74% of 325 Autopsied Persons Were Independently Adjudicated to Have Died Directly Caused or Significantly Contributed by Covid-19 Vaccination.

submitted by stickdog from supersally.substack.com

all 26 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]LeftyBoyo67Tired of Dem Pefidy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Assuming there will never be accountability for any of this (because there almost certainly won't), what can we do to stop it from happening again? That's where I'm at now.

[–]stickdog[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine – Study is Removed Within 24 Hours

A Lancet review of 325 autopsies after Covid vaccination found that 74% of the deaths were caused by the vaccine – but the study was removed within 24 hours.

The paper, a pre-print that was awaiting peer-review, is written by leading cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough, Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company and was published online on Wednesday on the pre-print site of the prestigious medical journal.

However, less than 24 hours later, the study was removed and a note appeared stating: “This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” While the study had not undergone any part of the peer-review process, the note implies it fell foul of “screening criteria”.

The original study abstract can be found in the Internet Archive. It reads (with my emphasis added):

Background: The rapid development and widespread deployment of COVID-19 vaccines, combined with a high number of adverse event reports, have led to concerns over possible mechanisms of injury including systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution, spike protein-associated tissue damage, thrombogenicity, immune system dysfunction and carcinogenicity. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate possible causal links between COVID-19 vaccine administration and death using autopsies and post-mortem analysis.

Methods: We searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023. We initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for our inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.

Findings: The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%), the respiratory system (8%) and multiple organ systems (7%). Three or more organ systems were affected in 21 cases. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days. Most deaths occurred within a week from last vaccine administration. A total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.

Interpretation: The consistency seen among cases in this review with known COVID-19 vaccine adverse events, their mechanisms and related excess death, coupled with autopsy confirmation and physician-led death adjudication, suggests there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases. Further urgent investigation is required for the purpose of clarifying our findings.

...

[–]stickdog[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

74% of COVID Vaccine Autopsy Deaths Were Caused by the Vaccine, Finds Systematic Review

Doctors Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Roger Hodkinson & colleagues searched for all published autopsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination up until May 18th, 2023.

Out of 325 autopsy cases, they found “a total of 240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.”

The review was “literally flying off the shelf” until The Lancet suddenly pulled the paper off its pre-print server, saying the conclusions were not supported by the methodology.

But “it’s a standard search methodology,” remarked Peter McCullough. “And again, it’s autopsy. So there’s not too much to disagree with.”

“People are basically crying out medical censorship by Lancet,” he continued. “And the question is, who called Lancet? Who actually raised objection to have Lancet do this overnight?”

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In other news...CDC Altered Minnesota Death Certificates that List a Covid Vaccine as a Cause of Death

As we shall document, the CDC is concealing references to a covid vaccine on Minnesota death certificates (that are exceedingly rare to begin with because of widespread medical establishment denialism of vaccine adverse side effects). In almost every death certificate that identifies a covid vaccine as a cause of death, the CDC committed data fraud by not assigning the ICD 10 code for vaccine side effects to the causes of death listed on the death certificate.

[–]shatabee5 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

People...uh...we...uh...must put this issue behind us. It is time to look...uh..uh..to...uh...the future.

This blanket pardon of criminals again. The billionaires' corrupt msm has been ordered to move on.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I never heard of that website.

74% is a hard number to believe even to vaccine skepticals. Really depends on the factors of the vaccine.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I never heard of that website.

Because 90% of media is financially sponsored by pharmaceuticals.

[–]3andfro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of The FDA's Drug Review Budget: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnlamattina/2018/06/28/the-biopharmaceutical-industry-provides-75-of-the-fdas-drug-review-budget-is-this-a-problem/?sh=2e4b2ac849ec

hmmmm

[–]stickdog[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You can find the paper documenting this claim here.

Here is some further analysis.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

At some point even Lancet and other captured captured journals will have to acknowledge harm.

Wanna bet?

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The Lancet did. For almost 24 hours before it was pulled.

I think it's so bad (obvious) that these journals are seeing some serious internal pushback. And which of them wants to be the last holdout when that data/information dam breaks?

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Doing it this way allows people to argue, even if in bad faith, that the article/study was pulled because it was somehow wrong.

