Stew Peters' Chaos: Credibility that Died Suddenly, Part 4
Chaos Agents, Part 8
Understand, this isn't particularly a Culture Wars commentary:
Click here to see other articles on Chaos Agents. In particular, if you haven't read parts 1-3, you may want to start at the beginning, familiarize yourself with terminology and acronyms. And the story.
If you think that I took heat for the articles I've written so far, I'm risking a hotter oven in Part 4. My part of this story puts me in a position to take a firm stance now, or to let the military health database story continue to spiral away from a productive outcome. Understand that I'm critiquing a larger and far more popular group of people, and I'm likely risking audience, income, and potentially worse. These critiques are on fundamentally different levels from one another, and I've worked to be specific. I make no specific accusations with any of these articles, but lay out the facts as I see them (and will correct anything I get wrong, but so far I don't think anyone is making any claims about me getting the facts wrong). The results of the actions of many of the people I'm writing about are an array of results that I think better fit the goals of Chaos Agents, intentionally or otherwise.
Reminders
First recall (from Part 1) that any good defense of Died Suddenly should involve an Impact Analysis, likely from something like a good survey source. Maybe such an analysis will reveal that Died Suddenly brought the MFM a landslide of converts. I'm not holding my breath.
Second, and we'll dig more into this in Part 4, Died Suddenly helps ossify the wrong story about the military health data (which should recenter on Unissant). This wrong story continues to steer us all away from a proper investigation into a weak linchpin in what appears to be an operation to sideline or destroy the U.S. military.
Here is a quick guide to acronyms used in discussing the military health data.
Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED)
Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS)
Medical Surveillance Monthly Reports (MSMR)
General Lloyd James Austin III (ASSHOLE)
The DMED data originally presented at the January 2022 Johnson hearing will be referred to as the "Renz DMED numbers".
The Renz DMED Numbers Were Plainly Invalid
Recall from Part 3 that we have known that the original DMED numbers are invalid (and indefensible) since no later than February 14, 2022.
This does not mean that there are no signals that the vaccines are harmful. There are a bunch of signals both in and out of the military health data that the vaccines were harming people, but those signals have nothing to do with the queries that were run prior to the Johnson hearing, and they are not as shocking or dramatic as 10x rates of injury/illness and quadrupling cancer/miscarriage rates. None of that is real, and it's grossly irresponsible to repeat it.
Then what happened, exactly?
Correct question.
The 2016-2019 historical data (and I think likely the 2020 data given the pattern and circumstances) with which the 2021 data would be compared for safety signals were altered as of the May 2021 publication of the DMSS/DMED (annual) snapshots published publicly in the Medical Surveillance Monthly Report (MSMR). This was the first key finding my team made when joining the DMED investigation with Thomas Renz and the military whistleblowers back in February.
The prior data changed. Why?
Across all major diagnostic categories (aside from "Other" which includes different data buckets in different publications), these changes were uniformly upward revisions averaging 13.5%.
Note the language with which Thomas Renz expressed my findings (emphasis mine):
We have sent the letter attached below to Senator Johnson that points to further cover-up by the DoD. Thanks to our analyst Mathew Crawford, we have found the numbers for Monthly Surveillance Medical Reports (MSMR) for the years 2016 and 2018 were changed by a massive amount (upward revision of 113.5% of previous numbers) between the 2019 and 2021 report. We cannot find other historical precedent for changes that tally up to millions of ambulatory visits that were only found years later.
If I recall correctly, he told me by phone that he wanted to express the numbers as "113.5% of previous numbers", to which I pushed back because all the numbers had previously been expressed as units of increase, not units of the whole. But then he wrote his post as if to express units of increase, making it sound like the numbers more than doubled, which is strictly false.
At this point, my honest opinion (which I can't prove) is that Renz wanted to use a three-digit number in hopes that people would read over it without understanding that the original numbers were invalid. In late March, Renz told me that filing FOIAs based on my findings was his number one priority. When we spoke in early May, it sounded like he hadn't spent a single moment on that, and said he was turning it over to another attorney. What happened in the interim?
