Lancet Paper On Post-Vax Autopsies Nuked After Attracting ‘Special Attention’: Dr. Peter McCullough
A pre-print review of autopsy data of more than 300 post-Covid-19 vaccination deaths was removed by the Lancet within 24 hours of its initial submission, according to cardiologist Dr Peter McCullough, the paper’s leading author and prominent COVID vaccine sceptic. “The government narrative is still that people do not die after COVID-19 vaccination. Now we have the largest series of autopsies, and the autopsies are incontrovertible,” he told the sources. The paper was uploaded to the Lancet’s pre-print website on July 6, only to be taken down with a note implying that the study violated the medical journal’s “screening criteria.”
“Pre-print servers go through a check to make sure all the elements of the paper are there, but it is not peer-reviewed by external doctors. And the preprint server simply offers people a chance to look at the data themselves and decide,” McCullough told the Times Jan Jekielek. “I think that’s perfectly fair to look at the tables, look at the figures.” “Obviously, we struck a very important gap in knowledge and the world needed to know the results.”The paper was co-authored by Yale epidemiologist Dr Harvey Risch and their colleagues at the Wellness Company, a Florida-based medical group.
The study looked at 678 published papers, 44 of which contained 325 autopsy cases. They then used a “blind adjudication” process by which three physicians independently review all the deaths and determine whether the Covid-19 vaccine caused, or contributed significantly, to the deaths. “We use the standard called PRISMA, where we searched for every paper possible. We sorted through hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts because deaths can be reported as different clinical syndromes are coming out after the vaccine,” said McCullough.
“There were deaths where there was an auto accident or a suicide. There were some cases in nursing homes where people are on hospice and it looked like they were in their last days of life. We just couldn’t attribute it to the vaccine,” he added. “But the striking cases were people who were perfectly healthy, who had no other medical problems. The only new thing in their life was a vaccine, and then they died with an obvious syndrome like a blood clot, or heart damage, or myocarditis.”
“This is important because when these papers were originally published, the authors didn’t know the full breadth of safety profiles of the vaccine,” McCullough continued. “Initially there were some autopsies from Germany [where] people died of blood clots shooting to lungs. The authors concluded that it wasn’t vaccine because at that time they didn’t know the vaccine causes blood clots, but we do now.”
To that end, a total of 240 deaths (73.9 per cent) were identified as directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. The most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated death was the cardiovascular system (53 per cent), followed by the haematological system (17 per cent), the respiratory system (8 per cent), and multiple organ systems (7 per cent), according to the paper. The mean time from vaccination to death was 14.3 days, with most deaths occurring within a week from the most recent jab. Without further detail from Lancet, it is hard to tell exactly in which way the study’s methodology might have failed to support its conclusions. On the other hand, Dr McCullough said they used standard methodology and did reach realistic results. -Epoch Times
“We didn’t come up with an unrealistic number. We didn’t come up with 100 per cent or zero per cent of deaths due to vaccines. We came up with a reasonable number that’s defensible,” he said. “In the supplemental tables, people can go through every case and decide if they agree or disagree, and that’s fair. That should be up on the pre-print server so the world can see it.”
“The main thing people want is they want access to the data. They simply don’t want data censored off of the internet,” he added. “We should have grand rounds on this. We should have broad internet discussions on it. People maybe want to discuss specific cases—maybe the authors [of the 44 papers] themselves want to look at it.”
