https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/four-videos-to-watch
Steve points out that he "did not fund the film or have any say in the editorial direction of the film." His participation was limited to his speaking part, and he has reservations about some elements of the film. Steve links to and quotes an article by an anon with similar concerns:
Although there was much I appreciated about Died Suddenly (e.g. it touched upon the history of elitist population control which I presented detailed evidence of here alongside a summary of the known previous attempts to develop and deploy sterilizing vaccines on the public), I feel the lack of editorial control will be extremely problematic later on. Since easily falsifiable information exists in the video that will be focused on in any attempt to debunk it, that will significantly weaken its message and allow the vaccine blood clots to be associated with other unprovable conspiracy theories.
This is a shame because the blood clot aspect of the film is so strong and can easily stand on its own. Additionally, I feel it is very likely that when “died suddenly” is searched in the future, instead of the large numbers of news reports emerging that show where this happened, we will instead be greeted with an endless number of articles debunking those parts of the movie.
It would be endlessly debunked no matter what.
Reading the initial debunking reports, they were totally without substance.
They were just the typical responses MSM puts out when someone is over the target.
Yeah, this just sounds like FUD to discourage us from promoting it.
Sounds about right to me.
We have to remember who Steve Kirsch is. He was a huge Democratic donor. (Not sure about his current support.) Therefore, like other disenfranchised Dems, he is careful not to sound like he has strayed too far from the plantation just in case there are still ties. Whereas we can move freely between topics that we see as somehow connected and related, people like Kirsch only want to deal with a single topic and issue that may not align with mainstream narratives - the rest is off limits. So, it does not surprise me that Kirsch is having problems with a film that he feels went "off topic."
True. Even were the movie perfect, the Cabal and its lackies would attack it energetically.
That doesn't negate the honest criticism though; the movie presents some things which are easily disproven and THOSE will eat away at the film's credibility.
"Falsifiable" has more than one meaning; in regards to scientific theory, it means:
If a theory is not falsifiable (i.e., if it cannot be proven either true or false) it is useless. Steve Kirsch is saying that at least one event featured in the film can be proven false. See below for more.
Here is Dr. Robert Malone's comment on one of his concerns about the film: https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/sins-of-information-warfare
Comment by an anon ("A Midwestern Doctor") https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-is-causing-the-died-suddenly
(This is a long piece about "vax" damage; the Died Suddenly film is a very small part of the discussion):
Later, he adds:
Stew Peters glows imo. He has a very strange backstory that screams paid shill to me. Not to mention his over the top delivery methods remind me of Alex Jones after his 2011 cash infusion.
Make a movie with just enough falsehoods to taint the truth makes it ineffective. Classic method.