So far as I can tell, he otherwise swept the data issue under a rug, then put it behind him—perhaps after it helped him (and others) raise money and their public profiles.
Interestingly, the whistleblowers told me that they fired Renz not too long after the Johnson hearing. Remarkably, neither he nor they informed me of this for around two months (and several hundred work hours) after me and my team joined the DMED data project. I'd been wondering why it was so hard to put together a meeting with any more of one of them at a time in order to discuss the data, set an agenda, and move forward with the immense amount of work that it was going to take to compile it all for Congress and lawyers who might use it in court cases. In retrospect, having only one-on-one conversations and meetings (not what I wanted) means that anyone involved can dispute my reporting about those conversations. That's rather convenient for some of them.
Understand, I spoke with Dr. Theresa Long by phone around ten times through March, and explained my findings to her throughout multiple phone calls in February and March. She was also in the Signal chat group in which several of us (volunteers and whistleblowers were constantly discussing the data, and remaking graphs/images). However, in May we had a phone call in which Dr. Long expressed total surprise at my findings, which I then explained again entirely. I played along while staring down at my notes from our previous calls, wondering if she was playing some sort of game.
Understand that with everyone I talked to, including all attorneys, the whistleblowers, volunteers, and journalists, I always made the invitation to get on zoom and walk through the data. A few of these have been recorded. The first of these, from April, with GigaOhm biological, was censored from YouTube within 48 hours. The second, was with Tessa Lena who stepped forward to give the story coverage when others would not.
Pushing A Plainly Incorrect View of the DMED Issue
So, we all know that the Renz data was invalid, right?
Right?
23:49 - Dr. Long: "Seeing the DMED data, I have significant concerns that we won't have a standing army in five years."
I'm extremely concerned about the future of the U.S. military, too. But not because of the numbers presented at the Johnson hearing in January.Â
To my dismay, Dr. Long has still been presenting the DMED data queried in January 2022 throughout the past few months as if they were valid. During Dr. Long's testimony to the Alaska Medical Freedom Symposium (from September?), she presented a chart (below, left) showing what appears to be a quadrupling of incidences of Pulmonary Emboli. The chart fails to give the date on which the data was queried, but I have that query (below, right) showing the January 21, 2022 query date.
While broken down by armed force rather than by age, here are the totals from the otherwise identical query from February 15, 2022:
Why is Dr. Long still presenting the data from January queries as if it represents a valid summary of the actual number of ambulatory reports? We don't need shock numbers to make the case that there is an association between quasi-vaccine rollout and mandates and increased incidence of pulmonary embolism in the military. After the glitch, this is what the newer queries showed.
Yes, pulmonary emboli are up in the military—and with a stark association to vaccination.
This is a convincing chart, right? We all see the problem without having to pretend the Renz/Jan hearing data was valid, right? So, what is the end result of promoting data that we know to be invalid?
The February (post-glitch) queried data/chart perfectly fits well with data we're seeing from those doing the nitty gritty detail work from death certificates/records in both Massachusetts and Vermont. And while VAERS data can be tough due to the difficulty in computing an underreporting factor, it makes sense with respect to a lot of very reasonable interpretations of that data as well.
Let's look a little more closely now at the Vermont data:
But once you get into 2021, something changes - instead of deaths falling back to zero like they did in 2020, the deaths keep on substantially rising for an additional 4 months before settling into a baseline of a very low level number of deaths, but never returning to the zero deaths level of the lull in 2020. In other words, the natural seasonality of covid was broken.
Finally, starting in the middle of August, covid deaths explode and this trend is still continuing through all of 2022 to date.
