Seriously, Mathew, why are you spending time on this?
I have no patience for Malone's criticism of Stew Peters. He got the job done while Malone made pretty films with pretty horsies and traveled the world to have important meetings about important stuff.
Seriously, Mathew, why are you spending time on this?
I have no patience for Malone's criticism of Stew Peters. He got the job done while Malone made pretty films with pretty horsies and traveled the world to have important meetings about important stuff.
Are the clots real?
Yes?
What are you doing about it, Doc, besides criticizing Stew Peters?
Normal blood clots respond to anti-coagulation therapy. These clots do not. How do we help these people? How can we save them? If Peters wasn't the right guy with the proper papers and CV to address the clots, why didn't Malone do something? Why didn't any of them?
Which fraud might that be? Are you saying the fibrous clots aren't real? John O'Looney is lying? The embalmers are lying? Ryan Cole is lying? Did they fake the video?
IMO, the clots are the only issue that matters.
What is the goal of the so-called "health freedom movement"? 'Cause I thought we wanted people to stop getting jabbed. Whether you think our current nightmare can be explained by greed, incompetence, hubris, CYA, and/or groupthink...or...you think we're in the middle of a globalist cull planned for decades...don't we want people to stop getting jabbed?
I suspect even the most dedicated covidian would stop getting jabbed if they knew about those clots. Who the hell wants that crap forming in their veins and arteries? Who the hell wants that crap forming in the veins and arteries of their children? No one does.
Are the fibrous clots real?
Are the fibrous clots new...post jab rollout?
Do the fibrous clots form in vivo...not post mortem?
Are the fibrous clots a consequence of the jabs?
All of these questions have answers.
Why is no one in the "health freedom movement" seriously looking into them?
Are people getting clots? Yes. We've known that since the rollout.
Are the clots shown in the documentary real? How could I know that? The documentary didn't do much to prove the thesis. Some of this I explained in Part 1.
Yes, we've known both the virus and the jabs can cause blood clots, but the clots shown in Died Suddenly are not normal blood clots. They do not break down when exposed to water. They do not respond to anti-coagulation therapy.
Ryan Cole says they are real.
FYI, I remember a few months back when you said in a video interview that you had your doubts about the fibrous clots, but you believed Ryan Cole to be a credible source. I was also skeptical when I first saw an interview of John O'Looney about a year and a half ago. Then, Steve Kirsch addressed them in March of this year. At one point, Kirsch interviewed Ryan Cole about them in an airport.
People are shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. Are the clots real? What can be done to help people? That's what matters to me. I don't care about Stew Peters underage drinking or his colorful past.
I'm not a fan of Dr. Drew, but he invited Ryan Cole onto his show last week to talk about the vaxx side effects. They talk about the clots.
Understand, you just spent a paragraph saying that the clot story had already been told by other people. I agree. Thus Stew Peters is not the messenger.
In fact, my probability estimate for the story went down watching this documentary. All kinds of opportunities were missed to show good evidence. Why?
Also, you seem to have little interest in the primary points in my articles, and haven't challenged any facts. I'm not at all certain what you're trying to convince me of unless it's that people shouldn't be wary of the potential for bad faith actors who agree with them about something. And I reject that premise wholesale, and already gave plenty of reasons why.
Steve Kirsch wrote a substack article in March 2022 and later (this fall?) interviewed Ryan Cole about the fibrous clots in an airport somewhere. If you call that "already been told by other people", I don't know what to say.
What is the goal of the so-called health freedom movement?
Do you want people to stop getting jabbed or not?
Do you think those awful clots would convince people to stop getting jabbed?
'Cause I do.
This isn't about Stew Peters. This is about the hundreds of millions of people who've been injected with an experimental gene therapy that appears to cause fibrous clots that do not respond to conventional anti-coagulation therapy, clots that are incompatible with life.
Are the clots real?
Are they caused by the shots?
And, if so, what can be done to help the hundreds of millions of people who got the injections?
I don't care about Stew Peters underage drinking. I don't care about his colorful past. I don't like his sensationalist style. He is not my preferred messenger for those reasons. But he addressed the clots. Do you think those pretty films by Headwinds advanced the "movement"? Riding horsies in Andalusia and dining al fresco really helped the cause? How many books, podcasts, meetings, confabs, films...and no mention of these clots? Why? Are they real or are they fake? It isn't hard. Yes or no.
The notion that Peters is somehow an agent provocateur who is trying to discredit the so-called health freedom movement by drawing attention to the fibrous clots is ridiculous. It only works if they are fake...if the embalmers are lying...if Ryan Cole is lying. Are they?
I am confused and concerned that many people have attacked Stew Peters and ignored those clots. You don't like the way he presented the information? I agree. The film was emotionally manipulative. I agree. You don't like the lack of good evidence? I agree.
That's why I keep asking if the clots are real.
It's binary. The clots are real or they are not.
