64. DMED and Mathew Crawford

Is it ‘just a glitch’ in the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database or is it a conspiracy to commit fraud… or worse…is it treason?! Today I talk with Mathew Crawford (https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/) and he tells us what he has discovered. This was originally recorded on 3JUN2022 but due to many issues (mostly technical) I am now pleased to present this to you.

Show more

Next week we will hear from Sasha Latypova and how the totality of the “COVID-19” issue is all a DOD run operation or bioweapon operation on the entire world.

As always please like, share and subscribe. I now have a Patreon account (see link below). This is mostly to help with the legal fees. Please consider contributing but if you are unable to donate money please give prayers.

truthforhealth.org for COVID illness and long haulers syndrome treatment protocols. If you have a vaccine injury (from any vaccine or have any injury that you think may have any relation to any vaccine) please report in their civilian equivalent to VAERS.

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Afterhourswithdrsigoloff
Email: afterhours@1791.com
Telegram: https://t.me/afterhourswithdrsigoloff
Instagram: @afterhourswithdrsigoloff
Clouthub: @DrSigoloff
TruthSocial: @DrSigoloff
Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/AfterHoursWithDrSigoloff
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ_ng3WYVhnctCYq6Rom07g
Givesendgo: https://www.givesendgo.com/G37EN

Please check out a friend and his custom products.
Flag Sign and Tumblers
themustardseedshop.net
https://www.facebook.com/groups/themustardseedshop/?ref=share

64. DMED and Mathew Crawford
===

Nurse Kelly: [00:00:00] Welcome to After Hours with Dr. Sigoloff, where he can share ideas and thoughts with you. He gets to the heart of the issue so that you can find the truth. The views and opinions expressed are his and do not represent the US Army, d o d, nor the US government. Dr. Sigoloff was either off duty or on approved leave, and Dr.

Nurse Kelly: Sigoloff was not in uniform at the time. Of recording now to Dr. Sigoloff .

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: All right, today I have the great pleasure of introducing Matthew Crawford. Now Matthew Crawford, he's got a very diverse background. He's done a lot of things in his life. Whether it be making money in the stock market, which takes a lot of being able to analyze patterns is probably the most important skill that you're bringing to the table with what we're gonna be talking about today.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Begin diving into what you wanna discuss today, Matthew.

Mathew Crawford: Thanks Sam. Yeah, I am I, I took a little time off from being a numbers guy. I was doing some cryptocurrency trading and building an education company. Those are those have been my two [00:01:00] vocational pursuits during my adult life.

Mathew Crawford: And during the pandemic I saw a lot that was going on. So I dropped everything and started doing research, but this is maybe the most serious project. Dr. Robert Malone called me in February and said, Hey, can you take a look at the defense medical epidemiological database information to see, you know, what this argument between you know, three of you whistleblowers from the Senator Johnson hearing and the dod, which came back and said, well, there's a glitch.

Mathew Crawford: There's nothing to see here. It's all fine. So So I jumped in and, and started taking a look at the data and we'll, we'll talk about what we've found.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Okay, so I'll pull up the slide. I'll have it here available for everyone else to see. But let's go ahead and go through this what you call slide 26.

Mathew Crawford: Okay. So this is the easiest slide to sort of see what happened. The, it turns out, and, and we didn't know this when we started the project when I say we I had two, two others on my [00:02:00] data team that I brought in.

Mathew Crawford: We didn't know what we were looking for. Yeah. I started analyzing queries, but we wanted reference data. We wanted to know what do rates of illness really look like historically. So we looked for reference data and what we found is that the DMed has published snapshots that are publicly available online every year, and these are found in what's called the medical surveillance monthly reports.

Mathew Crawford: At health.mil, and we found these and we started you know, putting all the data in spreadsheets. And at first we weren't even looking at, at page two at first, that's where these graphs are from. We just noticed, you know, that once we had all the information in, in spreadsheets, that some numbers didn't match up.

Mathew Crawford: And once, once somebody on my data team pointed out that some numbers that should have matched up, like the published 2016 numbers were published in 2019. They were published in 2021. They should look pretty much the same, but they didn't look anything alike. So I went through every single major diagnostic [00:03:00] category I could see, oh gosh, you know, these are all different.

Mathew Crawford: And not only are they all different, they're different for 2016 through 2019 is what it looks like. And then historically that that difference had never had never taken place. Like going from one snapshot to another, the numbers pretty much always look the same. and anytime you would have a change in a database, you would have some sort of documentation anyway.

Mathew Crawford: You would have an asterisk and an explanation. But for a substantial change like this, you would have, you know, an entire article, you know, a full, complete explanation as to how to read the difference between new and old data so that a researcher using the database would understand what took place and how to make sense of the numbers.

Mathew Crawford: Right. So we can see here in this slide you, you can just see visually the, the health trend, the number of illnesses, injuries was going down from like 2012 through 2018. But then you look over at the second snapshot, the one that appeared in the middle of 2021, and all of a sudden, boo, those numbers are bumped [00:04:00] up.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So what you're saying here, so what you're saying here is this this little box that's around on your graph, it's on the main 2019, the ms. R msm r That box was data that was published probably in 2020 or 2019. It was data that they had compiled over the previous years, and the boxed area is the 2016 to 2018, and then in the graph right next to it, the May 2021.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Those numbers should be exactly the same as that graph is showing the exact same time and space. Is that correct?

Mathew Crawford: That's right. Those numbers should be the same, and you can see that they're substantially elevated from the position that they were in in previous publications. and this, this is a, it should just be a database snapshot.

Mathew Crawford: What it tells us is I think sometime right around the middle of 2021, but before this was published, and I think that like the May, 2021, it wasn't published exactly in May. [00:05:00] There's like a little bit of a lag on the months, I think, to reporting to at least online. So maybe this was by July, but it could have been, you know, this could have been changed anywhere from April to July.

Mathew Crawford: I think that somebody went into the database and just added a whole bunch of records.

