This page is not a forum for general discussion about Died Suddenly. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Died Suddenly at the Reference desk.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

COVID-19 Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject COVID-19, a project to coordinate efforts to improve all COVID-19-related articles. If you would like to help, you are invited to join and to participate in project discussions.COVID-19Wikipedia:WikiProject COVID-19Template:WikiProject COVID-19COVID-19 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative Views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I’m curious how this is noted as “false claims”, perhaps maybe if we ignore it it won’t be true? 2601:98A:303:C70:9D:F5A6:7FAF:478 ( talk) 14:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

References 1 through 6 cover that claim. Looks solid to me. Robincantin ( talk) 19:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

References 1-6 are all opinion pieces. There are no sources listed that present evidence that this documentary is making false claims. The documentary interviewed a litany of people from various professions that shared their own personal experiences and opinions. The sources wiki lists as establishing the documentary is false are likewise based on the personal opinions and experiences of people. No one can say that all of the people interviewed in the documentary were lying. This is a big problem. The page needs to be changed. It’s factually inaccurate. GoodDaze ( talk) 08:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

You call "opinion pieces" fact-checking by professionals with refutations by knowledgeable authorities. All credible sources we've found so far call it disinformation, that's pretty clear how the wiki article has to be written. Robincantin ( talk) 12:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Just because you disagree with the conclusions and opinions does NOT make it disinformation. The sources in the video are equally qualified, and equally capable of impeachment, as all

your “credible” sources calling this disinformation. Not to mention the sources calling this disinformation are not credible (in the opinion of many of people). The discrediting sources are writing their opinions without any personal knowledge of the findings described in the testimonials while admitting that they do not have ANY evidence and therefore they cannot say one way or the other whether this is true or not. Those are the facts. Your sources have no personal knowledge, they have no evidence to disprove this documentary, and they use derogatory terms like anti vax propaganda because it is their personal opinion and they want to cast a shadow on the film without having the evidence necessary. This is TERRIFYING—unlock this page Wikipedia-don’t choose one side over the other-it’s ruins everything you’ve built. GoodDaze ( talk) 19:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

When there is a “battle of experts” – the PEOPLE are the ultimate FACTFINDERS. The PEOPLE decide who to believe. It is unacceptable for WiKi to make that determination. It is a matter of opinion. All evidence should be presented objectively so people can decide what to believe.

This page should explain the documentary, and then it can include a separate section with “criticism” – there is no justification to label this as false anti-vax propaganda. Its information; people can draw their own conclusions on what the information means. Just because some people disagree with the films conclusions does not make it disinformation.

Take a look at your "credible sources". They are far from it. They all regurgitate the same information coming from slam opinion pieces and personal tweets. What makes these credible? They are "fact-checking professionals with refutations"?? What does that even mean???? The people in the video are qualified professionals with reputations by knowledgeable authorities -- just like the 2 or 3 "professionals" that every single source of yours quotes (they are literally reusing the same few sources/quotes). It's not credible. Fact checkers are not dictators of truth.

Take a look...

1. This confirms a rise in excess deaths since 2020 but that there is no evidence vaccines are to blame. This does not disprove Died Suddenly’s claims – it doesn’t even accurately address them. None of the quotes in this article address the specific types of clots shown in the documentary, or the fact that the film posits that regardless of the etiology causing death, the etiology is predicated by “clots” that look and feel like rubber bands in varying sizes. These are not blood clots. The quotes only say that there are many causes of blood clots. One person says there were just so many bodies backed up that they were refridgerated for long enough to cause blood clots – there is NO evidence of that, its just her opinion and its no more or less true/false than what others with the same expertise opine in the documentary. Again, they do not address these specific, never-before-seen clots that are NOT blood clots at all. It also says one of the videos in died suddenly is actually a video uploaded on youtube in 2019. It links to a random tweet linking the supposed video, but that video is NOT viewable. So it proves nothing. Regarding still births, this website confirms an uptick in stillbirths. Similar to the position taken on blood clots, there is no evidence to say one way, or the other, what is causing the rise in still births. Thus, it does not mean that Died Suddenly’s position is false.

Goldhamer, Marisha (November 29, 2022). "'Died Suddenly' film amplifies false Covid-19 vaccine claims". Agence France-Presse. Archived from the original on December 4, 2022. Retrieved December 6,2022.

2. This is all of the exact same information as No. 1???? Weird… and still does not debunk Died Suddenly.

"We fact checked claims made in new anti-vax film Died Suddenly. Here's what we found". ABC News Australia. December 1, 2022. Archived from the original on December 4, 2022. Retrieved December 6,2022.

3. This is all of the exact same information as No. 1 AND No. 2???? Weird… and still does not debunk Died Suddenly.

"Is this anti-vaccine conspiracy theorist the next Alex Jones?". BBC News. May 3, 2023. Archived from the original on May 4, 2023. Retrieved May 4, 2023.

4. THIS IS A REVIEW IT DOES NOT DISPROVE DIED SUDDENLY.

Jarry, Jonathan (November 25, 2022). "The Anti-Vaccine Documentary Died Suddenly Wants You to Feel, Not Think". Office for Science and Society. University of McGill. Archived from the original on December 15, 2022. Retrieved December 6, 2022.

5. This basically says that the film has insufficient evidence (testimonials of embalmers and images of blood clots) to claim a link between covid vaccines, blood clotting, and sudden death. Actually, its not. That is a matter of opinion. The film testimonials describe something unlike anything they’ve seen before, that started in 2021. Then it describes the increase in “sudden deaths”. Obviously, it also describes the vaccine distribution and tactics used to increase vaccination rates. These are all factually accurate occurrences that have not been disproven at all. Just because this, and the other, “reviews” disagree that these facts necessitate the conclusion reached by Died Suddenly does NOT mean that Died Suddenly is false.

