If You Got The COVID Shot You Must Listen to This! | Redacted w Clayton Morris
Credibility score: 33/100 — Low Credibility. High BS alert! Many claims lack evidence or are misleading.
BSmeter analyzed "If You Got The COVID Shot You Must Listen to This! | Redacted w Clayton Morris" and rated it 33/100 for credibility (a BS score of 67/100 — low credibility), on 2026-09-14. Its weakest claim — "Guest claims a 'transhuman agenda' is turning humans into 'biological digital beings' and 'homoborg genesis'. This is a classic conspiracy theory framing." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as loaded language. 76 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 76 claims analyzed: 41 scored under 40, 32 between 40 and 69, and 3 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a series of leading questions, setting a tone of mystery and suspicion. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 0:00
Starts with a string of rhetorical questions to prime the audience for a 'hidden truth' narrative. Classic setup for a conspiracy angle.
Why this score: The speaker uses a series of open-ended, fear-inducing questions ('invisible but barely understood,' 'unsettling question,' 'nefarious purposes') to create an atmosphere of unease and suggest that there's a deeper, darker truth to be revealed. This is a common rhetorical device to hook viewers and prepare them for claims that might otherwise lack immediate evidence.
Original quote: “What if some of the most important threats to human health are not only invisible but barely understood at all? For years, researchers have studied how chemicals, heavy metals, environmental pollutants, other contaminants enter the human body. But a growing area of research is now asking a far more…”
Introducing a 'naturopath' as a 'clinical researcher' and 'peer-reviewed scientific author' to lend credibility to a fringe topic. Classic anonymous authority setup. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 0:30
They're stacking titles to make 'naturopath' sound like a hard scientist. The 'peer-reviewed' part is vague, no specific journals or studies mentioned.
Why this score: The host is using a string of impressive-sounding titles ('clinical researcher', 'peer-reviewed scientific author') to elevate the guest's authority, especially when the core credential is 'registered naturopath'. This is a common tactic to lend scientific weight to claims that might otherwise lack it. The 'NLJD study' sounds official but is presented without any context or external validation, making it an appeal to an unnamed, unverified authority.
Original quote: “My guest today has spent decades investigating that question. Caroline Mansfield is a registered naturopath, clinical researcher, live and dry blood analyst, specialist, and peer-reviewed scientific author. For more than 25 years, she studied human blood, the effects of environmental toxins that…”
Guest claims a 'transhuman agenda' is turning humans into 'biological digital beings' and 'homoborg genesis'. This is a classic conspiracy theory framing. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 1:43
Jumping straight to 'transhuman agenda' and 'biodigital beings' without any evidence. This is pure speculative, fear-mongering language.
Why this score: The guest immediately introduces highly charged, speculative terms like 'transhuman agenda' and 'biological digital beings' and 'homoborg genesis'. This language is designed to evoke fear and suspicion, framing a complex, unproven concept as an established, sinister plot. It's a classic example of loaded language used to bypass rational discussion and appeal directly to emotion, setting up a narrative of a hidden, malevolent force at play.
Original quote: “I've been running for the last three years in relation to what we're calling the transhuman agenda uh where they're trying to make us into these biological digital beings. So we're going from sort of a biological being to a biodigital being. We're moving away from homo sapien to homoborg genesis as…”
Claiming the 'advanced technology' can't be seen with a regular microscope, requiring 'transmission microscopy' to reach 'nano level'. This is a preemptive defense against lack of visible evidence. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 2:11
Explaining why you can't see the 'technology' before even showing evidence it exists. It's a convenient excuse for invisibility.
Why this score: The guest is preemptively addressing the lack of visible evidence for their claims by stating that the 'technology' is too advanced to be seen with standard tools, requiring specialized 'transmission microscopy' at the 'nano level'. This is a rhetorical tactic to explain away the absence of proof, effectively saying 'you can't see it because it's too sophisticated for you to see.' It sets up a narrative where the lack of evidence isn't a problem, but rather proof of the technology's advanced nature, shifting the burden of proof onto the audience to acquire specialized equipment.
Original quote: “The technology is so advanced um you can't see it under a microscope. Um well you can't see the components of the technology under a microscope. You you would need s um transmission microscopy to go right down to the nano level. you wouldn't see it with a light microscope, for example. So, it's um…”
Speaker describes an accidental discovery of 'human signals' — framing it as an organic scientific journey. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:33
Setting up the narrative of an unexpected discovery, which is a common and often genuine way research progresses.
Why this score: The speaker is explaining the evolution of their research, from environmental toxins to 'human signals,' framing it as a natural progression of scientific inquiry. This is a standard way to introduce a topic and doesn't appear to be manipulative framing; it's just setting the scene for their claims.
Original quote: “And the research program that I've been running um we didn't set out to look for these uh signals coming off the human body. Each study kind of built, you know, led to more uh scientific questions to lead us to the next study. So originally we were just looking at um environmental toxins and…”
Host uses 'Silent Spring' and 'Taco Bell lettuce story' to establish a familiar context for unseen dangers. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 3:09
Invokes well-known examples of environmental harm to prime the audience for the idea of hidden threats.
Why this score: The host is using established, emotionally resonant examples like 'Silent Spring' (DDT, bald eagles) and the 'Taco Bell lettuce story' (food contamination) to create a sense of familiarity and concern about unseen dangers. This is a classic 'emotional button' technique, leveraging existing anxieties to make the audience more receptive to the speaker's claims about new, invisible threats. It's not a direct lie, but it's setting a specific emotional tone.
Original quote: “Yeah. I was in fact you took the words right out of my mouth because that's where I wanted to to start like what was the trigger for you? You're looking at environmental toxins. is I think things we all are used to reading reading about going back to you know silent spring and and DDT you know…”
Speaker cites 25 years as a naturopath and mentions Dr. Robert Young's 1996 BBC study on EMFs. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 4:00
Mentions a 'Dr. Robert Young' and a 1996 BBC study on EMFs without providing any details or context.
Why this score: The speaker establishes their background as a naturopath, which is a specific type of alternative medicine practitioner. Then, they drop a name, 'Dr. Robert Young,' and a specific event, a 'study on the BBC back in 1996' about 2G and blood. This sounds authoritative, but without any details about the study, its findings, or the context of Dr. Young's work (which has been widely discredited in mainstream science), it's a classic appeal to anonymous or poorly contextualized authority. It's designed to sound credible without providing verifiable specifics.
Original quote: “Yeah. So, I mean, my journey has been obviously a naturopath for 25 years and I've been seeing patients over this time. Then my work sort of moved into running clinical studies for companies looking at products and proving our efficacy that the products are doing what they say they're going to do.…”
Connects EMFs from 2G/5G to blood coagulation, then links to common symptoms, using personal anecdote. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 4:30
Jumps from 'studies' on EMFs to 'personal journey' and common symptoms, implying a direct causal link without evidence. — Blames common ailments on 5G and blood changes without scientific backing.
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct line from EMF exposure (2G then 5G) causing blood changes to everyday symptoms like cold extremities and brain fog, then connects this to 'highly coagulated' blood. This creates a false equivalence between vague 'studies' (no specifics cited) and common, non-specific symptoms, implying a causal link that isn't scientifically established. The 'personal journey' framing further blurs the line between anecdote and scientific claim.
Original quote: “study that was ed back then showing how these EMFs affect our blood. They they cause a lot of um red blood cell uh aggregation and they they cause a breakdown of the red blood cells. And then many years later, I was doing very similar study, but now we're up to 5G. And when you hold your phone just…”
Introduces a 'masterpiece detox product' from a new company, framing it as a scientific endeavor. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 5:34
Sets up a 'masterpiece detox product' and 'proper studies' narrative, clearly leading to a product endorsement. — This is a classic setup for promoting a product under the guise of scientific inquiry.
Why this score: The speaker introduces a 'newly established company' and their 'masterpiece product' which is a 'detox formula.' The narrative then shifts to the speaker's insistence on 'proper studies' and 'third-party lab testing.' This entire segment serves as a thinly veiled advertisement, building credibility for a product that will presumably be revealed later, framed as a rigorous scientific discovery rather than a commercial venture.