Mathew Crawford: And the question is why? And I think that that unfortunately

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: this is not the glitch that they, that they did the, was it the political on email interview where they had the back and forth exchange? They made no major political or major, yeah, no political fact. They made no major policy statement or apology or press conference.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: This is not that, this is something different. This was done on the cover of night, is that what you're saying?

Mathew Crawford: That's right. This was done long before. I think that an enormous amount of the information in the entire database was faked, is what I think. You know, a snapshot like the, a change in a snapshot like this should be explained.

Mathew Crawford: You know, there should be some [00:06:00] publicly given explanation regardless of any controversy or anything. You know, I worked for two years as an actuary before I went and worked in finance. And if, if there were a. A major database that everybody drew numbers from, like everybody in the industry were drawing numbers from.

Mathew Crawford: And there were some giant change that was like 13.5% per diagnostic category. You bet there would be a several dozen page article walking you through why the changes occurred and how to understand them. There is nothing like that. These numbers just bumped up. So I think that my, my strong belief is that it was, it was understood that these numbers were growing, that they were gonna show that the vaccines were hurting the troops very quickly.

Mathew Crawford: And that somebody decided, okay, we're just gonna change these numbers in order to alter the denominator in any comparison.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So this would make comparing any baseline. So the baseline is, is so [00:07:00] we've gone from showing that normal level of illness is here and, and now we're going to raise it. And say this is normal. So that when, when we see it go up to, to this, oh, it's only this little difference when really it could be from here all the way up to there, cuz we've changed the denominator, changed the baseline.

Mathew Crawford: Right. And the key is that the DOD is part of the vaccine safety, technical workforce. That, that the CDC runs or work group, excuse me. The vast work group, the dod is part of that. And interestingly, the CDC was not publishing the DMed numbers. They weren't publishing the information from this database throughout 2021.

Mathew Crawford: And what I think is that the numbers were coming in very bad. We need to FOIA to find that out. But I think the numbers were coming in very bad. They, they decided to bump up the denominator to make it look not bad. And then they get to the middle of 21 21, they've, they've published [00:08:00] the new numbers with the fake database.

Mathew Crawford: I'm just gonna call it a fake database from here. Part of the numbers are fake. I think the rest of it's real, right? But then I think that they had a server migration in August in order to wipe the fingerprints August of 2021 after this May, 2021, Ms. M r report. So now, now they have a server migration.

Mathew Crawford: This also allows them to re-index the database. And here's what I mean by that. Let's say that you're adding a bunch of, yeah. Let's say you're adding a bunch of records to a database. Well, you're adding them at the end automatically. Just by, by the way, the database works functionally. So they're adding 2016 through 2020 records at the end.

Mathew Crawford: It would be very easy to see in an audit that those were added. But by having a server migration, they get to re-index the, the numbers and all the fake ones get shuffled in to make it harder to detect what were the fake records.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Let me. [00:09:00] Let me see if I can explain that to, to the listeners. If you have a book, right, and you have, let's say page one is the 2016 numbers, and then page two is the 2017 numbers.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But you need to change a and and the computer doesn't just look at the book, it look at looks at everything. So when, when you pull up the data, so what you're saying is it added in pages at the end of the book that that altered the 2016 numbers. And then what could have happened is when they migrated, we take those pages at the end, we stick 'em back in where they should in the new supposed chronological order and put them in where they maybe should be or shouldn't be if they're not real numbers near 2016, so that it looks like it's a normal book and you don't have these files or these pages added to the end that are supposed to go 2016 when they were clearly added much, much later than 20 16, 20 17.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Is that, is that a good explanation?

Mathew Crawford: That's right. [00:10:00] And I think that in that process, I do think that there was a glitch introduced. I do think that the, the DODs claim of a glitch was real. And you know, when, when you think about the art of deception if you could just see without lying, that's always best.

Mathew Crawford: Right? I do think that that somehow some of the records were not connecting you know, maybe there's some sort of like a, a check box, you know, include this record and queries include this record and queries. Maybe some of the boxes were accidentally left unchecked, and, and so when the queries were run in January, I, I believe that there was, and it might, it might have even been intentional.

Mathew Crawford: It might have even been a trap. .

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But, but the idea, the preface there is a glitch. That entire idea is, is faulty because it's a glitch in a faulty system is what you're presenting.

Mathew Crawford: It's a glitch in a fake database. You got it. Right. They created a lot of confusion I think too. So what

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: we brought out. Yeah. And so, so what the three of us [00:11:00] brought forth is there's a problem and I think it would clear to see like a thousand percent increase in a disease.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Cuz because us as physicians, we were seeing a huge issue in ill people, right? We're seeing more illness, we're seeing more problems in which should be a young, healthy population.

Mathew Crawford: We shouldn't see these problems at all. And it matches information from out in the world, from insurance companies and from other governments.

Mathew Crawford: Yeah. So you were looking for, you were looking for data to support what you could see.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Right. And we found data that. The numbers weren't, they seemed a little, little wild. I mean, to, to me, cuz I, I don't have this, this deeper knowledge that you were, and it took you a good long while, many, many, many, many hours to figure all this out.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I, I don't have that kind of deep knowledge and understanding of this. It just, on the surface level, something is wrong and it needs to be brought to attention quickly before we hurt more people. That's that's my perspective as, you know, not speaking for all whistleblowers, but [00:12:00] that, that's my perspective.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And then we are blessed to have someone like you who, who has this ability to kind of connect these different dots and understand how computer systems work and, and the idea to look back in history for pre-published data that can't be changed. I think that that's an important piece of this and keystone to this entire.

Mathew Crawford: Right. And, and it was very fortunate for us that the, that the past data was available in a public format. If, if it hadn't been, this would've been a real tough puzzle to solve. And you know, and if this is, if this does turn out to be a crime, which, you know, I feel 99% certain that it is they would've gotten away with it without, you know, the, the public snapshot.

