I prefer that Died Suddenly exists than not. If there's anything like modern society still around after this era, they will use this era as the new "never again." So any documentation that there was some awareness of "things are crazy" is the best we can probably hope to leave behind to show for ourselves.
It was a bit funny that they threw in the footage of at least two collapsers who are still alive, though.
I'm generally of the mindset that we fight bad ideas with good ideas, and therefore all ideas should be allowed.
Died Suddenly can have its place in the public discourse, but at the same time this isn't Stew Peters first go at a documentary. Like I stated, there are plenty of issues with this documentary that came about in Watch the Water, such as the sensationalist nature and the lack of having people to vet information. No questions or criticisms were brought forth by the interviewees to at least play devil's advocate. At least provide some pushback. Rather, the substance was really missing in this documentary and relied heavily on the visuals to push that pathos button.
And again, the fact that Stew Peters hasn't and his group haven't really addressed the criticisms of Watch the Water to a significant degree is rather telling. If you listen to the October 28th interview with Jane Ruby you see that Ardis is given all of the reins over the interview while Ruby just agrees with what he says and compliments Ardis. So it's again more doubling down on these ideas that have been criticized, and this makes me generally concerned that the issues with Died Suddenly won't be properly addressed in the future.
Has anyone here in substack issued corrections for milder outlandish claims - OAS, worry window, etc etc? Recognizing good ideas is just a recipe for inconveniencing the crowd/boss/whoever-pleasers. So they won't have that.
Being right about certain things is just my way of demonstrating that I resisted the mind-hijack. Being outlandishly wrong is Peters'.
No, and that is its own issue. The battle over good ideas require that we rework older hypotheses in lieu of new evidence, rather than build upon an already precarious foundation.
You've heard me several times, (and unfortunately I'll state it again here!) that Alex Berenson's initial reporting of OAS has unfortunately tainted the discourse, so now people are wandering around looking at anti-N antibodies, or now assuming that the thing that has kept us alive for so long i.e. the machinations of our immune system are now actually a detriment to our survival. I mean, just a few weeks ago a study came out suggesting ADE may occur with some of the monoclonal antibodies in use, and the assessment of that study just led people to assume that monoclonals are purely dangerous.
I'm not sure what you meant with the Peters' comment, but I do agree he has a tendency to be very wrong! But I also suppose it doesn't help when his team doesn't appear to put in any effort to push back or play devil's advocate. I'm not sure if you watched the October 28th interview but the fact that Jane Ruby just believes everything Ardis states it's frustrating.
I mean, he references a BMJ article and stops midsentence when quoting the following:
"Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common..."
When the entire sentence is the following:
"Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common in terms of research and development (R&D) challenges and opportunities."
The article wasn't associating snake venom and COVID via some biochemical mechanisms, but suggesting that the allocation of resources and regulatory approval during COVID should be something that should be seen for snakebites, especially as it relates to poorer countries and "inequity".
But I suppose that's besides the point. Like I stated above I can make a whole separate article dedicated to breaking down that interview. The main issue is that Peters' team just doesn't appear to put in any leg work to examine the information and it's telling for anyone who even dips their toe into some of the literature provided.
So I suppose I'm a bit frustrated with the lack of at least attempting to correct issues, and seeing how this happens in other circles just means that there's constant muddying of signal and noise.
I was being a bit inaccurate for brevity. While OAS is not real in general, I mean specifically the claims that the vaxxed wouldn't be able to make antibodies to anything but Wuhan. Ok, Omicrons come around, the vaxxed are making Omicron antibodies just fine. Yet follow-up on this is crickets. To be fair, no one really cares about the question anymore and everyone is looking for what is the next way to drive up subs. So it's the same level of rigor in most substacks as in SPN.
That was my general take of your comment Brian, in that people who present a hypothesis may not rework their hypothesis in lieu of new, contradictory evidence (I think I stated that above). I'll be honest and say it is a pretty big issue. I think a lack of auditing each other's work can be rather dangerous as we have tons of hypotheses circulating yet no cohesiveness to them. Paired with a need to be popular and becoming beholden to your viewers for the next outlandish thing and we just keep moving away from scientific integrity to what drives clicks and views.
I'm not sure if it's fair to say no-one cares about the question anymore...for me, I've got too many things to write about that I never get around to. I think the last time I even got into the issue was in July, here: https://wholistic.substack.com/p/evidence-of-immune-escape-geert-was
I also don't have time to keep up with all the more detailed analysis, like at your Substack, even though I'd like to.
On my end, however, I'm not here just to focus on the hard science of covid or covid vaccines. I'm more attempting to do cultural analysis and commentary on the issue. I do try to find a balance between writing with enough urgency that people resonate vs. getting too hyperbolic. It's a fine line since clearly I see a lot of Substacks with less substantive writing get a lot more likes simply because they are full-bore "depopulation" conspiracy theory and I still like to ascribe a lot of the motives as being simple greed and CYA (cover your ass) psychology.
And I can be too moderate...I think I lost some people when I suggested that Novavax was probably going to be safer. Some readers want you to be all 100% anti-vaxx.
The thing I would say about BA5 and beyond is that they are mutating thanks to immunity to BA.1 and BA.2 which is generated by everybody finally getting infected, not by the injections. This will be discussed a bit in part 2 of my current post where in a twist ending I declare that some SARS-CoV-2 mutation does appear to be natural and immune-mediated.
*edit: Ah, it is funny that the bottom of your post ties it back to antibiotic resistance. So that is exactly why I targeted both vanden Bossche and antibiotic resistance in part 1 of my post. All part of pop science training us to expect things that don't have consistent evidence.
I wouldn't say people have stopped caring about the question, but for a few it's not worth the time and effort to attempt to correct something that may get few views or traction. I may write about the recency vs primacy effect and how the primacy effect really biases one's assumptions and ideas, but as for OAS and topics such as that it's easier to just make comments and move on than it is to go back and address/provide corrections. I think this creates its own issues.
I think Bret's recent comments on his podcast are something worth considering. He comments how all vaccines are inherently unsafe, but through rigorous testing and training we tend to come out with the safer options (my paraphrasing so don't directly ascribe them to Bret). The issue falls along the paradigm of safe vs effective, and we need to argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. We can certainly suggest that all of the vaccines are less safe than they are being presented, and this may lead a few people to point to black/white thinking rather than relative thinking. Maybe Novavax is still not very safe, but it may be safER than other vaccines out there.
People should be able to post what they like and open the discourse without having closed ears, otherwise we are just in our own echo chambers.
It may be a separate question, but I thought that the effectiveness of the bivalent booster vs. omicron was actually found to be less than that of the original flavor booster? Although if true, the reason for this may be more complex than "OAS". Maybe it's more about the difference between the response to the real virus vs. the vaccine.
Results have been equivocal; there is just a reporting bias for the first two papers which found poor anti-4/5 response. Other papers using live virus (instead of pseudovirus) found better relative response. I'll let Topol do my leg-work here https://erictopol.substack.com/p/new-booster-data-and-variants-galore
But the whole thing could be a coincidence relating to more product quality issues. So when you take an inconsistent delivery system and repeat it 4 times you make up for blanks or low doses, vs 1 repeat for the Omi spike.
Meanwhile the Pfizer and Moderna trials are using more regulated product and that could be why they keep pre-publishing impressive claims.
