56 Comments

Thanks, Mathew. Though I know little of statistics, I have greater clarity. The signs are too cool, especially the fornicating rabbits.

Expand full comment
author

The signs would seem less cool if these things were all as common as the signs, amd thats part of the lesson itself.

Expand full comment
deletedMar 4, 2023Pinned
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Author

Olivia,

I did not "dismiss" the lawyer. He dismissed me. I prepared for him, despite being on fumes (sleeping two hours a night for months working on the DMED issues and navigating through the politics), and he blew up and threw a fit. I still have no idea why, but his fit indicated that he did not understand the research paper I was asked to discuss with him. I was confused and baffled and exhausted to a state of illness.

I simply did not have time to then reach out and work through fixing it all. I carved out 10 hours of time to try to help by...waking up at 1 AM to work up the presentation before the meeting. I slept so little for so long that I had physical seizures, and my minor tremors turned into a flood that has just recently mostly abated.

Yes, I could have taken up more communication...by going another week without sleep. I cannot be responsible for more than I can be responsible for. I am limited by the number of hours in a day. Like I said, competant stats minds are the extreme bottleneck. If you blame one of the tiny handful of Americans left trying to do this work, rather than pushing for others to help, you've got things backward.

I'm sorry for whatever trauma you have experience. Understand that I'm in this battle because I grew up in a trauma space myself that I spent years getting gas lit and disbelieved for trying to expose.

https://lawandcrime.com/ross-investigates/eight-women-allege-harassment-and-sexual-abuse-at-cult-like-virginia-summer-camp/

I'm not certain why you feel like you understand what happened in that meeting, or why you blame me for some sort of misunderstanding of something like "a human approach". I did work to lay out a helpful understanding of a path to gather the right data, and was trying to communicate a plan, and was met with a baffling meltdown in return. What am I missing?

Expand full comment

Please take care of yourself! You’re doing important work. Not everyone can do what you do.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Author

I am having a hard time understanding you. It may help to edit the comment. But it sounds like what you're saying at the start of your long paragraph is the larger part of the thesis of the article I just wrote.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023

It looks like the AI gibberish you find in search results, except AI doesn't invent words or make such extensive grammatical errors.

Expand full comment
author

I wondered if this was the result of a neurological disorder.

When my tremors and dyslexia are worse, I make and then miss more typos. There are times when my hands shake beyond the ability to type ordinarily. But if the result grows from a blip typo to a jumble, I step back and wait/edit to a greater degree.

All that is ten times as bad if I'm on a phone, both from the typing and reading perspective. And worse, autocorrect takes a typo and turns it into a different word that is so far off I can't even figure out what I intended to write. I wondered if that was happening to her here.

Expand full comment

I also wonder if English is not her first language. The grammar is mangled, which makes me think she is struggling to make herself understood. You were kind to reply, as I found the whole thing unintelligible.

Expand full comment

How does she go from Mr. Mathew Crawford to Mathew so swiftly?

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford

This tirade directed at someone who volunteered to help, then was abruptly dismissed in an angry rage, is nonsensical. I think you hold this lawyer in a way-too-high voice of authority.

Expand full comment

What? 😳

Expand full comment

Awesome. You'll be interested to know that they absolutely chopped the cancer and CJD numbers this past update. This hasn't happened to this degree since the whole thing started and it's really noticeable. I keep an eye on the CJD numbers specifically since, well, you know, brain eating and stuff, and this really is a red flag. Not only is the reduction a red flag because WHY, but the fact that the CDC and FDA are saying nothing about these reports to VAERS is of course, more like the evidence we need for court. Writing a Substack on something else now but will mention on Twitter.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford

"Think of safety signals like clues that are themselves only helpful as pointers to where to look for more solid evidence." I'm a lawyer and I understand that perfectly. The actual evidence is what (presumably) produces the safety signal in the first place, not the other way around. Most people can't understand much beyond the surface, and there are certainly plenty of dumb/shallow lawyers out there. The real work is just too hard.