Original quote: “So in 2023 uh a newly established company um was born and they were looking they had produced a formula which was a detox product. This is the masterpiece product and they asked me whether I would look at um the product under the microscope and be able to evaluate it in any way. And I said well…”
Claims 'a lot of talk' about graphene oxide and 'nefarious ingredients' in COVID shots, setting up a conspiracy narrative. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 6:11
Uses 'a lot of talk' and 'nefarious ingredients' to imply widespread, sinister intent without evidence. — This is classic fear-mongering, using vague claims to stir suspicion.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'a lot of talk' and 'nefarious ingredients' to suggest that graphene oxide was widely believed to be in COVID shots. This frames the subsequent 'study' as an investigation into a known, sinister truth rather than a hypothesis. It leverages existing conspiracy theories about vaccine contents to create an emotional button for the audience, without providing any verifiable sources for these 'talks' or 'ingredients.'
Original quote: “So this was soon after the roll out of the CO shots and I really wanted to run a study on graphine oxide because um there was a lot of talk that this was inside the the co shots you know among many other nefarious ingredients and um I I was asking up and down the labs in the UK”
Claims UK labs refused graphene oxide testing because it's 'not in the human body' — sets up a narrative of suppression. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 6:30
Framing the UK labs' refusal as suspicious, implying a cover-up without explaining the scientific rationale for their response.
Why this score: The speaker presents the UK labs' answer ('because it's not in the human body') as a dismissal, implying they were hiding something. However, without further context, this could simply be a statement about the expected physiological presence of graphene oxide, not a refusal to test for it if it were suspected. The framing suggests a deliberate obstruction rather than a scientific standard.
Original quote: “nefarious ingredients and um I I was asking up and down the labs in the UK can we test for graphine oxide and the answer would be no and I would say why not they said because it's not in the human body so it was just fortuitous.”
Presents IGL lab as 'top' for epigenetics and toxins, then reveals high graphene oxide levels in a 'small pilot study' with vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 6:40
Highlights the lab's 'top' status to lend weight to a 'small pilot study' with limited controls, then presents findings as significant.
Why this score: The speaker establishes the IGL lab's credentials as 'top epigenetics and environmental toxins lab in Europe' to bolster the credibility of their subsequent findings. However, they immediately follow this by describing a 'small pilot study' that explicitly states it's 'not a clinical study' and lacks controls like food, air, and supplements. Presenting 'high and very high levels of graphene oxide' from such a study, especially given the acknowledged lack of controls, creates a confidence mismatch between the lab's reputation and the rigor of the specific study cited.
Original quote: “I found a lab in Germany. It was called IGL lab and or IGL labor laboratory and they were the top epigenetics and environmental toxins lab in Europe and they had been testing not only graphine oxide but up to 900 different environmental toxins in the blood since 2009. So I went back to the company…”
Speaker admits their own graphene oxide levels were high despite being unvaccinated, calling it 'shocking' but downplaying the implications for their initial premise. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 7:34
Acknowledges a finding that undermines the vaccine-graphene link, but frames it as 'shocking' rather than a critical data point for the study's design.
Why this score: The speaker includes themselves in the study and finds high graphene oxide levels despite being unvaccinated. This is a crucial piece of information that directly challenges the implied link between vaccination and graphene oxide presence. While they call it 'shocking,' they don't fully explore what this means for the study's initial premise or the broader claim about vaccine ingredients. It's presented as an interesting anomaly rather than a potential refutation of the core hypothesis, which is a form of missing context in the overall narrative.
Original quote: “I put myself in the study because I wanted to evaluate the product myself, see what effects it had on me. And when you have a small um study group like that, uh the only uh variable would be that somebody wasn't taking the product. So you couldn't guarantee that. We're not inside. It's not a…”
Claims one test subject's graphene oxide levels 'reduced by 90%' after 35 days of taking 'the product' — vague results from an uncontrolled study. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 8:12
Presents a dramatic '90% reduction' from an uncontrolled 'product' in a 'small pilot study' — classic anecdotal sales pitch.
Why this score: The speaker moves directly from the 'shocking' finding about their own unvaccinated graphene levels to a positive result for 'the product.' Citing a '90% reduction' in one subject after 35 days, without any controls, blinding, or further details about the product or the study, is a clear rhetorical move to promote the efficacy of an unnamed product. This is a common tactic in a plain sales pitch, using an impressive-sounding but scientifically unsupported statistic to generate interest.
Original quote: “So the test subjects including myself started taking the product. Um and what we noticed initially on the 35day mark, one of the test subjects, graphine oxide levels reduced down to uh by 90% after 35 days”
Claims 90% graphene oxide reduction in 35 days — uses emotional appeal to bolster an unverified study. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 8:30
Citing a 90% reduction is a big claim, then immediately brings in 'Dr. Carrie Mday in tears' to add emotional weight without scientific rigor.
Why this score: The speaker presents a specific, impressive-sounding statistic (90% reduction in 35 days) but immediately follows it with an emotional anecdote about a doctor crying. This uses an 'emotional button' to make the claim feel more significant and credible, distracting from the lack of detail about the 'study' itself (e.g., methodology, peer review, sample size). It's a classic move to imbue a claim with gravitas without providing the necessary scientific backing.
Original quote: “test subjects, graphine oxide levels reduced down to uh by 90% after 35 days of taking the product at five drops twice a day. Uh and I we were speaking with Dr. Carrie Mday at the time who was in tears because this is quite groundbreaking. No one has been able to do studies with graphine oxide…”
Claims no lab in America will test for graphene oxide due to licensing issues — sets up a 'hidden truth' narrative. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 8:45
The claim that labs 'lose their license' for testing graphene oxide is a bold assertion, creating a conspiracy vibe without specific regulations or examples.
Why this score: The speaker asserts that no lab in America will test for graphene oxide and that labs would 'lose their license' if they did. This framing creates a narrative of suppression and hidden information, implying a cover-up. However, it lacks crucial context: why would labs lose their license? What specific regulations prohibit this testing? Without this information, it functions as a 'missing context' fallacy, designed to make the audience believe there's a deliberate effort to conceal something, rather than a scientific or regulatory reason for the absence of such tests.
Original quote: “If you try and find a lab in America, you won't find one. Nobody is testing the blood for graphine oxide anywhere. So, we carried on with the study >> because of the direct relationship to the vax. Um, well, it's just not one of those ingredients that's allowed to be tested. If if you went to a…”
Describes the 'intracellular electrical capacity test of the lymphocytes' — uses scientific-sounding jargon without explaining its validity for toxin detection. — Volume Game (45/100)
At 9:17
The detailed explanation of lymphocyte function and the test name sounds scientific, but it doesn't actually validate the test's ability to detect specific toxins like graphene oxide.
Why this score: The speaker introduces a test called the 'intracellular electrical capacity test of the lymphocytes' and provides a detailed, scientific-sounding explanation of how lymphocytes work. This is a 'volume game' tactic: by using complex terminology and a lengthy description, the speaker aims to impress the audience with apparent scientific rigor. However, the explanation focuses on the general function of lymphocytes as 'sentinels' and their role in detecting 'potential threats,' rather than specifically explaining how this particular test reliably identifies and quantifies specific toxins like…
Original quote: “Um and as I said this was the only lab I found and I think it was very fertuitous. I found this lab at the time. So this the the test I show sorry I should tell you the test that we did was called the intracellular electrical capacity test of the lymphosytes. So lymphosytes go around the body and…”
Claims 'everyone's levels came down' for multiple toxins after 90 days — broad generalization without specific data. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 9:58
Stating 'everyone's levels came down' for multiple toxins is a sweeping generalization, lacking the specific data needed to back such a confident claim.
Why this score: The speaker confidently states that 'everyone's levels came down' for a list of toxins including polypropylene, polyethylene, PFOAs, PFOS, and graphene oxide, with one person's levels dropping 'exceptionally low by 90%.' This is a 'confidence mismatch' because such a broad, positive outcome for multiple toxins across 'everyone' in a 'study' would require detailed, verifiable data (sample size, baseline levels, specific reductions, statistical significance, control groups) to support it. The blanket statement lacks this crucial evidence, relying instead on the speaker's confident assertion.
