"Died Suddenly" Is Typical Trash from Stew Peters
"Died Suddenly" Is Typical Trash from Stew Peters
The same guy who discredited us with the "COVID is snake venom" garbage
[This post has been substantially revised. For the unrevised version as of Nov. 24, see here.]
People are buzzing about the new documentary “Died Suddenly.” I watched it, and it made me angry. Here’s why.
There is some great information in this movie. Information that could — potentially — open people’s eyes and minds. In particular, the interviews with the embalmers and morticians are incredible. The long, white fibrous material they have been finding in dead people's arteries and veins after the vaccine rollout is truly horrifying. It isn't new, but it's presented all in one place in a highly compelling way, especially the scene where you see it being removed from a dead body during an embalming session.
The movie would have been far more effective if it had just focused mainly on that and dug deeper. For example, there is still a question as to whether the clots are what are causing people to die, or if they form post mortem. It would have been valuable to show what they’re made of and to prove that they are distinct from another type of post mortem clotting. There are other things that could have been done to make a much stronger case about the clots.
But unfortunately the film taints and tarnishes the material on the clots and other important information1 by covering it with a lot of garbage. And it is truly a shame in this case because there is much valuable, true information in the film that is now tainted by being mixed together with so much false information.
In the opening montage of the film, interspersed with clips related to people dying suddenly, we see images and clips related to the following: MK Ultra, CIA and Project Mockingbird, Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination, green screens with ISIS beheadings and Zelensky green screens, George W. Bush’s lies WMDs in Iraq, the words “Conspiracy Theory,” Alex Jones wearing a tinfoil hat, the BBC’s premature reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7, (fake?) Moon landing footage, UFOs, Bigfoot, and what appears to be the Loch Ness monster.
What was the point of interspersing the montage with all this conspiracy theory fodder? Was it to plant in the reader’s mind that what they were about to see was on par with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster? That only a tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist would pay attention to the material in this movie? That it is just like every other conspiracy theory out there?
What other possible reason could there be to associate your movie with those things unless your goal was to discredit it in the eyes of every observer who is not “into” conspiracy theories? If the goal is to reach a wider audience, the documentary shoots itself in the foot in the first three minutes — even if every conspiracy theory alluded to in that montage is true. If they want to sabotage their own film, fine. But they are also discrediting the rest of us fighting against the encroaching biomedical fascism, associating everything in this movie with Bigfoot. And it pisses me off.
Remember, Peters is the guy who brought us the now totally discredited film that tried to make the case that COVID was deadly because it had similarities to snake venom and was spread through tainted water. He and his team are either terrible at vetting reliable information or they are engaged in a deliberate campaign to discredit the health freedom movement.
What is the point of making a documentary like this if you’re not going to try to reach a wider audience, people who are not on board but are potentially persuadable? And if you’re going to do that, associating your work immediately with Bigfoot etc. is not a good idea. But beyond that, you want to do everything you can to make sure that you’ve done careful due diligence on all the information and facts in the movie. If you leave low-hanging false fruit to be plucked by naysayers and fact-checkers to debunk, then it becomes very easy to ignore and dismiss the rest of the content.
Many people have said to me something along the lines of “This film is doing wonders to wake people up. So what if it isn’t totally accurate or so what if it’s sensationalized?” To be clear, I don’t really have a problem with the tone of the film. We need to be strategic in our messaging to reach a wider audience. But it’s a false dichotomy. You can be 100% truthful and accurate and also craft a film with strategic messaging. It will be far more effective and is a better strategy in the long run. We cannot adopt an ends-justifies-the-means mentality. That is the mentality of those we are fighting against. If we aren’t better than that, then we’ve already lost.
Moreover, that line of argument does not take into account the damage the film has done to our cause. The potential benefits and damages are rather intangible and hard to gauge, but if you are adopting a purely utilitarian calculus, you have to at least try to weight them against each other.
Igor Chudov recently covered a paper that was actually published in a scientific journal advocating for “Inoculating against COVID-19 Misinformation” by exposing them to deliberately absurd information about. That’s why it’s so important for us to get things right.
And it turns out the team behind this movie made really simple mistakes, like including footage from a young basketball player who collapsed on court in Dec. 2020 before the COVID vaccine rollout and who didn’t even die. With so much footage to choose from — why choose that one? And that’s not the only one. There are other basic errors discussed in this post by Steve Kirsch. Steve puts the blame on the fact-checker for not mentioning the meat of the movie (the clots), but if the facts are actually wrong, then it’s the fault of the filmmakers, not the fact-checkers. Don’t leave low-hanging fruit for the bottom dwellers to gnash on!