You are doing the real work. Hang in there. And there's a point where if you go so far as to sacrifice your own health, it's all for naught. So say no once in a while and take care of yourself first.

Expand full comment

“The actual evidence is what (presumably) produces the safety signal in the first place, not the other way around. ”. Thank you for that.

Expand full comment

Reading you is like going to a distant planet. Worth the effort on occasion.

So, this is what I, a person who is mathematically ignorant think, and please disagree

a 'signal' is a pointer at something that needs further study, a deeper analysis of context

a 'model' is not the thing itself, which is why they are so often dead wrong

the problem with statistics in the context of Covid is that it is all manipulated for a sinister purpose

that purpose is to cover up the truth because those actually pulling the levers want to remain anonymous

at the beginning of the pandemic, Anonymous published a very long epistle, the gist of which was this: the people making the vaccines are the same people making the virus

There probably isn't an algorithm or a signal for that except that horrible gut feeling that makes you want to crawl into bed and never get up again

Expand full comment
author

Move to the head of the class.

Expand full comment

By Anonymous do you mean Q? If so, this makes perfect sense. The same people that made the gene therapies and the virus is Q. The US government including national security state. It's long and involved. I could leave comments on your substack to save you dozens of hours if you're not interested enough to go over all of the information yourself. A fascinating story if condensed but also very sad. That stuff about telling us mostly truth so we'll fall for the lie isn't true. Everything is fake.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford

I am involved in financial modelling. One of the hot topics in recent years has been the classification and validation of models. First question has to be: "What is a model"? In fact, your definition of a signal reminded me of somebody's definition of a model: "anything that transforms some input into some output". Define what a model is too narrowly, and you are going to miss some important stuff that is going on (in practice, sometimes one encounters ridiculous stuff like "if it is implemented in Excel, and contains at least one VLOOKUP, ..."). Define what a model is too broadly, and you are going to run into trouble with your model inventory. One has to constantly juggle with several definitions, in order not to miss important signals (coming back to your topic) but also not to drown in noise.

Expand full comment
author

Right. The "art" of building a model is in using "common sense" (which is really the summed intuition of an experienced and educated mind within the problem domain) to narrow the focus enough (obviously we're not looking for AEs with *lower* proportions) to then craft some models/machines that quantify something that qualifies as valuable (which is once again up to practiced judgment).

From the outside, that probably looks downright mystical at times. And yet the insiders usually try to explain it as if it's like finding the answer to a problem from a high school math class ("There *is* a right answer, and the rest are wrong."). The nature of rigor can only be understood by following its path.

Expand full comment

Your ability to access this information and data is fascinating. Way over my head even when you simplify, but I still enjoy trying to follow along. 😁

Expand full comment
author

If you've leveled up your understanding at all, that's a victory. I know that there is no way to choose the right way to write for all audience backgrounds at once, but I aim to help.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023Liked by Mathew Crawford

I truly enjoy your articles and try to gain knowledge & understanding from each article. I’m 73 and trying to keep abreast of these investigations. So very impressed with your abilities, achievements, and accomplishments. Thank you for your hard work.

Expand full comment

Me too

Expand full comment

If I'm not too far off, your discussion makes intuitive sense to me - a non-expert. By which I mean, suppose we are analyzing the VAERS reports on the current pneumonia vaccine. It was not really new technology, it was delivered to magnitudes fewer persons, it was not associated with extreme stress and coercion, the demographics were comparatively limited, etc. So compared to the total number of pneumonia shots given, was there a safety signal in VAERS? There could have been, but the overall magnitude of VAERS reporting across all vaccines was not noticeably affected. Or was it? No army of substack writers ever looked at that or any other prior vaccine. With these C19 jab rollouts so very compressed in time to such an enormous number of people, in circumstances unlike any other vaccine in history - there really is nothing to compare it to. It's like an impulse function in the VAERS database.