Random comment, but I'm writing a post about not everything being a psyop and wanted to include this comment in the post. Would you mind if I did so? Just curious!
I'm on the fence about it. There are many other, more accurate videos about the clots, but this has quickly garnered 100x more views than all of the others combined. I'm not exactly sure why that is. Perhaps this is because of the sensational, high production presentation. But part of me thinks that the video is being boosted by the "wrong" people to "innoculate" the public against the truth: boosted precisely because it contains so many inaccuracies and crazy theories.
If this were true, it's unclear what the ultimate outcome of this trick would be.
First, there seem to be a lot of people who will take it in, regardless of how many debunking fact checks are out there. Who knows, maybe debunking fact checks serve as social proof.
Second, while there are a few errors and crazy theories, the errors and even the craziest parts of the story are still directionally accurate. Sure, some of the people who are shown collapsing did so before the vax, for other reasons, or didn't die. But that doesn't make the 1000's of real cases of sudden death go away. And, is the depopulation agenda really that crazy an idea? Yes, the quotes from Bill Gates about depopulation are taken out of context, but that doesn't mean that his ACTIONS are not leading to that outcome, perhaps intentionally.
Unfortunately, nobody who I want to wake up will ever be swayed by this or any other film or material. I do hope this wakes up some normies - if anyone who isn't balls deep in kool-aid sees this film, perhaps they will start to wonder if things are, in fact, very much not on the level.
The biggest problem is that criticisms of the vaccines still put us at a disadvantage, so why do this to disadvantage ourselves even further? It should have stuck with the blood clots discussion, provided some scientific evidence as to why there is some merit to this correlation, and if the depopulation needs adding to the documentary then you save it for the end to provide for a hypothetical why.
Instead, the conspiracies are just frontloaded and you've damaged someone's ability to watch the documentary without having their biases pop in. Someone who may have been slightly interested may have just been turned off, and may even made to assume that these claims are downright conspiratorial. There shouldn't have been things sprinkled in this documentary that would actively disincentivize people from wanting to view it with an open mind.
I agree 100% that I wish that they stuck with the clots and avoided anything that could be used to discredit. And your comment in general. Why didn't the vast amount of much better coverage of these topics catch on in this way, and only this extremely flawed version? Perhaps it's a psy-op that's purpose built to be debunked, and boosted for this purpose. Or is there some other factor in human nature that made this version so successful - I just don't know.
I'm usually of the mindset that not all things are psy-ops. I think that can become a heuristic method of assessing things. Rather, I think part of it stems from playing with social media algorithms and encouraging outlandish, clickbait styles of reporting and production.
There's this need by many of wanting THE ANSWER rather than looking at variables and contextualizing them, and seeing which ideas stand out. Watch the Water had that air of stumbling onto something novel that just works to explain everything going on. The only problem was that the explanations were heavily flawed, yet people ate it up because, for many, it just "seemed" correct.
It's a similar thing with the virus skeptics now. Some may be psy-ops, but when you have a large cohort of people who are COVID/vaccine skeptics then you have to differentiate yourself from the crowd. One way is to just offer the idea that viruses don't exist and grab that crowd, providing them with THE ANSWER to what's going on.
The fact that many people responded to the viral denialism as lifting this huge burden off of themselves just tells me that people wanted a simple explanation that didn't require them to think further. It doesn't mean that people who don't believe in viruses lack intelligence, or that there isn't some truth in some of their criticisms, but if the idea is to follow something that makes your thinking easier then you're not really thinking critically.
So this is likely to be a consequence of other factors that play off of gaming the algorithm and our need for wanting THE ANSWER, rather than having someone divert the whole discourse to discredit it.
I think this is an excellent point. It's certainly the case that not everything is a psy-op, although I do think that various actors, some nefarious, may choose to boost existing organic processes (someone pointed out that large amounts of youtube comments boosting "died suddenly" were suspiciously all-caps bottish comments).
I've had some lengthy discussions with no-virus people, who do seem to be real people. I like the idea that this is motivated from a desire to latch onto a simple solution. Also, the level of gaslighting and nonsense that has been coming from the authorities makes a conspiratorial explanation that much more compelling.. hence a simple solution based on "they are lying to us" is at least partly true. The real answers are indeed very complex.. and the supporting data is often pretty inadequate to prove things one way or the other.
With how big groups tend to get we shouldn't be surprised of nefarious actors or plants intended to discredit people. That's just state of affairs when one engages in group dynamics. It's sort of why I just try to take a more independent approach. I'll state ideas from people if I believe the ideas are good, but I try to avoid the idolatry that may come with bigger figures. A lot of people may be driven by ego and an inflated sense of pride and that can create it's own host of drama.
I don't even deny the fact that those could be bots. It appears relatively easy to release bots into the comments section. A weird one is the comment tree of people talking about investing and then posting a watsapp number (whatsapp? dunno, don't use it). That can get really freaky and hilarious to be honest.
There are certainly many people who are critical of viruses who are genuine in their beliefs, and I'm generally of the mindset that these people should be allowed to hold those beliefs. I think when you take and realize how much information we get bombarded with, most of them being negative, it has a very damaging effect on one's mental health. The end result may cause people to want to avoid this stress, and if one were to argue that viruses don't exist then that can help ease the mental stress and some of that cognitive dissonance that may be brewing. I've seen several people comment that they just felt enlightened or so relieved after not having to think about viruses anymore, and in the short term that may be beneficial but we should be careful in avoiding things for the sake of things being complicated. Rather, we should encourage more engagement and more mental challenges all the while being aware of when we are feeling burned out or mentally exhausted.
I think there's something interesting to be said about how much of Pasteur's work and Germ Theory should be reevaluated given our current understanding. Heck, there's been questions as to whether the daily dietary intake values are up to date as many of these came about during the early/mid 20th Century. But that doesn't mean we throw out all notions of dietary intake, but that it should be revised and audited given our current understanding.
I'm tired of trying to yell at people that is exactly what this is, a video designed from the start to be easily debunked and to paint the information as crazy conspiracy theories.
One example, all over youtube there were comments about seeing the DIED SUDDENLY movie.
Every time the video was mentioned it was in ALL CAPS. That's 100% unnatural and immediately tells us this was an orchestrated campaign.
I find it frustrating that you and others can clearly see how damaging this 'movie' is, and yet keep giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt, that somehow this established track record of making us look like loony-toons is some 'oopsie' mistake?
It's no mistake; that's the whole idea of it, to discredit the information and those sharing that video.
I responded to ForkInSocket with some of my perspective. It doesn't necessarily have to be a psy-op, although that doesn't mean the response to discredit it isn't farmed by bots. It definitely is an easy tell when something seems manufactured, like those series of comments on YouTube about investment and giving money to someone's WhatsApp, which always seems creepy to say the least.
I think it's likely that Stew Peters likes the fame. I've never heard of him before but now it's made himself a staple whose show everyone wants to get on. The fact that he tends to follow up his release of documentaries with some video on it going viral and view count leads me to believe these things are being driven partly by attention, and in some regard fame.
I didn't mean to add frustration to your life. I do see what you're saying and generally agree with the hypothesis that this is a psy-op - that was my first thought and I generally dislike Stew Peters and his work as being counterproductive. I just am asking if it's possible there is another explanation: that the producers have learned that their carelessness works somehow; or perhaps more importantly, if it is possible that this psy-op could backfire.
