In a revelation that’s turning heads and raising eyebrows, a previously censored study from The Lancet has now resurfaced, peer-reviewed and more damning than ever. The study, titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination,” analyzed 325 autopsy cases and found that a staggering 73.9% of deaths were either directly due to or significantly contributed to by the COVID-19 vaccination. Buckle up, because this is a bombshell that’s shaking the foundations of public health narratives.
The paper’s lead author, Dr. Nicolas Hulscher, faced a Herculean battle to bring these findings to light. Initially downloaded over 100,000 times before being yanked offline within 24 hours by The Lancet, the study was reportedly removed under the pretext that “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” Critics are calling foul, suggesting the removal smacks of censorship rather than genuine scientific critique.
So, what does this study reveal? Let’s dive into the numbers. Out of the 325 autopsy cases reviewed, a jaw-dropping 240 deaths (that’s 73.9%, for those keeping score) were adjudicated as directly caused by or significantly linked to the vaccine. The primary culprits? Sudden cardiac death topped the list at 35%, followed by pulmonary embolism (12.5%), myocardial infarction (12%), and myocarditis (7.1%). It’s clear that the cardiovascular system bore the brunt of the vaccine’s adverse effects, with blood-related issues not far behind.
The mean time from vaccination to death was just 14.3 days, with most deaths occurring within a week of receiving the jab. This rapid timeline underscores the urgency and severity of the vaccine’s impact on some individuals. The findings are particularly unsettling given the widespread push to vaccinate the global population, often accompanied by assurances of safety and efficacy.
Dr. William Makis, a vocal supporter of the study, took to social media to celebrate the peer-reviewed publication. He accused Big Pharma of putting the squeeze on The Lancet to suppress the study, claiming that the delay in publication led to preventable deaths. “Our paper was delayed by one year, and those actions of CENSORSHIP and CANCELLATION led to many deaths that could have been prevented. This paper could be a game changer,” Makis wrote.
The implications of this study are profound. For starters, it challenges the public health establishment’s narrative that the COVID-19 vaccines are unequivocally safe. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has yet to acknowledge a single death caused by the mRNA vaccines, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. This study adds a crucial piece to the puzzle, painting a far grimmer picture of vaccine safety than previously acknowledged.
It also raises critical questions about the role of censorship and information control in public health policy. If studies like this can be suppressed for not aligning with official narratives, what else might we not be seeing? The erosion of public trust in health institutions is a real and present danger, exacerbated by actions that appear to prioritize corporate interests over transparent science.
This Lancet study is a wake-up call. It demands a reevaluation of vaccine safety protocols, greater transparency in public health reporting, and an end to the suppression of inconvenient truths. Because when it comes to public health, nothing should be more important than the truth.
Leave a Comment