Meta Review of Autopsies Finds Link Between COVID Shots and Death
An independent meta review of autopsies on people who died after COVID-19 vaccination, published as a preprint in The Lancet online on July 5, 2023, found that 74 percent of the deaths were causally related to the shots. The review included 44 published papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. According to one of the study’s co-authors, cardiologist Peter McCullough, MD, MPH of the Wellness Company, the review is the “final retort” to, “you cannot prove the vaccine caused the death.”1
Other co-authors of the study include doctors from Alberta (Canada) Health Services, the University of Michigan School of Public Health, Yale University School of Public Health and the Wellness Company, as well as a former senior COVID pandemic advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).1
The most implicated organ system in COVID vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53 percent), followed by the hematological (blood) system (17 percent), the respiratory system (8 percent) and multiple organ systems (7 percent). The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days, with most deaths occurring within a week from last administration of a shot.1
Most of the deaths occurred among individuals who received Pfizer/BioNTech’s Comirnaty COVID shot (41 percent), followed by Sinovac Biotech’s CoronaVac (37 percent), AstraZeneca/Oxford University’s Vaxzevria (13 percent), Moderna/NIAID’s Spikevax (7 percent), Johnson & Johnson/Janssen’s Ad26.COV2.S (1 percent) and Sinopharm’s BBIBP-CorV (1 percent).1
Call for Research to Explain Mechanisms of Deaths Occurring After COVID Shots
The study’s authors suggest there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID shots and the deaths that occurred soon afterward in most cases and that “further urgent investigation is required aimed at confirming our results and further elucidating the mechanisms underlying the described fatal outcomes with the goal of risk mitigation for the large numbers of individuals who have taken one or more COVID-19 vaccines.”1
More than 70 percent of the population of United States is considered to have been “fully vaccinated” for COVID. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the shots for anyone over six months old. The agency also recommends COVID shots for pregnant women.2 3
Dr. McCullough stated:
Going forward in response to sudden unexplained deaths reported in the press, it is reasonable to conclude the cause of death is a fatal covid-19 vaccine injury until proven otherwise. Proof the decedent is unvaccinated or an alternative diagnosis is now required for the vaccine to be exonerated. In the absence of this information, medical examiners, coroners, physicians, and government officials should attribute the death to COVID-19 vaccination.4
Sudden Removal of Study by The Lancet ‘Smacks of Raw Censorship’
The preprint of the study was removed from The Lancet less than 24 hours after it was published—prior to the initiation of an anticipated peer review. It was removed with the sole explanation that “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” Dr. McCullough said that the study was removed “after large volume download” from The Lancet’s preprint server.4
Will Jones of The Daily Sceptic wrote:
Without further detail from the Preprints with the Lancet staff who removed the paper it is hard to know what substance the claim that the conclusions are not supported by the methodology really has. A number of the authors of the paper are at the top of their fields so it is hard to imagine that the methodology of their review was really so poor that it warranted removal at initial screening rather than being subject to full critical appraisal. It smacks instead of raw censorship of a paper that failed to toe the official line.5
Study Methodology is ‘Sound’
Clare Craig, BM, BCh, FRCPath, a diagnostic pathologist and co-chair of the HART (Health Advisory & Recovery Team) pandemic advisory group in the United Kingdom, noted:
It is important that attempts are made to quantify the risk of harm and censorship of these attempts, rather than open scientific critique, does nothing to help reassure people.
The VAERS system [of vaccine adverse event reporting] is designed to alert to potential harms without necessarily being the best way of measuring the extent of those harms. Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country, but that is an imperfect system with dubious accuracy.
The alternative approach of auditing deaths through autopsy is sound.5
If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.
Click here to view References:
No comments:
Post a Comment