I've generally come to the conclusion that there are powerful efforts afoot using principles and science of psychology, and perhaps heavily using AI techniques, that leverage bot networks on social media to seed and drive narratives in ways that most people do not "see". This technology can certainly be used to boost certain online artifacts, create narratives, create illusory consensus, etc.
But is it possible the AI can get it wrong? Can it make a mistake? Can human nature in the wild evolve to mount a defense against it? Are there chinks in its armor, such as not being able to "learn" quickly enough, or to get settled into a particular model of human behavior which then evolves out from under it? I guess, as a human, I hope above hope that we collectively can evolve around the AI attack, which would otherwise be an unstoppable juggernaut.
I do have hope for this because the defining feature of human created technology and artifacts is the inability to adapt to changing conditions, in some way. Human technology has a brief history, while biological evolution has a very long history and carries with it many unused parts of past designs, plus an ability to re-assemble on the fly to adapt to new environments. Just as our immune systems defeat the virus that the so-called "vaccine" cannot, so perhaps humanity, or what will be left of it, will live to fight another day after the server farms burn down.
I'm hopeful because we have no other alternative.
So yeah, Stew Peters looks a lot like a psy-op, and probably is one .... but maybe it will have unintended consequences?
Of course! I tend to run afoul of the "near email length" conundrum but then I read some of your works and realize I can't be the only one having that issue!
I think it's good to be rather diplomatic, but I suppose at some point we need to be rather critical of some of the work being put out. As I stated in my post, it's one thing if this was Peters' first go at a documentary, but this comes after the controversies surrounding Watch the Water, which has been criticized by many even within the COVID Skeptic community.
Given that, I find it a bit difficult for me to look at Died Suddenly independent of the mistakes from Watch the Water, but to then see a few of them repeated raises serious issues in vetting of the information (to be honest, all of Dr. Ardis' claims should have been vetting for Watch the Water).
And again, in your post you provide some evidence as to how this blood clotting mechanism may occur, which is lacking in the documentary and requires that the viewers buy into a rather tenuous association alone that unfortunately weakens the argument being made.
But I suppose this is more of my ramblings. I do appreciate that you provide a ton of context in your article since it really is needed if we are to figure out many of the issues going on with the vaccines.
I haven't looked too deeply into the blood clots myself but the documentary did raise some questions. One thing I would like addressed by someone is to the extent that these calamari-like structures would go unnoticed. I find it rather difficult to see such structures and not assume some negative physiological changes beforehand, especially given how large, long, and pervasive these things appear to be.
But again, my knowledge is very poor on blood clot formation so I will relegate much of my awareness to others for the time being!
When I watched the movie initially I thought it was persuasive but asked myself "why are you making these sensationalist claims which will innevitably be disproven (e.g. this won't destroy our entire military or end pregnancies)?" I admit I also felt a bit burned after I realized that the clip. they put in was from an unrelated surgery.
My basic perspective on all of this is that things will only change if everyone works together and there is way too much infighting because people want to tear other people down to promote their brand (this is a big reason why I'm anonymous; it gives an exemption from all of that as the points I put out are just the point and aren't tied to specific person). So as best as I can, I am trying to encourage people to work together and not attack each other.
From the informing polling I and readers have done of embalmers, this does appear to be a real thing they aren't wanting to speak about.
Part of me suspects that the need to sensationalize and get people to click supersedes the need for journalistic integrity. Like I stated, it's one thing to produce some inaccuracies and come back to correct them, it's another to double down and create an us/them divide. More telling than Watch the Water was the follow-up interview in which Ardis made such statements, which Stew Peters and Jane Ruby then support. It's the same comments Jane Ruby makes in the October 28th interview criticizing those who don't stand with Ardis, and yet all the while I'm confused as to why much of Ardis' claims were never criticized.
Samantha Gluck points to an interesting idea, and I think there's almost a pervasive need to be nice rather than to criticize each other's work and have the best ideas come to light. One criticism I've had of some of these presentations put out by the FLCCC is that someone generally presents their argument, they all talk about how significant it is, then move on to the next one without so much as looking at the cited studies and asking to go into details or to raise some good-faith criticisms. So instead everyone gets patted on the back and I'm left having to read some of the studies myself to figure out what's really going on.
And I don't want this to seem like a huge critique of the FLCCC or Team Skeptic. There's a lot of good work that's being done, but we should also be careful in making sure that studies aren't presented in a definitive manner and rather are given with context and nuance. Make sure that our ends are tightened so that our enemies can't use them as points of contention.
I would like to hear more information. If true it's rather damning and is in immediate need of investigating. At the same time, I do understand some skepticism that comes about when there's a good deal of trust needed in having someone state that they've been made aware of these phenomena without being provided evidence, hence a reason why we need more people to speak up and to substantiate these claims.
What is really frustrating for me is the immense lack of knowledge many pundits are demonstrating.
Using the water example...how on earth could you possibly produce sufficient amounts of the spike protein to poison the water supply (that stuff is expensive, e.g. we only buy small amounts for research, and breaks down in the presence of chlorine).
Similarly, I heard Malone be yelled at for choosing to speak out on this issue rather than going back to his lab and creating an antidote for the mRNA poison he unleashed on the world when the reality is doing that is most likely far more difficult than creating the mRNA spike protein vaccines and not something a few individuals regardless of their experience or knowledge could develop and bring through clinical trials.
I am in a really unique position where I have a lot of unique ideas I can present that draws an audience (most people don't have that so they need to sensationalize what is already available for the lime light) and an audience which is patient enough to read through the longer and more nuanced perspective I share. All of that is very rare and makes me very fortunate (since my primary goal is to present information I care about).
The present dynamic worries me because the fact that people like this can get a lot of airtime will cause the legitimate people who can credibly sway a lot of the public to be very hesitant to become involved with this movement.
I agree with you Modern that there comes a point where we must just say it as it flows out of our minds. But, there are ways of doing that, which makes criticisms of something like Peters’ doc easier to take for some. People who are fans of his, or people who just don’t like “mean words (🙄)”
My latest post (I’m new, so I don’t have many) is about being nice vs. being kind. Nice is actually rooted in self-interest and a desire to keep peace at all costs. But to be kind means to thoughtfully articulate truth...and that isn’t always easy, as you probably know. People don’t always appreciate truth, but it must be said anyway.
I’m not a fan of just blurting things out without regard to wording, etc. It always astonishes me when I’m out running errands and happen upon a car (ALWAYS driven by a female) with one of those bumper stickers saying, “Queen B*tch” or simply, “B*tch.” Seriously? I wouldn’t bet one of my chickens that these women are single. Haha
A very interesting though experiment, to be honest. I responded to AMD about there being an issue in Team Skeptic being nice and not really criticizing each other's work, when in reality we should encourage some form of auditing to allow the good ideas to flourish.
My take on nice and kind is that being nice is telling someone they look good, being kind is telling someone that looks horrible and they should change or else they'll be mocked. Okay, that's probably not an articulate way of approaching but there is probably something there...probably...
Well that's just the aggressive state of things now. No longer do we have the coexist bumper stickers we need to be abrasive to the strangers we cut off!
