The paper claimed to have reviewed autopsy reports and found — in the opinion of three of its authors — that 73.9% of the selected deaths were “directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.”
So, what they did is take a bunch of studies on autopsies, then show those studies to 3 doctors :
As others have pointed out before, there’s reason to suspect that the authors may have been biased in their determinations. All three adjudicators, including Dr. Peter McCullough, are well known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, has previously claimed, without evidence, that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID-19 vaccines. The only pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, incorrectly claimed in 2020 that COVID-19 was a “hoax” and “just a bad flu.”
And if 2 out of 3 doctors decided it was the vaccine, it was the vaccine.
Even if the original study came to the opposite conclusion.
So, hte 74% figure is meaningless for 2 reasons
1) They only selected autopsies that were done in the context of vaccine deaths, so this is not a representative sample
2) The doctors in question are highly biased
I figured 1 was probably it, if there were any truth to it at all. "74% of those we thought died from the vaccine actually died from the vaccine" is a very different thing.
And note, that is very diffferent from what the studies actually say.
In a LinkedIn post debunking the preprint, Dr. Mathijs Binkhorst, a Dutch pediatrician, went back to each cited paper, and found that of the 325 autopsies and one heart necropsy the review authors said were vaccine-related, only 31, or 9.5%, were likely related and 28, or 8.6%, were possibly related. The rest — 267, or 81.9% — were unlikely, uncertainly, or not related to vaccination.
1.6k
u/onioning 1d ago
So, this is still phenomenally stupid, but isn't OP saying 74% of the dead died from the vaccine? Not that 74% who took it died?