A recent paper titled "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination" has gained attention for alleging a significant link between COVID-19 vaccination and fatal adverse events. While it claims to be a comprehensive and objective analysis, closer scrutiny reveals it to be deeply flawed. This article dissects the study’s claims, methodology, and underlying biases, relying on credible sources to provide a balanced perspective.
Before diving into the specifics, let me address potential biases. I am not affiliated with "Big Pharma" and am unvaccinated against COVID-19—not out of ideological opposition, but because I had the virus early in the pandemic and weighed my personal risks accordingly. However, I strongly oppose pseudoscience and disinformation. This critique is rooted in a commitment to factual accuracy and sound scientific principles.
1. Misuse of VAERS Data
The Claim: The study emphasizes VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data as evidence of widespread vaccine-induced fatalities.
Jack’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Reality:
VAERS Limitations: VAERS is a passive reporting system that collects unverified adverse event reports. The CDC explicitly states that these reports are not designed to determine causation and often include coincidental events unrelated to vaccination (CDC, 2023).
Misleading Extrapolations: The authors claim a 20-fold underreporting factor, inflating alleged vaccine-related deaths to over 700,000. This assertion lacks empirical backing and contradicts independent research, which shows VAERS serves as an early warning system but requires rigorous follow-up for validation (Shimabukuro et al., 2021).
COVID-19’s Cardiovascular Impact: Studies confirm that COVID-19 infection can lead to cardiovascular complications, including heart attacks and strokes, even months post-recovery (Xie et al., 2022). By ignoring this context, the study misattributes natural causes of death to vaccination.
2. Flawed Methodology
The Claim: The study asserts causation between vaccination and deaths based on autopsy findings.
The Reality:
Cherry-Picked Data: The authors selectively include reports that support their hypothesis while ignoring larger studies showing no such links.
Subjective Judgments: The adjudication of vaccine-related deaths lacks scientific rigour. Without validated causal frameworks or statistical analyses, conclusions drawn are speculative and unreliable.
No Control Groups: The absence of unvaccinated or unrelated mortality control groups makes it impossible to evaluate whether observed deaths deviate from baseline trends.
Invalid Biological Plausibility Claims: Spike protein toxicity and lipid nanoparticle biodistribution assertions rely on animal studies and lack human validation (EMA, 2022). Moreover, vaccine-induced spike proteins are present only transiently and at minimal levels, unlike spike proteins from natural infections, which are more damaging (Graham et al., 2021).
3. Misinterpretation of Mechanisms
The Claim: The study argues that vaccine components, such as mRNA and spike protein, cause systemic harm.
The Reality:
Spike Protein Misconceptions: Vaccine-derived spike proteins are rapidly cleared and exist in far lower concentrations than those generated during a natural infection, which poses a greater risk (Schmidt et al., 2021).
mRNA and LNP Persistence: mRNA from vaccines degrades quickly and does not linger in the body (EMA, 2022).
Known Adverse Events Contextualized: Myocarditis, a rare side effect, occurs more frequently following COVID-19 infection than vaccination (Patone et al., 2022). The study conflates such events with systemic harm without evidence.
4. Author Biases and Conflicts of Interest
The Authors:
Peter A. McCullough: McCullough has been discredited for promoting unsupported claims about COVID-19 vaccines and has ties to anti-vaccine groups (Texas Tribune, 2023).
Roger Hodkinson and William Makis: Both are affiliated with anti-vaccine platforms, casting doubt on their objectivity (Reuters, 2022).
Paul Alexander: Known for politicizing public health during his tenure in the Trump administration, Alexander lacks credibility in objective health policy discourse (Nature, 2021).
The Organization: Many authors are tied to The Wellness Company, a for-profit entity that markets alternative therapies and anti-vaccine narratives.
Impact: These affiliations reveal potential ideological and financial incentives to produce biased conclusions.
5. Broader Evidence Contradicts the Claims
Global Surveillance: Data from regulatory bodies such as the CDC, EMA, and WHO confirm the rarity of severe adverse events and the overwhelming benefits of COVID-19 vaccination in reducing severe illness and mortality (WHO, 2023).
Independent Studies:
Large-scale studies consistently show that myocarditis and pericarditis rates are significantly higher following COVID-19 infection than vaccination (Patone et al., 2022).
Vaccines have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths worldwide, even against newer variants like Omicron (Piroth et al., 2021).
6. The Misinformation Campaign
The study is emblematic of a broader disinformation effort:
Echo Chambers: Many citations are self-referential or from similarly biased sources, creating a feedback loop of unverified claims.
Fearmongering: Exaggerating rare adverse events to sow doubt undermines public trust in vaccines and broader health measures.
Conclusion
The claims made in "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination" fail to withstand scientific scrutiny. Flawed methodology, biased authorship, and misuse of data render its conclusions unreliable. Independent research and global surveillance consistently affirm the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.
Key Takeaways:
VAERS data must not be interpreted as causation without rigorous validation.
Contextual factors, including the risks of COVID-19 infection itself, are critical to understanding vaccine safety.
Conflicts of interest among the authors undermine the study’s credibility.
Trustworthy research consistently supports the benefits of vaccination.
Sources
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). "Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) Overview." [CDC Website, 2023].
Shimabukuro, T. et al. "Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines—United States." JAMA, 2022.
Xie, Y. et al. "Risks of Cardiovascular Disease Post-COVID-19." Nature Medicine, 2022.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). "Review of mRNA Vaccine Safety." EMA Reports, 2022.
Patone, M. et al. "Risks of Myocarditis and Pericarditis Post-COVID-19 Vaccination." BMJ, 2022.
Schmidt, F. et al. "Clearance of Vaccine-Derived Spike Protein." Cell Reports Medicine, 2021.
Graham, B. S. et al. "Vaccine-Induced Spike Protein and Immune Response." New England Journal of Medicine, 2021.
Texas Tribune. "Discredited COVID-19 Vaccine Claims by Peter McCullough." [Texas Tribune, 2023].
Reuters. "Fact-Check: Vaccine Misinformation by Roger Hodkinson and William Makis." [Reuters, 2022].
Nature. "Paul Alexander’s Role in Politicizing COVID-19 Measures." [Nature, 2021].
Jack’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