You are absolutely right about the auditing, of sorts, of Team Skeptic. I’m good with criticism and, at times, the critical commentary (my work elsewhere -- I’m kinda new here) has been so insightful that, after research, it changed my trajectory somewhat.
Of course, those receiving the “audit notes” must be willing to truly consider what people say. And then there’s those who are objectively in their commentary.
You are right about nice and kind. Also...I didn’t address this in my post, but another distinction is that one can have a nice car, nice house, nice watch -- but the word kind doesn’t apply to those things, unless of course one is asking what KIND of watch you have.
You WERE very diplomatic, Doctor. I already thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles, but my respect for you (which was already considerable) increased greatly due to the way you handled that topic.
No good can come of it. It can too easily be debunked by the "experts" as misinformation, even though like almost all calculated misinformation, it contains some truth.
It can potentially be used to discredit those who support it for legitimate reasons, while discussing its shortcomings through their writings. But these writings will not be read by such a large audience as this film is intended to reach.
In other words, it both reveals the clot issue truth, which may become undeniable, and makes the "cause" argument seem unprofessional.
It is a rather messy issue. I have some questions about the general pervasive nature of the blood clots, but I'm open to hearing evidence and discussions in regards to it. But that's not what this documentary presents, and rather just states this as being definitive yet not backing up their arguments.
I did not share the video for a few different reasons, although I don't have much trouble with others sharing it if they are so inclined. Here are a few of the reasons I did not share it:
1) A shock factor is definitely there to grab attention, but with no explanation of whether it applies to those who have been infected or rather the shots being a catalyst, and/or which types of shots. Also with it being shocking, there's no suggested solutions to fixing the problem, testing for clots, or detoxing, when some protocols and tests already exist.
2) Simply describing the clots as fibrous seemed like more detailed information was missing. What is the actual composition of the clots, what other blood analysis was performed? Were any similar clots found in unvaxxed or absolutely none?
3) I think by broadcasting to the public, it could be easy for children to accidentally see. I don't think it's appropriate for children.
I can't remember if I saw erroneous information; however, there was something I saw questionable and I'm pretty sure incorrect in "Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion", but it did not stop me from sharing the film because the main points on their own were worthy to be seen and outweighed one questionable point.
There are many other videos/theories that with a little more work I could test for myself, but I haven't gotten around to it yet, so I can't form an opinion just yet.
As for whether I believe there was a real intent for all or some of the mRNA shots to actually contain mRNA, I lean toward there is effort there to. Reason being I see them wanting to experiment with the technology and see what happens. I see them wanting/testing to sequence mRNA to approximate the closest or exact spike protein, and seeing what the results would be of that exact or approximation in all sorts of people because all sorts of people could potentially benefit. However, the way it's been implemented has not been ethical.
In all, I appreciate the different angles taken to bring different topics to light. The fact checkers like to say "partly false" but I feel that means "mostly true" and there is some merit in those truths.
Very good points Lee. I'll try to include some of my perspective for some of what you mentioned.
1) Usually documentaries should at least provide some solutions, or at least be rather informative. Instead, it doesn't do much of both. It presents a catastrophic scenario and a sense of helplessness and doom. In all honestly, this can be an issue on both sides when the intention to sell fear is more important than informing and providing nuanced opinions.
2) One thing I would argue about the blood clots is that they suffer from a broad, all-encompassing approach. It's not hard to see someone post something going, "hey, this article is about blood clots. Could this be related to the vaccines?!"
I mean, yes, but also maybe not?
This sort of appears to happen quite often. I also have superficial knowledge of blood clots, but when we're describing huge, widespread fibrous tissues shouldn't something physiological be recognized beforehand? Such huge occlusions not manifesting in some degree seems rather strange, especially if the argument is that these people died suddenly or were perfectly healthy.
My knowledge of some forms of blood clots is when they detach from larger blood vessels and become lodged in smaller ones leading to the occlusion and resulting damage. I can't quite wrap my head around the fact that these things are so pervasive and yet unnoticed to a significant degree, unless we are led to believe that their onset comes on suddenly as well. There's an argument that these are different than typical blood clots, but an occlusions should present with something at least, and it would be nice to see an explanation as to these giant blood clots going unnoticed until the event occurs.
Oh, I must admit I haven't watched that yet. More important than incorrect information is whether they are addressed, and this is another place where this issue tends to persist. I don't think I've seen major corrections being addressed from Watch the Water and instead are being doubled down on instead.
I liked "Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion" better than "Died Suddenly", "Uninformed Consent" and "The Real Anthony Fauci". All provide some good takeaways though. I tried to watch "Watch the Water" but only skimmed. I consider Stew Peters a host and investigator. I think it's great that he's open to hearing the different things people have to say. Maybe each person holds a piece to this puzzle.
Stew Peters mysteriously showed up just as the pandemic started with a high-production Internet "TV show" poised to take over the vacuum of InfoWars, which had been booted off of almost every platform. Stew combines "news," a parody of MAGA culture, and a dash of Alex Jones in a slick and alarmist way...in fact, he's probably way more hyperbolic, hysterical, and crazy than even Alex Jones in terms of actual content...he just presents it all more calmly. In a nutshell, no, I don't trust him.
I watched most of Died Suddenly (and will write a review soon), but as soon as the production started with the Bigfoot crapola, I suspected that this documentary was designed to HURT the cause more than help. Also, did they actually get permission from Pink Floyd's record company to use Animals for the theme song? If they did, then that's suspicious in and of itself.
I was never made aware of Stew aside from finding out about Watch the Water. I don't know how long he's been around, but I can see why the need to stand out among the crowd with rather outlandish claims is how he rose to prominence. If we are to argue a psy-op occurring, I would have considered Watch the Water to be the better pick given that it would have been the first go at a documentary and that reached nearly 8 million views and yet had some of the strangest claims made.
I wasn't sure what the song was (I'm showing my age!) but in hearing it I immediately assumed that copyright and fair use issues would come about. I guess it makes sense given that the title was psychedelic.
I suppose the issue now is figuring out what would be considered worse. Would it be worse if this was a psy-op intended to hurt Team Skeptic, or would it be worse if this was actually a genuine documentary that obfuscated a good bit of journalistic integrity for clout and going viral?
Good questions...but seriously, stop what you are doing and go listen to the whole album Animals by Pink Floyd. It's really eerie but actually kind of fitting for these times with its dystopian nature.
Thank you! The phrase Calamari Clot is owed to Bret Weinstein from the included podcast episode, but if it appears on a band shirt I wouldn't be too surprised. It's a heck of a name!
It's only mentioned at the tail-end of the podcast where my timestamp was, so it's not a super long portion of the podcast. Most of the podcast was dedicated to the concept of getting things wrong and reworking ideas.
I prefer that Died Suddenly exists than not. If there's anything like modern society still around after this era, they will use this era as the new "never again." So any documentation that there was some awareness of "things are crazy" is the best we can probably hope to leave behind to show for ourselves.
It was a bit funny that they threw in the footage of at least two collapsers who are still alive, though.
I'm generally of the mindset that we fight bad ideas with good ideas, and therefore all ideas should be allowed.
Died Suddenly can have its place in the public discourse, but at the same time this isn't Stew Peters first go at a documentary. Like I stated, there are plenty of issues with this documentary that came about in Watch the Water, such as the sensationalist nature and the lack of having people to vet information. No questions or criticisms were brought forth by the interviewees to at least play devil's advocate. At least provide some pushback. Rather, the substance was really missing in this documentary and relied heavily on the visuals to push that pathos button.