Original quote: “So, it was the intracellular electrical capacity um blood test. So, the we also we continue to take the product until the 90-day mark. Everybody had was tested again and everyone's levels came down. So where everyone was starting off at the high and very high ranges and all of these toxins, we…”
Claiming a product removes toxins and plastics based on an unnamed "pilot study" — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 10:30
They're citing a "pilot study" for a product that supposedly removes toxins and plastics, but no details on the study or product are given. Classic anonymous authority move. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker references a 'pilot study' and then a 'proper study' for a product that allegedly removes 'toxins including plastics' and 'graphene oxide'. However, no specific product name, study details, or research sources are provided, making it impossible to verify these claims. It's a setup for a product pitch without the necessary transparency.
Original quote: “down except for one came down exceptionally low by 90%. But we all came down to what we call the borderline levels um which is below um I think it's 300 nanomles per liter and then by the end of the study everyone had come down to what they call the tolerable range before below 149 nanomles per…”
Connecting atrazine in tap water to 'body dysmorphia' and gender changes in frogs — False Equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 10:46
They're linking frog studies on atrazine to human 'body dysmorphia' and gender identity issues. That's a huge leap, bro. 🐸➡️🧑🎤
Why this score: The speaker draws a direct line from a study on male frogs turning female due to atrazine exposure (at 1 part per billion) to the claim that American tap water (at 3 parts per billion) is causing 'body dysmorphia' in young people. This is a classic false equivalence, implying that effects observed in a specific animal study at certain concentrations directly translate to complex human psychological and social phenomena without any scientific bridge or nuance. The leap from frog biology to human gender identity is a significant oversimplification and misapplication of scientific findings.
Original quote: “But now we had this this baseline study for graphine oxide. So the company said great this is a pilot study now let's go on and do a proper study. So we had a much larger cohort and a placebo group. We had I think it was 22 or 25 participants with a placebo. Um so we started to run that study but…”
Using Alex Jones's 'gay frogs' claim to validate a link between tap water, atrazine, and human gender identity issues — Straw Man — Straw Man (20/100)
At 11:52
Validating a complex claim about human gender identity by referencing Alex Jones's 'gay frogs' is a rhetorical sleight of hand. It's a straw man argument to simplify and then 'prove' a complex issue. 🤦♂️
Why this score: The host, Clayton Morris, uses a personal anecdote about Alex Jones's 'gay frogs' claim to validate the preceding speaker's assertion that atrazine in tap water is causing 'body dysmorphia' and gender identity issues in young people. By framing Alex Jones's previously ridiculed claim as 'actually happening,' he attempts to lend credibility to a highly speculative and scientifically unsupported link between environmental chemicals and human gender identity. This is a straw man argument, simplifying a complex issue and then 'proving' it with a tangential, sensationalized anecdote rather than…
Original quote: “>> This is crazy. So I know I mean I I interviewed Alex Jones years ago and I had dinner with him and we were all myself and Tucker Carlson. We were all sort of sitting there and he started talking about frogs, frogs that were turning gay and we were all just sort of joking about it like come on…”
Suggests atrazine or other chemicals cause gender transition — a classic false dilemma. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 12:30
Presents two unrelated ideas (gender transition and chemicals) as the only possible causes, ignoring complex social and biological factors. Classic false dilemma.
Why this score: The speaker frames the rise in gender transition as either 'out of nowhere' or caused by 'atrazine or other chemicals in our drinking water.' This is a false dilemma because it ignores the multifaceted and complex understanding of gender identity and transition, reducing it to a simplistic, chemical-based explanation. It's designed to push a specific, conspiratorial narrative by eliminating other possibilities without evidence.
Original quote: “transition? Like where is this coming from? It's like it came out of nowhere. Or did it come from atrizine or other chemicals that are in our drinking water?”
Suggests a link between chemicals and gender transition without evidence. — False Equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 12:30
Connects 'chemicals in drinking water' to gender transition, implying causation without any basis. — Classic false equivalence.
Why this score: The speaker asks 'where is this coming from?' regarding gender transition, then immediately pivots to 'atrazine or other chemicals that are in our drinking water?' This rhetorical move creates a false equivalence, suggesting a causal link between environmental chemicals and gender identity without any scientific evidence. It's designed to plant a seed of doubt and connect two unrelated issues.
Original quote: “transition?”
Claims everyone was 'high and very high in graphene oxide' — a specific, unverified finding. — Missing Context (20/100)
At 13:17
Asserts 'everyone' was high in graphene oxide and other toxins, but provides no data, methodology, or context for these 'very high' levels. Where are the numbers?
Why this score: The speaker makes a very specific and alarming claim that 'everyone' in their study was 'high and very high in graphene oxide and so many of these environmental toxins.' This claim is presented as a factual finding from their study but lacks any supporting data, baseline levels, specific measurement units, or context for what constitutes 'high' or 'very high.' Without this crucial context and data, the claim is unverifiable and serves to create alarm without scientific rigor. The absence of the study's results due to lab issues further compounds the lack of verifiable information.
Original quote: “they all came back and everyone again was high and very high in graphine oxide and so many of these environmental toxins that we were testing for.”
Describes a series of 'unfortunate' events that derailed their study. — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 13:32
Presents a dramatic narrative of obstacles (lab issues, owner's death) that prevented study completion. — Builds a 'conspiracy' vibe.
Why this score: The speaker details a series of setbacks: lab calibration issues, inability to use blood samples, and then the sudden death of the lab owner, leading to the closure of the specific test. This narrative, while potentially true, is framed to evoke suspicion and suggest external forces preventing the study's completion, rather than simply reporting logistical challenges. It plays on an 'emotional button' to create a sense of intrigue and potential cover-up.
Original quote: “I got a message from the lab in Germany
saying they were having problems with”
Details a series of unfortunate events preventing study completion — a narrative of obstacles. — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:32
The speaker recounts a series of events that prevented their study from being completed. This is a personal account of challenges, not a fact-checkable claim.
Why this score: The speaker describes a sequence of events—lab calibration issues, inability to test blood, and the sudden death of the lab owner leading to closure—that prevented their study from being completed. This is presented as a personal narrative of obstacles encountered during their research. While the events themselves are not verifiable by external sources, the speaker is simply recounting their experience, which is a valid form of personal testimony. There's no obvious rhetorical manipulation here; it's a straightforward explanation for why the study results aren't available.
Original quote: “I got a message from the lab in Germany saying they were having problems with the calibration of their equipment and um they couldn't do the testing and we'd already just sent off all the blood at great expense. Um but it sort of crossed over they said with their their issue they were having so we…”
Connects a lab owner's death to their graphene oxide study, implying suppression. Classic 'coincidence?' framing. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 14:48
Suggests a lab shutdown after a death is suspicious, especially when tied to their 'groundbreaking' study. Implies foul play without evidence.
Why this score: The speaker links the death of a lab owner and the subsequent shutdown of the lab to their study on graphene oxide, implying a connection or suppression. This is a common rhetorical tactic to create suspicion and suggest a conspiracy without providing any direct evidence of wrongdoing. The lack of other labs willing to test for graphene oxide is presented as further evidence of this suppression, rather than a potential indicator of the scientific community's view on the substance or the testing methodology.
Original quote: “So that's not usual when a lab owner dies to shut down the whole operation. And what we believe potentially was happening is because at that time we were going online ex uh letting the world know that we've just completed the study for graphine oxide in people and this was the only lab I could find…”
Elevates a personal research setback to a global catastrophe. Emotional button pushing. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 15:15
Framing the inability to test for graphene oxide as a "bad day for the human race" is pure hyperbole and emotional manipulation.
Why this score: The speaker dramatically escalates the significance of their inability to test for graphene oxide, stating it's a 'bad day for the human race.' This is an emotional appeal designed to amplify the perceived importance and urgency of their claims, rather than a factual assessment of the situation. It aims to create a sense of alarm and solidarity with their narrative, despite the lack of evidence that graphene oxide is a widespread or untestable threat.
Original quote: “So at that point that was I mean it was obviously a bad day for our study but it was a bad day for the human race because now we can't test for graphine oxide.”
Introduces a 'Bluetooth documentary' as a 'study' to lend credibility. Confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 15:55
Calling a 'Bluetooth documentary' a 'study' is a classic move to elevate anecdotal or unverified content to scientific status.
Why this score: The speaker refers to something called the 'Bluetooth documentary' as a 'study.' This is a rhetorical technique to imbue a piece of media, which may or may not be peer-reviewed or scientifically rigorous, with the authority of a formal scientific study. The confidence in presenting it as a 'study' without further qualification or context is a mismatch with the likely nature of a 'documentary,' especially one with such a sensational title. This sets up the audience to accept the findings of this 'documentary' as scientific fact.
