Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals IV: The DoD/DMED Story
Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals IV: The DoD/DMED Story
Whether or not the CDC and FDA are properly evaluating the safety of an experimental mass quasi-vaccination campaign involving illegal mandates and untold systemic risks is one of the greatest issues that my nation and the entire world has ever faced. There is no way to understate that point. If the government that has soaked up power, authority, and trust, is betraying such a fundamental responsibility, then we need to take that responsibility unto ourselves.
For those who have not read the previous stories, they are here where I have begun to wikify past articles in an organized way.
The DoD/DMED Story Timeline
January 24
On Monday, January 24, the day after the March to End the Mandates in Washington, D.C., attorney Thomas Renz was among numerous speakers during a five-hour hearing held by Senator Ron Johnson on COVID-19 issues. I was shocked listening to Renz in real time because I hadn't yet heard about the DoD whistleblowers (Drs. Samuel Sigoloff, Peter Chambers, and Theresa Long) or the startling findings from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED):
Miscarriages up ~300%
Cancer rates up ~300%
Neurological conditions up ~1000%
Renz makes the database publicly downloadable here. I always have more confidence in publicly available data. If all public health databases were open source, we wouldn't have to worry about who watches the watchmen.
Given the startling aspect of these statistics, which hadn't previously been heard by the public (I certainly hadn't gotten wind of them, yet), the Renz clip from the Johnson hearing swept like wildfire through social media. If true, this would be one of the most damning pieces of evidence yet that the quasi-vaccines (q-vaccines) are harming people and that the experimental mass injection program needs to stop.
Given my respect for those giving testimony, many of whom I've met and learned a great deal from, I took the above statistics on faith (I never believe much of anything 100%, but the pool of speakers are a high integrity bunch, IMHO). We're going to need to do more work to determine the exact true numbers, if possible, but we'll get to that…
January 28
My friend Daniel Chong posted stats referred to from DMED at the Johnson hearing.
January 31
Politifact's Jeff Cercone, who seems to be more of a career content editor with little or no investigative journalism experience and certainly no display of medical or database knowledge, published a "fact check" (I hear this means "opinion", but I wouldn't guarantee it always rises to that level) declaring Daniel Chong's post "false". This is the grand summary of information used to come to that conclusion, at least expressed by the Politifact article:
But these figures are wrong. They resulted from a glitch in the database, a military spokesperson said.
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)
So, an unnamed military spokesperson declared the DMED statistics were the result of a database glitch. Shallow as this "fact check" may be, I will not assume this is incorrect for the moment…
Around this time, a computer scientist (CS) whom I have worked on a couple of data projects with contacted me and shared some concerns with the DMED data, which I hadn't personally looked at, yet. He and I talked over some of the data, which I hadn't previously seen. While there are some puzzling aspects of the database, which did not come with good definitions of descriptions of data collection or warehousing methods attached, the major observation we agreed on is that there was a puzzling difference between the rise in ambulatory conditions and hospitalizations. For some conditions, there were 10x or 25x times as many ambulatory reports, but without any rise (and sometimes a slight decline) in hospitalizations for the same condition.
So, it may be that Jeff Cercone's fact check is technically correct, but not by any method he could possibly check himself. It was likely handed to him for rubber stamping, whether or not it was true. But this means that he did not himself dig into the numbers to see the strange implied bending of the condition severity curve (which is extreme by my observations above) and what the true results might look like (if these turn out not to be the true numbers). And perhaps most importantly, Jeff failed to ask the most important question:
If public health agencies are tasked with monitoring health databases for safety signals with respect to q-vaccines (and anything else), why didn't they notice that the database was malfunctioning?
Also not asked,
What are the references for the data, if any, published during the 2016 to 2020 period to which the 2021 data was compared? What about the prior data?
C'mon, Jeff. I know you're used to checking grammar or maybe making headlines more inflammatory, but I believe in you. You can find some worthwhile questions to ask, or reasons to remain neutrally skeptical about the bigger picture.
Soldier on, journalist. Just don't strain yourself.