Mathew Crawford: So, you know, it, it, it, it will be a win for government transparency if this turns out to be the case.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And one thing that I've always kind of said in phone call conversations with people is that this information can always be proven. [00:13:00] It would be an absolute bear to try and go through all this information because all of these little points, there's this line and, and everything on it represents a real.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And if we had the ability, and I don't know how this is possible to go through the medical record and re-pull all that data, you know, just get all that data again, from an independent person, not, not from the company that was hired to do this, cuz we're looking at PDFs that I think, I could be wrong in this, I think would be difficult to change PDFs if they're loaded into a system.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: You may be able to speak to that otherwise. But if we can pull the actual data again, then we can confirm which would either exonerate the government or indict them.

Mathew Crawford: Right? Some sort of a, a, a legal action needs to take place to force them to show what the database looked like. You know figure out where it was that the numbers changed, pinpoint it, see what the records those new records look.

Mathew Crawford: We should find out if there are any memos that discuss changing the numbers in the database and what people are talking about when that takes [00:14:00] place. Because if there is any discussion, you know, in amongst the people handling the database or with the C d C if there's any discussion about hiding vaccine injury and illness and I think that we're gonna find that.

Mathew Crawford: I think that if, if we get that information, I think it's gonna be clear. One of the reasons I think that too, is by the way are you showing that slide 26? Is that something that you want to bring up now? There, there's another, you know, really interesting point within the data and and that is that if, if you go to slide 30, yeah, I've got and this one's a little bit hard for people without, you know, easy data knowledge to read.

Mathew Crawford: You kind of have to walk through and understand what the bars mean. But basically the gray bar. Represents the numbers as originally reported in the msm r. The red are the new reports, so you can see that the red numbers are bumped up, right 20 16, 20 18, and 2020. Numbers are higher. Well, 2020 didn't have a gray bar, but 2016 and 2018 numbers were bumped up, but the blue bars [00:15:00] represent the queries post glitch fix.

Mathew Crawford: So this is what the queries look like as of February, 2022. And you can see that the blue bars match the red bars on the right, but they don't on the left, they're about 20 major diagnostic categories. They match for 19 of them. Why not the other one? And what is this other one? Well, this one category where the current queries do not match the last database snapshot.

Mathew Crawford: These are the R codes signs. Symptoms and Ill-defined conditions and inconclusive laboratory results. What does this tell you?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: These are where doctors didn't know, I would assume.

Mathew Crawford: This is where doctors don't know the source, the ideology of the illness. They're confused by it, which, [00:16:00] you know, why would, yeah.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And if it's a smart doctor, he'll say he doesn't know . Yeah, yeah.

Mathew Crawford: You know, it is one of the major diagnostic categories, so it, it happens frequently.

Mathew Crawford: But what you can see is not only were the, were the numbers bumped up for the Ms m r, they were bumped up a second time dramatically. 46 point a half percent, nearly 50% somewhere between the, the mid 2021 snapshot and February of 2022, somebody added a tremendous number of records to the 2016 through 2020 data.

Mathew Crawford: Changing,

Mathew Crawford: changing that baseline again,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: this, this graph that we're looking at right now, the signs, symptoms, and ill defining conditions. This is the one where the D O D claimed there was a glitch.

Mathew Crawford: Is that correct? Oh, they claimed that was, there was a glitch over everything. The they didn't make a specific claim about the R codes.

Mathew Crawford: The R codes just happened to be different insofar as the current query [00:17:00] numbers no longer match the last msm r a, you know, after they said they changed the glitch. This is why I think there was a glitch because the query numbers started to look exactly like the last database snapshot.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah, those red and, and gray bars are not too dissimilar, right?

Mathew Crawford: But it's, and, and the blue are the queries. So the red and the blue now match. Like if, if you looked at slide 20, slide 29, you can see like six different diagnostic categories and the blue and the red match for each of them.

Mathew Crawford: And that's what should happen. The current query should match the last database snapshot, but for one, just one of these diagnostic categories. And if we jump to slide 39 now,

Mathew Crawford: yeah.

Mathew Crawford: I've got three different sort of progressions in a graph. The gray are the originally published MSM r numbers for R codes. The red are the newly published, [00:18:00] the most reliable. Well, it, it. , just, let's just say originally published snapshot, snapshot of the database. And then the red, the closed triangles are the latest snapshot of the database.

Mathew Crawford: And two of those triangles are imputed, but we've got three that are real data points. But then the blue are the current queries. Yeah, the, yeah. And the blue are the current queries. So you can see that they, they didn't just bump the numbers up once they bumped 'em up again and sculpted the graph, the graph to look more like a trend.

Mathew Crawford: And I think that this, this is, this is necessary if like just floods and floods of R codes are coming in because perhaps vaccine injuries are not as easy for the doctors to understand. So, you know, how is it that you hide hundreds of thousands, maybe even, maybe even a million. This, that, that's what this looks like is perhaps over a million extra.

Mathew Crawford: [00:19:00] Injuries and illnesses that are R codes, ambulatory reports. So it's not, it's not that many separate injuries and illnesses, but you know, if you have like 10 ambulatory reports for one illness, that 1 million could represent a hundred thousand vaccine

Mathew Crawford: injuries.

Mathew Crawford: And, you know, many of them may be mild, but there're gonna be a lot of serious ones in there.

Mathew Crawford: A lot of the outside data, even though even the trial data said 0.7% to 0.8% serious adverse events,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: which seems ridiculously low even for the, the laypersons, like the sniff test, like that doesn't seem right. Smells like, smells like I just smelled, smelled a bunch of bad stuff.

Mathew Crawford: Well you know, for, for that would be a very high number for any medication for serious adverse events unless it's like something dangerous like surgery.

Mathew Crawford: You know, 0.7, 0.8 percent's pretty high for, you know, for a vaccine. That's unheard of. But you know, that, that [00:20:00] would be a number, like 10,000. So 10,000 serious injuries is what you'd expect just from the trial numbers in, in the ar in the military what we see, I, I think that we're seeing tens if not, you know, maybe even a hundred thousand injuries and illnesses.

Mathew Crawford: Some of 'em may be mild, but it's a large number. And, you know, whoever was manipulating the database, I think was given just an order. Make this look normal, make this go away.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And could one person do that or would this take some sort of algorithm to help bump these numbers up and not make it look like, Hey, you know, bill went in there and changed everything. Sorry, bill, I didn't mean to throw you onto the bus

Mathew Crawford: If you had one genius somebody good at, at math and and computing.

