I have a link to a website containing the video.

I am trying to ascertain if the description of the video on the website is accurate or not.

I have had multiple people down voting\voting for the question to be closed because I am not able to show where in the video the claim being question it.

The claim is not being made in the video, it is about the video, on the page hosting it, which I've provided a direct link to.

How do I handle this situation?

I have stated clearly and unambiguously in my question that that issue is the description of the video on the website, not how the video describes its own content. Yet I'm still getting downvotes\votes to close because I cannot show where in the video the claims being questioned are.

The claims being questioned relate to the video, but aren't in the video.

  • 1
    What does the description state? Please quote it word for word here in order to be specific (as you should have in your original question and were repeatedly advised to do). Commented Oct 11, 2022 at 19:34
  • 1
    Word for word "Clotshot Creature Pulled Out Of A Living Beating Heart During Surgery!". Commented Oct 11, 2022 at 20:23
  • It's a bad description, but it's the 100% actual literally word for word description that the website used. What they means is "blood clot caused by the mRNA covid vaccination pulled from a human heart". Which I have stated repeatedly, and in no unambiguous terms. What EXACT wording would YOU use? Commented Oct 11, 2022 at 20:26
  • 1
    Where does the phrase appear: "blood clot caused by the mRNA covid vaccination pulled from a human heart"? We deal in verifiable facts not speculative interpretations. Commented Oct 11, 2022 at 20:33
  • People downvote because they assume bad faith. I wasn't one of them in this case, but your question reads like a typical bad faith anti-vax question, especially when you quibble over the labeling of the video which pushes people to watch the whole thing. It doesn't help that you also asked a meta question about a journal which is very likely just an anti-vax mouthpiece. Commented Oct 12, 2022 at 14:00
  • @Jerome Viveiros, If that is the case, why didn't people say so when they down voted it? Presumably if they believed the video to be mislabelled, they would simply post a link to the source of the video demonstrating what it really was. This is a skeptics forum, yet nobody provided a skeptical answer. Commented Oct 21, 2022 at 16:31

1 Answer 1


We require claims to be notable. Assuming the video is notable, but the question is about the labeling of the video, then the question of notability is about the labeling of the video, not the video itself.

I'd question the notability of the given website. Their claim in full is:

IITM: Simply stunning footage!! These clotshot creatures of non-biological human composition are showing up in most of the deceased say embalmers, and have showed up after the jabs were widely administered!! These clotshot creatures do show up throughout the body but are more centralized around the nervous system… and the heart, in particular.

No offense to the author, but in quality that doesn't go much beyond a random facebook comment and I see no evidence that it is widely believed.

Another issue is that your question is closely related to another question - Are morticians finding huge blood clots as a result of Covid-19 vaccines [...]?. Yours is essentially a (very specific) sub-question of that question.

[I'm not going to mod-close because imho it is a judgement call, but as a user, I'd have voted to close; I've edited your question to focus on the claim that is being made]

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .