Stew Peters' Chaos: Credibility that Died Suddenly, Part 1
Chaos Agents, Part 3
"...you are in a war because this is a fifth-generation war for your hearts and your minds done mostly by digits…through your computer and those kinds of things." -Lt. Col. Peter Chambers
Click here to see other articles on Chaos Agents.
I strongly suspect that I will come under fire from people in the Medical Freedom Movement for this article. I've been immediately called a troll in some chat channels for explaining some of the problems these articles will cover. As such, I'd like to explain how much work I've done trying to help the community over the past nearly three years. Among other things, I
Collected, organized, and analyzed data on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) used during the COVID-19 pandemic. I participated privately in the debunking of the Surgisphere paper. I helped teach people about the statistical effect known as the Simpson's paradox that was used to conflate poor evidence with good evidence. I am a coauthor of the bestselling book about how Drs. Brian Tyson and George Fareed successfully treated thousands of patients using a cocktail including HCQ, antibiotics, vitamins/zinc, and sometimes steroids or other agents. This substack contains scores of articles on the battle over HCQ/CQ and early treatment meds.
Worked tirelessly, laying out arguments questioning the vaccines, coercive policy, and the history of both public health and vaccine failures. I laid out the absurdities of pharmacovigilance statistics. The earliest solid analyses of data outside of VAERS showing signals of vaccine mortality (used by Steve Kirsch here and elsewhere) came from me (here and here). And from late March of last year through November I was raising the red flag about COVID increases in nearly every nation in the world after the rollout of the injectable genetic products.
Documented the psychological tactics used in the fifth-generation warfare that is the pandemic battlefield. This includes conspiracies of silence, Asch conformity experiments (I was warning of this often on social media when I wrote that draft in 2020), behavioral economics (nudging), and what I call parasocial Dunbar hacking. I loaded my own cannon for psychological warfare, popularizing the notion of the kunlangeta, and wrote articles inoculating people to psychological warfare (here, here, elsewhere) through education.
I stand for and defend the humans in the U.S. military while pushing back against the DoD, which is the politically directed military arm of the military-banking complex, working to reveal various secrets of its psychological warfare operations programs (here and here).
I also warn against being played by both sides in a variety of ways.
Organized the Campfire.wiki to help document the accurate details of the pandemic as best as possible.
And most relevant to this article, I spent hundreds of hours over several months of getting very little sleep working on the DMED data after being asked into the investigation with Thomas Renz and the military whistleblowers. My findings have been ignored, buried, and pressure has been put on my from many people to keep my mouth shut about it.
I could go on. I gave up my business—a life's mission—in order to help educate people during the pandemic. On a monetary basis, I gave up my cryptocurrency trading operation which had produced around a 40,000% return from inception in late 2017 to early last year. And I've remained independent of social pressures I've felt pushed at me to steer me away from this work—from both inside and outside of the Medical Freedom Movement. I do this because I believe that we have a choice over how the next epoch of humanity unravels, and the distinction is uniquely stark out of all transitions in human history.
Died Suddenly appears to be a success by the straightforward metric of views, but nearly every good researcher I've talked to takes issue with it, and for a variety of reasons. I was honestly shocked to see Steve Kirsch in the Stew Peters production because (1) he never mentioned it during his steering committee meetings (few of which he attended over the past 8 months), and (2) I thought he had better judgment than to muddy his reputation by working with Stew Peters—particularly after Peters watched the water for snake venom until it blew up into a dumpster fire (that's not a defense against the dark arts spell). I'll talk more about that later.
As I pointed out last year in an article that related the information warfare problem to Coding (Signals) Theory, the worst possible information streams are the ones in which the bit-fidelity rate is closest to 50% (random, by some definition). That's where methods for information filtration become prohibitive.
Fortunately, there are further ways to continue to improve our confidence in identifying and cleaning dirty signals, but they come at an economic cost. The task can grow so challenging as to be the subject of doctoral research and whole teams at motivated tech companies. We can add digits at various intervals to induce additional parity properties to improve our confidence in the signal. We can spend on software and hardware and energy to perform more and more checking. Trust, but verify. Check, check, check, check, verify, verify, verify, verify.
But the cost grows and grows and grows...when the lies get harder and harder to distinguish from the truth, and more costly to check. Even worse, those expenses put authoritarian adversaries at an economic advantage, and in any combat, expect those with the economic advantage to win (and thoroughly). The harder the information flood of truths and lies, the larger the maze to reach understanding.
