Died Suddenly

Yeah … Be really, really careful with this sort of thing.

Before I say anything else I first need to make a couple things clear.

I’m NOT saying everything in this video is pure bullshit and it’s safe to ignore it. I’m neither arguing for nor against the content context of this video. I don’t know for certain one way or another. That said, I’m neither predisposed to either accept this or reject it. I’m seriously throttling any confirmation bias I might have. That’s not an easy thing for most people to do but I have some practice with that sort of thing. I’m looking for real information and there’s a real trick (several actually) to finding that sort of thing.

There are phases and aspects of information reliability.

There is the generation of information. The means by which information comes into existence and can be addressed by human beings.

There is the dissemination of information. The means by which information is spread or not …

There is the suppression of information. Information which is intentionally withheld in order to give the appearance that something is other than what it actually is.

There is the alteration of information. This one can be the most efficacious when it is most subtle. The most effective lies are 99% truth with the deception carefully crafted, intentionally or not, and masked by many verifiable truths.

There is contradictory information. Information that seems to negate other information.

There is actionable information. Information with a reasonable degree of verification, corroboration, independent sources of support, unrelated sources in agreement, etc. That’s not all but it’s enough for you to get the idea.

There is information probability. The likelihood in light of what is already understood, agreed upon and known to be true allows even the possibility of other information to be true. Examples of this are the insistence that the world is flat, that the American Apollo program never put so much as a human foot on the moon, that lizard people secretly walk among us and are influencing the course of the human condition to their own nefarious ends, that there are secret Nazi bases in Antarctica preparing to take over the world, etc.

Then there is the bugaboo of all information, true or not, of confirmation bias. You’re way, way more likely to gobble up something you want to hear, or something in your (not personally you, ‘you’ as a general address) vast wisdom and intelligence that supports a conclusion you’ve already made — be it truth or not.

Conversely, you’re way, way more likely to reject information that doesn’t fit your worldview, denies to be valid something you already think you know, even if that information is solidly and demonstrably true. This is a serious problem in how human being view the world and it takes training and practice to overcome this. Overcome this you must if you would live in the real world and not some distorted worldview. You cannot reject information, even information you don’t like, if it can be demonstrated to be reliable information.

There are also the traps of sophistry and rationalization. Nearly anything can be argued convincingly in an information vacuum. Bill Whittle has spoken about this when relating that for a couple weeks after he read a certain book he was convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that William Shakespeare never existed as a real human being and the works attributed it him were by others. Bill says it didn’t take long after looking into the matter before he knew that information was bogus. But hey, if they can fool Bill even for a little while …

Etc. There’s more but that will do to get my points across. I could write coursework texts on the aspects of information and the application of same.

All these things need to be applied and examined when there is new information. In order to pass the ‘sniff test’ information with which a person is not familiar or sounds extraordinary or makes extraordinary claims must be filtered through the whole gamut of the aspects of information … If you want to know the truth. If Truth isn’t important to you don’t feel bad, you’ve got a lot of company because no matter what they think or say, a very large and significant percentage of people don’t even know how to find what’s True, they don’t really care to look in earnest either.

So here’s a few points to consider …

Anecdotal information is always suspect but I do not know personally even one person who “died suddenly and young” that fits the topic of this ‘documentary’. I know of people who have had issues related to prior conditions and I know people who have had age related issues that might or might not be independent from the vaccine but … I don’t know even one person, and I have not been made aware of even one person through interaction with friends and acquaintances … Who ‘died suddenly’ as per the claims in this video.

Going by the claims made in this video, that would be pretty near impossible. I know quite a lot of people all across N. America and Europe. If the COVID mRNA vaccine is an all out effort to reduce planetary population then out of the hundreds of people I know and the combined thousands they all know … The probability of this claim of depopulation skulduggery starts to look a bit anemic.

If this is a population reduction scheme it’s not working all that well.

At the beginning of the video there are a lot of claims made by ostensible morticians. Do I know any of those people? Have I ever heard of any of them? Do I know if they’re actually practicing morticians? Do I know if they are practicing morticians but have some other not-so-obvious agenda? What do I know about those people that would lend them the kind of credibility to take their claims at face value?

There’s an information vacuum right there and it starts the whole video off. the clear intention is to put you in a certain frame of mind. Like the book that convinced Bill that Shakespeare wasn’t a real person. But, what can we pick out from the information being presented that allows us to have any doubt that these people are genuine, sincere, telling the Truth and are correct, or not?

There’s a man who claims to be a mortician from Canada who says that ‘every single cadaver he worked on” had those fibrous blood clotting anomalies. “Every single one” is how he put it in his own words. That seems a bit extraordinary to me. I could maybe be easier to convince if he’d said “Out of 270 cadavers, 250 exhibited these venous/arterial anomalies.” Or pretty much anything except claiming a universal unequivocal demonstration of this so-called ‘phenomena’.

There are a lot more things that if you’re not willing to just gobble this stuff up (yucky pun, huh?) at face value might stick out at you. I’ll leave those things as an exercise in what I’m trying to demonstrate here and have fun. You’ll probably have to watch the video again … Or maybe more than once.

I’m no mortician so I’m not going to try to dissect their presentations during embalming but … I have seen a few corpses in my time. Blood tends not only to clot but to pool at the lower extremities when someone dies. I’ve never cut a dead body open but I’ve seen a lot of clotted blood. The clotting occurs by the action of a protein made in the liver called “prothrombin”. This is responsible for making ‘fibrinogen’, a breakdown of prothrombin that creates a fibrin clot. Prothrombin is released when a blood cell ruptures. Blood cells rupture when they die and begin decomposition. So … Meh, maybe they have a point with all that gruesome clot pulling and maybe the just want to make the video very graphic so as to maximize impact.

It turns out we either have to take their word for all of that, or not. Why might we not take the word of the video makers and participants at face value?

After all, they must be reliable, or that’s what we’re meant to think anyway. Why would they hyperbolize or sensationalize something like this? What motive might they have?

The obvious motive. Money. That video has fairly decent production value and graphics and those things are not cheap. It’s a professionally done ‘documentary’ but that doesn’t make it true. It does broaden its appeal quite a bit and I don’t think we can rule out the idea that the creators of the video hoped for some sort of monetary gain. The more views, the more this information is disseminated, the more money they make.

So I think it’s fair to rule out pure altruism as a motive for making this video.

There’s a lot more that’s suspect. Using a case, or two, or two dozen or even several thousands out of the billions of vaccines that have been administered does not make a certainty of a toxic aspect to this vaccine. At the end of the video there’s a guy who has some sort of varicosities in his leg(s). I’ve had something that looks like that since years before COVID was ever heard of. It might be the same thing, it might be a rare condition but I kind of doubt it. It’s varicose veins in my case, it may or may not be the same in his.

Blurry, vague graphs on a computer screen flanked by the speaking person are not ‘evidence’. The video does not cite any external sources or evidence to speak of. There are a few casual references to lend verisimilitude but that’s a long way from proof of any claims. Don’t forget, claims are just claims, they’re not facts. They might be facts or not, so why not back them up with reference materials and other independent sources that bolster the claim of truth? If you have them, that is. If you don’t then you can never get past a claim being nothing but a claim.

The counter arguments to that are the same as all other counter arguments to improbable information. “The government doesn’t want you to know” and all that. The government, for the record, is untrustworthy but inept. Virtually nothing the government doesn’t want you to know stays unknown for long except in the case of genuine classified information and even then it’s an iffy thing.

When reputable organizations delve deeply into the context of this video and present support and references for where they got their information I’ll be much more prone to believe it. That doesn’t mean it’s not true, it might turn out to be true someday. We’re not there yet with this ‘documentary’.

Never, ever lose sight of the fact that fear is a dandy motivator and the Right will as gleefully resort to fear motivation as the Left. It’s a proven, tried and true strategy so why would they not? On either side.

Lastly, I don’t mean to pick on Troy but his posts nearly always claim some sort of doom and gloom pronouncements so it’s obvious he’s really good at finding things he thinks we should all be alarmed over. This video might be the Gospel Truth, or it may not be even close. I know personally for a fact that Troy has posted things that are considering what I know, sheer nonsense. Like the idea that sending Abrams tanks to Ukraine is going to trigger a global nuclear holocaust for instance. Because Vladimir Putin says so and of course we know Vladimir Putin would never lie to get what he wants …

So while I respect Troy I don’t always respect or agree with his viewpoints. Whether you do or not is your call, you’re all grown up and wear men’s trousers every day so you’ll have to figure that stuff out for yourself. When you do, you may not agree with me and that’s fine too. But now I’ve given you a few things to think about except what lies easy and neat on the surface.

Oh there’s not a doubt at all in my mind that this movie is intended very purposely and specifically to the goal of people being led.

That doesn’t make it all untrue either. There were lots of patriotic movies during WWII that absolutely were intended to lead Americans towards a positive stance on the war effort and to get young men to enlist voluntarily. They showed brave and heroic people doing brave heroic things. That was a good thing.