And again, the fact that Stew Peters hasn't and his group haven't really addressed the criticisms of Watch the Water to a significant degree is rather telling. If you listen to the October 28th interview with Jane Ruby you see that Ardis is given all of the reins over the interview while Ruby just agrees with what he says and compliments Ardis. So it's again more doubling down on these ideas that have been criticized, and this makes me generally concerned that the issues with Died Suddenly won't be properly addressed in the future.
Has anyone here in substack issued corrections for milder outlandish claims - OAS, worry window, etc etc? Recognizing good ideas is just a recipe for inconveniencing the crowd/boss/whoever-pleasers. So they won't have that.
Being right about certain things is just my way of demonstrating that I resisted the mind-hijack. Being outlandishly wrong is Peters'.
No, and that is its own issue. The battle over good ideas require that we rework older hypotheses in lieu of new evidence, rather than build upon an already precarious foundation.
You've heard me several times, (and unfortunately I'll state it again here!) that Alex Berenson's initial reporting of OAS has unfortunately tainted the discourse, so now people are wandering around looking at anti-N antibodies, or now assuming that the thing that has kept us alive for so long i.e. the machinations of our immune system are now actually a detriment to our survival. I mean, just a few weeks ago a study came out suggesting ADE may occur with some of the monoclonal antibodies in use, and the assessment of that study just led people to assume that monoclonals are purely dangerous.
I'm not sure what you meant with the Peters' comment, but I do agree he has a tendency to be very wrong! But I also suppose it doesn't help when his team doesn't appear to put in any effort to push back or play devil's advocate. I'm not sure if you watched the October 28th interview but the fact that Jane Ruby just believes everything Ardis states it's frustrating.
I mean, he references a BMJ article and stops midsentence when quoting the following:
"Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common..."
When the entire sentence is the following:
"Despite inherent differences, Snakebite Envenoming and COVID-19 have much in common in terms of research and development (R&D) challenges and opportunities."
The article wasn't associating snake venom and COVID via some biochemical mechanisms, but suggesting that the allocation of resources and regulatory approval during COVID should be something that should be seen for snakebites, especially as it relates to poorer countries and "inequity".
But I suppose that's besides the point. Like I stated above I can make a whole separate article dedicated to breaking down that interview. The main issue is that Peters' team just doesn't appear to put in any leg work to examine the information and it's telling for anyone who even dips their toe into some of the literature provided.
So I suppose I'm a bit frustrated with the lack of at least attempting to correct issues, and seeing how this happens in other circles just means that there's constant muddying of signal and noise.
BMJ article:
https://gh.bmj.com/content/6/10/e006913
I've tried to present both sides of the OAS debate, and so has Modern Discontent.
I was being a bit inaccurate for brevity. While OAS is not real in general, I mean specifically the claims that the vaxxed wouldn't be able to make antibodies to anything but Wuhan. Ok, Omicrons come around, the vaxxed are making Omicron antibodies just fine. Yet follow-up on this is crickets. To be fair, no one really cares about the question anymore and everyone is looking for what is the next way to drive up subs. So it's the same level of rigor in most substacks as in SPN.
That was my general take of your comment Brian, in that people who present a hypothesis may not rework their hypothesis in lieu of new, contradictory evidence (I think I stated that above). I'll be honest and say it is a pretty big issue. I think a lack of auditing each other's work can be rather dangerous as we have tons of hypotheses circulating yet no cohesiveness to them. Paired with a need to be popular and becoming beholden to your viewers for the next outlandish thing and we just keep moving away from scientific integrity to what drives clicks and views.
I'm not sure if it's fair to say no-one cares about the question anymore...for me, I've got too many things to write about that I never get around to. I think the last time I even got into the issue was in July, here: https://wholistic.substack.com/p/evidence-of-immune-escape-geert-was
I also don't have time to keep up with all the more detailed analysis, like at your Substack, even though I'd like to.
On my end, however, I'm not here just to focus on the hard science of covid or covid vaccines. I'm more attempting to do cultural analysis and commentary on the issue. I do try to find a balance between writing with enough urgency that people resonate vs. getting too hyperbolic. It's a fine line since clearly I see a lot of Substacks with less substantive writing get a lot more likes simply because they are full-bore "depopulation" conspiracy theory and I still like to ascribe a lot of the motives as being simple greed and CYA (cover your ass) psychology.
And I can be too moderate...I think I lost some people when I suggested that Novavax was probably going to be safer. Some readers want you to be all 100% anti-vaxx.
The thing I would say about BA5 and beyond is that they are mutating thanks to immunity to BA.1 and BA.2 which is generated by everybody finally getting infected, not by the injections. This will be discussed a bit in part 2 of my current post where in a twist ending I declare that some SARS-CoV-2 mutation does appear to be natural and immune-mediated.
*edit: Ah, it is funny that the bottom of your post ties it back to antibiotic resistance. So that is exactly why I targeted both vanden Bossche and antibiotic resistance in part 1 of my post. All part of pop science training us to expect things that don't have consistent evidence.
I wouldn't say people have stopped caring about the question, but for a few it's not worth the time and effort to attempt to correct something that may get few views or traction. I may write about the recency vs primacy effect and how the primacy effect really biases one's assumptions and ideas, but as for OAS and topics such as that it's easier to just make comments and move on than it is to go back and address/provide corrections. I think this creates its own issues.
I think Bret's recent comments on his podcast are something worth considering. He comments how all vaccines are inherently unsafe, but through rigorous testing and training we tend to come out with the safer options (my paraphrasing so don't directly ascribe them to Bret). The issue falls along the paradigm of safe vs effective, and we need to argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. We can certainly suggest that all of the vaccines are less safe than they are being presented, and this may lead a few people to point to black/white thinking rather than relative thinking. Maybe Novavax is still not very safe, but it may be safER than other vaccines out there.
People should be able to post what they like and open the discourse without having closed ears, otherwise we are just in our own echo chambers.
It may be a separate question, but I thought that the effectiveness of the bivalent booster vs. omicron was actually found to be less than that of the original flavor booster? Although if true, the reason for this may be more complex than "OAS". Maybe it's more about the difference between the response to the real virus vs. the vaccine.
Repost because edit was being wonky.
Results have been equivocal; there is just a reporting bias for the first two papers which found poor anti-4/5 response. Other papers using live virus (instead of pseudovirus) found better relative response. I'll let Topol do my leg-work here https://erictopol.substack.com/p/new-booster-data-and-variants-galore
But the whole thing could be a coincidence relating to more product quality issues. So when you take an inconsistent delivery system and repeat it 4 times you make up for blanks or low doses, vs 1 repeat for the Omi spike.
Meanwhile the Pfizer and Moderna trials are using more regulated product and that could be why they keep pre-publishing impressive claims.
Random comment, but I'm writing a post about not everything being a psyop and wanted to include this comment in the post. Would you mind if I did so? Just curious!
Which part? The first part was more like "getting real in the comments" talk, haha. The second I am fine with being quoted
Well, never mind I suppose I shall speak vaguely on certain topics!