Original quote: “So we were happy with that part but then we we got to thinking okay so if we've moved remove the graphine oxide um there was a study that came up and it was called the Bluetooth documentary I don't know if you've heard of that.”
Citing a 'French experiment' and 'Bluetooth documentary' as proof of MAC address emission from people and gravestones. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 16:30
Mentions a 'French experiment' and 'Bluetooth documentary' without specific citations or links. Makes it sound like established fact without providing the actual evidence.
Why this score: The speaker references a 'French experiment' with 30 subjects and a 'Bluetooth documentary' as evidence for people and even gravestones emitting MAC addresses. While they claim the study is 'open source' and 'anyone can search online', the lack of direct links or specific names for these sources makes it difficult to verify. This relies on the audience's willingness to trust vague references and do their own research, rather than providing clear, verifiable evidence upfront. The gravestone claim is particularly extraordinary and requires robust proof.
Original quote: “thing was filmed um proving out that people were emitting MAC addresses. So >> human beings were emitting MAC addresses. Yes. >> MC addresses. >> Yes. And there was another study called the French experiment where they used 30 test subjects and again they were all emitting MAC addresses. So that…”
Personal experiment found people emitting MAC addresses 600 ft away with no tech on them. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 17:38
Claims a personal 'study' confirmed MAC address emission from people with no tech, but provides zero verifiable data or methodology. Sounds like a personal anecdote, not a scientific study.
Why this score: The speaker describes conducting their own 'study' using an app and 'professional grade equipment,' claiming to have found people emitting MAC addresses even when 600 feet away and without any personal technology. This is presented with high confidence, but it's an anecdotal account of a self-conducted experiment. There's no peer review, no published data, no details on the 'app' or 'professional grade equipment,' and no independent verification. The claim that people with no technology on them are emitting MAC addresses is extraordinary and requires far more rigorous evidence than a personal…
Original quote: “run a study. So I started just to test people with an app that was used in the Bluetooth documentary alongside the professional grade equipment and followed their protocol. I contacted Dr. Chavez and he told me his protocol. And lo and behold, when I was taking people into the middle of fields um…”
Citing an unnamed 'technical expert' from Bulgaria for a study on a 'phenomenon.' — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
At 18:30
They're leaning on an 'expert' without giving a name or credentials. Classic anonymous authority, makes it hard to verify. 🕵️♀️
Why this score: The speaker introduces a 'technical expert in Bulgaria' who has supposedly been researching this 'phenomenon' for four years and speaking at conferences. However, no name, institution, or specific research is provided, making it impossible to verify the expert's existence or qualifications. This is a common tactic to lend credibility to a claim without providing actual verifiable sources.
Original quote: “not qualified in this area." Um I said, "I need to find someone." So I I had a good search around and I found um a technical expert in Bulgaria who had been doing this research for four years and he had actually been speaking at telecommunication conferences and government um on the phenomenon…”
Claiming a study was filmed by a 'top film producer' to prevent criticism, but not for a documentary. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 19:05
They brought in a 'top film producer' to film a 'study' to prevent criticism, but it's not a documentary? The framing is a bit off. 🎥
Why this score: The speaker emphasizes that a 'top film producer, Cristiana Vanik,' was brought in to film the study 'so no one could critique or say we've made it up.' This implies a level of scientific rigor and transparency. However, they immediately clarify she 'wasn't going to make a documentary about it,' which raises questions about the purpose and accessibility of this 'filmed' evidence. If it's not for public viewing as a documentary, how does the filming prevent critique? The context around the filming's purpose is missing, making the claim of transparency feel performative.
Original quote: “So he said he's very familiar with all that technology and agreed to do the study. So he flew out to the UK and we we did this study but we wanted to also have it filmed so no one could critique or say we've made it up. So we had a top um film producer Cristiana Vanik who is from um Holland and she…”
Describing a study setup in a remote field, picking up signals from participants. — No Frame (75/100)
At 19:38
Just describing the setup for their 'study' in a field. No obvious framing tricks here, just setting the scene. 🏕️
Why this score: The speaker is simply describing the logistical setup of their 'study,' detailing how participants would reach their 'temporary base station' in a remote field. This is a factual description of their process, not a claim that requires external verification or exhibits manipulative framing. It's setting the stage for the results they will later present.
Original quote: “So, we would meet everybody um in the middle of a field. They would have to go through the woods across two fields to get to our temporary base station where we had all the equipment set up uh for the study. Um and we would they would walk across the woods, walk across the field, and by the time…”
Claiming Bluetooth signals are picked up from dead bodies in a graveyard, implying graphene oxide connection. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 20:05
Picking up Bluetooth signals from dead bodies in a graveyard? That's a huge leap, presented with zero evidence. 💀📡
Why this score: The speaker makes an extraordinary claim about 'picking up Bluetooth signals from the bodies that are dead' in a graveyard, linking it to 'graphene oxide' from COVID shots. This claim is presented with absolute confidence, yet it lacks any scientific basis or verifiable evidence. Bluetooth technology requires power and active components, which are not present in deceased human bodies. The confidence in stating such an improbable phenomenon without any supporting data or explanation of the mechanism is a significant confidence mismatch, pushing into highly dubious territory.
Original quote: “It's it's hard for people to understand this, but when you see it, >> I mean, I was shocked. You mentioned the gravestones thing when I had Jesse Beltron on who'd been studying this for years. And when they were able to track the individuals who died after having taken the COVID shot and they their…”
Claiming dead bodies emit Bluetooth signals — presented as an astonishing, dark secret. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 20:30
This is pure shock value. The idea of Bluetooth from dead bodies is designed to be incomprehensible and 'dark' to trigger an emotional response, not rational thought.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly charged language like 'graveyard,' 'dead bodies,' 'astonishing,' 'mouth hits the floor,' and 'very dark' to create an atmosphere of fear and disbelief. This framing bypasses critical thinking by appealing directly to strong emotions, making the claim seem more profound or sinister than it is. There's no scientific basis for dead bodies emitting Bluetooth signals, and the framing leans heavily on the 'unbelievable' aspect to deter scrutiny.
Original quote: “a graveyard and picking up Bluetooth signals from the bodies that are dead. >> Yes. >> They're giving off this signal and this is in our bodies. It's astonishing. I've told friends about this and they just there their mouth hits the floor. >> Yeah. It's it's unbelievable for people to to comprehend…”
A German lab 'mysteriously' shutting down after a study — implying suppression of information. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 20:54
The 'mysterious' shutdown of a lab is framed as evidence of a cover-up, but without any actual details or proof of why it closed.
Why this score: The speaker uses the word 'mysteriously' to suggest foul play or a cover-up without providing any evidence for this interpretation. Labs and clinics can shut down for many reasons (financial, regulatory, change of business focus), but framing it as 'mysterious' when it involves a controversial topic immediately implies suppression. This is a classic tactic to build a narrative of hidden truths and powerful forces at play, without needing to provide actual evidence.
Original quote: “Like no one has agreed to this. And also the I mean just just the other part of it too just having the convenience of this clinic this lab suddenly shutting down mysteriously telling you that they don't do these studies anymore German company.”
Drawing a parallel between a lab shutting down a COVID study and a Nordstream pipeline soil sample study — creating a false equivalence. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 21:12
Connecting two unrelated events (a COVID study and Nordstream soil samples) to imply a universal pattern of suppression is a classic false equivalence.
Why this score: The speaker explicitly links the alleged shutdown of a lab studying COVID vaccine effects to a completely separate, politically charged event (Nordstream pipeline investigation). By drawing this parallel, they imply that both instances are evidence of 'enormous pressure' from 'powers that be' to suppress information. This creates a false equivalence between two distinct situations, suggesting a grand conspiracy without providing any direct evidence that the two events are related or driven by the same forces. It's a rhetorical move to generalize a specific, unverified claim into a broader…
Original quote: “It reminds me of another journalist I interviewed years ago who was doing sampling of the soil samples from underneath where uh the CIA presumably blew up the Nordstream pipeline. And he managed to get soil samples and send them. He did it clandestinely to a German lab. Um, and I think once they…”
Referring to a product as 'the masterpiece' and stating personal use, then pivoting to finding 'chemicals' in an unvaccinated person. — Plain Sales Pitch (45/100)
At 22:12
Calling a product 'the masterpiece' and sharing personal use is a direct endorsement, then pivoting to a fear-based claim about 'chemicals' in the unvaccinated.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly positive, promotional language ('the masterpiece,' 'incredible') to endorse a product they've been taking. This is a clear sales pitch, leveraging personal testimony. Immediately after, they pivot to a vague, fear-inducing claim about 'chemicals' being found in the body of an unvaccinated person. This framing suggests that even if you avoided the vaccine, you're still at risk, subtly pushing the 'masterpiece' product as a solution. It's a classic setup: create a problem (chemicals in everyone) and then offer a solution (the 'masterpiece').