If they had shown the rashes (oh God, the rashes), ringworm, scabies and blisters and terminal squirts and the bugs and the leeches and … Well that might not have helped get a lot more guys to raise their right hand and swear the Oath of Service. Just sayin’.

I’ve been suspicious of both this virus and the vaccines since this all started. Well actually about two weeks after it started, that’s how long it took me to get over being scared spitless and realize things weren’t adding up.

Even so, I got my first shot and the follow on booster. Knowing what I know now I can’t say I would have done any different. Still, I’ve had this sneaking suspicion in the back of my mind that this was meant specifically to kill off marginal old people. Who are the most burdensome segment of the population when it comes to Social Security, which is more-or-less bankrupt, and medical care. That might just be me and my enthusiastic paranoia.

I’ve been exposed to COVID a bunch of times and have never been symptomatic. I think that may be less to do with the vaccination and more to do with my ridiculously robust immune system. More likely it’s been a Blessing from God and I sure don’t want to leave Him out of the credit.

There’s no way that I’d give or advocate for a kid under 21 at the minimum to take this vaccine. The risk/benefit ratio just doesn’t add up for young, healthy people not likely to die or be seriously compromised in a long term way. That age minimum can probably be significantly increased.

Something I’ve found extremely troubling, and no one in this movie brought it up even though it’s so obvious — Why in the sam hell would the authorities ignore the fact that COVID survivors have better, broader immunity than the vaccinated AND still require people who had known, proven cases of COVID to be vaccinated? That just makes no sense to me and it militates for there to be some other hidden agenda behind the requirement for everyone including kids to be vaccinated.

If your sole concern is public health then immune COVID survivors are the gold standard. To me the fact that the powers-that-be still required those people to be vaccinated or suffer the consequences of refusal, which consequences in some cases are quite drastic — is a ‘tell’ that there’s something else going on here.

I don’t see how this movie missed that point entirely and … How the hell could they miss that? It would be a major point to make and pound home. I don’t think we need to be as afraid as the movie tries so hard to make us and for the reasons I’ve stated. I’m wondering if this movie isn’t the same sleight of hand that the government often uses — “Look, a squirrel!”

But I don’t think things are all the sunshine-and-roses-smoke the government and big pharma have been blowing up our asses either. There’s something going on here because when things don’t add up it’s because you don’t have all the puzzle pieces to start with.

I just don’t know what that is and I’m not willing to go further, at this point, than to say there’s something mighty suspicious about the real information that’s available to us. I’ve been paying pretty close attention and I don’t think any ‘documentary makers’ or Right Wing ‘journalists” know either.

“At this point in the timeline, if this Victrola is going to do damage to me, my wife, my kids…it’s been done. Learning how to stay as healthy as possible going forward is a high priority for me.”

That’s about the best I think you or anyone can do. That’s an excellent posture and very positively realistic.

P.S. Another thing that I just remembered and found very peculiar about this movie. What the hell is that clotted stuff and why no effort to identify it? Is it a hyper production of loose fibrinogen or something similar? Is prothrombin leaking somehow out of blood cells and creating fibrin masses? Why was it not sectioned, dyed and examined by microscope in the movie? Why were there no doctors at all rendering an opinion on it’s cause and makeup? When things don’t add up there’s always a reason. In this case the options are ignorant stupidity or malicious guile.

I see the world the same way because it is a fallen, crumbling cesspool. I’ve been over a large percentage of this planet in one capacity or another and I’ve seen a lot of very, very bad things. Sadly the bad things well outweigh the little pockets of good one comes across in a life like mine.

You use the word “fallen” so I assume you’re referring to the Fall of Man in Original Sin. Which is a Christian Doctrine I subscribe to myself.

The things I’ve experienced contribute greatly to my natural state of pessimism and paranoia. This is a problem because pessimism and paranoia are not happy conditions. A person only gets to live one life and at the end that person’s state of happiness is irrelevant to the Cosmos. The universe never cares if you’re happy or miserable.

So I have learned in my experience not to ignore those bad things, they are very real and need to be acknowledged and examined. At the same time the means I’ve settled upon to cope with those things is to be as certain as I can be that whatever causes focus in that area is real. Because there’s a lot of unreal floating around demanding focus.

During my entire adult life I’ve had to deal with Information in one form or another. That’s “Information” with a capital “I” because I’m not talking about the kind of information found on the back of packaged foods, I’m talking about Information as an entity.

Information as an entity is a very, very slippery thing. It’s very hard to melt down, siphon off the dross and get to the pure substance. In order to be able to do that I’ve had both training and experience over the course of a lifetime.

Because bad information, information that is not representative of reality, is by far the most common. This is because we’re fallen creatures navigating a fallen, crumbling cesspool and lies are the domain solely of Man and The Enemy that influences Man in opposition to Man’s Creator.

The Father of Lies doesn’t care which lies someone believes. It’s as useful to the Prince of Darkness to have a person believing a Conservative sounding lie as it is for them to believe Leftist lies. It’s all sludge in the same vat of poison.

So it behooves me to make sure that I’m not believing and passing on any lies that I can help avoiding. Doesn’t matter which side those lies appear to advance, the sides are Truth and Light vs. Lies and Darkness.

This takes a lot of effort and I’m neither perfect nor infallibly wise. Sometimes I get things wrong. The Enemy is VERY GOOD at deception and has more resources than I do.

One of the ways I try to accomplish sorting lies from truth is to integrate my carefully considered experiences and educating myself on a broad range of topics. A broad range means not only things that confirm my bias (and everyone has bias) but things that can be examined, interrogated, weighed and evaluated for how accurately they reflect reality. That is to say “Things that are demonstrably true as opposed to lies that are not true”.

That is what I’ve been doing when responding to certain of your posts, or replying to people who have commented on your posts. It’s nothing personal to you except that I notice you have a tendency towards the dire when the dire is just not true. I don’t even think that’s your fault, like I said The Enemy is very, very good at deception.

I’m sure you’re doing what you think is right and best. I’m doing the same thing when I point out strategic and tactical errors, intentional bias meant to feed a group of people’s confirmation bias, holes in an argument like the video ‘documentary’ on this page is full of … Etc.

That doesn’t mean I don’t like you and I’m trying to tear you down. At least in your case I don’t see anything that merits that sort of treatment and there absolutely are people that merit that kind of treatment. You don’t happen to be one of them.

But you’re wrong about one thing in specific. It’s possible to gain at least a degree of respect for someone online. Because if you’re someone like me you’re looking for tells and non-verbal/non-textual indicators in everyone you come across. Things which are obvious to me virtually shout at me.

The fact that you are reasonable and controlled in your response to me (that I’m replying to here) says much to my ‘detectors’ for want of a better word.

Not just here in this thread either, I’ve been reading what you have to say for quite a while and have seen much to recommend your opinions, when they’re accurate and reflect reality. Even when that’s not the case and I say something counter to what you’re saying it’s easy to see that you’re not motivated by some bellicose apoplectic ego issue, you’re a person who believes and means what he says.

That gets respect from me whether you care or not. It is in fact a way to earn respect online from other people. This comes naturally to you, so more respect.

Frankly I’m with you in not caring what others think of me, they don’t know me and if they did well … Going by experience there’s a good chance they wouldn’t like me. I only fit well in a certain very sparse group of people.

(Fortunately I live where there is a high density of that kind of person so I do have friends who value my friendship as much as I theirs.)

There are people even here at Bill Whittle who would not have reacted as you did. You didn’t blow a gasket being defensive and posting several nonsensical rationalized paragraphs and multiple posts of logical fallacies and sophistries as I’ve seen with someone who is not deserving of my respect at all.

Clearly your ego is not so fragile as to demand agreement and compliance. You explained why you think the way you do and now I’m reciprocating the courtesy.

I realize the respect of someone online you’ll never meet face to face is not in any way critical to your wellbeing, self image or self respect. That’s what makes being respectful with people online until they demonstrate they’re not worthy of respect worthwhile.

Because you can give people a chance to earn respect even online. The trick is recognizing the people who are respectable and those who are not. If you know what to look for they’ll let you know which they are.

You have comported yourself in a manner that earns respect and whether you care or not in doing so you garner respect.

Keep doing what you’re doing and I’ll keep doing what I’m doing. We don’t have to agree with each other on any given issue to be civil. If you challenge something I say or vice versa, that’s OK too. If you can maintain this sort of civility and avoid the impulse some people have to stomp disagreement into linguistic dust then that’s worthy of respect.

I type pretty fast and this is mostly chain-of-consciousness and thought processing but I spent a significant part of my day (+/- 30 min.) replying to you because I think you’re the kind of person worth that effort. I have to go now because a couple of those friends I mentioned above are coming over tonight to watch a movie in my home theater and the place is a mess. I live alone now so there’s no one but me to blame for that — 🙂