I'm on the fence about it. There are many other, more accurate videos about the clots, but this has quickly garnered 100x more views than all of the others combined. I'm not exactly sure why that is. Perhaps this is because of the sensational, high production presentation. But part of me thinks that the video is being boosted by the "wrong" people to "innoculate" the public against the truth: boosted precisely because it contains so many inaccuracies and crazy theories.
If this were true, it's unclear what the ultimate outcome of this trick would be.
First, there seem to be a lot of people who will take it in, regardless of how many debunking fact checks are out there. Who knows, maybe debunking fact checks serve as social proof.
Second, while there are a few errors and crazy theories, the errors and even the craziest parts of the story are still directionally accurate. Sure, some of the people who are shown collapsing did so before the vax, for other reasons, or didn't die. But that doesn't make the 1000's of real cases of sudden death go away. And, is the depopulation agenda really that crazy an idea? Yes, the quotes from Bill Gates about depopulation are taken out of context, but that doesn't mean that his ACTIONS are not leading to that outcome, perhaps intentionally.
Unfortunately, nobody who I want to wake up will ever be swayed by this or any other film or material. I do hope this wakes up some normies - if anyone who isn't balls deep in kool-aid sees this film, perhaps they will start to wonder if things are, in fact, very much not on the level.
The biggest problem is that criticisms of the vaccines still put us at a disadvantage, so why do this to disadvantage ourselves even further? It should have stuck with the blood clots discussion, provided some scientific evidence as to why there is some merit to this correlation, and if the depopulation needs adding to the documentary then you save it for the end to provide for a hypothetical why.
Instead, the conspiracies are just frontloaded and you've damaged someone's ability to watch the documentary without having their biases pop in. Someone who may have been slightly interested may have just been turned off, and may even made to assume that these claims are downright conspiratorial. There shouldn't have been things sprinkled in this documentary that would actively disincentivize people from wanting to view it with an open mind.
I agree 100% that I wish that they stuck with the clots and avoided anything that could be used to discredit. And your comment in general. Why didn't the vast amount of much better coverage of these topics catch on in this way, and only this extremely flawed version? Perhaps it's a psy-op that's purpose built to be debunked, and boosted for this purpose. Or is there some other factor in human nature that made this version so successful - I just don't know.
I'm usually of the mindset that not all things are psy-ops. I think that can become a heuristic method of assessing things. Rather, I think part of it stems from playing with social media algorithms and encouraging outlandish, clickbait styles of reporting and production.
There's this need by many of wanting THE ANSWER rather than looking at variables and contextualizing them, and seeing which ideas stand out. Watch the Water had that air of stumbling onto something novel that just works to explain everything going on. The only problem was that the explanations were heavily flawed, yet people ate it up because, for many, it just "seemed" correct.
It's a similar thing with the virus skeptics now. Some may be psy-ops, but when you have a large cohort of people who are COVID/vaccine skeptics then you have to differentiate yourself from the crowd. One way is to just offer the idea that viruses don't exist and grab that crowd, providing them with THE ANSWER to what's going on.
The fact that many people responded to the viral denialism as lifting this huge burden off of themselves just tells me that people wanted a simple explanation that didn't require them to think further. It doesn't mean that people who don't believe in viruses lack intelligence, or that there isn't some truth in some of their criticisms, but if the idea is to follow something that makes your thinking easier then you're not really thinking critically.
So this is likely to be a consequence of other factors that play off of gaming the algorithm and our need for wanting THE ANSWER, rather than having someone divert the whole discourse to discredit it.
I think this is an excellent point. It's certainly the case that not everything is a psy-op, although I do think that various actors, some nefarious, may choose to boost existing organic processes (someone pointed out that large amounts of youtube comments boosting "died suddenly" were suspiciously all-caps bottish comments).
I've had some lengthy discussions with no-virus people, who do seem to be real people. I like the idea that this is motivated from a desire to latch onto a simple solution. Also, the level of gaslighting and nonsense that has been coming from the authorities makes a conspiratorial explanation that much more compelling.. hence a simple solution based on "they are lying to us" is at least partly true. The real answers are indeed very complex.. and the supporting data is often pretty inadequate to prove things one way or the other.
With how big groups tend to get we shouldn't be surprised of nefarious actors or plants intended to discredit people. That's just state of affairs when one engages in group dynamics. It's sort of why I just try to take a more independent approach. I'll state ideas from people if I believe the ideas are good, but I try to avoid the idolatry that may come with bigger figures. A lot of people may be driven by ego and an inflated sense of pride and that can create it's own host of drama.
I don't even deny the fact that those could be bots. It appears relatively easy to release bots into the comments section. A weird one is the comment tree of people talking about investing and then posting a watsapp number (whatsapp? dunno, don't use it). That can get really freaky and hilarious to be honest.
There are certainly many people who are critical of viruses who are genuine in their beliefs, and I'm generally of the mindset that these people should be allowed to hold those beliefs. I think when you take and realize how much information we get bombarded with, most of them being negative, it has a very damaging effect on one's mental health. The end result may cause people to want to avoid this stress, and if one were to argue that viruses don't exist then that can help ease the mental stress and some of that cognitive dissonance that may be brewing. I've seen several people comment that they just felt enlightened or so relieved after not having to think about viruses anymore, and in the short term that may be beneficial but we should be careful in avoiding things for the sake of things being complicated. Rather, we should encourage more engagement and more mental challenges all the while being aware of when we are feeling burned out or mentally exhausted.
I think there's something interesting to be said about how much of Pasteur's work and Germ Theory should be reevaluated given our current understanding. Heck, there's been questions as to whether the daily dietary intake values are up to date as many of these came about during the early/mid 20th Century. But that doesn't mean we throw out all notions of dietary intake, but that it should be revised and audited given our current understanding.
I'm tired of trying to yell at people that is exactly what this is, a video designed from the start to be easily debunked and to paint the information as crazy conspiracy theories.
One example, all over youtube there were comments about seeing the DIED SUDDENLY movie.
Every time the video was mentioned it was in ALL CAPS. That's 100% unnatural and immediately tells us this was an orchestrated campaign.
I find it frustrating that you and others can clearly see how damaging this 'movie' is, and yet keep giving these clowns the benefit of the doubt, that somehow this established track record of making us look like loony-toons is some 'oopsie' mistake?
It's no mistake; that's the whole idea of it, to discredit the information and those sharing that video.
I responded to ForkInSocket with some of my perspective. It doesn't necessarily have to be a psy-op, although that doesn't mean the response to discredit it isn't farmed by bots. It definitely is an easy tell when something seems manufactured, like those series of comments on YouTube about investment and giving money to someone's WhatsApp, which always seems creepy to say the least.
I think it's likely that Stew Peters likes the fame. I've never heard of him before but now it's made himself a staple whose show everyone wants to get on. The fact that he tends to follow up his release of documentaries with some video on it going viral and view count leads me to believe these things are being driven partly by attention, and in some regard fame.
I didn't mean to add frustration to your life. I do see what you're saying and generally agree with the hypothesis that this is a psy-op - that was my first thought and I generally dislike Stew Peters and his work as being counterproductive. I just am asking if it's possible there is another explanation: that the producers have learned that their carelessness works somehow; or perhaps more importantly, if it is possible that this psy-op could backfire.
I've generally come to the conclusion that there are powerful efforts afoot using principles and science of psychology, and perhaps heavily using AI techniques, that leverage bot networks on social media to seed and drive narratives in ways that most people do not "see". This technology can certainly be used to boost certain online artifacts, create narratives, create illusory consensus, etc.
