by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server
- The autopsy review found that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection
- Preprints with The Lancet pulled the study in less than 24 hours
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
- The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) also rejected the paper, as did the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it
- Belgian researchers report that two doses of the Pfizer mRNA COVID jab induced lethal “turbo cancers” in a mouse. Two days after receiving its second dose, one of the 14 injected mice (7%) died suddenly. No clinical signs of illness were present before its abrupt death. Upon post-mortem examination, the mouse was found to have lymphoma in several organs, including the heart, liver, kidneys, spleen and lungs
July 5, 2023, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, an expert clinical pathologist, and several other colleagues published a systematic review of autopsy findings in people who died after receiving a COVID shot on The Lancet journal’s preprint server.1
Disturbingly, but not surprisingly, they concluded that 62.5% to 73.9% of post-jab deaths were likely caused by the injection. Previous autopsy reviews have also concluded that the mRNA COVID jabs are a causative factor in sudden cardiac deaths.2
Nearly Three-Quarters of Post-Jab Deaths Caused by the Shot
As explained by the authors:3
“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 … 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.
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 …
Among adjudicators, there was complete independent agreement (all three physicians) of vaccination causing or contributing to death in 203 cases (62.5%). The one necropsy case was judged to be linked to vaccination with complete agreement …
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.”
The Lancet Censors Paper
As has so often been the case over these past three years, the journal didn’t waste time censoring the paper. Preprints with The Lancet pulled it within 24 hours,4 stating “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.”5 In what way? They don’t say. As noted by McCullough, the methodology is as standard as it gets. Will Jones at the Daily Sceptic adds:6
“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 …
Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist and co-Chair of the HART pandemic advisory group, says that in her view the approach taken in the study is sound. She told the Daily Sceptic:
‘The VAERS system … 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.
However, this is imperfect as a deficit of deaths would be expected after a period of excess deaths, making the accuracy of any baseline dubious. An alternative approach of auditing such deaths through autopsy is sound.
There may be a bias [in the study] towards reporting the autopsies of deaths where there was evidence of causation and the likelihood of causation might be exaggerated by that bias. For example, 19 of the 325 deaths were due to vaccine-induced immune thrombocytopenia and thrombosis (VITT) but these reports may be overrepresented because of the regulators’ willingness to acknowledge such deaths.
Nevertheless, 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.”
Prior to this, The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) had also rejected the paper, as had the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). NEJM rejected it within a few days, and JAMA within about an hour of submission. The preprint server medRxiv and others also refused to post it.
In the video above, Naomi Wolf with Daily Clout interviewed McCullough about the censoring of his paper. According to McCullough, overnight, while the paper was still on the Preprint server, downloads of the paper were in the hundreds per minute, demonstrating there’s a clear demand for this information.
