In the other thread, I complained about the fact that the docuмentary is essentially a music video supercut to conspiracy footage. Every once in a while the music video gets interrupted for some actual information (mainly, the morticians and their clot findings-- which is a story that could have been told in fifteen minutes, and is the only new information the video had to offer as far as I can tell).  The heart surgery clips seemed off to me when I watched it so I'm not surprised to learn they have nothing to do with any COVID or vax patient.
.
The docuмentary was pretty clearly designed to grift right wingers by appealing to their sensibilities.
.
I'm very cynical of alt-media because time and time again they are found to be pulling the same dishonest, non-argumentative tricks that mainstream media pulls.  Everyone has a narrative and the facts be damned.
.
That said, the OP's article is just propaganda from the other side:
.
One of the quoted morticians says that the clots are due to bodies being kept in freezers longer than usual, and that they are being kept in freezers because there are so many bodies to process. Well why are there so many more bodies than usual? And why do they all have these clots now, when they didn't during the initial wave of COVID prior to the vax?  Morticians in the docuмentary claimed that not only were they personally unfamiliar with such clots, but that they networked with dozens (hundreds?) of other morticians who also had never seen anything like them before. Are all of them wrong? Maybe; maybe they're all lying so you'll give your money to Stew Peters. But that's a harder pill to swallow than to suppose that the one quoted mortician from the article is wrong. Ditto the doctor they quote.
.
And then there's the fact that the article basically concludes that the vax works and is harmless because science says so.  This is just a cope.  Where there is smoke there is fire. Something is very probably wrong with the vax.  We don't know more because the people who would be responsible for researching the problems with it are the same people who are incentivized to keep distributing it.
.
TL;DR: everything's manipulative propaganda and neither the docuмentarian nor his debunkers seem to care about real people who are walking around with time bombs in their veins.

Stew (Peters) regularly mixes truth with complete BS.  
[]
So, there two possibilities here. 

1) Stew gets publicity the crazier he gets, and so he does this stuff for ratings. 
2) Stew is on the payroll as an agent for deliberately making anti-jabbers look bad and to discredit them.

I can't decide which I lean toward.

But by mixing outlandish nonsense in with the truth, that has the effect of discrediting the true parts of what he's saying also.  I do tend to believe the embalmers who would know whether or not what they're looking at is unusual, but then all it takes is one or two gems like the heart surgery footage to discredit also what these otherwise-credible sources had to say.

Stew regularly mixes truth with complete BS.  I actually don't discount the snake venom similarities ... since those seem fairly well substantiated.  That it might be in the water seems a bit more far-fetched, but as long as you admit hat it's pure speculation, I see nothing wrong with it.  In fact, the man who thus speculated later said that it's all it was and yet Stew turned the entire episode (named after that one relatively small part of his theory) to be about the water.

But he and a couple of his guests, particularly Dr. Carrie Madej, have been poster children for the pro-jab crowd to attack anti-jabbers as nutjobs and crazies.  Stew has gotten ratings precisely because he goes so outlandish with some of his stuff.  I can't forget how Madej was talking about how she could sense that some entity she saw under a microscope was self-aware and was aware of her watching it.

So, there two possibilities here. 

1) Stew gets publicity the crazier he gets, and so he does this stuff for ratings. 
2) Stew is on the payroll as an agent for deliberately making anti-jabbers look bad and to discredit them.

I can't decide which I lean toward.

But by mixing outlandish nonsense in with the truth, that has the effect of discrediting the true parts of what he's saying also.  I do tend to believe the embalmers who would know whether or not what they're looking at is unusual, but then all it takes is one or two gems like the heart surgery footage to discredit also what these otherwise-credible sources had to say.

An interesting article about the video "Died Suddenly" that looks seriously at the blood clotting issue, as well as propaganda.

https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/what-is-causing-the-died-suddenly

Just printed it out in case I can't get back into the site...

I wish this "mid-western doctor" wasn't anonymous.

ETA:  Eh, don't bother printing it.  It doesn't allow you to print without blocking the text with a request to subscribe.  I just wasted 13 pages of paper.

Stew regularly mixes truth with complete BS.  I actually don't discount the snake venom similarities ... since those seem fairly well substantiated.  That it might be in the water seems a bit more far-fetched, but as long as you admit hat it's pure speculation, I see nothing wrong with it.  In fact, the man who thus speculated later said that it's all it was and yet Stew turned the entire episode (named after that one relatively small part of his theory) to be about the water.

But he and a couple of his guests, particularly Dr. Carrie Madej, have been poster children for the pro-jab crowd to attack anti-jabbers as nutjobs and crazies.  Stew has gotten ratings precisely because he goes so outlandish with some of his stuff.  I can't forget how Madej was talking about how she could sense that some entity she saw under a microscope was self-aware and was aware of her watching it.

So, there two possibilities here. 

1) Stew gets publicity the crazier he gets, and so he does this stuff for ratings. 
2) Stew is on the payroll as an agent for deliberately making anti-jabbers look bad and to discredit them.

I can't decide which I lean toward.

But by mixing outlandish nonsense in with the truth, that has the effect of discrediting the true parts of what he's saying also.  I do tend to believe the embalmers who would know whether or not what they're looking at is unusual, but then all it takes is one or two gems like the heart surgery footage to discredit also what these otherwise-credible sources had to say.