What's the point of all those lies when we know that the lying liars lie so often that there is general recognition of the game of dirtying all the information signals?
In my estimation, Stew Peters is one of the worst offenders [ostensibly] among the Medical Freedom Movement. He takes plenty of true information (for which he would otherwise be an entirely superfluous conduit) and mixes it together in one program with highly questionable, unverifiable, or simple false information. That is the well-known business model of rags like The Enquirer and The Weekly World News—often used as a way to bait consumers into paying to help obfuscate actual crimes that the public ought to be concerned about.
Readers may feel free to skip a few sections down to discussion of the documentary itself, but I think the background information is important. And interesting.
Respect Up Front
Some of this critique is going to be rather brutal. I want to state quite clearly from the outset that I believe that numerous honest people have likely been swept up in a project that may be a trainwreck, and that I worry could be a motivated trainwreck. For instance, I think that some of the embalmers (nobody is even bothering to contact Richard Hirschman to further discuss his observations) or Dr. Ryan Cole may have made perfectly honest statements, but may have been unaware as to how those statements would be arranged in ways that strike me as misleading (either intentionally or accidentally). Keep this in mind as we plow forward.
Also, buckle up. This is one of those. Now, let's climb the first hill…
Impact Analysis: What Does This Documentary Accomplish?
Before we get into the details of this documentary, let us do our best to understand the outcome of the documentary's production and consumption.
The impact of a documentary should be primarily measured in terms of its educational and emotional impact. A documentary that preaches to the choir that is primarily already aware of the story being told has a small impact on audiences that need education, but more importantly serves as a vehicle for radicalizing the audience—generally a negative (unless your goal is civil war).
So, let us ask with respect to Died Suddenly: Who is the target audience, and what is the impact?
For the sake of estimating the impact of the documentary, let us define three audiences:
Audience 1: The Choir. These viewers are already sympathetic to the message, and aware of most of the information presented.
Audience 2: The Middle. These viewers do not yet have strong leanings with respect to the documentary's message.
Audience 3: The Opposition. These viewers are inclined to reject at least substantial portions of support for the documentary's thesis.
Don't take this chart as particularly meaningful. It's just a rough model in my mind examining characterizable impacts of a documentary according to its reach into the several audience groups.
It is likely that the vast majority of the ten million or so viewers of Died Suddenly (on Rumble, there may be more elsewhere?) are members of The Choir. The documentary sways few of them, but those who notice the problems I and others have may question their priors. More likely, some of them may be radicalized by the message that this is war.
(I do absolutely think that we are in a fifth-generation warfare situation, but an audience piqued to radicalization that doesn't understand the subtleties could be moved to dangerous violence and other counterproductive reactions. It should become more clear why this is important to this particular case.)
A likely far smaller portion of the audience includes The Middle. The best chance for this documentary to make a highly positive impact would be to reach a large portion of The Middle (with more accurate content, but we'll get to that), but I doubt that's happened as society seems to have drifted further apart in multiple dimensions. (It would be worth studying the audience to find out—did anyone involved bother to do that?)
Some people surely hate-watched Died Suddenly for the purpose of picking the nits plus the obvious flaws. Fortunately for the documentary makers, that's a crowd that likely hasn't bothered to read through my DMED analysis, but they will parrot the overly simplistic DoD explanation, "There was a glitch," which isn't even wrong (probably manipulative, but not wrong).
Conflicts of Interest
While this isn't written up as a conflict of interest statement, perhaps it should be.
Precious metals might be likened to "apocalypse money" as they will serve as money if global trade breaks down. And gold/silver coins are bought up by people who are worried that the end is nigh. Does making the scariest possible documentary cause people to buy more gold? Might it attract that audience, some of which will switch to Goldco customers?
Understand that I'm not panning the idea of having gold/silver/metal. I encouraged friends to purchase some at the outset of the pandemic. However, it may interest some readers to understand the potential motivations of those funding the documentary.
Who Produced This Documentary?
In the closing credits, we find that Matthew Miller Skow and Nicholas Stumphauzer wrote, produced, and directed Died Suddenly. Their IMDB profiles to which I linked are almost entirely empty, though Skow has produced a few documentaries about conspiracy theory topics. If I understand what I've been told correctly, they put Died Suddenly together on a $15,000 budget.
I've heard through the grapevine that when they came into contact with Childrens Health Defense (CHD), that some people at CHD complained about mistakes made in the documentary. They stated that they did not have the budget for a fact checker.
Let's stop right there.
If Stew Peters is part of the team, and he spends so much of his time on these topics, then he should stand up as a potential fact checker and analyzer.
