Robert Malone chimed in with basically the same take:I agree with this article on SOTT. I had similar feelings while watching it. The clips and images of bigfoot, moon landing etc. in the intro were a completely unnecessary distraction, and I think there's a big chance that those were put there intentionally to 'tar the baby'. The question is, which of the producers wanted those thrown in there. Was it Peters or some of the other ones?
Peters' track record is poor and I have no trust in this guy. He might be controlled opposition but my take is that he's more like one of those guys who acts before he thinks, 'running' with things without checking, 'thinking' with his emotions believing that he's doing a great service to humanity, and also enjoying the attention and fame. Basically, an ignorant individual who's probalby being played by smarter shenaningans.
Having said that, I agree that those close-ups of pulling those yucky things out of the arteries were shocking and 'effective'.
All in all, this documentary is a mixed bag in which various players have probably inserted their own little manipulations.
Sins of Information Warfare
Do the sins of our opposition wash our own sins clean?
rwmalonemd.substack.com
At the moment, there is a very active discussion regarding the increasingly viral video “Died Suddenly”. Other commentators (for example “The Daily Skeptic” and Josh Guetzkow) have appropriately noted that the (generally well funded and produced) video includes segments which are misleading at best, falsely imply one or more cause-effect relationship between a sudden death event and vaccine administration, or otherwise employ cinematic license to stoke outrage. I have previously written regarding the business model of Stoking Rage for the up and coming podcaster, and in my opinion this strategy is fundamentally the same as the “fearporn” business model of corporate media - and in particular CNN.
For what its worth, I hold “our side” to higher standards than I have come to expect from corporate (broadcast and published) media. I reject the assertion that, on the battlefield of the current 21st century unrestricted media and information war which we are immersed in, it is acceptable to employ the tactics of our opponents. I have heard others in the medical resistance community advocate the schoolyard “logic” of “they are doing it to us, and so we have to do it to them”. I firmly reject this. Any “win” on the information war battlefield which is based on this type of rationale will be transitory and self defeating. It is not a win if we become one with the ethics of our opponents.
This is not just an information war, it is a battle over what is right and good versus what is fundamentally evil. Our opponents clearly believe that the ends justify the means, and that ethics - right and wrong- are completely situational and subject to the same logic widely accepted by the “Virtuals” caste; that there is no objective truth or reality, and reality and ethics are whatever one believes it to be. The ultimate derivative of the logic of “cultural relativity”. The logic from which springs the transsexual movement denialism of the genetic/biologic basis of gender.
As I have said so many times, in so many lectures, our opponents in this information war, this war on truth and integrity, have no ethical guardrails. Ethics are entirely situational in their world. [cont'd]