Expand full comment
author

Various safety signals take different forms of proportion into account. But this is all of such magnitude that every bit of it needed public investigation from day 1.

Expand full comment

I was mesmerised by Tom Renz at Senator Johnson's shindig. He chews gum like he's taken cheap coke. Not that this means it affects his work, I mean I'm sure Alex Murdoch was just doing it all wrong. I remember thinking whilst looking at Pfizer's phase II data that the heart attacks in the placebo group was higher than in the general population.

I think the trials were fudged, in that the placebo group got empty LNPs, and that this caused it's own particular kind of damage. The ONS have just released mortality by vaccination status here in the UK, they have managed to make the vaccine seem ok. Not sure how they managed it, it doesn't look very pretty.

Expand full comment

Most of it is over my head, but what you are describing makes more sense when I think of it in terms of trying to solve an engineering or manufacturing problem. Only a properly designed testing paradigm provides a useful signal to give you an idea of (a) how to solve the problem, and (b) if you are moving in the right direction with your solution.

Expand full comment

Great post, very nicely explained. Gotta love first principles.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023

Sounds like you could be saying a spurious, non definitive, safety signal is based on a spurious correlation, even when correctly done. Thus, statistical significance is not enough. Or, one can mathematically prove that which is incorrect, if you're not careful. And that the other side could use this against you.

Expand full comment
author

There is no "proof/prove" in stats and science. That's one of the misunderstandings. All that we can achieve is our best understanding and interpretation of information and data. A conclusion like "spurious" with respect to such interpretations can only be raised above subjectivity by an appeal to authority. That is the scientific perspective, by definition.

Statistical significance is an arbitrary bright line based on matching data to an assumed distribution. A single p-value is only as meaningful as the interpretation of that distribution match. (A series of p-values has a different story, and should be totally random if the true distribution has been identified, but that's almost entirely left out of applied inferential statistics---certainly doctors and 99% of medical researchers have never been taught this.)

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023

If authority declares a p-value for an assumed distribution they've declared what qualifies as spurious arbitrarily, although not definitively, and "true enough," "not-spurious," or "good enough," become proxies for true, but not for proof. And so we have the replication crisis.

Expand full comment

I found this interesting. But maybe I just wanted to see a safety signal! https://usmortality.substack.com/p/10-epidemiological-charts-for-historic

Expand full comment
author

I enjoyed Ben's article, too. I have that one archived.

Expand full comment

I think your biggest problem is and has been the Dunning Kruger effect.

By the way, forgive me, but have you done an article specifically dedicated to the apparent rise in excess deaths among young people promoted by e.g. Ed Dowd? If you have, do you remember the title?

Thank you!

Expand full comment
author

"I think your biggest problem is and has been the Dunning Kruger effect."

Yes. Part of the embedded narcissism in fields that involve applied statistics is a superficial training in statistics that creates an expert class with false impressions, but believes their certification indicates these impressions to be some sort of truth. It's madness.

Here is an article I wrote on the SOA data, which is one piece of what Dowd has covered.

https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/reanalysis-of-the-society-of-actuaries

Expand full comment

Ok, just read it. The part that matters most to me is right at the end; "So, if there is no VE, what variable explains the Q3 2021 shock quarter?"

To be clear, you take no issue with Dowd's correlation of this spike to the mandates, correct? I remember vaguely reading a couple of the articles linked after the above quote, and while I don't have time to read a second and third article at 3:30 in the morning, a quick glance jogged my memory that the Mclachlan study showed that VAERS-reported deaths were classified as COVID deaths, and that it was clear that this was happening in general.

However, I was under the impression that non-COVID excess deaths have been high since around that time as well. Is that not true?

Best,

Mike

Expand full comment
author
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 6, 2023Author

"o be clear, you take no issue with Dowd's correlation of this spike to the mandates, correct?"