They've basically just said that they have no expertise at all on the topics underlying the thesis of the documentary they've just created.
You really can't make this stuff up.
I'm thinking through all of the very serious work that has been done during the pandemic that pushed back against medical authoritarianism. Stepping into the shoes of the medical authoritarians—If I were scared of highly impactful work that could sway an audience to cause trouble, I think this documentary would not make the top one thousand concerns on my list. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a guy with twenty-thousand or so pages of notes from the past three years, so perhaps my list is overly large.
Why Stew Peters?
Any number of people or organizations could have spearheaded a high fidelity version of Died Suddenly.
The Vaccine Safety Research Foundation
The Last American Vagabond, or one of the two or three similar high quality independent media outlets
One good film editing dude and the usually-stoned Croatian physics major who works at the 7-11 down the street from me. I'm not kidding—that guy is wicked smart.
Steve's substack probably generates the budget of the documentary in about a week and he attracts throngs of volunteers who would have helped with fact checking.
Why Stew Peters?
In his own critique of Died Suddenly, Robert Malone treats Peters as, "irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. A modern carnival barker." However, this is a carnival barker with nearly half a million Rumble subscribers.
Why Stew Peters?
It's hard for me to fathom, but people need a video news guy when they're abandoned by mainstream and public media. When you're a monopoly of one, you're in the sort of position to take ownership. I just wish that Mike Lindell would sponsor a better one.
Who is Stew Peters, anyhow?
For a short span, Peters was a rap musician in Minnesota. Apparently he never made it. He got into some trouble bridging his career from rap into acting when he got caught in a lie (emphasis always mine),
Peters also was something of an actor. In 2000, he auditioned for a film directed by Tyrel Ventura, son of then-Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura. After landing one of the lead roles, Peters wanted to impress Ventura with his Hollywood connections. So he told a lie: His brother was a teen heartthrob who starred in a popular 1990s sitcom.
Believing that Peters had flown in from Los Angeles, Tyrel invited him to stay at the governor’s residence in St. Paul during filming, so Peters went home to Apple Valley, packed a bag and moved into the guest room of the residence for several weeks, until the state troopers who provided security for the governor evicted him.
“It was a mistake because I lied and that’s not the person I am,” said Peters, “but it was a great experience — it was a lot of fun.”
It wasn’t the first time Peters had run afoul of the law. As a teenager, he was convicted of underage drinking and driving. Nor was it the first time he’d tricked high-profile people into believing he was someone else. On a dare from a friend, he convinced WCCO-TV and KMSP-TV to pick up his “story” of being signed by the NHL as a free agent.
Peters took on a career as a bounty hunter. He did cause waves dressing himself up to look like a police officer (which he was not) and driving around in a vehicle that looked a lot like a police vehicle. Maybe he was born to act after all.
Source: Annandlate, MN Police Department via postbulletin.com
Concern about a Red Wing bounty hunter known for driving a vehicle with police-style markings, carrying a gun and wearing a badge prompted Minnesota lawmakers to restrict the types of uniforms and cars bail bondsmen can use.
Legislators passed a bill earlier this month that prohibits bail bondsmen from wearing uniforms that are blue, brown, green or maroon — colors worn by licensed peace officers in the state. It also prohibits bounty hunters from using vehicles that are the same color as those used by law enforcement officers and from having markings on their vehicles such as "a police shield, star or any similar emblem that is typically associated with a marked law enforcement vehicle."
Later in that article, Peters is said to have been mistaken for a federal agent. Remember that detail!
He said people called to report Peters had gone door to door asking questions while wearing a bulletproof vest, a gun and a gun belt. In one instance, he said a convenience store in Byron allowed Peters to view surveillance footage. And McNurlin said some law enforcement officers have been confused by Peters. In Wabasha County, officers spent two hours working with Peters thinking he was a federal agent, only to realize later he is a bail bondsman.
Not making it as an entertainer, Peters worked for fourteen years as a bounty hunter, eventually resulting in a more serious fiasco:
When they arrived they claimed they were federal agents, according to the car dealership owner Rick Ford, and waited for the girlfriend, a customer, and Hutchinson. Peters said he finds it hard to believe the two would have claimed to be federal agents.
Cell phone video shows the moment when the two men tried to arrest Hutchinson inside the dealership. He pulls out a gun and starts firing. When it was over, all three men were dead.
Peters says he's stunned by the death of his colleague, but grateful no customers were hurt.