February 1
Senator Johnson sends a letter to Secretary Lloyd J. Austin of the Department of Defense expressing concern over the findings from DMED.
February 2
Daniel Horowitz critiques the situation. Some of his questions are the same as mine (and should be to most reasonable people), but has more knowledge of the circumstances:
The DMED data is not what drove these military doctors to blow the whistle; it was their clinical experience in the military dealing with vaccine injuries and the constant opposition they received from the chain of command in requesting help for diagnosing and treating these injuries. The 2021 data as an anomaly from the previous five years would harmonize more with their clinical experience than the glitch hypothesis.
Also,
Isn’t the media the least bit curious about any of this? And if the Department of Defense is now taking down the system so these doctors cannot make further queries of the data, who is to say they will not doctor the data? Sen. Johnson sent a letter to the Secretary of Defense on Jan. 24 asking him to preserve all the DMED data and make sure none of it is tampered with. One of the whistleblowers has already alleged that some of the myocarditis data has been tampered with.
If it turns out that any of the data was tampered with, this story will explode no matter how much the Crusted News Notwork wants to ignore it.
February 4
Friday night, I talked with Steve Kirsch about the concerns I had after reviewing the data with my CS friend. Here is how you know who Steve is: his immediate response was to dial Renz to talk about the data together. But it was 9 PM Eastern on a Friday night, so we did not get into an immediate discussion.
February 5
Steve published an article putting the onus on DoD Secretary Austin to open up the books and explain what is going on.
Steve talks to lots of people. He is nothing if not assiduous in his communications. But I do wish that he had documented my concern over the unexplained difference between the ambulatory and hospitalization outcomes.
Sometimes a little good-cop-bad-cop is the right game. Robert Malone published his own article. His approach (my interpretation): let's continue to examine the facts so that we can fully understand (1) the truth of the data, and (2) exactly what has taken place.
I can't disagree with the, "This is important, so let's do this right," approach. And if we find out that the CDC always had the correct numbers and correctly saw no safety signals, WTF does it mean that whistleblowers sought out Renz to peddle incorrect data pulls to him? That could be a simple mistake, a way to waste Renz's time, a way to distract, or a combination of those things?
But take this quote from Malone as gospel no matter what turns out to be the case as we dig further:
Now for some reason, although this database has apparently been managed for years by the same NIH subcontractor, and has been included in the CDC datasets including those reviewed by the CDC’s COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Technical (VaST) Work Group, the geniuses that have been managing it have never identified any issues before the whistleblowers grabbed this download. Does not inspire confidence, no matter what the final “official” explanation becomes.
In other words, the DoD is either lying, or nobody responsible for safety signals happened to notice the problems in the database during the entire year of 2021! That's on top of the fact that DMED should be a system used to help track the health of the entire U.S. military and their families. That seems important—like it should be a priority job, perhaps.
February 8
Retired marine turned COVID origins researcher Charles Rixey shares some observations about the data.
Rixey found some past published data from the Defense Medical Surveillance System (DMSS) from which the DMED numbers are pulled and plugged them into the spreadsheet:
The 2018/2020 numbers do look a whole lot more like the 2021 numbers.
Where does that leave us?
It leaves us with a need to analyze the data. If the CDC has done that without sharing the results, that's pretty awful no matter how it turns out. If they haven't, that's pretty awful no matter how it turns out.
Whether or not it turns out that the correct numbers are closer to the 2021 numbers, we need to understand the data. It may be that neurological conditions are up 40%, not 1000%, but that's still a reason for concern that we need to understand. Maybe cancer is only up 20%. That's still very bad news that we would need to examine with respect to the q-vaccine campaign and test for temporal association.
Or maybe there will be no signals.
I intend to find out.
Understand that this means I may go a while without publishing. I usually don't do this, but I ask readers enjoying Rounding the Earth to consider subscribing now. Since I refuse to hide any data relating to public or personal health behind a paywall, I haven't used the paywall in weeks for any reason. Your contributions are always appreciated.
Comments
Post a Comment