But is it possible the AI can get it wrong? Can it make a mistake? Can human nature in the wild evolve to mount a defense against it? Are there chinks in its armor, such as not being able to "learn" quickly enough, or to get settled into a particular model of human behavior which then evolves out from under it? I guess, as a human, I hope above hope that we collectively can evolve around the AI attack, which would otherwise be an unstoppable juggernaut.
I do have hope for this because the defining feature of human created technology and artifacts is the inability to adapt to changing conditions, in some way. Human technology has a brief history, while biological evolution has a very long history and carries with it many unused parts of past designs, plus an ability to re-assemble on the fly to adapt to new environments. Just as our immune systems defeat the virus that the so-called "vaccine" cannot, so perhaps humanity, or what will be left of it, will live to fight another day after the server farms burn down.
I'm hopeful because we have no other alternative.
So yeah, Stew Peters looks a lot like a psy-op, and probably is one .... but maybe it will have unintended consequences?
Thanks for linking my post!
I put quite a bit of thought into the most diplomatic way to convey the point when I wrote that.
Of course! I tend to run afoul of the "near email length" conundrum but then I read some of your works and realize I can't be the only one having that issue!
I think it's good to be rather diplomatic, but I suppose at some point we need to be rather critical of some of the work being put out. As I stated in my post, it's one thing if this was Peters' first go at a documentary, but this comes after the controversies surrounding Watch the Water, which has been criticized by many even within the COVID Skeptic community.
Given that, I find it a bit difficult for me to look at Died Suddenly independent of the mistakes from Watch the Water, but to then see a few of them repeated raises serious issues in vetting of the information (to be honest, all of Dr. Ardis' claims should have been vetting for Watch the Water).
And again, in your post you provide some evidence as to how this blood clotting mechanism may occur, which is lacking in the documentary and requires that the viewers buy into a rather tenuous association alone that unfortunately weakens the argument being made.
But I suppose this is more of my ramblings. I do appreciate that you provide a ton of context in your article since it really is needed if we are to figure out many of the issues going on with the vaccines.
I haven't looked too deeply into the blood clots myself but the documentary did raise some questions. One thing I would like addressed by someone is to the extent that these calamari-like structures would go unnoticed. I find it rather difficult to see such structures and not assume some negative physiological changes beforehand, especially given how large, long, and pervasive these things appear to be.
But again, my knowledge is very poor on blood clot formation so I will relegate much of my awareness to others for the time being!
When I watched the movie initially I thought it was persuasive but asked myself "why are you making these sensationalist claims which will innevitably be disproven (e.g. this won't destroy our entire military or end pregnancies)?" I admit I also felt a bit burned after I realized that the clip. they put in was from an unrelated surgery.
My basic perspective on all of this is that things will only change if everyone works together and there is way too much infighting because people want to tear other people down to promote their brand (this is a big reason why I'm anonymous; it gives an exemption from all of that as the points I put out are just the point and aren't tied to specific person). So as best as I can, I am trying to encourage people to work together and not attack each other.
From the informing polling I and readers have done of embalmers, this does appear to be a real thing they aren't wanting to speak about.
Part of me suspects that the need to sensationalize and get people to click supersedes the need for journalistic integrity. Like I stated, it's one thing to produce some inaccuracies and come back to correct them, it's another to double down and create an us/them divide. More telling than Watch the Water was the follow-up interview in which Ardis made such statements, which Stew Peters and Jane Ruby then support. It's the same comments Jane Ruby makes in the October 28th interview criticizing those who don't stand with Ardis, and yet all the while I'm confused as to why much of Ardis' claims were never criticized.
Samantha Gluck points to an interesting idea, and I think there's almost a pervasive need to be nice rather than to criticize each other's work and have the best ideas come to light. One criticism I've had of some of these presentations put out by the FLCCC is that someone generally presents their argument, they all talk about how significant it is, then move on to the next one without so much as looking at the cited studies and asking to go into details or to raise some good-faith criticisms. So instead everyone gets patted on the back and I'm left having to read some of the studies myself to figure out what's really going on.
And I don't want this to seem like a huge critique of the FLCCC or Team Skeptic. There's a lot of good work that's being done, but we should also be careful in making sure that studies aren't presented in a definitive manner and rather are given with context and nuance. Make sure that our ends are tightened so that our enemies can't use them as points of contention.
I would like to hear more information. If true it's rather damning and is in immediate need of investigating. At the same time, I do understand some skepticism that comes about when there's a good deal of trust needed in having someone state that they've been made aware of these phenomena without being provided evidence, hence a reason why we need more people to speak up and to substantiate these claims.
What is really frustrating for me is the immense lack of knowledge many pundits are demonstrating.
Using the water example...how on earth could you possibly produce sufficient amounts of the spike protein to poison the water supply (that stuff is expensive, e.g. we only buy small amounts for research, and breaks down in the presence of chlorine).
Similarly, I heard Malone be yelled at for choosing to speak out on this issue rather than going back to his lab and creating an antidote for the mRNA poison he unleashed on the world when the reality is doing that is most likely far more difficult than creating the mRNA spike protein vaccines and not something a few individuals regardless of their experience or knowledge could develop and bring through clinical trials.
I am in a really unique position where I have a lot of unique ideas I can present that draws an audience (most people don't have that so they need to sensationalize what is already available for the lime light) and an audience which is patient enough to read through the longer and more nuanced perspective I share. All of that is very rare and makes me very fortunate (since my primary goal is to present information I care about).
The present dynamic worries me because the fact that people like this can get a lot of airtime will cause the legitimate people who can credibly sway a lot of the public to be very hesitant to become involved with this movement.
I agree with you Modern that there comes a point where we must just say it as it flows out of our minds. But, there are ways of doing that, which makes criticisms of something like Peters’ doc easier to take for some. People who are fans of his, or people who just don’t like “mean words (🙄)”
My latest post (I’m new, so I don’t have many) is about being nice vs. being kind. Nice is actually rooted in self-interest and a desire to keep peace at all costs. But to be kind means to thoughtfully articulate truth...and that isn’t always easy, as you probably know. People don’t always appreciate truth, but it must be said anyway.
I’m not a fan of just blurting things out without regard to wording, etc. It always astonishes me when I’m out running errands and happen upon a car (ALWAYS driven by a female) with one of those bumper stickers saying, “Queen B*tch” or simply, “B*tch.” Seriously? I wouldn’t bet one of my chickens that these women are single. Haha
A very interesting though experiment, to be honest. I responded to AMD about there being an issue in Team Skeptic being nice and not really criticizing each other's work, when in reality we should encourage some form of auditing to allow the good ideas to flourish.
My take on nice and kind is that being nice is telling someone they look good, being kind is telling someone that looks horrible and they should change or else they'll be mocked. Okay, that's probably not an articulate way of approaching but there is probably something there...probably...
Well that's just the aggressive state of things now. No longer do we have the coexist bumper stickers we need to be abrasive to the strangers we cut off!
You are absolutely right about the auditing, of sorts, of Team Skeptic. I’m good with criticism and, at times, the critical commentary (my work elsewhere -- I’m kinda new here) has been so insightful that, after research, it changed my trajectory somewhat.