Here are four additional inaccuracies that stuck out to me like a sore thumb. There may be more:
The coverage of the DMED data (the military’s medical database). Mathew Crawford looked into the DMED data and discovered that the original whistleblowers had made a simple mistake in comparing 2021 with previous years: what they essentially did is to count every office visit instead of every diagnosis. So if you were newly diagnosed with, say, myocarditis, every visit you and everyone else diagnosed with myocarditis had with the military health system (more or less) was added up and compared to the total number of individuals who had been diagnosed with myocarditis in previous years. (The details are a bit more nuanced, but that captures the basic gist of the error.)
This means that, although there WAS an increase in many different health diagnoses, it was not nearly as large as those whistleblowers thought and that Thomas Renz brought to people’s attention with his testimony at the ‘Second Opinion’ hearing by Sen. Ron Johnson, which appears in the movie.
The weirdest thing about this is that none of the people involved in bringing the DMED scandal to light have shown the slightest interest in correcting their mistakes and did not do so for this film despite having been duly notified of their errors, and so these falsehoods continue to be repeated and now amplified by Stew Peters.
Declining birth rates in Australia. Yes, birthrates in most parts of the world have declined significantly in late 2021 and especially 2022, and in many cases this can be tied to the rollout of COVID jabs, as I discuss in my (occasionally updated) post here:
However, one graph shown in the movie displays statistics for several countries, including a MASSIVE decline in birth rates for Australia that sticks out like a sore thumb. Turns out that huge decline is simply due to a reporting problem where the numbers of births from December, 2021 are hugely undercounted when the official statistics are released, and then generally not updated until much later. So that huge decrease shown in the movie is just plain wrong:
The incredibly high miscarriage rate in the Pfizer report to FDA. The discussion of the high rate of miscarriage reported by Pfizer to the FDA (over 80%) completely misrepresents the data. I have seen this error repeated many times.
On April 30, 2021, Pfizer prepared a post-marketing experience document to submit to the FDA summarizing all of the adverse events (AEs) reports that had been submitted to Pfizer related to their COVID vaccine through Feb. 28, 2021. Here is a description (page 5) of the data sources used for that document:
The report says that there were 270 unique pregnancies reported, of which 32 had outcomes reported. And of those, 25 reported a miscarriage, for a rate of 78% (and if you include stillbirths and neonatal deaths it goes up to 87.5%). Horrifying! Except that is not the correct interpretation of those figures.
That part of the document (Table 6, page 12) lists all of the AE reports where the woman was pregnant. In some of those, the pregnancy was related to the AE (such as a report of miscarriage or 'maternal exposure during pregnancy') and in some case it was not (vaccination site pain or nausea).
The largest number of reports were either ‘maternal exposure during pregnancy’ or ‘exposure during pregnancy’ (140 reports combined). Since the jab was not initially recommended for pregnant women, giving it to pregnant women could be considered a reportable adverse event even if nothing bad happened.
The calculation of the miscarriage rate is totally meaningless because the denominator is unknown. You would need to know how many pregnant women received the jab in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy by the end of Feb, 2021. We don't have any idea what that number was, but it was certainly much higher than 32 or 270.
Think of it this way: we know that voluntary reporting systems like VAERS are massively underreported. Well the Pfizer “post-marketing” safety data are the same: it’s basically just voluntary reporting to Pfizer, which can come from people or from government reporting systems based on reports from people. So what are the chances that jabbing a woman who turns out to be pregnant will register in someone’s mind as an adverse event, and then what are the chances that they will then report that AE to Pfizer or to any other system that ends up in Pfizer’s hands? The chances are extremely low, meaning massively underreported. The chances will be much higher if you are pregnant, get jabbed, and then experience a miscarriage or stillbirth soon after (though even then there will be heavy underreporting).
Somehow, the information in the report has been interpreted as if Pfizer followed these pregnant women, and of those whose birth outcomes are known, a huge percentage had miscarriages. In some cases I have even seen people refer to this as ‘pregnant women from the Pfizer clinical trial.’ No! That’s not what this is. The data is generated in a way that is similar to VAERS except here we cannot even use the total number of people (or women) vaccinated — we would need to know the total number of pregnant women, and we don’t, and neither did Pfizer.
So the bottom line is that the information on miscarriages in the Pfizer report has been misinterpreted, that misinterpretation has been repeated and amplified ad nauseum (including in “Died Suddenly”), and in fact the report provides absolutely no indication of what the miscarriage rate is following COVID vaccination.
Similar errors have been repeated regarding a CDC study published in the NEJM in fall of 2021 based on the V-Safe data, which is covered and corrected in this post:
See also the discussion based on the updated V-Safe data here:
The depopulation agenda. About 5 minutes into the film, they show a Ted Talk by Bill Gates in 2010, where he says: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent.”
Then they cut to Chad Whisnat, a plain-spoken, down-to-Earth Funeral Director saying something to the effect of: “Bill Gates said he’s going to reduce the population with vaccines. I can’t think of any other explanation than that taking those vaccines is going to kill people. It’s common sense. I wasn’t an anti-vaxxer but I am one now.”