The men Peters sent to apprehend a criminal seem to have impersonated federal agents to set up an apprehension in which they and the criminal died suddenly. In fact, years earlier, Peters was in fact arrested for impersonating an officer. Oddly, those charges were dropped. Is somebody protecting this guy for some reason?
During the pandemic, Peters became a sort of shock jock among a subset of the audience starved for media not castigating people noncompliant with official narratives. He took the "I'm not Alex Jones" route to soak up a lot of people who had been Alex Jones fans, but found themselves micro-ideologically homeless after various Infowars controversies. It is noteworthy that some of his audience seems a bit radicalized.
Mercy Hospital failed to provide a reason for taking Scott off of a ventilator citing patient privacy. Stew encouraged his listeners to “blow the hospital’s phone lines up.” Also, he shared the hospital’s address and named the doctors involved. Stew received criticism after his audience started making anonymous threats.
I fully understand how disgusting some medical practices have been during the pandemic. I've expressed my anger on many occasions. However, a media guy needs to be in better touch with his audience in order to understand where to draw the line, encourage moral productive action, or cut the tension with humor.
Or is spinning them out of control the larger goal?
Despite tensions that led to threats, Peters continued to stir the pot by saying that Fauci should be lynched and hung when he spoke at the 2022 America First Political Action Conference. As we all know, these are the sorts of things often spoken in private, but to project them to an audience of hundreds of thousands might appear as something like social permission to actually hunt somebody down and try to murder them. This all coming from a guy whose marriage broke up due to drunken fits that led his wife to reach out to the police for help.
Dr. Robert Malone is so dismissive of Peters that he wrote an article to explain his dismissiveness.
I have consciously and intentionally chosen to cross-post the Daily Skeptic and Josh Guetzkow commentaries concerning “Died Suddenly” because I believe that they have made important points which should be discussed, but in so doing I have become a target for a small troll army which has swarmed those threads with accusations that I have a personal vendetta with Stew Peters, and which have attacked me as if I were the author of the cited essays.
Let me assure you now that I have no time or interest in further engagements with Stew Peters. He is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned. A modern carnival barker.
The question which I do think we all need to grapple with is what is Stew Peters, and who does he represent? Based on what I have observed, he mostly represents himself. Are his ethics your ethics? Are they our ethics?
Malone did file a defamation suit recently against common Peters guest Jane Ruby. I feel certain that there is more to that story that I currently know.
Who does Peters represent, indeed?
I'm sort of getting a general post-law-and-order kind of vibe. Who else is getting that vibe?
Is this really the man to lead the masses through this complex media void?
Compromised: Critical Loss of Control
Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
Last year the hospital Peter McCullough separated with (Baylor Scott & White) filed a suit against him over use of its name (a suit that looks largely trivial and politically motivated). In a meeting we were in, he told several of us that thirty lawyers were marshaled against him, which in my mind suggests the possibility that the hospital received outside funding for the costly suit.
Was that lawsuit some sort of setup for chaos? Was the plan to make him feel an economic pinch just from the cost of that case?
StewPeters.tv / RedVoiceMedia.com via DallasNews.com
Was it McCullough, or somebody at the Stew Peters Show or Red Voice Media who typed up those credentials at the bottom of the screen? Those I've spoken with say that McCullough was taken off guard, and some suspect it was a setup.
A few months ago I noticed changes in Peter McCullough's social media accounts. I suspected that he had somebody managing them for him. The images seemed professionally handled in a way you would not expect of the most-published cardiac physician during the pandemic, who is busy giving many talks while fending off a lawsuit.
I'm told that at some point, Carolina Galván (who has drawn suspicion as a Chaos Agent from at least some quarters) moved in and offered to manage McCullough's social media accounts. I'm also told that there was a $250,000 Zelenko Foundation grant involved, and possibly an additional larger payment. Another physician who knows Peter encouraged him to drop Galván. Apparently that happened for a little while, but then he brought her back. Was McCullough financially coerced/baited into doing so? And was that pressure an intentional setup by the Stew Peters team?
Though I haven't had the chance to complete my article on Patricia Rodriguez yet, you can check out my presentation about her activities here. She is one of the subjects of the Themis Report who goes by assumed names Carolina Galván and Carolina Bonita. She has used McCullough's social media account to promote her own brand, cynically using the image of the late Zev Zelenko, whom she claims as a mentor (nobody close to Zelenko seems to have any knowledge of a relationship between the two of them).