Mathew Crawford: Technically one person could handle this entire job. They would, first of all, they would need to know. They would need to know that their job is to bump these numbers up, right? So now you're talking about like somebody with like, [00:21:00] you know let's, let's just say God-like knowledge of everything that's going on and what strings to pull in.

Mathew Crawford: The puppet who's a genius on many levels with. Things not likely. This is,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: or the converse of that would be, the converse of that would be one person telling this, this very smart person that, Hey, you need to do this. And already that is potentially conspiracy to commit and in whatever crime.

Mathew Crawford: Exactly. And this is why we need foia.

Mathew Crawford: But I, I think that it is, we're gonna find that it's a number of people that it took a number of people to do this. And we're gonna find that that, you know, whoever decided that it needed to be done is somebody, it, it just has to be somebody very high in responsibility. In the CDC or, or the dod or both.

Mathew Crawford: Right. Because. Here's the thing. These numbers are supposed to be used this whole time by the cdc. And when we think about it, they were never being published in early 2021. So far as I've found, and, and you know, I, I'm, I'm in a pool of researchers who have looked at, you know, [00:22:00] thousands and thousands of CDC documents, but we're pretty sure that they just weren't using the numbers.

Mathew Crawford: But they were seeing them. But then when a glitch was introduced in August, so, you know, I, I do give, I do give credit to the Glitch story. I think there was a glitch introduced intentionally or otherwise. But here's the thing, you're gonna tell me that, that with Vast, with the Vaccine Safety Task Force, supposedly using those numbers that nobody noticed the glitch, you know, like, come on.

Mathew Crawford: You know? Yeah, exactly. Like they just decided to stop looking at the technical information coming in. That was supposed to be the technical information to tell them if there was a safety signal. I don't believe it. , you know, it, it, it's an absurd story. It just is. So I think that there was a glitch, but it changed the data.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So what you're presenting to us is one of two things. Either there was a glitch and in this fake system or, you know, [00:23:00] like that, that whole idea, or there's people just not looking at this database as they're employed to do so, and just ignoring all the information willfully being blind to all this information that's actually out there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Right?

Mathew Crawford: Yeah. One way or number, one way or another somebody did change the numbers somehow for some reason, but yes, the, the story of the glitch also requires that somebody was just either not looking at the numbers or willfully ignoring them.

Mathew Crawford: I said yesterday actually, I said several times talking with people and, and I even said this on Twitter. I said, this is, this [00:24:00] is the greatest fraud in the history of the world and the greatest treason. , perhaps. You know, we, we need to know exactly what happened, but I, I believe that that is most likely the case.

Mathew Crawford: Unfortunately, the gravity of the situation couldn't be higher. And, you know, I, I'm, you know, we're having a calm conversation here, but this is, this is where Alex Jones would be going, you know, and , because this is, this is something

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: to, but in reality, this, so, so lemme kinda explain the gravity to, to the listener.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The viewer. If, and I've said this before in some other shows, but let's say I'm a, I'm a scout for a platoon and I'm climbing over the hill and I look and I see, oh, okay, I can see over the hill. My platoon can't see over the hill, so I'm supposed to be the eyes and the ears for this, for this war fighting unit.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And I look down the hill and I see hundreds of thousands of enemy troops, you know, just their arm to the teeth. And they, they're ready to kill and destroy anything and everything that comes over. And, [00:25:00] and I'd say to my, my little platoon, and I'd say, Hey guys, yeah, it's good. You 50 guys, you'll be great.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Don't worry. You'll be fine. You'll take 'em out. And then they go over the hill and all of them get absolutely decimated and slaughtered and destroyed. What would you call that Scout? Aiden Abetting. The enemy treasonous. They saw, it's not like they didn't see, they did see, they said that there was nothing there.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: They lied. That is the potential of what's going on here because if you take out the, you poke the eyes out of the medical community so that the rest of the medical community, the people that actually do take their oath seriously, they can't see these trends. Then you're aiding, abetting the enemy. You're potentially leading the entire force to their death because we can't see what those trends are to.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's the entire point of the DMed data, is to see if there is a medical threat against the troops. So for someone not to have seen these trends, [00:26:00] Whether if all the information was exactly as we thought as whistleblowers or even the information that you're bringing forth and these significant changes that may make the entire database fake, if they didn't see that, then whose side are they working for?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: What company are they working for? Because there's a company that contracts with the government, is that correct?

Mathew Crawford: I believe it's eant. Is, is what I've been told runs the contract. Correct. I think that that company should be investigated. I think there should be a congressional investigation starting, you know, starting yesterday.

Mathew Crawford: Yeah. And what you said, this is important, I should have said this earlier. The Defense medical surveillance system and defense medical epidemiological database, these go hand in hand. The difference is that the DMed is de-identified data. So, you know, it's easier to just let you know physicians like yourself or other researchers, query it.

Mathew Crawford: This is used on a daily basis. Every day. The military at, at, at the top needs to know troop readiness. So there's no way, there's not somebody looking at the numbers. Maybe they usually look at just the, the current, you know, [00:27:00] 20, 21 numbers or as of last year, 2021 maybe they're, they're primarily looking at that and they're ignoring the 2016 through 2020.

Mathew Crawford: But it is, it is hard to believe that there wasn't some signal that the numbers were going wrong. Though it may be that the 2016 through 2020, it may be that those five years were changed. There, there's a, there's a lot of logic to just changing those five years. Maybe you don't alert the people at the highest end of the military because they're only looking at day-to-day current numbers.

