14.7 million views since Nov 21 premiere
I prefer calmer presentations. Like Anecdotals or Safe & Effective: A Second Opinion.
But so many seem beyond the reach of calm logic. Refuse to even consider the mere possubility – despite multiple, plausible mechanisms of action – that these injections actually might be killing and maiming people…. destroying nervous, cardiovascular, reproductive and immune systems.
So perhaps a dramatic approach is warranted? Maybe, to borrow a pro-lockdown/mask slogan: if it saves just one life, it’s worth it?
In a post-fact culture, it’s nuanced
As evident from this Dec 21 chat between Christian Morris, Greg Moffitt, John Waters and Thomas Sheridan:
Mark Crispin Miller says:
… watch it as soon as you can—it’s a little over an hour—and share it far and wide. Although it makes some trivial mistakes, it is a very solid piece of work…
… this film will open many people’s eyes, which is (of course) why I am recommending it. The BBC has joined me in that expectation—which has impelled them… to try to kill it, with this attempted takedown by one Rachael Schraer….
… she plays every trick she can to urge her readers not to watch the film themselves, so they might make up their own minds. That’s the last thing she and her employer want, since, by now, so many people have lost loved ones to the jab, and/or have been thereby severely harmed themselves, that they may be both staggered and enlightened by Died Suddenly, which, if they’re not activists already, might move them to speak out at last, and forge alliances with others who have also been severely hurt.
Mark Crispin Miller
Josh Guetzkow was less impressed
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… presented all in one place in a highly compelling way…
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 true and important information 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.
Josh Guetzkow
Steve Kirsch (who featured in the film) responded to some of the criticism. He also cites Dr. Ryan Cole (who also featured) who rebutted a criticism of the film. Regretable in my opinion. As Dr. Cole seemed to mostly play the man, not the ball.1The ad hominem fallacy.
Mainstream response to the movie?
::crickets::
I just talked to embalmer Richard Hirschman about the reaction from Died Suddenly
No interest from the fact checkers or mainstream media on what was presented. What a surprise 🙂
Steve Kirsch, Nov 24
- 1The ad hominem fallacy.