But, hey, I'll tell you what the study said and where you can find the original paper.
On July 5, 2023, a group of researchers uploaded a systematic review of 325 autopsies conducted after COVID 'vaccination' to the Lancet preprint website. Preprints, as most of you are probably aware, are study papers awaiting peer review.
The goal of the systematic review detailed in the preprint was to determine what role the ‘vaccines’ may have played in the autopsied subjects’ deaths.
The review found 74% of the deaths were caused by the gene therapies. Lancet responded to this groundbreaking analysis, not by scheduling it for peer review, but by quickly disappearing it from their website. Within 24 hours of its original posting, the study was removed from the Lancet site.
I guess that’s what they mean by The Speed of Science!™
Lancet gave no reason for the removal, other than a single vague and eminently unconvincing line:
"This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study's conclusions are not supported by the study methodology."
No further explanation is provided by the British propaganda outlet masquerading as a medical journal. Lancet, if you declare a study is so flawed it is must be removed from your website immediately, the onus is on you to explain why its "conclusions are not supported by the methodology".
If you cannot or will not do this, then the rest of us are left to assume your official reason is merely a thinly-veiled excuse employed to conceal the real reason.
Another Statement of ‘Solidarity’?
When considering Lancet's qualifications as an arbiter of truth and accuracy, it's worth remembering its now-infamous Feb 2020 'statement of solidarity' against 'conspiracy theorists' (i.e. people who dared question the ridiculous tale that ‘COVID’ began in Wuhan after someone ate a bat or pangolin purchased from a wet market that did not sell bats or pangolins).
One notable co-author of the Lancet letter, which read like corny Maoist-era propaganda, was the shady Peter Daszak, who dishonestly claimed no conflict of interest despite the fact he presided over a lucrative skimming operation called EcoHealth. This so-called ‘non-profit’ acted as middle-man for money taken from US taxpayers and given to the CCP-controlled biolab in Wuhan.
Another co-author who signed the "no competing interests” declaration was Christian Drosten, co-inventor of the highly odiferous PCR test for Sars-Cov-2. The test, and the supposedly peer-reviewed announcement of its arrival, are steeped in controversy and raise many questions which Drosten and his protectors still refuse to answer (see here and here).
Despite these clear conflicts of interest, and the widespread controversy generated when Daszak's connections were made public, the Lancet is still shamelessly running the original letter complete with the patently false "We declare no competing interests" declaration by Daszak, Drosten and their co-authors.
The Lancet is about as trustworthy as the globalist deviants for whom it acts as a propaganda outlet.
So Who Performed the Censored Study?
Unlike the Politburo-style February 2020 letter, the July 5 preprint - which you can still access in full here - was authored by researchers with pretty solid credentials.
Lead author was Nicolas Hulscher, a scientist from the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Paul E. Alexander, PhD, is a former Senior Pandemic Advisor to the US Secretary, Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, former WHO-PAHO COVID consultant and a present advisor to The Wellness Company. He is a former Assistant Professor in evidence-based medicine and epidemiology, obtaining his bachelor’s degree in epidemiology from McMaster University, his master’s from Oxford, and PhD from McMaster.
Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD is a Professor Emeritus, Yale University School of Public Health.
The remaining authors include Richard Amerling, MD, Heather Gessling, MD, Roger Hodkinson, MD, William Makis, MD, Mark Trozzi, MD, and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH. Some of those names will be familiar to you if you've been reading COVID-related material outside of the mainstream's heavily-censored pap.
Needless to say, this isn’t some screwball group of Gates-sponsored ‘fact checkers’.
It should be noted, however, that Drs Alexander, Amerling, Hodkinson, Makis, McCullough, Risch, Trozzi “are affiliated with and receive salary support and/or hold equity positions” in The Wellness Company (Boca Raton, FL), which among its numerous services and products offers a "Spike Support Formula" purportedly "researched to block and dissolve spike proteins inside your body."
Unlike Daszak and Drosten, the aforementioned authors at least had the decency to declare this affiliation in the preprint's conflict of interest section, which further states The Wellness Company "had no role in funding, analysis, or publication."
How Did The Authors Perform their Systematic Review?
They searched PubMed and ScienceDirect for all published autopsy and necropsy (analysis of dead tissue) reports relating to 'COVID-19 vaccination' up until May 18, 2023. They initially identified 678 potential studies, of which 44 papers containing 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case met the inclusion criteria.
Three physicians (Hodkinson, Makis and Alexander) with experience in death adjudication and anatomical/clinical pathology independently reviewed the available information of each case and determined whether or not COVID-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to the mechanism of death described. Agreement was reached when two or more physicians adjudicated the case concordantly.
So What Did they Find?
The mean age of death among the cases was 70.4 years with 139 females (42.6%). Most received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (41%), followed by Sinovac (37%), AstraZeneca (13%), Moderna (7%), Johnson & Johnson (1%), and Sinopharm (1%).
Not surprisingly, given all the people we've watched drop dead suddenly over the last 2.5 years, the cardiovascular system was most frequently implicated (53%), followed by hematological (17%), respiratory (8%), multiple organ systems (7%), neurological (4%), immunological (3%), and gastrointestinal (1%).
In 7% of cases, the cause of death was either unknown, non-natural (drowning, head injury, etc.) or infection.
One organ system was affected in 302 cases, two in 3 cases, three in 8 cases, and four or more in 13 cases.
