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. 30 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Claims analyzed
Video opens with a series of leading questions, setting a tone of mystery and suspicion. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Starts with a string of rhetorical questions to prime the audience for a 'hidden truth' narrative. Classic setup for a conspiracy angle.
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)
They're stacking titles to make 'naturopath' sound like a hard scientist. The 'peer-reviewed' part is vague, no specific journals or studies mentioned.
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)
Jumping straight to 'transhuman agenda' and 'biodigital beings' without any evidence. This is pure speculative, fear-mongering language.
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)
Explaining why you can't see the 'technology' before even showing evidence it exists. It's a convenient excuse for invisibility.
Speaker describes an accidental discovery of 'human signals' — framing it as an organic scientific journey. — No Frame (75/100)
Setting up the narrative of an unexpected discovery, which is a common and often genuine way research progresses.
Host uses 'Silent Spring' and 'Taco Bell lettuce story' to establish a familiar context for unseen dangers. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Invokes well-known examples of environmental harm to prime the audience for the idea of hidden threats.
Speaker cites 25 years as a naturopath and mentions Dr. Robert Young's 1996 BBC study on EMFs. — Missing Context (45/100)
Mentions a 'Dr. Robert Young' and a 1996 BBC study on EMFs without providing any details or context.
Connects EMFs from 2G/5G to blood coagulation, then links to common symptoms, using personal anecdote. — False Equivalence (20/100)
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.
Introduces a 'masterpiece detox product' from a new company, framing it as a scientific endeavor. — Plain Sales Pitch (20/100)
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.
Claims 'a lot of talk' about graphene oxide and 'nefarious ingredients' in COVID shots, setting up a conspiracy narrative. — Loaded Language (20/100)
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.
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)
Framing the UK labs' refusal as suspicious, implying a cover-up without explaining the scientific rationale for their response.
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)
Highlights the lab's 'top' status to lend weight to a 'small pilot study' with limited controls, then presents findings as significant.
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)
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.
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)
Presents a dramatic '90% reduction' from an uncontrolled 'product' in a 'small pilot study' — classic anecdotal sales pitch.
Claims 90% graphene oxide reduction in 35 days — uses emotional appeal to bolster an unverified study. — Emotional Button (45/100)
Citing a 90% reduction is a big claim, then immediately brings in 'Dr. Carrie Mday in tears' to add emotional weight without scientific rigor.
Claims no lab in America will test for graphene oxide due to licensing issues — sets up a 'hidden truth' narrative. — Missing Context (45/100)
The claim that labs 'lose their license' for testing graphene oxide is a bold assertion, creating a conspiracy vibe without specific regulations or examples.
Describes the 'intracellular electrical capacity test of the lymphocytes' — uses scientific-sounding jargon without explaining its validity for toxin detection. — Volume Game (45/100)
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.
Claims 'everyone's levels came down' for multiple toxins after 90 days — broad generalization without specific data. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Stating 'everyone's levels came down' for multiple toxins is a sweeping generalization, lacking the specific data needed to back such a confident claim.
Claiming a product removes toxins and plastics based on an unnamed "pilot study" — Anonymous Authority — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
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. 🚩
Connecting atrazine in tap water to 'body dysmorphia' and gender changes in frogs — False Equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
They're linking frog studies on atrazine to human 'body dysmorphia' and gender identity issues. That's a huge leap, bro. 🐸➡️🧑🎤
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)
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. 🤦♂️
Suggests atrazine or other chemicals cause gender transition — a classic false dilemma. — False Dilemma (20/100)
Presents two unrelated ideas (gender transition and chemicals) as the only possible causes, ignoring complex social and biological factors. Classic false dilemma.
Suggests a link between chemicals and gender transition without evidence. — False Equivalence — False Equivalence (20/100)
Connects 'chemicals in drinking water' to gender transition, implying causation without any basis. — Classic false equivalence.
Claims everyone was 'high and very high in graphene oxide' — a specific, unverified finding. — Missing Context (20/100)
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?
Describes a series of 'unfortunate' events that derailed their study. — Emotional Button — Emotional Button (45/100)
Presents a dramatic narrative of obstacles (lab issues, owner's death) that prevented study completion. — Builds a 'conspiracy' vibe.
Details a series of unfortunate events preventing study completion — a narrative of obstacles. — No Frame (75/100)
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.
Connects a lab owner's death to their graphene oxide study, implying suppression. Classic 'coincidence?' framing. — Missing Context (45/100)
Suggests a lab shutdown after a death is suspicious, especially when tied to their 'groundbreaking' study. Implies foul play without evidence.
Elevates a personal research setback to a global catastrophe. Emotional button pushing. — Emotional Button (20/100)
Framing the inability to test for graphene oxide as a "bad day for the human race" is pure hyperbole and emotional manipulation.
Introduces a 'Bluetooth documentary' as a 'study' to lend credibility. Confidence mismatch. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
Calling a 'Bluetooth documentary' a 'study' is a classic move to elevate anecdotal or unverified content to scientific status.
Citing a 'French experiment' and 'Bluetooth documentary' as proof of MAC address emission from people and gravestones. — Anonymous Authority (45/100)
Mentions a 'French experiment' and 'Bluetooth documentary' without specific citations or links. Makes it sound like established fact without providing the actual evidence.
See the full analysis with sources and timestamps →