I've also pointed out problems correlating with the mandates---in the DMED and elsewhere. I don't think the mandates/vaccines explain all of it, necessarily, but I find the evidence of relationship fairly compelling. If I were dislodged from thinking the relationship is likely, it would be an argument over some variable that hasn't been discussed much, yet, if at all.

Edit: I do think that deaths of despair are part of the bump in all cause mortality, also.

Expand full comment

Thank you!!

Expand full comment

Imagine a vaccine that doubles all side effects compared to “all previous vaccines”. the prr ratio will not show any anomaly.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023

You'll need to understand sooner rather than later that this isn't going to be solved in courts and all the statistical analysis you are doing is almost pointless. Those who know what the issue is know it already. Those that don't won't be convinced by any of your analysis. It's common sense. If any of these would work this would be the first totalitarian regime to fall due to evidence presented in courts against its actions. Keep dreaming...

Expand full comment
author

"You'll need to understand sooner rather than later that this isn't going to be solved in courts and all the statistical analysis you are doing is almost pointless. Those who know what the issue is know it already."

I think you're in the wrong place?

What is "this" that is going on, and how does it relate to this article?

Expand full comment

Nothing is going on, you hubris filled asshole. Maybe you can kick me out of here if you think I am in the wrong place or maybe just restrict comments to paid subscribers only. Since the ftx piece I haven't read anything of value here anyway so I wouldn't lose much. Censoring would show everyone who is not amazed by the big brain Mathew has and who doesn't give Mathew their money so Mathew can show everyone how smart he is and how well he crunches the numbers. Actually, most of the time Mathew just tells everyone how he is the best mathematical mind since maybe Gauss and and how insanely good he is at data analysis but all he produces on substack are just subpar articles with no numbers, no data, no proper story, just tiny little bits of irrelevant bullshit served together with more self aggrandisement of the forementioned Mathew.

Yet big brain Mathew can't figure out what "this" that is going on and can't be solved in courts is... Stick to the numbers, you are totally irrelevant in what's to come. Or you can always try to stop the psychopaths driving the great reset in courts. Good luck!!!

Expand full comment
author
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023Author

What on Earth?

I'm sorry that I'm unable to read your mind to figure out what your unidentified pronoun is. I'm just having a hard time connecting it to this article. If you rephrase, rather than melting down and calling me names, maybe we can communicate. But if I don't know what the subject of your first sentence is, and my best guess isn't the subject matter of the article, all I can do is ask or think that you might have accidentally commented on the wrong article or something.

If you're talking about the Great Reset (your last sentence), I don't know why you're commenting here. This court case has nothing to do with it.

FWIW, I also doubt the plandemonium can be solved in courts. But I do think courts are still covering more basic liability cases.

Sheesh.

Expand full comment

I don't know Joe but I think I know what he's going on about. This is what seems to be going on. The virus was engineered and released by Robert Kadlec on Trump's orders. Wuhan was doing attenuation series passes through humans of a Ralph Baric U of North Carolina chimeric SARS vaccine that couldn't be done in the states and so Wuhan was likely used as cover. Notice MSM talk about lab leak but never mention Operation Warp Speed.

The gene therapies are also US military. The FDA, Pfizer and Moderna don't even know what's in them other then what we all know. Moderna's is manufactured by a military contractor named Resilience.

It looks like a worldwide military operation with every military being part of it. Russia, China and Iran never allowed the gene therapies into their countries but that might be a ruse.

The Ukraine war is likely theater. They're trying to bring in a high tech world where every human is "Track & Traced." They may be releasing VLPs (Virus Like Particles) that are nanotech synthetic viruses that initiate an immune response and allow remote monitoring of biological functions and location.

They've been working on this for over a century. Trump was likely brought in to finish it and get the gun toting, right wing, Christians on board. We only know any of this because of the US laws. They document almost everything. I'm Canadian and we are run by the Privy Council on orders from the monarch. The recent inquiry into the emergency measures act answered nothing other then "the Privy Council decided it."