The mean number of days from vaccination until death was 14.3 irrespective of dose, 7.8 after one dose, 23.2 after two doses, and 5.7 after three doses.
240 deaths (73.9%) were independently adjudicated by three physicians to be significantly linked to COVID-19 'vaccination'.
There was complete independent agreement among 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 chronology and nature of the study meant it could only examine deaths occurring shortly after 'vaccination' - most of the deaths occurred within a week of the last injection. The study was unable to determine the role of the gene therapies in causing death over longer time frames (e.g., the “turbo cancer" phenomenon).
The authors note the large number of 'vaccine'-induced deaths evaluated in their review is consistent with multiple papers reporting excess mortality after vaccination.
Pantazatos and Seligmann found that all-cause mortality increased 0-5 weeks post-injection in most age groups resulting in 146,000 to 187,000 vaccine-associated deaths in the US between February and August of 2021.
Skidmore estimated 278,000 people may have died from the COVID-19 'vaccine' in the US by December 2021.
Aarstad and Kvitastein found that among 31 countries in Europe, a higher population COVID-19 'vaccine' uptake in 2021 was positively correlated with increased all-cause mortality in the first nine months of 2022 after controlling for alternative explanations.
Furthermore, excess mortality from non-COVID-19 causes has been detected in many countries since the mass ‘vaccination’ programs began, suggesting a common deleterious exposure among populations.
Using Pantazatos’ estimate that VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20 (estimates of underreporting run as high as a factor of 100), the authors took the May 5, 2023 VAERS death report count of 35,324, and arrived at 706,480 deaths in the US alone.
"If this extrapolated number of deaths were to be confirmed, the COVID-19 vaccines would represent the largest medical failure in human history."
I offer one correction: It would represent the largest deliberate episode of medical genocide in history.
At any rate, the finding that most people who die soon after receiving the toxic gene therapies died because of the toxic gene therapies is not exactly earth-shattering news to those of us with a functioning, reasoning brain who have closely watched this horror show play out.
It must be remembered, however, that most people don't appear to have a functioning, reasoning brain.
The Excuse Makers Chime In
The Lancet, as we’ve seen, isn’t offering anything resembling a valid explanation as to why the study’s methodology was unsuited to its purpose.
I did, however, come across a farcical ‘fact check’ by the bad joke that is Lead Stories. This outfit loudly proclaims itself as independent, when in fact the heavily-left organization is staffed almost entirely by Democratic donors, half of whom have worked for CNN in the past.
Its funding sources include some of the biggest names in cancel culture and online surveillance, such as Google, Facebook and ByteDance, the CCP-affiliated company headquartered in Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands that owns TikTok.
The Lead Stories author, some joker called Ed Payne, says the study described in the withdrawn Lancet preprint "is not a study" (!?)
Um ... what is it then, Ed?
Ed then goes onto say that this study which he doesn't realize is a study didn't really find that 74% of the autopsied deaths were caused by 'vaccines' because … wait for it, Ed's an absolute powerhouse of scientific brilliance here … Lancet pulled it from their website.
Um, we already know that Ed! The question is why was it pulled?
Ed, of course, wouldn't have a clue, so he offers no comment whatsoever on the study's methodology.
All Ed knows is that the Lancet pulled the study, and in the mind of a heavily-left 'fact checker' that means it must be, like, bad and stuff.
"The preprint paper never made it past the submission stage with the medical journal because The Lancet said it "violated our screening criteria."
If Ed was a record, he'd be broken.
"As a result," continues Ed, "the paper was never peer-reviewed, which subjects it to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field (peers) and is considered necessary to ensure academic scientific quality."
R-i-g-h-t.
Say it again Ed, and listen to yourself this time. The paper was never subjected to peer review, where experts could have determined if it was fit for publication. Instead the editorial team at Lancet saw the paper, shat their Calvins at what might happen if their friends in high places noticed it, and pulled it faster than you can say "it's pretty bloody dumb to taking poisonous drugs made by corporate criminals to treat a pandemic declared by people who hang out with convicted pedophiles."
Well, almost as quickly - it took me 0.08 of a second to recite that.
Because journalists struggle to come up with an original thought, Ed contacted two of the most dishonest agencies on the planet: the CDC and FDA, both of which are swimming in money given to them by the same people who produce the gene therapies.
CDC: Centers for Disingenuous Claims and Propaganda
Kristen Nordlund, a PR person/them/they/whatever from the CDC, told Ed "COVID-19 vaccines are undergoing the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history. To date, CDC has not detected any unusual or unexpected patterns for deaths following immunization that would indicate that COVID vaccines are causing or contributing to deaths..."
The CDC is pretty damn useless then, isn't it?
Carly Pflaum, a press officer at the FDA, told Ed "the agency does not generally comment on third-party studies, but emphasized that nothing suggests that mRNA vaccines increase the risk of death."
"Based on available information for the COVID-19 vaccines that are authorized or approved in the United States, the known and potential benefits of these vaccines clearly outweigh their known and potential risks."
Because hundreds of thousands of extra deaths after injection with toxic gene therapies more than justifies their lack of efficacy against a renamed virus with a near-100% survival rate, right?
What can I say folks: It’s Ed, the FDA and CDC versus real scientists who can see through this 'vaccine' charade.
I know who I consider more credible.
Leave a Reply