Carolina is the woman that leaders of the People's Convoy (U.S. truckers convoy) blame for sabotaging the convoy's logistics. They say that even after kicking her out, she continued to follow in another vehicle. I'm told by some of the leadership among the truckers that this vehicle was eventually pulled over by police who arrested the driver when they found piles of automatic and semiautomatic weapons stored in it. They didn't say so, but I sort of suspect that they tipped the police off, and that thought makes me giggle. Just a little. More seriously, the truckers may have cleverly dodged a smear tactic, or even a false flag event.
Are we talking about Chaos Agents who are loosely or directly affiliated?
I'm told that during that convoy, Carolina was often working with attorney Leigh Dundas who is seen at the Senator Johnson hearing in Died Suddenly. We'll come back to that in the next article. It's time to move on to the content of the heavily viewed documentary, Died Suddenly.
Unnecessary Blurring of Controversies
The first moments of Died Suddenly include a car interview, which strikes me as staged given that the film makers said they spent a week with the subject. Eerie psychedelic ambiance music segues into a barrage of conspiracy theory topics that are at best indirectly related to the primary thesis of the documentary—MK ULTRA, JFK's assassination, Jeffrey Epstein, Vladimir Zelenky, George W. Bush ("weapons of mass destruction"), Bill Gates talking about injections, UFOs, something that might be claimed as the Loch Ness Monster, and then…Big Foot.
Raise your hand if you don't already feel polarized in acceptance or rejection of the documentary.
Obviously, this is going to turn off a lot of The Middle right away. It might even turn off a portion of The Choir. Even on a level of debating real evidence on the events that are due investigation, we see these stories presented along with Big Foot. There's that Tabloid journalism template that acts like a poison pill to alternately arranged conjunctions of fact and fiction.
Why?! Examining the question of whether people are dying suddenly due to strange clots [or other facets of the injection of experimental gene therapy products] does not require swimming into those waters at all.
If you watched the documentary and were not suspicious of the effects of such montages, it's time to start thinking in terms of fifth-generation warfare, just as the documentary advises. In fact, you should be wondering whether this documentary is itself fifth-generation warfare, or just sort of accidentally wound up that way.
"How could you suspect a documentary of being a tactical battle in fifth-generation warfare when it warns the viewers of fifth-generation warfare?"
Read up on fifth-generation warfare until you get it. If you never wondered whether it was unethical for the "Good Witch of the North" to bait Dorothy into destroying all her rivals in Oz, it's time to meditate on how your enemies might be keeping you closer than close.
The Strange Botching of the Basic Facts
We've all seen tremendous numbers of sudden deaths in the news. I personally suspect that a subset of them are vaccine-related. It's fine to demonstrate something like an outsized overall number of sudden deaths occurring, but as we all understand, personal stories are more powerful (motivating or manipulative, take your pick). But it shouldn't be too hard to find some sudden deaths that happened shortly after vaccination, right? This should be true even if the vaccines are saline solutions only.
Strangely, the documentary presents sudden deaths that could not possibly be associated with the vaccine. These include,
Thirteen-year-old Jackson Mohr who died prior to the rollout of the vaccine for his age group. Technically, it's possible he was one of the children we know were inappropriately given the vaccine early (there are examples of this in VAERS reports), but that would require some specific evidence.
Florida Gators basketball player Keyontae Johnson, shown collapsing in the documentary, did not die. Nor had the experimental quasi-vaccines even been rolled out yet.
Candela, the woman who passed out and fell into a train in Argentina, reportedly did not die. No word on her vax status.
At 47:45 the man falling off a chair seems to be from early 2020, prior to vaccine rollout.
How many of the people in the videos actually died suddenly, and how many of them were vaccinated?
You mean that's not part of the documentary?
Mishandling the Clot Story
"Now, most of the people are not autopsied. Therefore, no one will see what I see…People need to know…"
The documentary could simply have laid out a well-checked set of facts and stats about the clots and people who Died Suddenly, and would have been better for it. Instead, they've delivered a ticking-timebomb-poison-pill into the grateful arms of at least a portion of the Medical Freedom Movement. Moving forward, I probably won't be able to take seriously or in good faith any portion of the leadership who doesn't firmly call this out.
Covering blood clots or blood/cardio problems in general is not necessarily a mistake, but it's a challenging topic several pay grades above the filmmakers. Worse, the story of the blood clots is complex enough that it can easily be blurred into a "Aliens Anal-probed My Antivaxxer Aunt Annie" sort of tabloid tale.
My friend Joshua Guetzkow (who was decidedly not impressed with Died Suddenly) raised the right point, which is that the viewers need a good reason to believe in the story of a new form of clot.