"The film "Died Suddenly" rehashes debunked claims and conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 vaccines". Health Feedback. November 29, 2022. Archived from the original on December 6, 2022. Retrieved December 6, 2022.

16. This does not say that the claims in died suddenly are false. This only says that there are other causes of blood clots. It doesn’t even address the claims that these are not “blood” clots; they are something unseen before, they look and feel nothing like blood clots, and they are found in places that blood clots are very rarely found. It also quotes French doctor Marie-Antoinette Sevestre-Pietri who literally says “we cannot draw any conclusion from these images. It may be anything.” (emphasis added) – which means that it could be exactly what the died suddenly video suggests. It does not mean that Died Suddenly’s position is false.

"US embalmer baselessly links clots to Covid-19 vaccines". Agence France-Presse. September 19, 2022. Archived from the original on December 20, 2022. Retrieved December 6, 2022. GoodDaze ( talk) 20:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

See WP:FRINGE. We don't give any weight to bullshit claims like the notion that the COVID-19 vaccines kill people. Isi96 ( talk) 23:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

First of all, please be respectful. If you can’t do that, you have no business on here. Second of all, who is “we”? Third, you dont get to decide what is and isn’t BS. Finally, if you’re so confident in your position why do you care if other people talk about their opposite opinions? What’s the problem? The documentary says what it says. You don’t have to agree. The wiki page for it should just describe what it is. It shouldn’t take a position on it. GoodDaze ( talk) 01:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:Verifiability

This page clearly takes a position in violation of the NPOV policy. The only sources cited on the documentary are opinion pieces. They are cited as fact. They aren’t reliable fact sources. This violates wikis policy of verifiabiliity. GoodDaze ( talk) 02:20, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

"This page clearly takes a position in violation of the NPOV policy." See WP:FALSEBALANCE. As previously mentioned, we (Wikipedia editors) don't give any credibility to the nonsensical assertion that vaccines kill people, any more than we give any credibility to the idea that the Earth is flat or that the Holocaust didn't happen.

"The only sources cited on the documentary are opinion pieces." Which ones? The cited sources are fact-checks, including from scientific sources like Health Feedback. Isi96 ( talk) 02:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note that GoodDaze was a single purpose account whose only contributions were to this page. Doug Weller talk 12:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Final days is not a sequel to Died Suddenly. The died suddenly website states that “Died Suddenly II” is still in production. All final days content should be removed from this page; it’s not relevant to Died Suddenly and it covers an entirely different topic (i.e. the mRNA vaccines being bioweapons vs. the clots being found post-mortem). What is the purpose of including this on the page? How is it relevant to died suddenly? Please explain… GoodDaze ( talk) 10:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

That's interesting. Looks like Peters himself first marketed it as "Died Suddenly: Final Days", but dropped the first part. That's probably why sources say it's a sequel - but the story doesn't really follow the first one. I don't think we have enough material to give it its own page. Maybe just call it "a video touching on some of the same themes"? Robincantin ( talk) 13:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What is your source that peters marketed it that way? Because I see that on an opinion slam piece convoluting the two films but not from any credible source.

I was just looking at some online promo materials from the launch from associated channels excited about the film, looked at some more now. Lots of "From the Directors of Died Suddenly", with some people getting confused and calling it Died Suddenly: Final Days". In any case, I agree it's not a sequel. I've already made that change in the Stew Peters article. Robincantin ( talk) 21:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

i don’t think there are enough similarities to keep these films together. There is enough material for each film to have their own pages as even just one sentence is sufficient. 2603:8000:D4F0:1320:FD43:3ECE:A2AC:EDB1 ( talk) 19:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

One still needs to establish notability for a stand-alone wikipedia article. Right now we have three source, that isn't much. Robincantin ( talk) 21:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Actually no. If you take down this page that you made and had “semi-protected” then I can make a new stand alone page for the documentary that does not include irrelevant unnecessary information that conflates and confuses two different films just because they’re from the same producer. That would be like talking about lion king on the page for little mermaid — it doesn’t make any sense. This isn’t Peters’ page. GoodDaze ( talk) 23:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What is your justification to keep final days on this page at all? Why not take it off? GoodDaze ( talk) 19:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm fine with it being taken off. I suggest waiting for a couple of days in case others wish to chime in ( Isi96?) before making the change. Robincantin ( talk) 21:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I included Final Days as a sequel because the cited source described it as such, but I suppose that descriptor could be removed. Isi96 ( talk) 23:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Isi96. We're thinking about cutting the section entirely actually; since it's not a sequel, it's irrelevant to the topic (except as a See Also if there's ever an article on the other one I guess). There's still a mention of it on the page about Stew Peters. Robincantin ( talk) 00:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ok well your source is a website with three named authors writing their opinions. It is not a proper source: it is not a reliable publication; it is not a direct source; and it does not provide any citation authority for its claims. Just because a website says something does make it true especially when if you watch the two films, and you look at the respective websites for the films, there is no mention of a sequel. So who is fact checking YOU and your “fact-checkers”???? GoodDaze ( talk) 23:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The concept of reliable sources on wikipedia is a big topic, you can start exploring it by reading the guidance provided. But don't worry, as you said THE PEOPLE can check their own facts, regardless of what's written on wikipedia. Robincantin ( talk) 00:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Certainly I agree. And when they do, they should be able to update the wiki page accordingly if it’s wrong, as this one is. people should not be relegated to only having access to information supporting a specific position. People should have access to all the information and they can they can decide their positions. Wiki is not an appropriate place to inject and assert opinions and beliefs as fact, even when those opinions and beliefs are supported by a few blog posts and tweets from people with the same opinions. That’s what’s happening here. GoodDaze ( talk) 02:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply