People are buzzing about the new documentary “Died Suddenly”. I had a chance to listen to it on my commute yesterday. 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 on that (and dug deeper to show what they’re made of, etc.). But unfortunately it tainted that and other good information (such as presented by Dr. Ryan Cole, Steve Kirsch and Dr. James Thorp) by covering it with a lot of garbage. Here are four examples of the garbage that stuck out and that I remember. There may be more.
1. 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 had with the military health system (more or less) was added up and compared to how many individuals 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 a sizeable 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 so these falsehoods continue to be repeated and now amplified by Stew Peters. 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. I no longer trust anything this guy says or does. 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. 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.
2. 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. 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.
3. 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, most notably by Naomi Wolf. Early on in the vaccination rollout, Pfizer submitted a document to the FDA summarising all of the adverse events (AEs) reports that had been submitted to Pfizer related to its Covid vaccine through February 28th 2021. It was not initially recommended for pregnant women, so in the early stages of the rollout giving it to pregnant women was considered a kind of administration error. So administering it to a pregnant woman (a.k.a. ‘use in pregnancy’) was considered an adverse event and therefore something one should report as an AE, even if nothing bad happened.
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, the calculation of the 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. 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 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 he or she 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 heard people refer to this as ‘pregnant women from the Pfizer clinical trial’. No! That’s not what this is. The data are 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.
4. The depopulation agenda. There is undoubtedly a worldwide government agenda to reduce the population. This is stated openly by people in power. But what is stated publicly is an effort to reduce the population over time by reducing population growth. And the stated means of achieving this is to lower the birthrate by reducing child mortality, improving the standard of living and creating greater access to contraception and abortion. Nobody is stating openly that they are going to reduce the population by killing people and making them infertile. But what about what Bill Gates said in his 2010 Ted Talk: “The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 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.”
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 birthrate 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 sterilisation. 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 sterilise us. 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 sterilise 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. (Please don’t read this as a defence of Bill Gates!)
What was up with the opening montage that referenced all kinds of unnecessary and totally unrelated things like Bigfoot, UFOs and Jeffrey Epstein? Why would you want to associate this movie with those things unless your goal was to discredit it?
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.
UPDATE: I was reminded of Igor Chudov’s wonderful coverage of a paper that was actually published in a scientific journal advocating for “Inoculating against COVID-19 Misinformation” by exposing them to deliberately absurd information. That’s why it’s so important for us to get things right.
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 regretted doing the interview.
Dr. Josh Guetzkow is Senior Lecturer in Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This article first appeared on his Substack page Jackanapes Junction, which you can subscribe to here. Since this article was published, Dr. Guetzkow has done a substantial update and revision, which can be found here.
Stop Press: BBC News has done a critique which, along with the usual unwarranted assertions of vaccine safety, includes some of the films others missteps.