Lancet Study on Covid Vaccine Autopsies Finds 74% Were Caused by Vaccine

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.

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.

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.

The full study does not appear to have been saved in the Internet Archive, but can be read here.

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. Keep in mind that the CDC has not yet acknowledged a single death being caused by the Covid mRNA vaccines. Autopsy evidence demonstrating otherwise is clearly not what the U.S. public health establishment wants to hear.

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 [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.

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.

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.

Dr. Harvey Risch, one of the study’s authors, told the Daily Sceptic he deems it “pure Government-directed censorship, even after the Missouri v. Biden injunction”.

“Meanwhile, my colleagues are studying what they call ‘Long Vax‘, which is vaccine-caused damage. But of course that is a rare, rare, rare outcome, except that they seem not to be having any problem finding such individuals to enroll in their study,” he added.

I see yours and will raise you one.

My husband collapsed in October and we took him to the hospital. Many scans later they determined that he had multiple blood clots in one lung. He spent a week in the hospital and will be on blood thinners for the rest of his life.

While he was there, a doctor and a nurse came in. They didn’t see me in the corner. The doctor asked him if he’d had the covid vax. He said no, just like every other time they asked. The doctor looked at the nurse and said, “I guess we need to look somewhere else for the source of the clots.”

They finally determined that the clots came from his legs because he’s so sedentary.

Home health nurses and PT came to the house for two months. One of the younger nurses asked us if we’d had the vax. We told her no. She said good because they are dangerous. She said she was forced to take them for her job so her husband and his best friend both took them too. Both her husband and his friend developed myocarditis around the same time. Neither had any history of heart problems. She said she won’t take them again even if it means losing her nursing job.

I rarely post any more because of how friendly this site has been to the efforts of scammers and charlatans to spread dangerous misinformation among conservatives.

But this article and the “study” it refers to are so full of misinformation that I need to say something.

First of all, the authors’ affiliation, the Wellness Company, is yet another scam site selling useless “supplements” with grandiose claims. We used to call these concoctions “snake oil.” No, the Wellness Company is not going to sell you any (untested) “supplement” that is going to cure everything that ails you. They claim that they did not get any financial support from TWC for this “study.” How disingenious. They were trying to hoodwink The Lancet into publishing their bogus “study” for advertising purposes. It would make their TWC seem more legitimate if they could claim they have published in the highly respected journal The Lancet. Too bad for them that all of the editors there are highly educated. I’m not sure why The Lancet would have even posted the article on their website prior to peer review; that is not standard operating procedure.

Next, the “study” itself is full of scientific inaccuracy. I can’t say anything about the full text of the “study” since only the abstract is available. But the abstract is revealing enough.

The very first paragraph managed to include all of the antivax tropes about supposed “damage” caused by the vaccine. Stuff like “systemic lipid nanoparticle (LNP) and mRNA distribution” which is biologically implausible (to say the least). Since both lipids and mRNA are very common types of biomolecules and present in every cell of the body, any lipids or mRNA contained in a vaccine are processed exactly the same way, meaning that any trace of them is gone within hours. It is physically impossible for vaccine components to stick around long-term. And so on. I’m not going to waste time debunking every antivax trope contained in that one sentence.

Next, their methods. They did some pretty extensive cherry-picking to find cases that fit their criteria, that is, deaths that occurred within a specific timespan after vaccination. Out of 678 studies, they only found 325 autopsy and one necropsy case that fit their criteria? Picking only data that fits a conclusion is not how science is done. Also, I have never seen a study in which veterinary study results (the necropsy) are lumped together with human study results (the autopsies).

Next, the findings. The causes of death are consistent with those found in fatal Covid infections. So it looks like these were Covid deaths that occurred in people 1-2 weeks after they received a Covid vaccination. Since it takes immunity at least 2 weeks to kick in after a vaccination, it appears that those were just unlucky people who were exposed to Covid too soon after vaccination for the vaccine to have any protective effect. Of course, this is an educated assessment, which is all that is possible to do without being able to look at the full “study” and read each of the 44 papers they used for their “study” to see what they really said.

As for their “interpretation”, it is nothing more than a rehash of the same old antivax misinformation tropes, only with the claim that their “study” supports the tropes.

I really wish this site had not become so friendly to the spreaders and creators of antivax misinformation. I look at those targeting the conservative community with the misinformation and strongly suspect their motives. A) Leftists hate conservatives and are more and more open about their wish for us to die. B) The environmental movement in the past several years has switched from caring about the environment to wanting to eradicate humans to “save” the environment. C) Some of those spreading antivax lies are radical leftists or, at the least, liberals. For example, RFK Jr. is a leftist environmental lawyer. And my personal interactions with Robert Malone (several years ago) gave me the impression that he is fairly liberal (and his wife even more so).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.