Trump had Alex Azar update the PREP act so that in the event the head of HHS or WHO declared an emergency pandemic all Americans would lose all rights. This is still in place. Right now Americans have fewer rights than a lab rat because they can't be made to suffer needlessly. The DoD is in total control. That's why all the weird stuff. FDA and CDC are all just theater now. If things don't make sense try to look at it as if this was what the real situation was.

Notice, the US military distributed the jab. No one could get their hands on so much as an empty syringe for testing (no one would care this much for a Pfizer product). Notice the Argentina contracts. Why would Argentina have to forfeit their national currency reserves and military bases and hardware for not accepting liability for Pfizer? Notice the complete absence of a vaccine safety monitoring system, transparent clinical trials, and Brook Jackson's lawsuit. The DOJ is defending Pfizer who commited not only every form of clinical trial fraud but everything they did was fraudulent. Pfizer said they did nothing wrong because the government wanted them to do the fraud. It looks like big pharma is only the marketing wing of this campaign.

Much of what I've said may in fact also be a Psyop. I wouldn't be surprised to find out in the afterlife that everything about what's really going on was secret. We're screwed. They used some sort of Babylonian Legal Magic and Money Magic to carefully bring this about. Notice how they murdered so many people in NY hospitals that feature length documentaries have been made with the phone camera footage and yet not one single criminal charge. That's because they wrote agonizingly detailed descriptions of what they could do, into the PREP act.

See bailiwicknews.substack Apr. 28, 2022 article. See secularheretic.substack, Aug. 13, 2022 (first Trump article). See sashalatypova.substack for the contracts. Or search Katherine Watt or Sasha Latypova on bitchute or Rumble and watch recent videos.

There's more but that's a start. This isn't theory. This is what's really going on.

Expand full comment

This stuff might seem like crazy conspiracy theory so look at what we know with absolute certainty. DC is shaped like an owl's head, has an inverted pentagram and even Satan's sigil carved into it. A 666 ft obelisk (111 ft deep foundation). Pine cones painted onto the ceiling of the capital building. Statue of liberty with seven rays out of the head. Look at the dollar. The symbolism is everywhere. The Pentagon is a Pentagram. And the same stuff is at the City of London and the Vatican. All the same Luciferian cult.

The US was foreseen by Plato in Republic. It was the freemasonic promised land. Every US founding father but Madison was 33 degree freemason. The "God" in the founding documents is Lucifer, now do you know why SCOTUS wipes their arse with the constitution? The US founding documents are anti-biblical. Bullshit promises. Jefferson wrote a bible with Jesus stripped from it. Getting the picture?

All religions but Christianity are the same. Outgrowths from Babylonian Black Magic. First came Egyptian mysticism, then Hermeticism, then Gnosticism, paganism, freemasonry. All the same thing. Today is what America was made for. We're screwed. Only God is faithfull. I've been betrayed by almost everyone I've ever known during Covid. It was my fault for misplacing my trust. I was warned and I said "Nah, what's the chances of that." I'm not expecting restitution from the courts.

Expand full comment

I think you nailed it here. Mark of the Beast, etc.

That said - being unsure of Mathew’s religious affiliation, probably best to extend the benefit of the doubt.

Expand full comment
Mar 4, 2023·edited Mar 4, 2023

A bit harsh, but true. Things like law and order, voting, the bill of rights, etc., are all fine things until they become an encumbrance to those who rule over us, at which point they are simply ignored without consequence.

We are "the nations." Children of Edom. The heathens, the unclean, the evil "other side," the peel, the shell, the Kelipot and Sitra Achra. They are Jacob and we are Esau, people without a birthright. We are not even human to them, and there is a different set of rules for us.

I've always viewed work like this as being for posterity. Bearing witness.

Expand full comment