Mathew Crawford: So maybe you don't alert them. Two, there was a changeover from 2015 to 2016 and I c d codes, which are the code, the medical billing codes. The system changed, so, Any, any comparison to 2015 and earlier could, somebody could say, well, it's not quite apples to apples.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Right. So quick little explanation on icd.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: There's ICD nine, which is the old way we used to diagnose if, if, let's say you have the flu, I say [00:28:00] you have the flu and it's, I'm just guessing here. It's M 35.2 i, I have no idea. Don't, don't look that up. That's not right. For an example, and then ICD 10 comes out and now it's, it's J 15. Again, I, I don't know off the top of my head what influenza is, but that's the idea of these ICD 10 codes.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And there was a significant change in 2016 where we like changed our entire system and they were all different numbers and they added in new diagnosis and rooms, some old ones. And that is the change that happened in

Mathew Crawford: 2016. Right. And so anybody looking for safety signals would just compare 2021 to 2016 through 2020 just so that they don't have to try to make any adjustments to the 2015 numbers.

Mathew Crawford: So 2016 through 2020 makes sense. In a lot of ways it makes sense that they would, you know, sculpt the denominator, not enumerator to the numerators being looked at every day. And you would have to change those numbers every day as opposed to changing the 2016 through 2020 just one [00:29:00] time and, well, maybe a second time cuz the R codes did change a second time.

Mathew Crawford: So I do think that that that sort of catches them extra. So we have like five or six different ways to look at this and all of them point to the same theory. , which is that someone changed these numbers for the purpose of hiding vaccine injury and illness. So yeah, that's the story. And, and you know, we, we need to get the word out because we need, you know, we need to be organizing the lawyers on our side.

Mathew Crawford: We need to be organizing FOIAs. We need to be you. You know, I have talked to Senator Ron Johnson's people you know, we need to be contacting more. I've had people some of my readers, when I explained what was going on at my newsletter, I, I write a newsletter called Rounding the Earth.

Mathew Crawford: Some of those people contacted there, members of Congress, though I think you know, we're, we're gonna have to have as many people as possible saying, yes, I have checked, I've looked at these numbers with my own eyes, and this story is real. You know, we can see the snapshots changed. That's irrefutable.

Mathew Crawford: Therefore, it is time for an [00:30:00] investigation,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: which this could potentially go up to some of the highest levels in the military. In the dod, unfortunately, yes, . So this could be very uncomfortable for, for some very, very high, high leaders, cuz this kind of power to direct this kind of change. I mean, unless there's some rogue guy in there, I don't even think low level people even have access to this.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I'll tell you, in my experience, I never heard about the DMed database and I had been in the Army for eight years. I'm not a public health guy. I was talking to a, a guy who, who worked in public health, not a physician. Hopefully we'll get to hear from, from that man in a few episodes or so, or maybe we've already heard.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: But he, he had never heard of that database. And he works with the people, the same type of people, like in the same office, maybe in a different branch or different arm of that group of people that actually used D DMed. Now luckily there was another doctor that I [00:31:00] knew who has a, a. A strong history in public health and, and was looking into that and was pulling that up.

Mathew Crawford: Right. Yeah. And, and so, yeah, and this is, this is why you could have this done without a lot of people knowing. But you would definitely have to have the people running the database knowing you would definitely have to have I, I suppose it's possible, I suppose it, there's some inkling of possibility that nobody in the D OD knew, but it, it just seems very hard to believe.

Mathew Crawford: It, it, you know, that would've required it, it would probably require some sort of mediation between the C d C and Unsent. But I, I, I, I have gr I have great doubts.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah. If it was done by an outside company, let's say un, I'm not saying unison did this, I'm not saying, but if unison were to do it, it would seem like a good way to do it because they would be outside of the FOIA request, wouldn't they?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: As they're not an executive branch? Yeah. This,

Mathew Crawford: and this is a major problem, like I is, it's actually stunning that [00:32:00] the DO d ever outsourced this, right? This is not a technology issue that needed to be handled outside of the military. There's, there are enough technologists in the military to run a database and I, I boggled my mind to find out that it would go outside.

Mathew Crawford: So hopefully, hopefully that doesn't stop any of the fos.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: This could be some of the most sensitive information that, that we have. So,

Mathew Crawford: yeah. You would think that something like this would always be kept with the highest level of security because the idea of troop readiness is itself. A high, you know, a high level security mission.

Mathew Crawford: So hopefully that does not cut out the ability to investigate the problem. One way or another, the, you know, if, if, if the Senate gets involved, you know, they should be able to get anybody's records from anywhere, hopefully.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The the example of the true readiness being a, a very sensitive issue. If, if the listener viewer thinks back to there was a ship, and I can't remember the name of the [00:33:00] ship, but there was a, I believe it was an aircraft carrier, and the, the captain of that carrier who's an oh six, was concerned that his troops were dying of covid and becoming very ill of covid and he couldn't go through the normal channels to get that information up.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And he felt that he was being ignored. And so he went public with that information. He was relieved of command because what he. Showed the world is that potentially that carrier and maybe even that carrier group was not combat effective. That is the level of, of this DMed data and why it is so sensitive and it should not be outsourced, in my opinion.

Mathew Crawford: Yeah. So it, it's, it's layers on layers of problems. It's old problems coming home to roost, but then you know, did somebody, did somebody within the DD commit treason? Did somebody running this database? You know, was somebody getting a contract with the d o d [00:34:00] who was interested in harming the US troops?

Mathew Crawford: So yeah, very scary proposition right there. Interestingly, you know, you brought up that carrier. I remember that story when it happened. When you look at the data and see, we could check one more of these slides. Slide 56,

Mathew Crawford: that's one of the ones, there are several that show this, but You can see that 2020 was actually a healthy year for the military. And in fact, I went through years and years of these MSR reports, the snapshots of the database, and I couldn't find a year that was healthier than 2020. Yeah. And, and, and people might say, oh, it's because precautions were taken.

Mathew Crawford: Right. But that argument would be to say that the risks that weren't taken were worth more than covid was, you know, pulling down the health of the troops. In other words when you sign up for the US military, you're accepting that level of risk already. And that covid was not, was not right. The [00:35:00] co covid was not elevating that level of risk higher than prior years.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Right. For, for the listener to understand a little bit more is that level of risk. Like people die in training all the time from accidents, from injuries, from jumping outta, outta planes. The typical injury rate of, of an airborne operation is about 10% casualty rate. That doesn't mean dead. That means broken leg, twisted ankle, something to that nature.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: 10%. That's an acceptable, very acceptable injury rate 10%. So if you got a hundred people, 10 will be outta the fight. And so Covid, this is showing us that covid was such a little risk that we quit doing all the dangerous things that we're paid to do to keep you safe. I don't, I don't mean just you Matthew, but anyone that can hear me say you, that's an American you to keep you safe.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: We do dangerous things to keep you safe, and we lowered the overall injury and disease report so much. [00:36:00] Was it worth it? Is it worth the hit that the fighting force took just from these manmade restrictions put on us for a disease that may not well is likely not as bad as they say? It had a 99.9 8.6% survival rate, 99.86%, 99.867% survival rate.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so we quit doing all the things that made us, yeah, for military, that's for military only. That's, that's the military population. If you take how many became ill, how many died, and how many

Mathew Crawford: recovered, and you know, what happened with covid cases as the vaccines were rolled out in the military, and this is why the, the DMed is so important of a databases because the military is such a uniform group.

Mathew Crawford: Is that the, the cases of covid went up in 2021. , there were almost twice as numerous as in 2020. Granted 2020, it's not like the pandemic started on day one. Yeah, it [00:37:00] kind of really got going in March, April. But people say, oh, the, well, the, the vaccines are supposed to bring down the severity of illness.

Mathew Crawford: This is where the DMed comes in. If you look at slide 47,

Mathew Crawford: this is post glitch fix information, and now we don't even have to deal with 2016 through 2020. If we just look at the severity per case measured by hospitalization rate, you can see that throughout the vaccination program, basically hospitalizations per case of covid, were going up, up, up. They quadrupled through when?

Mathew Crawford: July. Why is that important? What happened in August? Well, that was, the deadline for the mandates was was in August. . So they were pushing in July, you know, probably lots more people getting vaccinated June and July, but they started going up right at the beginning of the year, and you could see them, you know, basically just going up, up, up [00:38:00] until basically the vaccinations were over.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Well, as soon as they came out with the information of, Hey, we have a vaccine, here's the, the product information list, I began hearing commanders command, sergeant majors high, high level senior service members saying, yeah, it's not mandatory yet. Well, if, if I'm, let's say a private or a new lieutenant, and I hear it's not mandatory yet, well that's the assumption that it will be mandatory because what happens yet?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Well, something eventually happens if it hasn't happened yet. And so what that does is that's undue pressure. And so many people got this, not because there was a mandate, but because there was fear of a mandate coming and they didn't want to be the last one. Not jumping off the cliff, so to speak. . Yeah.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So I told every single command sergeant, major and commander, I said, sir, ma'am, you probably shouldn't say yet, because we don't know if these will ever be mandated. And I think that is a lot of undue pressure that you're putting on people by saying the [00:39:00] word yet.

Mathew Crawford: Right. It's also, it sounds like a Freudian slip as if they know that a mandate is coming.

Mathew Crawford: I did

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: not think of that, but yes, they know this unrelenting pressure to get people to get this experimental jab is coming. How would they know that?

Mathew Crawford: Yeah, that's interesting. How many how many people you think you heard that from?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Every leader that I talked to,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: even physicians?

Mathew Crawford: Well, at some point, you know, if you have a certain number of people, especially leadership, you have a certain number of people saying something, a certain. , you know, some people without information may start saying it that same way, right? Just, you know, just because it's, it's told them, you know, in a certain way.

Mathew Crawford: So it, it may not mean foreknowledge by every single person, but that sounds like it came from the leadership. So that's interesting.[00:40:00]

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: One thing I, I counseled my soldiers that I would see, cuz I saw very few soldiers, but I tell them, you know, we keep hearing people say that it's not mandatory yet if you don't want to get this. Cuz I didn't say get it or don't get it. I said, if you don't want to get it, think about it. What's gonna happen if you don't get it?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Your name's red on some, you know, PowerPoint, Excel or some Excel list on a PowerPoint For some commander, how bad is. What, what do you have to suffer if you don't get this? Think about that. So far, there's some people that have been kicked out and, you know, I've, I've been suspended, but I haven't been put in jail.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: No one's held me down and tried to force it in me, which would not work out well for anyone involved. Yeah, and you

Mathew Crawford: know, what you just said about you know, commander's already leadership already saying yet that word yet, this is a reason why I do believe that FOIAs will find, you know, memos, emails, information, [00:41:00] discussing this within the dod because it sounds to me like there were people in leadership whose plan was to push this as hard as possible, and those would be people who would have an incentive to hide whether or not there was injury or illness.

Mathew Crawford: Or if there were some sort of a, you know, larger known you know, set of knowns about the vaccination program and what was going on, then you would have people at that level who would know the safety information coming in. . So, yeah. Members of Congress, let's get on this.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah. This is all very shocking.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah. This is very shocking. So call your congressman. Call your senators. Call call anyone that will listen to get this investigation started. Let's get the ball rolling. Especially if you have loved ones, a son, a daughter, a husband, a wife that's in the military. This is affecting them. If they got the shot, if they didn't get the shot, it doesn't matter at this point.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: What matters is, [00:42:00] are you gonna allow people to put something else into your body from here on out that you don't want? What if it's something you want? What if you, what if you do want a third, a fourth, a fifth, a sixth shot? Okay, great. What if it's something different? Are you still gonna want that? Are you gonna wanna be responsible for forcing others to do that?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: These are questions you need to ask yourself.

Mathew Crawford: And it it with respect to the US military, if it's going to be forced on the US military we might ask just as you did, who's handling the database? Who's handling the creation of the vaccines? Are those people trustworthy to decide? For US troops, for the world's largest, most important military force, are those people responsible for making that decision for the US military?

Mathew Crawford: Right. That, that is, that is a breach of control. At the very least, it is handing control to [00:43:00] scientists whose interests may not be the same as yours or ours.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And it's interesting you bring that up. There's this idea I've in developing and kind of noodling through, if you will. First of all, we have to ask why. Cuz often we see things and we accept them for what they are. And if you want to be a mover, a shaker and, and look for truth, you have to ask why. And the first question I ask why is if you know, if you understand FOIA and what it applies to, it only applies to the executive branch, does not apply to the judicial branch, it does not apply to the legislative branch.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It only applies to the executive branch. Does not apply to state level, county level, city doesn't apply to any of those, does not apply to any private or publicly traded companies. Now with that information, why is Pfizer able to have documents voided,

Mathew Crawford: These documents that are submitted to to be,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I don't [00:44:00] know. I don't know. Those are good questions. But how can any of these documents be fo you if it's a private company or a publicly traded company? And then we look a little deeper into the. Yeah, go ahead.

Mathew Crawford: My understanding is, is that the Pfizer documents or documents that were presented for review by the fda, for the FDA to make a decision about like the e u a for instance, but let's go into this a little deeper, but I don't know exactly why that's under the executive

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: branch.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Yeah, go ahead. So if we look at when they actually redact things, they, they put a little black box over it or gray box, and they'll often, I think they're required by law to put a little number letter on it to say why this particular information was redacted. And one of the common, there was one that was recently released, I think March and from Pfizer, and it talks about their testing sites and it talks about testing products.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So one of the things that was actually tested, and if you look through there, there's a lot of this, B four, Bravo four, the letter B and the number four written on top of these. And if you, okay, well, let's go look to Pfizer. Let's figure out, let's do the homework, this, the [00:45:00] simple stuff, and figure out what B, the letter B and four, what that means when it's redacted through Pfizer and what it.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: You, I'm going to kind of paraphrase it, but basically what it says is it's covering up any particular information that could expose a u a state-of-the-art US weapons system.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Now, let's take this a little deeper so we know that faux Sun Pharmaceutical I'm sure you've heard of that, but if the listener hasn't, it's a communist Chinese run pharmaceutical company, fo Sun Pharmaceutical. Take the time. Go look it up. Don't take my word for it. Fo Sun Pharmaceutical had an agreement, I believe it was in March of 2020 with BioNTech BioNTech is the company that had a partnership.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: They're from Germany. They've had a partnership with Pfizer. The government had a deal, I don't know the particulars of this, but they had some deal with Pfizer and [00:46:00] BioNTech to make the vaccine. Was the government aware that biotech was using Fo Sun Pharmaceuticals to help do their research?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: If we look at, I think it's the N D A A of 2006, it says that the US military is not allowed to purchase any weapons systems from Communist China. We look at the Berry Act and, and the spirit of the Berry Act is nothing that soldiers wear should come from China. So no weapon systems, no shirts, no bulletproof vests, right?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And the idea is that if you have a bulletproof vest from China, hey, let's make those not work. And then if you ever get an issue, a scuffle with, with Americans, Hey, don't worry, their body armor's not gonna work. That's the idea behind it. There's a potential, I think, greater than 1%, maybe not a hundred percent, but maybe greater than 1% risk that a communist Chinese company, which in China, you don't have a company if you're not in with the government.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: [00:47:00] Helped develop research, publish, and get out this shot, which has a potential to be a bio weapon to me. Sold service members should be completely barred from even being offered this shot from this moment on, let alone coercing them to get it. They shouldn't even be allowed to get it because the potential for national security is so great.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Cuz even if one part of what I said was correct, that could be disastrous. . But then we take it a step further and we learn about CRISPR and how CRISPR is a gene editing technology. And if you go back and listen to, if the listener go back, goes back to episode nine where I speculate that there could be CRISPR hidden in this technology.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: About a week after I did that podcast, I was given a white paper and that white paper says, yes, there is CRISPR hidden in here. We take that in [00:48:00] conjunction with a whistleblower that said that worked for Pfizer that said, yes, there's CRISPR in the shot. So now we potentially have a bio weapon developed in part or partially, or mostly or doesn't matter, by China.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Our enemy put into every service member

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: and, and just for you and what I'm gonna say, what the clip says is there's this man who he was working for, or he met a woman from China. And when she came to, bless you, when she came to America, she said she cannot get the mRNA shot because she won't be allowed to go back to China. They have some test or scan or something and if it's positive, they'll turn around and I'll let her enter the country.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And so that man of the video I just played, I spoke with him personally to make sure that he wasn't embellishing in these kinds of things. And he said no, that they have a [00:49:00] scan or a test that they can do on her when she goes to China. And if that scan or test is positive, they will turn her around and bar her entry back into her home country.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: So whatever is in this, they don't want, even in their general population.

Mathew Crawford: Yeah, that's, that's pretty stunning. And, and we should be worrying on that level. I have worried on the level of some form of shedding and I, I've been in, in, you know, every week. I mean, I'm in discussion groups with scientists. Most of them don't, still don't believe in shedding. I personally was at a wedding last year in which a number of us who had not been vaccinated left the wedding sick, but with different symptoms like it, it didn't seem like it was a bug that we all got.

Mathew Crawford: But in particular, the, the two most, you know, populous groups at this wedding were firefighters and nurses. People who, you know, are like healthy people [00:50:00] who, who are constantly around sickness but don't get sick. You know, it's a very healthy group of people. All, all, you know, lots of ex-athletes. And yeah, it, it, it was, it was just, it was a strange thing.

Mathew Crawford: You know what my wife and I experienced we'd never experienced headaches that were not responsive to ibuprofen for five days. And that concerned me. I still don't know what to make of it. I don't know that the biology, but yesterday I was in discussion with several biologists and learned something new myself, which, when, when you get one of these shots you know, even just the the Pfizer shot, which has less mRNA it's like 1.8 trillion mRNA entering your body.

Mathew Crawford: And, you know, not all of your cells, like you have more cells than that, but not all of your cells are gonna uptake the stuff, right? You wind up with like 10 to a hundred of these mRNA jamming into one cell and something, it, it, it, and because of that, there's overcrowding and it's not just making the spike protein, which is dangerous [00:51:00] enough.