A year and a half after I first heard John O'Looney talk about the weird clots that embalmers were pulling out of dead bodies, no one with the proper pedigree in the so-called health freedom movement has addressed them in any meaningful way. Stew Peters shines the spotlight on them, and the first instinct of too many people is to talk about Stew Peters and ignore the clots.
I think Mat is trying to delineate truth from emotional manipulation. Both can be present at the same time and serve goals that are diametrically opposed to each other. It's important, very important actually to attempt to disentangle the two. In my opinion, we would have all been much better served if Stew would have avoided emotion altogether - no music, no Bigfoot, no crafty editing. Just show the damn clots and that's enough. It could have been a 10 minute doc. But then, I suppose without emotional hooks no one would want to watch it. The question, then, I suppose is why did Stew choose the particular emotional hooks he did? In my view, he chose manipulative hooks (ones that detracted from the truth being presented) for some reason.
I don't disagree with you. I feel the same way about the pretty Headwinds films. We're in the middle of a global crisis and they're riding horsies and dining al fresco.
Are the clots real?
I've heard about them for a year and half.
Why was this left to Stew Peters?
Why are people criticizing the film and trashing Peters and ignoring the clots? (I refer you to Malone's first substack article on the subject.)
Steve Kirsch was promoting the embalmers story several months ago. He could easily have thrown $15K at the subject and made a better movie. I know some of his commenters were suggesting more or less that, at the time. If he exercised any creative control over it I'm sure it would be much less manipulative and more factually grounded, because that's his style. (Whether he gets it right, and on what, is a separate issue.)
I agree with you. None of them did. Which is why I find their attacks on Stew Peters disturbing. The fibrous clots are real or they're not. The fibrous clots are caused by the shots or they're not. It isn't hard.
Calm down...you keep referring to Dr Cole about the clots but you're missing the KEY DIFFERENCE in what he told Drew. The clots he showed were from LIVING PATIENTS not dead people like the embalmers were exhibiting.
Oh, honey, don't tell me to calm down. Cole has received post mortem clots as well. And, yes, chain of custody is very important. That's why I keep asking if the clots are real.
Why was the first instinct of so many to attacks Stew Peters (to bring up underage drinking ffs) and ignore the clots?
Seriously, Mathew, why are you spending time on this?
I have no patience for Malone's criticism of Stew Peters. He got the job done while Malone made pretty films with pretty horsies and traveled the world to have important meetings about important stuff.
Are the clots real?
Yes?
What are you doing about it, Doc, besides criticizing Stew Peters?
Normal blood clots respond to anti-coagulation therapy. These clots do not. How do we help these people? How can we save them? If Peters wasn't the right guy with the proper papers and CV to address the clots, why didn't Malone do something? Why didn't any of them?
https://www.rcolemd.com/post/cells-don-t-lie-and-foot-long-blood-clots-ask-dr-drew
Why am I concerned with what might be the largest fraud in the history of the world?
Dunno. I'll go reflect on my priorities.
Which fraud might that be? Are you saying the fibrous clots aren't real? John O'Looney is lying? The embalmers are lying? Ryan Cole is lying? Did they fake the video?
IMO, the clots are the only issue that matters.
What is the goal of the so-called "health freedom movement"? 'Cause I thought we wanted people to stop getting jabbed. Whether you think our current nightmare can be explained by greed, incompetence, hubris, CYA, and/or groupthink...or...you think we're in the middle of a globalist cull planned for decades...don't we want people to stop getting jabbed?
I suspect even the most dedicated covidian would stop getting jabbed if they knew about those clots. Who the hell wants that crap forming in their veins and arteries? Who the hell wants that crap forming in the veins and arteries of their children? No one does.
Are the fibrous clots real?
Are the fibrous clots new...post jab rollout?
Do the fibrous clots form in vivo...not post mortem?
Are the fibrous clots a consequence of the jabs?
All of these questions have answers.
Why is no one in the "health freedom movement" seriously looking into them?
Why was this left to Stew Peters?
It only works if the clots aren't real.
Which fraud?
It might help to read the article.
Sorry. I've read too many articles. I read your first article a few days ago. I'm done.
Are the clots real?
Are people getting clots? Yes. We've known that since the rollout.
Are the clots shown in the documentary real? How could I know that? The documentary didn't do much to prove the thesis. Some of this I explained in Part 1.
Yes, we've known both the virus and the jabs can cause blood clots, but the clots shown in Died Suddenly are not normal blood clots. They do not break down when exposed to water. They do not respond to anti-coagulation therapy.
Ryan Cole says they are real.
FYI, I remember a few months back when you said in a video interview that you had your doubts about the fibrous clots, but you believed Ryan Cole to be a credible source. I was also skeptical when I first saw an interview of John O'Looney about a year and a half ago. Then, Steve Kirsch addressed them in March of this year. At one point, Kirsch interviewed Ryan Cole about them in an airport.
People are shooting the messenger and ignoring the message. Are the clots real? What can be done to help people? That's what matters to me. I don't care about Stew Peters underage drinking or his colorful past.