Original quote: “So, go back to the masterpiece part of this. Um, I, you know, as fans of the show know, I've been taking it for quite a while and I find it incredible. Um, and you know, you wonder, so you never took the COVID shot and you know, there are lots of people who haven't, but then you you were still…”
Claiming graphene oxide in bodies and MAC addresses from vaccine 'transfection' to partners. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 22:30
Connecting 'graphene oxide' and 'MAC addresses' to vaccine transmission is a huge leap, presented as fact. — No scientific basis for this claim.
Why this score: The speaker confidently links 'graphene oxide' and 'MAC addresses' to COVID-19 vaccines and then suggests 'transfection' to partners. This is a classic confidence mismatch, as there is no credible scientific evidence to support the presence of graphene oxide in vaccines, the generation of MAC addresses in vaccinated individuals, or the transmission of such effects to unvaccinated partners. It's presented as a 'preliminary study' but lacks any details or peer review.
Original quote: “you you were still finding like some of these chemicals in your body like graphine oxide and other things. So, it's not just for people that took the COVID shot, right? >> No. No, it's not. And this is what the preliminary study um we found with the MAC address study. It wasn't just those who had…”
Citing an anonymous 'nano chemist' to explain 'transfection' via skin pores. — Anonymous Authority (20/100)
At 23:02
Uses an unnamed 'nano chemist' to back up a wild claim about nanotechnology passing through skin pores. — Classic anonymous authority tactic.
Why this score: The speaker uses an unnamed 'nano chemist' to lend credibility to the idea that 'nanotechnology' from vaccines can be transmitted through skin pores via sweating, talking, or breathing. This is a textbook example of anonymous authority, where an expert is cited without any identifying details, making it impossible to verify their credentials or the accuracy of their statement. The explanation of 'nanotechnology' passing through skin pores to cause 'transfection' is also highly speculative and lacks scientific backing.
Original quote: “So there is an element of transfection to do with this. And I've spoken to a nano chemist and he's saying if you think about it this nanotechnology is so small it can go through pores of skin. So when you're sweating, when you're talking, when you're breathing, um you can take it in. This is why…”
Dismissing 'pure blood' status by suggesting 'transfection' from vaccinated individuals, then backtracking. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 23:24
Suggests 'transfection' from vaccinated people, then immediately admits it's 'all hypothesis' and they 'can't quite work it out'. — The confidence doesn't match the evidence.
Why this score: The speaker initially dismisses the idea of being a 'pure blood' (unvaccinated) by implying 'transfection' can occur through close contact with vaccinated individuals. This is a loaded statement designed to create doubt and fear. However, they immediately pivot, admitting that they didn't have a MAC address themselves and that the entire concept is 'all hypothesis' and a 'jigsaw puzzle.' This rapid shift from confident assertion to admission of uncertainty is a clear confidence mismatch, highlighting the speculative nature of their claims.
Original quote: “so when someone when you hear these people I see people in our chat room a lot that say I'm a pure blood. I never took the shot. You know pure blood. >> Eh. >> Yeah. Have you ever have you ever, you know, hugged a person that took the shot? Have you ever been in the same room with a person that…”
Claiming a 'MAC address study' showed everyone still positive after 35 days, with disappointment over no 'reduction'. — Missing Context (20/100)
At 24:11
References a 'MAC address study' with no details, then expresses 'sadness' that a '90% reduction' wasn't seen. — Lacks any scientific rigor or context.
Why this score: The speaker refers to a 'MAC address study' as if it's a legitimate scientific endeavor, claiming participants were 'still testing positive' after 35 days. The emotional language ('a little bit sad') about not seeing a '90% reduction' in MAC addresses further frames this as a serious, ongoing investigation. However, the entire premise of 'MAC addresses' being generated by vaccines and detectable in people is pseudoscientific. The claim lacks any context about the study's methodology, participants, or findings, making it impossible to evaluate. It's a classic case of missing context,…
Original quote: “about this MAC address study. Um we had everyone come back 35 days later and it was filmed again. Um everybody was still testing positive for the MAC address. We were a little bit sad cuz we thought that initial uh test subject who had a 90% reduction, we thought maybe somebody would, you know,…”
The speaker describes a 'study' where subjects took a 'product' for 7 weeks. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 24:30
They're talking about a 'product' and a 'study' without naming either. Super vague for something that sounds like a medical trial.
Why this score: The speaker refers to an unnamed 'product' and a 'study' without providing any details about what the product is, what the study design was, or who conducted it. This lack of specific information makes it impossible to evaluate the validity or methodology of the described experiment. It's presented as scientific without any scientific rigor shown.
Original quote: “So, we asked them to continue taking this product and come back 7 weeks later.”
Claims an unnamed product removed graphene oxide, turning off MAC addresses. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 25:13
They're making a huge leap from 'no signal' to 'graphene oxide removed' and 'MAC address turned off' with zero evidence shown.
Why this score: The speaker connects the disappearance of a 'signal' to the removal of 'graphene oxide' by an unnamed 'product' and the 'turning off' of a 'MAC address.' This chain of events is presented as a direct causal link without any scientific explanation, data, or peer-reviewed evidence. The claim that MAC addresses are 'turned off' by removing graphene oxide (which itself is a highly contentious claim to be in vaccines) is a significant scientific assertion made with no backing.
Original quote: “nobody had a signal. And that day was quite euphorious because that meant that by taking this product for I think it was 11 weeks. And what we believe is by removing the graphine oxide that it turned off this MAC address that they had been tested positive for at least three or four times before we…”
Introduces 'anomalous semiconductor material signals' from the human body. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 25:56
They're throwing around terms like 'anomalous' and 'semiconductor material signals' without defining them or showing how they're measured.
Why this score: The speaker introduces vague and highly technical-sounding terms like 'anomalous signals' and 'semiconductor material signals coming off the human body' without any explanation of what these terms mean, how they are detected, or what their significance is. This use of jargon creates an illusion of scientific authority while lacking any substantive detail or verifiable claims. It's designed to sound alarming and sophisticated without actually providing information.
Original quote: “There's more to it than just the MAC address. We've been testing the MAC address as well." Um but that doesn't mean that they're not testing positive for these anomalous uh signals coming off the human body, these semiconductor material uh signals.”
Claims a 'nonlinear junction detector scanner' found semiconductor material in specific body points. Sounds like sci-fi, not science. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 28:30
Describes a device detecting 'semiconductor material' in specific body points with absolute certainty, but this isn't a recognized medical diagnostic tool for this purpose. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker presents the 'nonlinear junction detector scanner' as a legitimate tool for finding 'semiconductor material' in the human body at specific points, implying a direct link to vaccine components. This is a highly speculative claim, as these scanners are typically used for detecting electronics in non-living objects (like walls or packages), not for biological analysis of human tissue. The confidence in the claim far exceeds any known scientific or medical basis. It's a classic confidence mismatch – presenting a fringe idea as established fact.
Original quote: “they're lighting up at specific focal points around their body with the nonlinear junction detector scanner. So it's picking up on second harmonics which is semiconductor material in the body and it's not random. These are in specific places I think at nerve endings your nerve density um endings…”
Presents an anecdote of an unvaccinated man who supposedly received 'biologics' during surgery, linking it to high scanner readings. Classic emotional button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 29:11
Uses a dramatic personal story of a man in tears over a supposed forced 'biologic' intervention to fuel vaccine skepticism. 😢
Why this score: The speaker uses a highly emotional anecdote about a man who avoided the COVID shot but supposedly received 'biologics' during surgery, which then allegedly correlated with high readings on their unverified scanner. This story is designed to evoke strong feelings of betrayal and fear, suggesting that hospitals secretly vaccinated patients. The term 'biologics' is broad and can refer to many medical products, not just vaccines, and consent forms for surgery often include provisions for necessary interventions. The framing here is to push an emotional narrative that bypasses critical…
Original quote: “um so we had a schematic of a human body for each test subject that he was testing. And we were marking the points and also the intensity of the frequency um by percentage which is given off by the actual tool. And so we gathered the data on 22 test subjects. And there was one particular chap who…”
Claiming hospitals secretly vaccinate patients under anesthesia — a serious accusation with no evidence provided. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 30:30
Suggesting hospitals are secretly vaccinating people without explicit consent is a huge claim, with zero proof offered. Just 'he believes'.