…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.
Among these other things could have been to ask several morticians to video document their work for a few days (start-to-finish with uncut video available on a website), demonstrating the pulling of the clots out of bodies. Surely there is older footage to which to compare it? Sure, that's work. That's also what it takes to get to the bottom of a story worth documenting. And I'm sure we medical freedom Stackers could have crowdfunded the additional effort.
What we do get is set next to a heart surgery removing a clot from the heart of a person who was not vaccinated. Sigh.
Going a step further would yield a scientific publication for some willing researchers. Why not have two independent labs perform analysis on the samples (blind to the knowledge of whether anyone else is working on the same samples), then report on anomalies?
Getting creative, we might even wonder whether robotic/virtual autopsies (virtopsies) would give us an immediate answer that would end all doubts. Why aren't we doing that?
In 2009, the Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, put together by the National Research Council, studied virtopsies and determined that even thirteen years ago the virtopsy technology was good enough to qualify for a recommendation as "best practices". The Study Director was none other than Anne-Marie Mazza, who,
Served as the Senior Director on the Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy at The National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine from March 2019 until June 2021,
Was Executive Director of Joe Biden's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology from June 2021 to June 2022, and
Currently serves as Senior Director of The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
Do you suppose…Mazza just forgot all about this "best" forensic tool when faced with an anomalous global health event?
Virtopsies grew rapidly in popularity for nearly two decades prior to the pandemic. Isn't it weirdly suspicious that they aren't part of the conversation? As if…memory holing them (as appears to have happened on the National Academies page) is necessary in order to generate an unanswerable controversy like this one?
I'm just asking questions. I sat down with a legal pad and asked myself what I would want to cover in a documentary about people dying suddenly in larger numbers.
But it wouldn't be a Stew Peters documentary if we didn't stop short of actually trying to figure out what the options for investigation are, who knew what and when, and maybe demonstrated an honest experiment.
A Midwester Doctor published a sensible article that itself provides far more value to the clot topic than the documentary.
For the reasons detailed above, I believe video footage of the unusual blood clots being discovered by embalmers is a winner for convincing the public there are major problems with these vaccines.
While I think he is correct on this point, I doubt much of The Middle fully took in the documentary, and everyone else walked away closer to some threshold for radicalization.
Handling the Criticism
Can we call this "fifth-generation comedy"?
Of course we get the next iteration of Dr. Ashish Jha, the current White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator who debates from a position of government authority against the world's greatest specialists in their field. Is that just part of the show?
Steve Kirsch published Dr. Ryan Cole's response, which throws the gauntlet down. Here is most of it:
Eric Burnett, MD is an internist, not a pathologist, nor mortician. The arrogance of inferring that a mortician, a professional, beyond his experience, cannot make a valid observation beyond his own naïveté, is the epitome of hubris. He has likely seen one or two autopsies in his entire career. He has not seen, observed, nor described countless post mortem clots. A gelatinous saddle embolus is “apples to oranges” compared to these post “clot shot” death clots. He has never embalmed a body. He is entirely and exceedingly out of his lane. Post mortem, rubbery clots are as rare as hen’s teeth. He is likely covering his “gene injection” pushing ass. Morticians did not have trouble cannulating and embalming bodies prior to the jabs. He is acting as a bloviating, pharma, financial and hospital administrator defending shill, having zero experience, nor idea of what he speaks.
Something is overwhelmingly wrong with the “clot shot.” If he were half awake, his conjecture would not be reflecting the myopic view of the inside of his inexperienced anus.
With a modicum of humility, he might acknowledge alarming rates of excess deaths in the hyper injected, young and healthy and see the actual harm of failed gene based experimental injections, that have maimed and killed hundreds of thousands to millions.
Having performed countless career autopsies, examined dozens of these novel clots, extensively explored the spike protein clotting mechanisms, diagnosed over 500,000 patients through the microscope, in my extensive career, I invite my colleague, Dr. Burnett, and any colleague, from around the world, to sit at my microscope, and observe the truth, and set aside their purchased pride. The cells don’t lie!!!
Dr. Eric Burnett's full set of qualifications on the matter are uncertain. But he wants for you to know that those qualifications include being board certified and knowing how to communicate his pronouns.
I'll stop here for the moment. The next article will discuss further credibility issues, but then a lot of behind-the-scenes information about the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED) and how both the whistleblowers and the documentary makers are presenting false data—including the degrees to which I personally know they are aware, having spent 800 hours myself working with them and the data.