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 alt…
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.
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.