Why this score: The speaker presents a personal belief ('he believes') as if it's a common, covert practice in hospitals. The idea that consent forms for general hospital admission implicitly allow for COVID-19 vaccination without specific, informed consent is a significant accusation. This framing uses an anecdotal 'belief' to imply a widespread, unethical practice without any supporting evidence or official policy to back it up. It's designed to sow distrust in medical institutions.
Original quote: “and he believes that whilst he was under they gave him the vaccine. So a lot of people go into hospital not realizing when they sign that consent form they're allowing themselves to have the shot.”
Citing a single anecdote to 'prove' technology builds in the body — a huge leap from one person's experience. — Cherry-Picked (20/100)
At 31:42
One person's 'high levels' after stopping a product is used to declare 'this technology is getting in us' and 'continues to build'. That's a massive jump.
Why this score: The speaker uses a single, isolated case from an unnamed 'test subject' to draw a sweeping conclusion about 'this technology' (presumably referring to the vaccine or some related 'signal') 'getting in us' and 'continuing to build'. This is a classic cherry-picking fallacy, taking one data point and extrapolating it to a universal truth. There's no control group, no statistical significance, and the 'high levels of return signals with Jesse' are undefined and unverified. It's presented as definitive proof based on extremely limited, unscientific evidence.
Original quote: “one of the uh test subjects from the MAC address study, I said, "Stop taking it." And when she came in to be tested by Jesse, she was she had high levels uh of uh return signals with Jesse. So, we know that this technology is getting in us even if we stop taking it that it's going to continue to…”
Broadly claiming 'technology' and 'toxins' are everywhere, requiring constant 'removal' — vague fear-mongering. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 32:06
Vague claims about 'technology' and 'toxins' being in everything, requiring constant 'removal', without any specifics. Classic fear-mongering.
Why this score: This statement uses extremely vague and loaded terms like 'this technology' and 'these toxins' without defining what they are, where they come from specifically, or how they are supposedly 'building' in the body. By claiming they are 'in our environment, in our food, the water we're drinking,' it creates a pervasive sense of threat. The analogy to cleaning teeth is a false equivalence, implying that these undefined 'toxins' are a constant, unavoidable buildup that requires continuous, unspecified 'work' to remove, playing on anxieties without offering concrete, verifiable information.
Original quote: “it's in our environment, it's in our food, what is it with transfection, the water we're drinking. So, you can't say it's a bit like cleaning your teeth. If I clean my teeth, I'm done. It's like you have to keep working at removing this technology and removing these toxins from your body.”
Describes a 'study' with specific dosage and duration — but no details on methodology or controls. — Missing Context (45/100)
At 32:30
Presents a 'study' with dosage and duration, but skips all the crucial parts like controls or peer review. Sounds like an anecdote, not a study.
Why this score: The speaker details a 'study' where participants took a product for 60 days at a specific dosage, and 'nobody had any issues.' However, they provide no information about the study's design, whether it was controlled, blinded, or peer-reviewed. This framing makes it sound like a formal scientific study without providing the necessary context to evaluate its validity, making it more of a personal anecdote or observation.
Original quote: “everybody took the product for 60 days and the study dosage was 15 drops twice a day. I'm not suggesting people take that amount. It is a very potent product. Um, not to say that people are having um u problems taking it, but everyone's individual. And if you're a little bit toxic or you know your…”
Claims a '78% reduction in return signals' using an unnamed 'nonlinear junction scanner' with no scientific backing. — Anonymous Authority (20/100)
At 33:00
Cites a 'nonlinear junction scanner' and a 'Jesse' for a 78% reduction, but gives zero info on the device or the 'study's' scientific validity. Sounds like a sales pitch.
Why this score: The speaker attributes a '78% reduction in return signals' to a 'nonlinear junction scanner' operated by 'Jesse.' This relies heavily on an unnamed, unverified piece of equipment and an individual whose credentials are not provided. The term 'nonlinear junction scanner' is typically associated with detecting electronic components, not human biological responses, and there's no scientific context for what 'return signals' mean in this context or how their reduction relates to health. This is a classic anonymous authority combined with technical jargon to lend false credibility.
Original quote: “Um, so everyone came back after 60 days and Jesse flew back over from the States and he was testing everybody again and the room kind of went quiet because on the baseline testing the buzzer would go off. It's a very noisy piece of equipment. Every time he hit a node, you know, the the buzzer would…”
Emphasizes 'Jesse's' shock at the results, using his personal amazement as proof of efficacy. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 34:04
Uses 'Jesse's' personal astonishment ('I've never seen this') to validate the results, rather than providing actual evidence. Appeals to emotion, not data.
Why this score: The speaker highlights 'Jesse's' reaction, quoting him as saying, 'I've never seen this.' This personal testimony of surprise and unprecedented results is used to amplify the perceived significance of the findings. This is an emotional button, leveraging an individual's subjective reaction to persuade the audience, rather than offering objective, verifiable data or scientific explanation for the alleged 'signal drop' or 'disappearance of signals around the head.'
Original quote: “So this is roughly >> 78% Wow. >> Yeah. reduction. Uh, and Jesse said, "I've never seen this." I've never seen this ever that these signals um drop. And the other thing he's never seen is that a lot of the signals, especially around the head, had completely disappeared. So a lot of people had these…”
Anecdotal evidence of 'technology' removal and positive emotional response. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 34:30
They're leaning heavily on a personal, emotional story to suggest a scientific outcome. Tears of joy? Come on.
Why this score: The speaker describes a 'study' where 'technology' was removed, leading to 'tears of joy' and a participant feeling 'one of the lowest' becoming better. This is presented as evidence of the technology's negative impact and the removal's positive effect, but it's purely anecdotal and emotionally charged, lacking any objective, verifiable data or methodology.
Original quote: “base of their head at the, you know, the
top of their neck and the right and left
TMJ those and also on the nasal dorsome
and on most of the people they were gone
and he was I've never seen this. So
there was tears of joy at the end of”
Claims improved HRV and subjective well-being after 'technology' removal, filmed by 'Die Suddenly' team. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 34:46
They're presenting subjective feelings and an HRV test as definitive proof of 'technology' removal, then linking it to 'Die Suddenly' for emotional impact. That's a lot of leaps.
Why this score: The speaker claims that after removing 'this technology,' heart rate variability (HRV) improved, and people reported feeling more joy, energy, and better sleep. While HRV can be a marker of health, the causal link to 'removing this technology' is asserted without scientific rigor, control groups, or peer-reviewed evidence. The explanation about clearing the brain via the lymphatic system is speculative. The mention of 'amazing anecdotal experiences' and the 'die suddenly team' filming the 'study' further frames this as a narrative-driven, emotionally resonant story rather than a scientific…
Original quote: “that study and especially the chap who
was very high, he was one of the lowest
when he came back after. How did he
feel? Did was he did he feel completely
different?
>> Well, he did and a lot of them did. So,
what we also ran separately what we call
an um heart rate variability test
alongside um…”
Promoting a new film, 'Die Suddenly 2,' as proof of claims — using the film itself as validation. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 36:30
They're using the upcoming film as 'proof' for their current claims. It's a self-referential loop, not external validation.
Why this score: The speaker is presenting the upcoming film, 'Die Suddenly 2,' as evidence that 'everything we're saying' is recorded and therefore true. This is a classic sales pitch technique: using a future product (the film) to validate current assertions, rather than providing independent, verifiable evidence. The film itself is a product of the same 'team' making the claims, so it's not an objective source of proof. It's a closed system of validation.