It’s almost as if there were external interventions that occurred at the beginning of 2021 and around August 2021 that triggered the wildly out-of-season covid surges that were considerably more severe than the initial ‘natural’ covid waves…
The same pattern emerges as with the (valid) DMED data: increases in deaths following the rollout of the vaccines, and as people mandated to get vaccinated take their first doses in August. The data is fully verifiable.
Yes, pulmonary emboli are up, and the relationships between so many cardiac and circulatory conditions point strongly to the experimental quasi-vaccine rollout, Dr. Long puts a target on the Medical Freedom Movement (MFM) and the Died Suddenly documentary by ignoring the reality that there was a glitch in the database (whether or not it was intentionally seeded, as I believe, to sow confusion). Will she be fact-checked on this basis, deemed "pants on fire", and then the entire MFM has to deal with being censored any time we bring up the surge in pulmonary emboli, or otherwise face castigation from our peers?
Will incorrect data be used in court cases and cost us all during an important moment?
This was only one of several charts Dr. Long presented using the invalid January hearing data. But there are additional problems. During that same presentation in Alaska, she used a chart that overlays the faulty DMED numbers from January 2022 queries onto VAERS data, as if this is some sort of demonstration of the accuracy of the data or the claim that overall ambulatory reports were up around 1000%.
This is an absurd comparison. The reports in VAERS should be seen as some tiny subset of all injury and illness. Even when those numbers explode, the overall number of reports of injuries and illness could barely budge. There is no reason why the proportion of reporting increase in VAERS would have anything at all to do with the overall increase in ambulatory reports for injury and illness. This farce should have been stamped out early on, but I had so much on my plate that if it was pushed out as meaningful, I missed it.
More recently on November 7, I was asked by email about a separate, but similar presentation that included that same chart. Dr. Pete Chambers was on that email. After looking through it, I wrote, "Looks sloppy and dishonest." Nobody asked me to elaborate or for further details. I later sent it to Jessica Rose, PhD since she had created the chart with the VAERS reports used to make the comparison. She said that given my findings, she did not support the way the chart was being used and lamented that she is not being contacted about its use. Of course, had the DMED data project been run in a way that made any sense, and I had known Jessica was making these kinds of charts, we would have been in contact and prevented this misuse of data. However, when Robert Malone asked me onto the DMED data project, he indicated that it was at least inappropriate for the U.S. medical data to be analyzed by foreign quants (Jessica is a Canadian living abroad), so I walled myself off from communication with her about the data.
More Presentations of Invalid Data?!
While I wasn't sitting around at my computer looking for Theresa Long interviews all year, I did decide to do that after seeing this documentary. I found this one dated April 20, 2022 with Stew Peters in which she also claimed the incorrect explosion of pulmonary emboli. It was weeks before that when I had explained my findings to her. In fact, we talked about the data a dozen times through the end of March. Strangely, come May, I explained them to her again after she claimed that I had not previously—as if we never talked about it. Not only that, but she is in the (small) chat room in which those of us working on the DMED project discussed our findings almost daily for weeks, and shared new graphs constantly (not that most any of them have been used by anyone but me).
It pains me to have to share all of Dr. Long's errors like this. But after so many months of being at her (and everyone's) disposal, spending hours on multiple occasions explaining the data to her only to see her ignore the problems in a way that strikes me as quite deliberate, I have to call her out. I sympathize with her goal of pushing back against the shot, but just as with every other aspect I've critiqued about this documentary, proceeding with shock numbers over the truth is a losing game. It destroys the credibility of the Medical Freedom Movement among the all-important Center (and even some among The Choir) whom we need to persuade. It might even risk the results of some lawsuits. And frankly, it's been demoralizing for me to watch a thousand hours of my team's work swirl down a political drain. If she understands that, she is a Chaos Agent. If she doesn't, she needs to pause and reflect on why a Chaos Agent might choose exactly the path she's taken.
Tellingly, some of the other whistleblowers have held back about the fact that the originally presented DMED numbers are clearly out-of-whack with historical DMED data. Dr. Sam Sigoloff invited me onto his podcast nearly six months ago where I explained my findings from months earlier. He still hasn't released that recording.
I did notice that early in December, Lt. Mark Bashaw (whom I've written glowingly about and brought on RTE for an interview) went on Stew Peters just a few days ago. To his credit, he did not push the larger part of the glaringly incorrect DMED story. I can quibble mildly with some of what I saw, but I think he faithfully expressed his understanding of a "professional grade" data issue. He pointed Peters toward my work, telling Peters that I could explain the details. I take one issue with Bashaw's take—he refers to "a bit of a glitch" followed up by "the signals are still there." Given the rest of the interview, I don't think Bashaw is intentionally misleading the audience, but let's be clear: the set of signals that we see before and after the database update are not alike. I think I've made that plain. Lt. Bashaw correctly stated that we still see what I would characterize as safety signals still present after the database was taken offline and updated in January. Bashaw further points the audience toward UNISSANT and declares that this is a national security threat. And it is. But if the rest of the world is committed to the story of the numbers in the original Renz testimony, that provides cover for UNISSANT, as I've explained.Â
Snippets from Bashaw's interview would have fit well into a strong documentary, along with some of my updated graphs (I would have gladly made more for such a documentary…there are hundreds of additional hours of analysis that could be productively performed).
So, now I have to ask an interesting question: was invalid data promoted just for shock value—such as in a widely distributed and viewed documentary like Died Suddenly, or was there an intention in protecting people in the DoD or the health database contractor Unissant from proper investigation?
Hello, Senator Johnson, is This Thing On?
As I've mentioned in prior articles, I've never spoken with Senator Johnson, but I was essentially dismissed by his staffers after walking them through the truth (the part we can determine) about the DMSS/DMED data. Obviously, I'm not the only person who feels that this is important.
I'd hoped that Steve Kirsch could be nudged into not dodging the issue any longer.
Remember that Steve was highly interested in the DMED data in early February, but suddenly silent about my findings for many months thereafter. But Steve apparently tried to engage in a Twitter debate with Debunk the Funk, which hardly seems necessary at this point.
Does this really feel as important as figuring out who might be playing number games with the military's health database?
Steve also does have time to respond to detractors of Died Suddenly—just not me or my criticisms, or any of the criticisms that aren't soft balls to bat back.
Why Doesn't the MFM Know All This?
Is this like parasocial Dunbar hacking? When a small number of people soak up media attention time economics, they create the opportunity to socially engineer perceptions of the truth. Those in good faith might see their responsibility for transparency in proportion with their popularity.
During the first few weeks after I discovered the flaws in the "Renz numbers", several members of the MFM media contacted me about interviews. Then something strange and chilling happened.
Each of them ghosted me, one after another after another.
If both sides of a debate seem to be engaged in intentional silence about important issues, what conclusion(s) can we draw?
Though I started the DMED project as the numbers guy, I started to reach out myself in order to broadcast my findings. Suddenly I'm not just the analyst and report author, but the media man as well—and seemingly gaslighted along the way.
In mid-May, frustrated by the lack of support, I wrote one more article explaining the DMED simply as "Fake" in order to draw in a bit of additional attention. As you can probably tell by my article titles, I tend away from sensationalist headlines, but it felt necessary. In that article, I pointed out that one of the consequences of the lack of broadcast of my research was Naomi Wolf repeating the factually invalid stats from the Renz hearing. The next day she called me in the morning and said that she wanted to get the story straight, which I appreciated. So, we set up a time and she interviewed me about the data. But so far as I can tell, she never released it. Perhaps she has made some little mea culpa somewhere, but not in a way that would help the correct information filter through the MFM.
Shortly after that, on June 3, DMED whistleblower Dr. Sam Sigoloff interviewed me about the DMED investigation for his radio show, After Hours. It appears that he still hasn't released it. He has since released interviews with Callender, Dr. Jane Ruby, and Dr. Chambers.