Mathew Crawford: But what's happening is a lot of these spike proteins are misfolding, is what these biologists think. And a misfolded protein, misfolded protein can itself result in disease. That's what p prion disease is. You know, very often is, is just, you know, it, it's not even that the protein was bad for your body, it's that the protein was misfolded and then became like a foreign invader.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: The, that white paper that said there was crispr, they, it also said that they could not find an entire whole spike protein. There was pieces of it maybe to, to look like there was some in there, but there was not an entire spike protein. There was also 13 other proteins that they couldn't identify, but they did find G R N A go look it up.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It's a little G rna and that's the targeting protein or the targeting R N A that tells the CRISPR where to go and those G R N A appear to target chromosomes five and 19. [00:52:00]

Mathew Crawford: Is there anything specific about five and 19?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: If I'm remembering correctly, one of 'em has to do with cancers and the other one has to do with neurologic issues like blood cancers and neurologic issues.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: I think it was five is the blood or may have this reverse. And 19 has to do more with neurologic issues. Alzheimer's.

Mathew Crawford: Okay. I was looking up P 53. Are you familiar with P 53?

Mathew Crawford: Yeah, yeah. My, my wife's a P 50. My wife's a P 53 researcher, and so she's doing some research right now on what's going on with the mRNA. But I was gonna see, but it looks like that's on chromosome 17, but you said five and 19. I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll be thinking about that. Interesting. Yeah, send me that paper.

Mathew Crawford: I'd appreciate it.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It's in the PreOn disease. Again, if the listener can go back and listen to my episode nine, [00:53:00] I speculated that from the very, very start. I was like, Hey man, they could hide Cretz Field Yaakov in here, which is Mad Cow and Humans PreOn Disease. And then a short time later I found an article written by Bart Clayson and Bart Clayson lays out how the spike protein can cause PreOn disease, Cret Yakka disease.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: And then this past about a year ago now, actually a colleague of mine who, who helped me kind of form these thoughts and, and helped me, you know, be the only other doctor that I knew that thought this way, sent me a news article. This is from Alaska, of this man who used to live in Alaska, now moved to Tennessee and he had died of Kretz Yakka.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: There's about 300 cases diagnosed in the entire United States a year. So it's, it's very odd. And so I reached out to the guy who wrote the article. I got emailed back by both of his surviving sons adult sons, And they said yes. He, he got, their father was diagnosed and started [00:54:00] having symptoms. We started having symptoms few months after he got Pfizer, and within four months after getting both Pfizer shots, he was, he had died of Cretz Yakka, which is a horrible, tragic, awful death.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: It's, it's terrible. It's for as bad as Alzheimer's is, this is a thousand times worse because not only does it take who you are, but it takes all of your bodily functions away and very, very quickly.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: That's not proof that this causes this. That's certainly not, but that this should make everyone take pause and go, whoa. Is there a trend?

Mathew Crawford: The, there are, there are a number of cases of that popping up in. . It's, it's still, you know, it's not a tiny number. It's still what you would call a small number, but they're rolling in and we know that ves is, you know, underreported, you know, it might be, there might be 40 times as many cases.

Mathew Crawford: There are probably a few thousand already. And, and it's, it's very unclear as to how long it might take for some of [00:55:00] these cases to unfold, right? Because you don't know how much of that, you know you know, too much mRNA in one cell there is, and what other systems, the human body has to process that, right.

Mathew Crawford: To slow it down. And it may be different. Yeah, it may be different, different people as far as how the system handles it. And yeah. This, this is a very serious issue. If I could, if I could bring this back to to the DMed and, you know, we, we, we've kind of walked this through but I'd like to, to you know, bring back to a note of.

Mathew Crawford: You know, what, what we, what we have observed, what we've seen, ha you know, looking into this database issue is potentially the largest fraud in the history of the world in terms of the liabilities, also the potentially the largest treason in the history of the world. And we see from a number of angles the, the data points to the likelihood of intention.

Mathew Crawford: So we have a, a changed [00:56:00] snapshot, changed snapshots. We have changed database before any of the queries were ever run. So you know, let's, let's, you know, propagate the real story as well as we can so that we have you know, we need to get some lawyers, we need to get some congress people looking into this immediately,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: right?

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: Because this, this doesn't affect just me as Army guy. This doesn't affect me as an army guy. This affects you, the listener and everyone in the United States and potentially everyone in the world. Because if America becomes unstable because of which, hopefully it doesn't lead to that level of, of problem, but that is the reality of this.

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: If you start poking out the eyes of the medical community and they can't see the illness that's coming, which is the whole point of DMed, then, then you, are you an enemy? You know, not, not you, Matthew, but are, is the person perpetrating this, the enemy? Are they foreign? Are they domestic? These are questions that we need to be, we need to have answers for.

Mathew Crawford: And as many [00:57:00] problems and mistakes as as we, as we make as a nation, you know, of course, which we should always be working to improve. We do keep the supply lines of the world safe. There are billions of people whose, you know, food security depends on us operating stably and you know, hopefully we do continue to improve.

Mathew Crawford: You know make the world more peaceful. You know push our resources in, in ways that are positive for the world. But you know, there's no good that will come for most people in the world out of a, a catastrophe like this that could be unfolding. So it's time that we find out. Well, Matthew, thank you for sharing this.

Mathew Crawford: This is Sam, thanks so much for having me this morning. This is,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: this is some of the biggest information that that could be brought forward. And I want to thank you for, for coming on and talking. If people wanna catch you somewhere, where can they find your information? Where can they get more from you?

Mathew Crawford: I write in a [00:58:00] newsletter called Rounding the Earth. Yeah, I, I, I try to keep it with a sense of humor at times, though a lot of the topics are very serious. And you know, I it, it, it, it's a tough balance sometimes to strike, right? Yeah. When you're talking about issues this serious. But yeah, rounding the earth is, is my home on the the web, and I'll put a link in this picture.

Mathew Crawford: I published a lot of my research there. Well, thank you again, Matthew. Thank you

much.

Yeah,

Dr. Sam Sigoloff: just a reminder for everyone out there in due to uniform of the day, the full armor of God, let's all make courage more contagious than fear.[00:59:00]

Show less