Original quote: “going to be in the next uh film that comes out um by this die suddenly team die suddenly too to show again that everything uh that we're saying um that I'm telling you was recorded and you couldn't say oh we're just making it up all the results every aspect of it was recorded.”
Personal anecdote about 'incredible' results from a product, setting up a sales pitch. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 36:50
Using a personal, subjective experience to endorse a product. It's an emotional appeal, not scientific evidence.
Why this score: The co-host is sharing a personal anecdote about the product's 'incredible' effects, specifically mentioning 'the best night's sleep.' This is an emotional button, designed to create a positive association and build trust through relatable personal experience, rather than presenting any objective data or scientific backing for the product's efficacy. It's a common tactic to warm up an audience before diving into product details.
Original quote: “Yeah. I mean it's it's remarkable. Um, and I mean I can just say from my own personal use of it, it's just been, you know, incredible. Great. You know, and I was sort of warned before taking it like you're going to have the best night's sleep in a long time. Um,”
Vague claims about 'graphene oxide' and 'environmental toxins' to justify a detox product. — Loaded Language (20/100)
At 37:04
Throws out buzzwords like 'graphene oxide' and 'environmental toxins' without specifics, creating fear to push a detox solution.
Why this score: The speaker uses loaded language like 'graphene oxide' and 'environmental toxins' in a vague, fear-mongering way. These terms are often associated with conspiracy theories regarding vaccines and general environmental paranoia. By invoking these undefined threats, they create a perceived need for a 'detox' product without providing any specific evidence that these substances are present in harmful quantities or that the product effectively addresses them. It's designed to trigger anxiety and prime the audience for the solution being offered.
Original quote: “and I like to think, well, you know, the thing is I'm surrounded by electronics on a regular basis. And you think about all of the different whatever sort of particles and graphine oxide and other sort of environmental toxins that we're completely um uh you know surrounded by or affected by on a…”
Describes a 'highly magnetized' zeolite product as the 'most powerful detoxifier' with nano-range particles. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 37:27
Claims 'most powerful detoxifier' and 'highly magnetized' without any scientific backing or evidence for these grand assertions.
Why this score: The speaker makes bold, unsubstantiated claims about the product's efficacy, calling it the 'most powerful detoxifier I believe there is' and stating it's 'highly magnetized.' While zeolites (specifically clinoptilolite) are natural minerals, the claims about their 'powerful negative charge' and ability to 'grab hold' of positively charged toxins, especially when reduced to 'nano range,' are presented with a confidence that far exceeds any scientific evidence provided. There's no mention of studies, clinical trials, or expert endorsements for these specific, powerful effects, particularly in…
Original quote: “Yeah. So the product is made of um it's it's got the most powerful um detoxifier I I I believe there is because it's highly magnetized. It's made of zeolytes, natural zeolytes which are formed when the volcanic um ash hits the sea and it makes these beautiful crystalline crystals and they're called…”
Product removes toxins and replaces them with minerals, improving cell function — a plain sales pitch. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 38:30
This whole segment is a pitch for a product that supposedly detoxes the body and replaces toxins with minerals. It's a classic 'miracle cure' framing.
Why this score: The speaker describes a product that 'picks up a toxin' and 'releases minerals' in its place, making the cell 'work better.' This is a common claim in the unregulated detox product market, often lacking scientific backing for such specific mechanisms or broad efficacy. The language used is promotional, focusing on the 'beauty' and 'benefits' without any scientific evidence or named studies.
Original quote: “minerals because the product is paired with um sea mineral plasma. So the beauty of this product is when it's when it's picking up a toxin, it's releasing minerals at a place where a toxin was. So a lot of the time um metals will act like a mineral. It's, you know, it's a poor brother of of the…”
Product is 'molecularly identical to blood in pH' and causes minimal Herxheimer reaction — using vague scientific-sounding terms. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 39:39
Claiming a product is 'molecularly identical to blood in pH' is a loaded, vague statement — and 'studies I've run' without specifics is anonymous authority.
Why this score: The phrase 'molecularly identical to your blood in as far as the pH' is designed to sound scientific and reassuring, but it's incredibly vague and likely meaningless in a practical sense for a 'colloidal solution.' Blood has many components beyond pH. The claim about 'very little Herxheimer reaction' is also a sales point, implying superiority over other detox products, but it's based on 'studies I've run' without any details, making it an anonymous authority claim.
Original quote: “It's also um molecularly um identical to your blood in as far as um the pH. Um so uh it's a colloidal solution. So the body recognizes it straight away when when it's under the tongue and just goes straight into the body. Um and because it grabs hold of toxins, there's very little what we call…”
Promoting a product with personal anecdotes and vague 'studies' — classic Plain Sales Pitch. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 40:30
They're selling a product, citing 'our studies' and personal experience, then offering discount codes. It's a clear sales pitch.
Why this score: The speaker is discussing dosage, personal reactions, and 'our studies' in the context of a product they are clearly promoting. The mention of a discount code and links in the description confirms this is a direct sales effort, framed as health advice. The 'studies' are never detailed or linked, making them an anonymous authority for a product being sold.
Original quote: “um on all the studies I've run, um I've only had one or two clients at the very beginning of the study that have maybe felt like a little bit of a reaction. So I say, "Well, just go back to one drop twice a day, then increase to two drops twice a day, three drops, and by the time they're back up to…”
Connects 'technology in everybody' to 9/11 surveillance, implying a grand conspiracy without evidence. — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 42:30
Jumps from general data collection to specific 'technology in everybody' without showing a link. Classic conspiracy weaving.
Why this score: The speaker conflates general data surveillance (which is a known issue since 9/11) with an unspecified 'technology' supposedly found 'in everybody' related to COVID shots. This creates a false equivalence, implying that the established surveillance infrastructure is being used for a more sinister, unproven purpose without providing any evidence for the latter claim. It's a rhetorical leap designed to connect two disparate ideas to support a larger narrative.
Original quote: “I feel like these are the most important studies right now for humanity because nobody else is doing the human testing in relation to this technology that's being found in everybody. Um and I was listening to your interview with the NSA whistleblower. uh recently and he was talking about how this…”
Claims their studies are 'most important for humanity' due to unique human testing — Confidence Mismatch — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 42:30
Calling your own work the 'most important for humanity' is a huge claim without showing any actual data or results. That's a big leap.
Why this score: The speaker asserts their studies are uniquely important and the only ones doing 'human testing' on this 'technology.' This is a broad, unsubstantiated claim that elevates their work without presenting any evidence to back up such a grand statement. It's a classic move to establish authority and urgency without the receipts.
Original quote: “I feel like these are the most important studies right now for humanity because nobody else is doing the human testing in relation to this technology that's being found in everybody.”
Presents 'Masterpiece' as a way to avoid becoming a 'modulated human being' — Plain Sales Pitch — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 43:07
Suddenly pivots from vague 'technology' to promoting a specific product, 'Masterpiece,' as the solution. That's a sales pitch.
Why this score: The speaker transitions directly from discussing a vague, ominous 'technology' that turns people into 'modulated human beings' to recommending a specific product, 'Masterpiece,' as the solution. This is a clear product endorsement disguised as health advice, leveraging fear to promote a commercial item.
Original quote: “if you don't want to uh if you want to try and avoid this uh technology from the only way to avoid it to stop you becoming a modulated human being is to really look after your body um to detox to take something like Masterpiece.”
Promotes 'Masterpiece' for detox while claiming their study links exercise to 'lowest levels' of unspecified tech. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 43:19
Sneaks in a product plug ('Masterpiece') right after talking about 'detox' and 'our study' without naming the study or the tech. Convenient.
Why this score: The speaker transitions from discussing general health practices like exercise and sweating (which are broadly beneficial) to explicitly recommending a product called 'Masterpiece' for detox. This is immediately followed by a vague reference to 'our study' finding 'lowest levels' of the unspecified 'technology' in active people. This framing uses the credibility of general health advice and a purported study to subtly push a commercial product, making it a plain sales pitch disguised as health advice.
Original quote: “to detox to take something like Masterpiece. We also found that people who move a lot who exercise and who sweat a lot um they also had the lowest levels and the baseline of our study. So it's really important to be looking after your body at this time because um because of what's been rolling out…”
Connects exercise to 'lowest levels' in their study, then pivots to 'spiritual warfare' and 'digital avatar of God' — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 43:22
Starts with a vague study finding, then jumps to 'omniscient' data, 'spiritual warfare,' and 'digital avatar of God.' That's a massive escalation.