Of course, those receiving the “audit notes” must be willing to truly consider what people say. And then there’s those who are objectively in their commentary.
You are right about nice and kind. Also...I didn’t address this in my post, but another distinction is that one can have a nice car, nice house, nice watch -- but the word kind doesn’t apply to those things, unless of course one is asking what KIND of watch you have.
You WERE very diplomatic, Doctor. I already thoroughly enjoyed reading your articles, but my respect for you (which was already considerable) increased greatly due to the way you handled that topic.
Thank you : )
See the reply I just gave above to Modern Discontent.
https://youtu.be/ANmkIIxCQCw
This video by DrBeen from 9 months ago illustrates the research papers which explain the process of abnormal clot formation.
https://wmcresearch.substack.com/p/a-paper-published-in-july-strongly?utm_medium=email
And this is another explanation for died suddenly.
Thank you for the links! I'll look through them and see how to contextualize them at a different point.
No good can come of it. It can too easily be debunked by the "experts" as misinformation, even though like almost all calculated misinformation, it contains some truth.
It can potentially be used to discredit those who support it for legitimate reasons, while discussing its shortcomings through their writings. But these writings will not be read by such a large audience as this film is intended to reach.
In other words, it both reveals the clot issue truth, which may become undeniable, and makes the "cause" argument seem unprofessional.
It is a rather messy issue. I have some questions about the general pervasive nature of the blood clots, but I'm open to hearing evidence and discussions in regards to it. But that's not what this documentary presents, and rather just states this as being definitive yet not backing up their arguments.
I did not share the video for a few different reasons, although I don't have much trouble with others sharing it if they are so inclined. Here are a few of the reasons I did not share it:
1) A shock factor is definitely there to grab attention, but with no explanation of whether it applies to those who have been infected or rather the shots being a catalyst, and/or which types of shots. Also with it being shocking, there's no suggested solutions to fixing the problem, testing for clots, or detoxing, when some protocols and tests already exist.
2) Simply describing the clots as fibrous seemed like more detailed information was missing. What is the actual composition of the clots, what other blood analysis was performed? Were any similar clots found in unvaxxed or absolutely none?
3) I think by broadcasting to the public, it could be easy for children to accidentally see. I don't think it's appropriate for children.
I can't remember if I saw erroneous information; however, there was something I saw questionable and I'm pretty sure incorrect in "Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion", but it did not stop me from sharing the film because the main points on their own were worthy to be seen and outweighed one questionable point.
There are many other videos/theories that with a little more work I could test for myself, but I haven't gotten around to it yet, so I can't form an opinion just yet.
As for whether I believe there was a real intent for all or some of the mRNA shots to actually contain mRNA, I lean toward there is effort there to. Reason being I see them wanting to experiment with the technology and see what happens. I see them wanting/testing to sequence mRNA to approximate the closest or exact spike protein, and seeing what the results would be of that exact or approximation in all sorts of people because all sorts of people could potentially benefit. However, the way it's been implemented has not been ethical.
In all, I appreciate the different angles taken to bring different topics to light. The fact checkers like to say "partly false" but I feel that means "mostly true" and there is some merit in those truths.
Very good points Lee. I'll try to include some of my perspective for some of what you mentioned.
1) Usually documentaries should at least provide some solutions, or at least be rather informative. Instead, it doesn't do much of both. It presents a catastrophic scenario and a sense of helplessness and doom. In all honestly, this can be an issue on both sides when the intention to sell fear is more important than informing and providing nuanced opinions.
2) One thing I would argue about the blood clots is that they suffer from a broad, all-encompassing approach. It's not hard to see someone post something going, "hey, this article is about blood clots. Could this be related to the vaccines?!"
I mean, yes, but also maybe not?
This sort of appears to happen quite often. I also have superficial knowledge of blood clots, but when we're describing huge, widespread fibrous tissues shouldn't something physiological be recognized beforehand? Such huge occlusions not manifesting in some degree seems rather strange, especially if the argument is that these people died suddenly or were perfectly healthy.
My knowledge of some forms of blood clots is when they detach from larger blood vessels and become lodged in smaller ones leading to the occlusion and resulting damage. I can't quite wrap my head around the fact that these things are so pervasive and yet unnoticed to a significant degree, unless we are led to believe that their onset comes on suddenly as well. There's an argument that these are different than typical blood clots, but an occlusions should present with something at least, and it would be nice to see an explanation as to these giant blood clots going unnoticed until the event occurs.
Oh, I must admit I haven't watched that yet. More important than incorrect information is whether they are addressed, and this is another place where this issue tends to persist. I don't think I've seen major corrections being addressed from Watch the Water and instead are being doubled down on instead.
I liked "Safe and Effective: A Second Opinion" better than "Died Suddenly", "Uninformed Consent" and "The Real Anthony Fauci". All provide some good takeaways though. I tried to watch "Watch the Water" but only skimmed. I consider Stew Peters a host and investigator. I think it's great that he's open to hearing the different things people have to say. Maybe each person holds a piece to this puzzle.
I still like this one too with a lower budget, but just as effective - my most popular post: https://leemuller.substack.com/p/single-most-important-video-to-watch
Stew Peters mysteriously showed up just as the pandemic started with a high-production Internet "TV show" poised to take over the vacuum of InfoWars, which had been booted off of almost every platform. Stew combines "news," a parody of MAGA culture, and a dash of Alex Jones in a slick and alarmist way...in fact, he's probably way more hyperbolic, hysterical, and crazy than even Alex Jones in terms of actual content...he just presents it all more calmly. In a nutshell, no, I don't trust him.
I watched most of Died Suddenly (and will write a review soon), but as soon as the production started with the Bigfoot crapola, I suspected that this documentary was designed to HURT the cause more than help. Also, did they actually get permission from Pink Floyd's record company to use Animals for the theme song? If they did, then that's suspicious in and of itself.
I was never made aware of Stew aside from finding out about Watch the Water. I don't know how long he's been around, but I can see why the need to stand out among the crowd with rather outlandish claims is how he rose to prominence. If we are to argue a psy-op occurring, I would have considered Watch the Water to be the better pick given that it would have been the first go at a documentary and that reached nearly 8 million views and yet had some of the strangest claims made.
I wasn't sure what the song was (I'm showing my age!) but in hearing it I immediately assumed that copyright and fair use issues would come about. I guess it makes sense given that the title was psychedelic.
I suppose the issue now is figuring out what would be considered worse. Would it be worse if this was a psy-op intended to hurt Team Skeptic, or would it be worse if this was actually a genuine documentary that obfuscated a good bit of journalistic integrity for clout and going viral?
Good questions...but seriously, stop what you are doing and go listen to the whole album Animals by Pink Floyd. It's really eerie but actually kind of fitting for these times with its dystopian nature.
I enjoyed (and mostly agreed) your take on this documentary. But most of all...Calamari Clot as a band name! Haha...that even beats MouseRat! 😉
Thank you! The phrase Calamari Clot is owed to Bret Weinstein from the included podcast episode, but if it appears on a band shirt I wouldn't be too surprised. It's a heck of a name!
Haha I haven’t listened to the podcast yet...got busy making dinner.
It's only mentioned at the tail-end of the podcast where my timestamp was, so it's not a super long portion of the podcast. Most of the podcast was dedicated to the concept of getting things wrong and reworking ideas.