I agree that is the common sense interpretation of that statement. And I agree that people in power, including Bill Gates, talk publicly about the need to reduce the world’s population — there is an elite agenda. And that agenda has nothing to do with Chad’s common sense interpretation of what Bill Gates said.
As stated publicly, the elite depopulation agenda is an effort to reduce population growth. And the publicly stated means of achieving this is to lower the birth rate by reducing child mortality, improving the standard of living, and creating greater access to contraception and abortion. It is well known that in areas where child mortality rates are high, women have more children. There are several reasons for this I won’t get into, but suffice it to say that when child mortality goes down, women have fewer babies. Same is true when the standard of living goes up. The reduction in the birth rate more than compensates for the number of infant lives saved, so overall you get a reduction in population growth over time.
If mass vaccination campaigns of babies in poor countries reduce child mortality, then you can (somewhat counterintuitively) lower population growth — without killing people and without making them infertile.
I’m not going to get into the evidence for or against the claim that vaccinations reduce child mortality in impoverished countries or whether that is the best way to achieve that aim, mainly because my point here is not whether that is true or whether Gates or anyone else actually believes it. The point is this: there is another way to understand what Bill Gates said in his Ted Talk and another way to understand the goals and means of those who talk about the need to reduce the world’s population — one that does not include mass murder and forced sterilization (though some would count abortion as mass murder).
“Died Suddenly” comes out very strong from the starting gate pushing the idea that Gates and all these people who talk about reducing the world’s population want to kill and sterilize us. The problem is that they never acknowledge or address the alternative way of explaining what the depopulation agenda is — the one focused on reducing growth rates by lowering infant mortality. All they offer is the ‘commons sense’ interpretation.
And even if that is true, it is a terrible way to package the factual evidence of increased deaths and reduced fertility as a result of the COVID-19 jabs. You will never convince anyone who is on the fence about those facts when it is packaged in the notion that the elites are trying to kill and sterilize the population, for the simple reason that the public statements of those who push the population reduction agenda allow for a different, more benevolent interpretation of their actions. That doesn’t mean we need to or should believe them or take their public statements at face value—it just means that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by framing the evidence in that way if we want the facts presented in the film to reach a wider audience.
And if they did want to make an argument that what is actually taking place is due to the more common sense, nefarious depopulation agenda, then they needed to address the alternative interpretation and argue for why it doesn’t make sense or can’t possibly be the whole story. For example they could have discussed the WHO’s involvement in the tetanus vaccine drive in Kenya that also had an antigen in it that made women infertile, as demonstrated in this documentary. They could have brought evidence and arguments to bear to argue why bending the curve of population growth is not achieved by vaccination or reducing infant mortality. But instead they pushed a one-sided, common sense interpretation of the elite population control agenda, which, even if true, makes for an argument that is easily dismissed.
[Please don’t read this as a defense of Bill Gates. I am not claiming his intentions are benevolent. I am merely pointing to the existence of a more mainstream, benevolent framing for the depopulation agenda that people can use to interpret his and other’s public statements and to completely discredit the important information in this film. In the comments section, Igor Chudov says that this question is somewhat academic, since with the combination of excess deaths among the young and declining fertility rate, we are experiencing de facto depopulation regardless of whether it is intentional or not. I agree.]
I completely washed my hands of Stew Peters after his “Watch the Water” snake venom fiasco, and “Died Suddenly” offers no redemption. This is not somebody we can trust. As far as I’m concerned, Stew Peters makes the rest of us look bad, and whether that is on purpose or not is sort of beside the point, because either way, he’s bad for the movement because in the end he discredits us even if he gets some things right. Going forward, he deserves 100% of our derision and 0% of our attention.
People have said: everybody makes mistakes and no documentary nails the facts 100% of the time. Of course that’s true, and I myself have made more than one honest mistake. But even if all the errors in this documentary can be chalked up to “everybody makes mistakes,” it doesn’t explain the attempt to blackwash the movie by associating it with a bunch of conspiracy theories like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. So my conclusion is that the mistakes were not honest.
And by the way, it’s not just me who feels disappointed, angered and betrayed by Stew Peters. Some of the vaccine injured do as well:
[POSTSCRIPT: Stew recently interviewed Israeli scientist Dr. Shmuel Shapira, who was director of the state’s biological institute. He was injured by the COVID vaccines and then when he went public his reputation was trashed by the establishment. Here is how Stew spun the interview:
Needless to say, Dr. Shapira was mortified. He had already put his reputation on the line by speaking out. He publicly denounced the interview and express his regret for doing it.]
Other information I consider to be true and important besides the post mortem clots includes: the increase in all-cause mortality that cannot be explained by COVID; the decline in fertility rates; people passing out live on tape; many people, especially young people, dying suddenly for no apparent reason; and the increase in aggressive cancers.
nailed it buddy
Excellent. I love it when someone I trust offers balanced, dare-I-say, scientific feedback on such things as "Died Suddenly." I had purposely not watched it. Maybe my subconscious was warning me!