Why this score: The speaker begins by referencing 'lowest levels' in their study related to exercise, which is vague but sounds scientific. They then rapidly escalate, using highly charged, religious, and conspiratorial language ('omniscient,' 'omnipresent,' 'omnipotent,' 'God's work,' 'digital avatar of God,' 'spiritual warfare') to describe data collection and 'technology.' This is a classic 'emotional button' technique, designed to evoke strong feelings of fear and moral outrage rather than presenting a coherent, evidence-based argument. It's a rhetorical leap from a supposed scientific finding to a…
Original quote: “We also found that people who move a lot who exercise and who sweat a lot um they also had the lowest levels and the baseline of our study. So it's really important to be looking after your body at this time because um because of what's been rolling out and I feel like this has become this…”
Elevates data collection to 'spiritual warfare' and 'digital avatar of God' to urge sharing their message. — Emotional Button (20/100)
At 43:56
Uses highly charged, spiritual language ('God's work,' 'spiritual warfare') to amplify the perceived threat and push their agenda. That's a classic move.
Why this score: The speaker uses extremely loaded and emotionally resonant language, comparing data collection to 'God's work' and 'spiritual warfare,' and claiming 'they' are creating a 'digital avatar of God.' This hyperbolic framing is designed to trigger strong emotional responses and fear, elevating the perceived stakes far beyond what the evidence supports. It's a clear attempt to push an emotional button to motivate viewers to 'pass on this message' without providing any concrete, verifiable information about the 'technology' or the 'studies' mentioned earlier.
Original quote: “You know it's it's become anyone who has this data this knowledge is powerful. And this should only be God's work. I feel like they're creating a digital avatar of God, you know. So, I feel this is a spiritual a spiritual warfare that's happening. Um, so if you want to protect your families uh and…”
Claiming unique research on removing 'technology' from bodies — a bold, unverified assertion. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 44:34
Asserting they're the ONLY ones doing this specific research, without any actual proof of the 'technology' or its removal. Big claims, zero receipts.
Why this score: The speaker claims to be the only one conducting this specific study, implying a unique and groundbreaking effort. However, the foundational premise—that there's 'technology' in people that needs to be removed—is itself highly speculative and lacks scientific consensus. The confidence in being the 'only one' doing this research is mismatched with the complete absence of verifiable evidence for the underlying phenomenon. It's a classic 'we're the only ones who know the truth' framing.
Original quote: “now I don't know anyone else doing this study who've been proven out that this technology that's in us can be removed.”
Introducing 'Mind Nexus Live' and 'Havana syndrome' expertise, then linking it to 'semiconductive materials' in people — building a narrative. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 45:07
Connecting 'Havana syndrome' to 'semiconductive materials' in the body, using technical jargon to imply scientific rigor without actual proof of the connection.
Why this score: The speaker introduces himself with impressive credentials related to 'Havana syndrome' and 'technical counter surveillance measures.' He then pivots to 'nonlinear junction scanning' and claims to find 'semiconductive or silicon-based materials' in symptomatic individuals. This uses a mix of real-world phenomena (Havana Syndrome) and technical-sounding terms to create a sense of authority and scientific backing for a highly speculative claim about materials in the human body. The language is loaded to suggest a sinister, hidden presence without providing any verifiable evidence or…
Original quote: “My name is Jesse Beltran. I'm the current president of an organization uh, where our brand is Mind Nexus Live. I've been one of the leading investigators with the phenomenon called Havana syndrome or anomalous health incidences. I have been covering this since 2010. Uh I am currently a certified…”
Claiming non-symptomatic individuals 'light up' with 'semiconductive materials' post-jab, unlike before — a direct, unverified link to vaccines. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 46:11
Making a direct, definitive link between 'the jab' and 'semiconductive materials' in non-symptomatic people, with no data or peer review presented.
Why this score: The speaker claims a 'study' in the UK shows non-symptomatic individuals 'lighting up' with these 'semiconductive materials' in the same areas as symptomatic ones, and crucially, states this 'had not been the case prior to that jab.' This is a direct, confident assertion linking the COVID-19 vaccine to the presence of these materials. The claim is presented as a factual finding from a 'study' but lacks any specifics about the study (methodology, sample size, peer review, publication). The confidence in this definitive causal link is completely unsupported by any presented evidence, making it…
Original quote: “And we recently started uh a study where we're testing non-symptomatic individuals here in the United Kingdom. They are also lighting up in those same areas as the symptomatic individuals. And that had not been the case prior to that jab. um prior to the jab, those who are non-symptomatic almost…”
Claiming 100% positive detection of "silicon-based materials" in vaccinated individuals using "nonlinear junction detection" before a trial. This is a Confidence Mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (20/100)
At 46:30
Asserting 100% detection of 'silicon-based materials' with a vague 'nonlinear junction detection' method. Sounds like a sci-fi movie, not a clinical study.
Why this score: The speaker uses highly technical-sounding but undefined terms like 'nonlinear junction detection' and 'silicon-based materials' to lend an air of scientific authority. The claim of '100% of the time' detection for something so specific and unusual, without any explanation of the methodology, controls, or peer review, is a massive red flag. It's presented with absolute certainty despite the lack of any verifiable scientific basis or context for such a phenomenon.
Original quote: “prior to the jab, those who are non-symptomatic almost 100% of the time came up negative. They were coming up pretty much what I would expect a symptomatic person to come up positive. Uh very high a lot of areas around the human body hitting at 100%. Uh where the nonlinear junction detection…”
Claiming an "unprecedented" 80% average reduction in "radio frequencies coming off people's bodies" after using a product. This is a Plain Sales Pitch. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
At 47:16
Promising 'unprecedented' 80% reduction in 'radio frequencies' with a product, framed as a miracle cure. Classic sales pitch tactics.
Why this score: The speaker is heavily promoting a product ('zeolytez or the masterpiece product') by claiming 'phenomenal' and 'unprecedented' results (80% average reduction, 98% personal reduction) in reducing 'radio frequencies coming off people's bodies.' This is a classic sales pitch, using vague, unscientific language ('radio frequencies coming off people's bodies') and exaggerated claims of efficacy ('better than we could ever have expected,' 'unprecedented') to sell a product. The comparison to typical clinical studies (where 30% reduction is good) further amplifies the supposed miraculous nature of…
Original quote: “So the results have been absolutely phenomenal and actually better than we could ever have expected. an average reduction across the board so far and we've got one more day of test results coming in of 80% reduction of these radio frequencies coming off people's bodies. Um we've had personal…”
Using personal emotion and anecdotal evidence to support the product's efficacy. This is an Emotional Button. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 48:00
Injecting personal emotion ('very emotional for me') and anecdotal '100% positive' claims to boost product credibility. It's a classic emotional appeal.
Why this score: The speaker uses personal emotion ('Yesterday was very emotional for me because I never thought that I would see this') to connect with the audience and lend weight to the claims about the product. This is followed by an anecdotal claim of '100% of the time postco I've not tested anyone who did not come up positive' in specific body areas, which then supposedly cleared up after the trial. This framing relies on personal testimony and emotional impact rather than objective, verifiable data, making it an emotional button. The specific anatomical locations mentioned (TMJ, dorsum, occipital…
Original quote: “Yesterday was very emotional for me because I never thought that I would see this. I can tell you 100% of the time postco I've not tested anyone who did not come up positive in the right left TMJ, the dorsome, occipital portion, and the base of their neck. And for the first time after they've been…”
Throws out a 75-85% reduction, then a 95%, without any source. Classic Volume Game. — Volume Game (20/100)
At 48:30
Just rattling off big numbers like 75-85% and then 95% without saying what they refer to or where they came from. It's all about sounding impactful.
Why this score: The speaker drops multiple high-percentage figures (75-85% reduction, then 95%) in quick succession. There's no context for what these percentages represent, what 'findings' they're from, or any source for verification. This is a classic 'Volume Game' technique, where impressive-sounding numbers are presented rapidly to create an impression of significant data, even if the data itself is undefined or unsourced. The confidence in declaring it 'incredible' further amplifies the effect without providing substance.
Original quote: “we are seeing anywhere from 75 to 85% reduction uh in the findings. And this is quite frankly incredible. Right shoulder 95%”
See the full analysis with timestamps →