Another tactic they used quite extensively during the plandemic was to accept manuscripts for publication with a rider giving them exclusive rights to publish, then hold the paper for a year or more before finally rejecting it. This of course prevented the authors from having their rejected article published anywhere else during that year, and this was routine for any article showing the effectiveness of Ivermectin on C19, as an example.

My point I guess is that these journals are fully captured by big pharma and we shouldn't expect them to publish anything just because it's true or in the public interest.

[–]3andfro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The reason Lancet gave, with no further details provided to us in these links but perhaps to the submitting authors? (likely not):

“This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with the Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by -the study methodology- our financial backers

Fixed it.

[–]3andfro 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And leaving it might expose the esteemed Lancet and many other journals and players to closer scrutiny than they can withstand.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Even as a vaccine believer, it's pretty obvious there was harm risks with the vaccine. This goes for most things. The benefits of the vaccine outweight the risks.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The benefits of the vaccine outweight the risks.

Not if you're under 50 and in good health. Especially if you're under 30.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

"In good health"

Hmmm let's look at the obesity rates and the fat acceptance movement on america lol

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

"In good health" meaning not already dying of cancer, or autoimmune, or any other actual disease that typically limits one's longevity.

[–]bucetao6969Im a guest here. Do not take my opinion as of a community member 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

LIke I said.

Most people don't have healthy habits at all.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And in spite of this, the risk of covid to those under 50 was negligible. Considerably lower than the real risks from the mRNA shots.

[–]shatabee5 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

there is nothing to support this claim.

you are merely repeating an oft heard false narrative.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The benefits of the vaccine outweight the risks.

The benefits of various vaccines probably do yes. Normal, proper vaccines. And even those have been thrown in doubt because of how blatantly criminal this whole fiasco has been and still is.

The benefits of these injections that were not tested, required to change the definition of what a vaccine is, all for a disease that was always easily treatable and with an ultra-low fatality rate? Injections that have been shown to have negative efficacy while also being harmful, as I've been one of the many people personally witnessing, with doctors openly admitting that they're not allowed to mention those harms in any way that could potentially end up on an official report?

Yeah, no, it's all risk and negative benefit, so all risk. Though it did benefit shitlibs for a time so they could feel like special snowflakes morally superior to everybody else, as they so love to do.

If you believe that the 'benefits' of those things outweighed the risks, talking specifically about the SARS² products here, you've been watching too much corporate media.

[–]kingsmegLiberté, égalité, fraternité 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The benefits of the vaccine outweight the risks.

Absent evidence, this is a statement of faith.

[–]stickdog[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Excerpt:

Autopsy Evidence of Covid-19 Vaccine Harm Can’t be Tolerated by Mainstream Medical Journals

A Hulscher et. al., including Mc. Cullough Preprint, was very briefly up on the Lancet preprints site. It lasted only hours before it was pulled. Clearly, reports of harm still cannot be tolerated by mainstream medical journals.

Regardless that the article was pulled by Lancet so quickly, it is still very valuable evidence. Discussed by Dr. McMillan on YouTube

Here also on his substack, which includes a link to download the paper.

Watch now (17 min) | This paper looks at autopsy data of over 325 people who died after Covid vaccination. The assessment from the paper is that 73.9% were independently adjudicated as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.

...

At some point even Lancet and other captured captured journals will have to acknowledge harm. If they want to retain any credibility, that should be sooner than later.

[–]Maniak🥃😾 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If they want to retain any credibility, that should be sooner than later.

Two years ago maybe, but this 'sooner' part is gone now.

All those outlets that confused 'authoritative' with 'authoritarian' cannot acknowledge this because it would mean acknowledging that their credibility over the past couple of years (and beyond) was always a complete farce.

If the entire chain of authority was prosecuted and condemned for their crimes, then maybe whomever comes next, if having no history of any financial ties whatsoever to pharma/government/media, may start rebuilding that credibility.

But right now, they only retain some level of credibility amongst shitlibs whose brain diarrhea is being reinforced by them continuing to lie and obfuscate. Their entire existence hinges on not dropping this.

It's been working for russiagaters for the past 7 years after all.