"Mathew, Pointing Out These Mistakes Will Divide the Community."
Oh, really? Holding one's own "side" to account is what makes the group weaker? Does that really sound like a recipe for anything good—or anything great, like saving the Republic?
But understand that infighting would go on, with or without me. Here is Dr. Long, apparently drunk on instant fame, savaging diligent COVID-19 vaccine data researcher Josh Guetzkow without bothering to read his actual thoughts. She got a Twitter mob riled up with a complete straw man.
I've been dealing with these attacks myself, as has everyone who has had the courage to make the obvious critiques.
Now it's not just the vaccine pushers chilling the conversation. Does it make sense that I started to feel like all of this was arranged?
The Frustrating Fact
"There's nothing quite like the sound of chainsaws over morning coffee." -Michael P. Naughton
The frustrating fact is that while Peters makes me cringe just about every time I hear him take on a serious topic with dramatic, stage-worthy, warlike rhetoric, he takes on topics that I find extremely important—generally taking the side I'm on in the most binary sense (like the medical kidnapping of children). And I can think of few people who do more damage to those arguments by soaking up more and more audience, then keeping them anxious and angry, than Stew Peters. His impact is to push the opposition away from feeling those topics are worth examining, and his tone isn't one that the Middle invests its time in very often.
Also, Josh is just right on this point.
We will begin to rebuild trustworthy systems precisely when those gathering for the task are committed to building trustworthy systems. Educate yourself, perhaps reread my warnings about communities steering toward the same flawed forced centralization from which we are trying to escape, then move forward.
And call out any of the growing 800 pound gorillas in the MFM disinterested in important facts and targets of investigation. If you let them play Hero Ball, they control the image of the truth. Then all it takes is the corruption of a small handful of people to…wait, this sounds exactly like the problems with our federal health agencies, now doesn't it?
Debating Critiques
Debate is healthy, and the health of the medical freedom movement is probably dependent on its ability to discuss these issues openly. The more we beat on each other's ideas, the less likely we are to waste our time or fall prey to propaganda or conmen. Metal sharpens metal. Part of what defines the pandemic is the lack of transparency and open discourse.Â
On Tuesday, December 13, Rounding the Earth hosted a live debate regarding Died Suddenly. Here was the open invitation list:
Stew Peters
Matthew Miller Skow
Nicholas Stumphauzer
Steve Kirsch
Any of the DMED whistleblowers
Thomas Renz or Leigh Dundas
Colleen Huber
Robert Malone
Anne-Marie Mazza
A Midwestern Doctor (substack author)
Joshua Guetzkow
Any of the embalmers (Richard Hirschman was welcome)
Dr. Ryan Cole
Dr. Susan Oliver
Dr. Eric Burnett
Dr. Paul Alexander
Dr. Karen Kingston
Open/Other
Only Josh joined us.
The only time Steve has responded to my half-dozen or so attempts at communication was when I resigned from his Vaccine Steering Committee. He claimed that he is simply willing to speak anywhere, any time, to promote education about the likely harms caused by the vaccines. But I'm done holding that level of naivety as something like my willing suspension of disbelief. If he wanted to stop the vaccines, there is little more effective than putting together a fraud case. I did my part in marking the target, and he's one of the mortar battalion commanders ignoring the target. And he loves targets, anywhere, any time.
He has an open invitation to discuss all of this at RTE.
Thank you for all your hard work. Some of us greatly appreciate your integrity and think the only way forward is to get the absolute truth.
Excellent article Matthew . . shame there is such division in the community . . it would be helpful to all pull in the same direction . . however I will say that alot of people will read & not fully understand these substacks [ myself included ] which is where I find Stew Peters & others more simplistic views quite helpful. We already know "Covid vaccines" are bad - but do the details really matter so much? For most people it's just a binary decision, informed consent - should I take it or not!.