DMED Timeout: Reportable Events Shenanigans, Part 2
Chaos Agents, Part 7
Click here to see other articles on Chaos Agents.
I feel embarrassed. I'd like to apologize to RTE Readers. In my last article, I did not make a mistake, exactly, but failed to realize something that should have been obvious to me if my mind weren't tracking the movements of so many giant ornaments rumbling around the Hero Ball court.
Edit: There are people who want for me to explain terms not included in this article. But they are all included in the Part 1 article. I’m not sure why somebody is upset with me that they didn’t read Part 1 before Part 2, but if you’re confused about terms, I recommend doing that.
Bottom Line Up Front: The explosion in Reportable Events noted in the latest Senator Johnson hearing has a simple explanation: COVID-19 was added to the list.
That's it, and that's all. If the COVID-19 vaccines have any effect on the data, it's imperceptible.
Understand, I'm not denying that people are injured or killed by the vaccines. That's a different issue. And it may very well be that a few thousand soldiers were made undeployable over the past couple of years due to the vaccines, but that's now how we get to hundreds of thousands of additional Reportable Events that clearly began prior to the vaccination campaign.
Remember that we have data that contradicts this chart.
Something happened in 2022 specifically that resulted in a change of the data. Can you solve the puzzle?
I gave some potential clues in the last edition of this Chaos Agents Mystery Theater:
The 2019 bump in Version 1 of the Reportable Events data.
The dramatic increase in the Version 2 graph begins in 2020.
We're still living through the so-called COVID-19 pandemic.
If you guessed…COVID-19, you win the prize! But since I gave the answer away at the start of the article, think of this as the Princeton Review test guide. The real prize is caring about reality enough to acknowledge the glitch in the Matrix. The real prize is knowing that the frenz you made along the way were NPCs.
You're going to back this claim up, right?
Follow me on this one. It's an airtight case. I'll start with my thinking, and then steer us into the ultimate proof.
First, the [Dr. Long, Version 2] Reportable Events skyrocketed in 2020 after years of a declining trend. What made them triple? COVID-19 seems like the most obvious answer, but do the numbers match up?
Yes. Yes, they do.
By case counts, these numbers are a little too small, but they're in the right proportion. And, as it turns out, one case of COVID-19 can count as multiple Reportable Events. I'll show that later. But if you increase each of these numbers by 40%, then add them to an expected 34,000 Reportable Events, you get:
2020: 108,820
2021: 152,180
These almost perfectly match the data as presented by Dr. Long.
Second, take a look at this query from October 14, 2022 of the Reportable Events totals by month:
What could have happened in January to lead to such an enormous leap in something illness-related? As I've shown in prior articles, the adverse events that we think of as "the usual suspects" spiked during vaccine rollout and mandate. There is no evidence of a delayed spike that would have to be of even large proportion to produce these results.
What such a dramatic January spike does remind me/us of, however, is…omicron!
But here is the airtight proof. Sometime prior to August 9, 2022, the COVID-19 queries themselves began showing up with numbers on the Reportable Events tab!
Finally, a look at the Reportable Events for COVID-19 from 2020 and 2021 shows my assertion that there are around 1.40 Reportable Events per COVID-19 to be correct.
Understand that I do not think that Dr. Long was intentionally trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. But I spent several months handling this situation with kid's gloves in private while being bafflingly handled in ways I interpret as gas lighting and denigration in what seemed like a group effort to silence me. Dr. Long does not know how to adequately read and explore this level of data. She just doesn't. I'm still sparing an explanation of the most basic errors of interpretation that she made when I first started working on the data in February.
At least, that's the best case scenery, and I'll call it my default position.
And at the very least, after the fiasco that was the first DMED data presentation, why she would bring unchecked data to the table again, or be allowed to do so again, is not just baffling—it should give everyone pause. It should give everyone pause in light of both the Died Suddenly dumpster fire, and the lack of adequate investigation into Unissant.
Why the (War) Games?
I'm not saying that I know, but it's time for a brief review—just to help establish the domain of possibilities.
A few months ago, frustrated with the way my findings had been damned with faint acknowledgement while those with the power and access refused to use it to force investigations into Unissant (and perhaps further into the DoD or Deep State?), I wrote a rare article with the explicit purpose of drawing attention using the word "Fake" in the title.
Dr. Chambers admonished my lack of team play and…my…self promotion.
I can't even possibly tell you how much I'd like to return to a life of practical invisibility. It was so easy not having my home destroyed, car vandalized, or harassed by fake law enforcement. If I really wanted to self-promote, I'd have weaseled my way onto the Stew Peters Show with a well-canned and rehearsed alarmist take on everything, adorned with end times religious language. And claimed a mathematical proof of alien babies in the vaccines, followed by a thinly veiled call for war against the libs. Don't think I couldn't pull that off convincingly if I so chose, and then monetize it on the other end.
What I was really trying to do was save you from yourselves. Whoever told you this data charade was a good idea is using you—not just the elect the false opposition Hopium Party, but for a larger plan. Is this heading in the direction of kicking off World War III just in time to redirect the anger that would be spent on Civil War II?
Or else you're using yourselves in the wrong way.
Meanwhile, we'll just have to wait and see if Steve Kirsch once again pretends my findings don't exist (outside of our conversation a few weeks ago in which I was given air time far too slim to explain the story over the noise of the propaganda campaign) when he talks with Senator Johnson on the Vaccine Safety Research Foundation Weekly Update later today.
What's the market on whether or not anyone there will have the courage to say my name, whether or not they acknowledge the latest DMED data gaffe that never would have taken place were it not the result of somebody's Hero Ball moment?
Say it with me: What's my name?
Thanks Matthew
One thing that bothers me tremendously is that the simple demonstration of COVID-19 cases (UO7.1COVID-19 on the diagnostic code) will inevitably include a great volume of “Enhanced Disease”, which injection manufacturers stated they were actively monitoring for, post-authorisation.
Of course this is VAED
Does this not affect your conclusion- with respect to people perceiving iatrogenic harm via medical reports in DMED?
Thanks for speaking up. Team Reality needs to be humble enough to revise our data and arguments when we err. Otherwise, we’re just the CDC. There is so much other data proving the point, we can easily let the “1,000% increase” go.