I'm not a fan of Dr. Drew, but he invited Ryan Cole onto his show last week to talk about the vaxx side effects. They talk about the clots.
https://www.rcolemd.com/post/cells-don-t-lie-and-foot-long-blood-clots-ask-dr-drew
Understand, you just spent a paragraph saying that the clot story had already been told by other people. I agree. Thus Stew Peters is not the messenger.
In fact, my probability estimate for the story went down watching this documentary. All kinds of opportunities were missed to show good evidence. Why?
Also, you seem to have little interest in the primary points in my articles, and haven't challenged any facts. I'm not at all certain what you're trying to convince me of unless it's that people shouldn't be wary of the potential for bad faith actors who agree with them about something. And I reject that premise wholesale, and already gave plenty of reasons why.
Steve Kirsch wrote a substack article in March 2022 and later (this fall?) interviewed Ryan Cole about the fibrous clots in an airport somewhere. If you call that "already been told by other people", I don't know what to say.
What is the goal of the so-called health freedom movement?
Do you want people to stop getting jabbed or not?
Do you think those awful clots would convince people to stop getting jabbed?
'Cause I do.
This isn't about Stew Peters. This is about the hundreds of millions of people who've been injected with an experimental gene therapy that appears to cause fibrous clots that do not respond to conventional anti-coagulation therapy, clots that are incompatible with life.
Are the clots real?
Are they caused by the shots?
And, if so, what can be done to help the hundreds of millions of people who got the injections?
I don't care about Stew Peters underage drinking. I don't care about his colorful past. I don't like his sensationalist style. He is not my preferred messenger for those reasons. But he addressed the clots. Do you think those pretty films by Headwinds advanced the "movement"? Riding horsies in Andalusia and dining al fresco really helped the cause? How many books, podcasts, meetings, confabs, films...and no mention of these clots? Why? Are they real or are they fake? It isn't hard. Yes or no.
The notion that Peters is somehow an agent provocateur who is trying to discredit the so-called health freedom movement by drawing attention to the fibrous clots is ridiculous. It only works if they are fake...if the embalmers are lying...if Ryan Cole is lying. Are they?
I am confused and concerned that many people have attacked Stew Peters and ignored those clots. You don't like the way he presented the information? I agree. The film was emotionally manipulative. I agree. You don't like the lack of good evidence? I agree.
That's why I keep asking if the clots are real.
It's binary. The clots are real or they are not.
A year and a half after I first heard John O'Looney talk about the weird clots that embalmers were pulling out of dead bodies, no one with the proper pedigree in the so-called health freedom movement has addressed them in any meaningful way. Stew Peters shines the spotlight on them, and the first instinct of too many people is to talk about Stew Peters and ignore the clots.
Point in fact it was Ardis who suggested that the embalmers clots may not be real. Ardis got burned by stew several months ago.
I saw that interview with Ardis. He says he called embalmers in Dallas (as I recall), and they claimed they hadn't seen them.
Are the clots real or not?
I don't know.
That's why I keep asking.
And they keep talking about Stew Peters.
I think Mat is trying to delineate truth from emotional manipulation. Both can be present at the same time and serve goals that are diametrically opposed to each other. It's important, very important actually to attempt to disentangle the two. In my opinion, we would have all been much better served if Stew would have avoided emotion altogether - no music, no Bigfoot, no crafty editing. Just show the damn clots and that's enough. It could have been a 10 minute doc. But then, I suppose without emotional hooks no one would want to watch it. The question, then, I suppose is why did Stew choose the particular emotional hooks he did? In my view, he chose manipulative hooks (ones that detracted from the truth being presented) for some reason.
I don't disagree with you. I feel the same way about the pretty Headwinds films. We're in the middle of a global crisis and they're riding horsies and dining al fresco.
Are the clots real?
I've heard about them for a year and half.
Why was this left to Stew Peters?
Why are people criticizing the film and trashing Peters and ignoring the clots? (I refer you to Malone's first substack article on the subject.)
Steve Kirsch was promoting the embalmers story several months ago. He could easily have thrown $15K at the subject and made a better movie. I know some of his commenters were suggesting more or less that, at the time. If he exercised any creative control over it I'm sure it would be much less manipulative and more factually grounded, because that's his style. (Whether he gets it right, and on what, is a separate issue.)
But he didn't.
I agree with you. None of them did. Which is why I find their attacks on Stew Peters disturbing. The fibrous clots are real or they're not. The fibrous clots are caused by the shots or they're not. It isn't hard.
Calm down...you keep referring to Dr Cole about the clots but you're missing the KEY DIFFERENCE in what he told Drew. The clots he showed were from LIVING PATIENTS not dead people like the embalmers were exhibiting.
The chain of custody is completely different.
Oh, honey, don't tell me to calm down. Cole has received post mortem clots as well. And, yes, chain of custody is very important. That's why I keep asking if the clots are real.
Why was the first instinct of so many to attacks Stew Peters (to bring up underage drinking ffs) and ignore the clots?