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!.
Anyone paying attention knows you are correct. The huge numbers in the corrupted DMED data doesn’t match the general population of injuries and deaths we can all observe. I personally know multiple people with varying levels of injury and four people (zero degrees of separation) who have died post vaccine. Hearing loss, balance issues, sore ribcage, pink eye, shingles, myocarditis -- again all zero degrees of separation. I know multiple others dead one degree of separation. Stew Peters is as creepy and dirty as they come. I was stunned that Steve Kirsch got involved with him in Died Suddenly. It would be great if you were on the Alex Jones show.
Thank you for this. My BS detector has been going off lately with some of the way info is presented on the “freedom fighter” side of this debate. It’s like people are enjoying fantasy role play in an ELE sci-fi novel. It’s creepy.
I admire you for standing up to the truth. Agree completely that we only hurt ourselves if we intentionally exaggerate findings. Exaggeration of lies is wrong. And so is exaggeration of the truth. At this point, we have to question the motives of anyone, including Kirsch, if he is unwilling to openly discuss and explain why he refuses to engage with you.
Thank you Matthew! In this post you made the situation you describe understandable to me and I so appreciate it!!! In your previous posts I had a hard time following your points on this issue. This post brought your position home for me. I very much appreciate your diligent efforts to bring the truth out! You have remarkable skill and tenacity for the truth even when no reward is forthcoming. Huge gratitude to you! Please always keep attempting to make this important information understandable to people like me. I've been studying the vaccine issue every day for hours for 12 years. My background and education has absolutely nothing to do with analyzing big data sets. I wish it did! Again, thank you! I am going to contact Del Bigtree's group (on their website, I have no special connections) at The Highwire to attempt to inspire them to interview you to get the most accurate take on the DMED data out to the public. I will also contact Mary Holland at CHD as she has been appreciative and has taken action in the past when I make suggestions.
I want to say I don’t understand why they continue to push the wrong information. I want to believe that everyone in the MFM truly cares about our military and about honesty. I have watched this 11 months of your frustration from the sidelines & cussed and thrown things against the wall on your behalf. I can only imagine your frustration. I almost wonder if your appearance on Alex Jones or perhaps Glenn Beck would be a way to bring this forward. It would be much harder for the idiot brigade(s) to claim they don’t know if you were on there.
Dec 24, 2022·edited Dec 24, 2022Liked by Mathew Crawford
Propaganda, personal interests, and ambitions, they've all been rampant, on all sides, since early 2020 (or before). I've long wondered which were real and which were show, even after a career in medicine and public health, and as a consumer of the DMED database. Some assertions just weren't provable, so I set them aside. (The first one I remember wondering about was that Chinese doctor who made videos of 'the horror, the horror,' and then was said to have died.) I think it's been a free-for-all for professionals and amateurs in psyops. We should only seek to know the truth, based on facts and disinterested analysis. Real science, in other words.
Thanks for your tenacity on this issue. It speaks volumes about your character. You're absolutely correct - the truth does matter.
I must admit that it took me a while to see this as an important issue. My reasoning was that even if Congress could be spurred into investigating this matter, those involved, even if it went as high as the commander-in-chief, would be able to effectively guide the outcome by claiming "We had to do it for national security. We couldn't afford to reveal Covid impacts on our armed forces to our adversaries". I honestly think most people would accept such an explanation.
What I'm starting to wonder based on the amount of resistance you are encountering is if the order to revise the database came from OUTSIDE the chain of command. If some private organization/individual told Unnisant to change the data and they complied, well that just opens up a big ole can of worms if it ever sees the light of day.
"he told me by phone that he wanted to express the numbers as '113.5% of previous numbers'" . . .
Know it, learn it, live it: Every trial lawyer, always and everywhere, seeks to present his argument in the most compelling way possible. It's salesmanship, because at the end of the day, in any trial, the lawyer is a salesman selling a vacuum cleaner. This is not to say that he is selling a vacuum cleaner that doesn't work or that isn't worth buying, but he will make the strongest possible sales pitch available. "113.5% of previous numbers" is more compelling that a "13.5% increase." Perhaps it is because it does confuse the listener, but it is not inaccurate and *it is what lawyers do,* and those who don't do this, lose.
It is the opposing lawyer's job to defuse such characterizations on cross examination, e.g., "Q: So, Dr. So and So, you testified earlier to an increase of 113.5% of previous numbers? That's really just a 13.5% increase, isn't it?" "A: Yes." "Q: So why didn't you say that?" "A: [either clever rejoinder or awkward rationalization, depending on witness preparation]." "Q: So a 13.5% increase means a total likelihood of X%, isn't it?" "A: Yes." "Q: And that increased figure still results in an overall likelihood of [small overall percentage], correct?" "A: Yes." "Q: And the likelihood of no adverse reaction is [100% - small percentage], correct?" "A: Yes." And so on. Then the other party rehabilitates and shores up his position on re-direct examination. And so on.
Nice work, Mathew. It is very rare that an attorney working without a mentor can graduate from law school, pass the bar and step right into a highly developed legal practice. Not impossible, but rare. A polymath (like you to be honest) could do it, but not many others. In my experience a lawyer with 7 to 10 years experience starts to catch on and can offer value to a client. Less than that and the value proposition is lacking.
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!.
Anyone paying attention knows you are correct. The huge numbers in the corrupted DMED data doesn’t match the general population of injuries and deaths we can all observe. I personally know multiple people with varying levels of injury and four people (zero degrees of separation) who have died post vaccine. Hearing loss, balance issues, sore ribcage, pink eye, shingles, myocarditis -- again all zero degrees of separation. I know multiple others dead one degree of separation. Stew Peters is as creepy and dirty as they come. I was stunned that Steve Kirsch got involved with him in Died Suddenly. It would be great if you were on the Alex Jones show.
Thank you for this. My BS detector has been going off lately with some of the way info is presented on the “freedom fighter” side of this debate. It’s like people are enjoying fantasy role play in an ELE sci-fi novel. It’s creepy.
Damn, you bring up a lot of troubling things, Matthew. I'm sorry they ghosted you. I find you fascinating and very ethical
Matthew....I can't thank you enough with your substack and the Rounding the Earth podcast.....what a gift to all of us.....thanks for helping me stay sane....... hope you get some time to recharge.... you are invaluable....... this last one was one of my favourites.... https://rumble.com/v21itio-recasting-viral-immunity-and-treatment-round-table-w-dr.-jospeh-lee-and-jon.html
"A lie that is half truth is the darkest of all lies"
Alfred Lord Tennyson
I admire you for standing up to the truth. Agree completely that we only hurt ourselves if we intentionally exaggerate findings. Exaggeration of lies is wrong. And so is exaggeration of the truth. At this point, we have to question the motives of anyone, including Kirsch, if he is unwilling to openly discuss and explain why he refuses to engage with you.
Thank you Matthew! In this post you made the situation you describe understandable to me and I so appreciate it!!! In your previous posts I had a hard time following your points on this issue. This post brought your position home for me. I very much appreciate your diligent efforts to bring the truth out! You have remarkable skill and tenacity for the truth even when no reward is forthcoming. Huge gratitude to you! Please always keep attempting to make this important information understandable to people like me. I've been studying the vaccine issue every day for hours for 12 years. My background and education has absolutely nothing to do with analyzing big data sets. I wish it did! Again, thank you! I am going to contact Del Bigtree's group (on their website, I have no special connections) at The Highwire to attempt to inspire them to interview you to get the most accurate take on the DMED data out to the public. I will also contact Mary Holland at CHD as she has been appreciative and has taken action in the past when I make suggestions.
I want to say I don’t understand why they continue to push the wrong information. I want to believe that everyone in the MFM truly cares about our military and about honesty. I have watched this 11 months of your frustration from the sidelines & cussed and thrown things against the wall on your behalf. I can only imagine your frustration. I almost wonder if your appearance on Alex Jones or perhaps Glenn Beck would be a way to bring this forward. It would be much harder for the idiot brigade(s) to claim they don’t know if you were on there.
Propaganda, personal interests, and ambitions, they've all been rampant, on all sides, since early 2020 (or before). I've long wondered which were real and which were show, even after a career in medicine and public health, and as a consumer of the DMED database. Some assertions just weren't provable, so I set them aside. (The first one I remember wondering about was that Chinese doctor who made videos of 'the horror, the horror,' and then was said to have died.) I think it's been a free-for-all for professionals and amateurs in psyops. We should only seek to know the truth, based on facts and disinterested analysis. Real science, in other words.
Thanks for your tenacity on this issue. It speaks volumes about your character. You're absolutely correct - the truth does matter.
I must admit that it took me a while to see this as an important issue. My reasoning was that even if Congress could be spurred into investigating this matter, those involved, even if it went as high as the commander-in-chief, would be able to effectively guide the outcome by claiming "We had to do it for national security. We couldn't afford to reveal Covid impacts on our armed forces to our adversaries". I honestly think most people would accept such an explanation.
What I'm starting to wonder based on the amount of resistance you are encountering is if the order to revise the database came from OUTSIDE the chain of command. If some private organization/individual told Unnisant to change the data and they complied, well that just opens up a big ole can of worms if it ever sees the light of day.
“Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.” --Aristotle
Endeavor to Persevere my friend. Thank you Mathew. Sadly, the prospect of "crickets" is becoming all too real.
"he told me by phone that he wanted to express the numbers as '113.5% of previous numbers'" . . .
Know it, learn it, live it: Every trial lawyer, always and everywhere, seeks to present his argument in the most compelling way possible. It's salesmanship, because at the end of the day, in any trial, the lawyer is a salesman selling a vacuum cleaner. This is not to say that he is selling a vacuum cleaner that doesn't work or that isn't worth buying, but he will make the strongest possible sales pitch available. "113.5% of previous numbers" is more compelling that a "13.5% increase." Perhaps it is because it does confuse the listener, but it is not inaccurate and *it is what lawyers do,* and those who don't do this, lose.
It is the opposing lawyer's job to defuse such characterizations on cross examination, e.g., "Q: So, Dr. So and So, you testified earlier to an increase of 113.5% of previous numbers? That's really just a 13.5% increase, isn't it?" "A: Yes." "Q: So why didn't you say that?" "A: [either clever rejoinder or awkward rationalization, depending on witness preparation]." "Q: So a 13.5% increase means a total likelihood of X%, isn't it?" "A: Yes." "Q: And that increased figure still results in an overall likelihood of [small overall percentage], correct?" "A: Yes." "Q: And the likelihood of no adverse reaction is [100% - small percentage], correct?" "A: Yes." And so on. Then the other party rehabilitates and shores up his position on re-direct examination. And so on.
Nice work, Mathew. It is very rare that an attorney working without a mentor can graduate from law school, pass the bar and step right into a highly developed legal practice. Not impossible, but rare. A polymath (like you to be honest) could do it, but not many others. In my experience a lawyer with 7 to 10 years experience starts to catch on and can offer value to a client. Less than that and the value proposition is lacking.
Your post included in mine Mathew.
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/it-doesnt-matter