they did add this, but as it is kind of apples to oranges, an excellent way of hiding a peak ...
(Although that would in my theory mean telemedicine went down in 2021, assuming actual injuries and hence actual office visits would be up. So still puzzling ...)
Matt,
I have a question. If a covid vaccine is non-sterilizing, then comparing vaccinated and covid groups looks to be a logical error, since there is no exclusion. The same individuals may be in both groups.
E.g., hypothetical example
5 vaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
5 unvaccinated people with myocarditis from covid
10 total cases of myocarditis from covid
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
And if you compare the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the total covid myocarditis count, you get a relative harm of 0.5, which is a benefit.
Same results both ways.
If you compare the vaccinated with myocarditis from covid with the UNvaccinated with myocarditis from covid, you get a relative harm of 1.0.
If the rates of myocarditis (normalized by things like age), were higher for those who were vaccinated vs not, that would be evidence. No logical error.
It's like comparing the survival rate of two groups: one got hit by a car, the other got hit by a car then stabbed. If the group that got stabbed has a lower survival rate, it's evidence that stabbings are harmful.