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.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There are always unintended consequences. They never learn.
Sometimes, with progress, things do get better, for example, when I was boy, many children wore leg irons to counter the effects of polio, their legs were weak. There was one boy at school, we called him popsy, because of how he walked. He came from a football family called Rush, and popsy became the only footballer in the world to ever play well wearing leg irons. I’m not shitting you. I know you would not believe it was possible, but it was. And his brother became an Anfield legend called Ian who is to this day Liverpool’s leading goalscorer. So sometimes things occur without the side effects being worse, and one thing was polio vaccine. I’m sure the covid19 vaccine is another in the vast majority of cases.
The polio vaccine was actually a vaccine though. Well, the original one was. The new oral one that doesn’t need refrigeration – not so much. In fact that one actually causes polio. Wasn’t Bill Gates involved in that one?
https://journal-neo.org/2020/09/28/gates-vaccine-spreads-polio-across-africa/
But we can’t compare covid to polio, they are nothing like each other.
“when I was boy, many children wore leg irons to counter the effects of polio”
A few did – not many – and most of the decline in the incidence of polio had actually happened before the invention of the vaccine. As with most infectious illness, the key factor was improvements in public health.
This pattern is true of most vaccinations, useful though they may be in specific circumstances.
The situation re. SARS-CoV-2 isn’t remotely similar to these instances.
Pretty sure the destruction of the youth is intentional social engineering.
Well you can always give them more vaccines. And lovely profitable drugs.
Apart (so far) from vaccine, it seems impossible to take any measure that does not have some unintended consequencesthat turns out to be equal to or worse than the original problem. For example the dearth of flu over the last year (a supposed good effect) is likely to be offset in some future flu season when our collective loss of immunity will be revealed. I expect there will be moves to find a catchup vaccine to attempt to undo some of the loss of immunity, but I fear any such patches will only add to our debt to nature even more. In any case , I hope we will be done with lockdown in the near future, it has been an act of naive madness.
The risk/benefit analysis is at the heart of almost every prescription.
What has been different with Covid is that measures (basically of poisons, like lockdowns, masks and testing) have been prescribed with no proper risk assessment and, in many cases, in direct contradiction of previous strategic evaluations.
Unknown ‘vaccines’ have been given with no proper assessment of efficacy or risk.
We haven’t lost ‘flu it has simply been renamed – Covid 1984.
Lock up children. Hide human faces from them. Knicker their own faces. Jab them with monkey gunk. Forbid interaction with other kids. Stop school. Forbid sport. Forbid play. Blight childhood.
All worth it to make zombie cretins feel safe.
Methinks the covid period will go down in the history books as the stupidest time in human history.
If they had PCR tests for witches . . .
When our daughter was seven and being treated for cancer at the Children’s Hospital her oncologist mentioned that childhood leukaemias had increased 25% in a generation. The theory was that this was reaction to the fact that children were living in much more sterile environments, less contact with other children, less play outdoors, less dirt, less exposure to germs, and hence poorer immune systems.
Well of course. I mollycoddled my precious first born in the most ridiculous (I now see!) way. It was bleach-central in my house for about 12 months. Then when the little ming vase went to nursery I was flabbergasted to find that despite the breastfeeding forever and the general ‘healthful foods always’ mantra, she was ill all the damn time! Unlike the crazed covidians though, I realised the error of my ways and can now laugh at my madness and see it for what it was – that I was veering into mental health problems. Veering into mental health problems with absolutely no self awareness seems to be where most of society now is. And I hate to denigrate my own cohort but mums are some of the worst. Most of this stupid mask-shit and ‘we can’t see granny as you’ ll kill her’ shit is frankly child abuse.
Yes. I was delighted that a slight cold has just run round my four-year-old’s class, despite masks (adults), open windows, bubbles, distanced drop offs etc.
My daughter had a slight chesty cough and husky voice for about half a day; other children are a bit worse (perhaps because I’ve ignored as many restrictions as possible & continued seeing family throughout, so better immune system?).
It never crossed my mind not to send her into school. But for the other mums – ah, WhatsApp’s been lighting up with the opportunistic virtue signalling. The competitive shoving of tests up infant noses, the debating over appropriate testing protocol and where best to procure tests from, the days their little darlings have been kept home “just in case”. Bonkers.
The week our daughter went to nursery for the first time there were cases of hand, foot and mouth (which she caught) and impetigo in her class. She, and we, were ill for pretty much the next three months while we all caught all of the various bugs her classmates had. She seems pretty robust now healthwise.
Power of the media….needs to be repressed.
File this under ‘well dur’
New Zealand and Australia are going to suffer this problem in spades. And not just in their children either. Think of all of those strains of influenza and rhinovirus and indeed coronaviruses they are not being exposed to. And how devastating it could be for them if any one of those viruses arrives in the country if they continue cutting themselves off from the world for several more years.
And isn’t this just exactly as sunitra Gupta said!!!! Oh but government knows best!
“RSV can spread when an infected person coughs or sneezes, releasing contaminated droplets into the air. Transmission usually occurs when these droplets come into contact with (or inoculate) another person’s eyes, nose, or mouth. RSV can also live for up to 25 minutes on contaminated skin (i.e. hands) and several hours on other surfaces like countertops and doorknobs.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_syncytial_virus#Transmission)
If the NPIs did materially curtail respiratory syncytial virus transmission, are we clear why they can’t work for SARS-CoV-2?
I’m not sure of your point? I believe that covid has only “killed” three(?) babies in the UK, all of whom were already seriously ill. RSV is indistinguishable from a common cold to you or I – yet historically it’s responsible for the deaths of around 80 babies per year in the UK. They do their best to keep it out of neonatal ICU, and we as humans do our best by not kissing and cuddling our friends babies if we have symptoms of a cold.
But what else is there? Should we all isolate at home forever to save these 80+ babies? It is a shocking number but until now no one seemed to care. Perhaps we should?
I know that if were an expectant parent I’d certainly be cheesed off if the maternity unit expected to screen me for asymptomatic covid which is unlikely to be a serious threat, and yet simultaneously not be bothered if I actually had symptoms of RSV.
Worlds gone covid crazy.
“It is too early to know for certain”
Of course. But, as a hypothesis, it is in line with everything that is known about the development of the immune system.
It’s not too early, however, to know that there is absolutely no evidence to support the use of lockdowns, as opposed to the harms caused.
It is also too early to know that the vaccines have net benefit. But that seems not to matter.
Not just the development of their immune system that is damaged by the fanatics.
Perhaps someone at New Scientist can look through the archive editions back to 1979/80. I’m pretty sure there was a front cover shot around that time of a couple of cloth capped urchins poring over a puddle with a Glasgow tenement block (or similar) in the background with a caption along the lines of “Please leave me alone while I build my immune system”. Those were the days!