Rounding the Earth… Subscribe Log in

Defining Away Vaccine Safety Signals IV: The

DoD/DMED Story
The Vaccine Wars Part XVII

Mathew Crawford
162 75
Feb 10

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 Kirsch's newsletter

DMED data is explosive. Mainstream media has been ordered to

ignore it.
Summary The medical database used by the US military shows a huge uptick in
serious events in 2021. Only events caused by the vaccine (as noted by the
uptick in VAERS reports for these symptoms) were elevated. The DoD has
claimed the increase was because events in earlier years were under reported
and they have corrected the error…

Read more

5 days ago · 740 likes · 531 comments · Steve Kirsch

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.

Who is Robert Malone

Regarding the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database Data

Dump
These are dangerous times, and we are in a 21st century global information
war. Cannon balls are flying, and there are false flag operations and concern
 trollery to the left, right and center of us. And yet onward we ride. The light
brigade. Just to underscore the point, since the initial…

Read more

4 days ago · 983 likes · 138 comments · Robert W Malone MD, MS

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.

Charles Rixey, MA MBA (c)

 @CharlesRixey

@VoiceofReasonNY @w_mccairn @alykhansatchu @JikkyKjj

@still_a_nerd @Parsifaler @Doctor_I_am_The @jjcouey
@pizzapicklespur I went through the Politico/DoD rebuttal data, which
obviously didn't make much more sense than what it claimed to correct.

Then, I found an annual report of the DMSS data [well, two years,
anyway, and the new DoD data conflicts with its own records for '20 & '18

@fynn_fan

February 9th 2022

24 Retweets 72 Likes

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.

Type your email… Subscribe

162 75 Share

Write a comment…

JP Freeman Feb 10 Liked by Mathew Crawford

I really appreciate that you don’t paywall Mr. Crawford. I’m disabled and can’t afford anything like
this anymore. I had already bought your book Why We Drive however, if that counts for anything.
Great book. John Waters had talked about it in an interview with Dave Cullen.
17 Reply

10 replies by Mathew Crawford and others

NE - nakedemperor.substack.com Writes The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter · Feb 10 Liked by Mathew Crawford

Is there a possibility it is a plant to give someone their ah ha moment? Feed them false data and
make them look stupid?

Or someone fiddling the books to make their point?

If not, the figures are horrendous but I don't see similar levels in the UK data. Not yet anyway.

Anyway, like you say, the data needs to be further analysed until a firm conclusion can be made.
11 Reply

5 replies by Mathew Crawford and others

73 more comments…
 Ready for more?

Type your email… Subscribe

© 2022 Mathew Crawford ∙ Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice

Publish on Substack

Substack is the home for great writing