Covid Bro's. Keep getting your clot shots. Safe and Effective.

Me? I find these stats chilling. There is a place for mRNA technology, but ONLY AFTER years (decades) of systematic, INDEPENDENT research on the use and effects of mRNA vaccines and tech.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385892772_A_Systematic_Review_Of_Autopsy_Findings_In_Deaths_After_COVID-19_Vaccination

5 minutes ago, connda said:

There is a place for mRNA technology, but ONLY AFTER years (decades) of systematic, INDEPENDENT research on the use and effects of mRNA vaccines and tech.

mRNA technology was developed in 1961, with the first breakthrough discovered in 1990.

not sure how rigorously it has been tested, but it has been tested for many years.

1 hour ago, connda said:

Covid Bro's. Keep getting your clot shots. Safe and Effective.

Me? I find these stats chilling. There is a place for mRNA technology, but ONLY AFTER years (decades) of systematic, INDEPENDENT research on the use and effects of mRNA vaccines and tech.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385892772_A_Systematic_Review_Of_Autopsy_Findings_In_Deaths_After_COVID-19_Vaccination

The study is not scientifically sound and has been withdrawn. Its core claim—that 73.9% of 325 reviewed autopsy deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination—is unsupported by rigorous evidence and relies on flawed methods.

https://science.feedback.org/review/study-claiming-74-of-deaths-due-to-covid-19-vaccines-contains-signs-of-potential-biases-uses-flawed-methodology/

Good stuff.

Can't let the vax news be swept into the long grass life Epstein files (for instance).

There is no such tking as a mRNA vaccine; Just toxic filth made in labs.

48 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Good stuff.

Can't let the vax news be swept into the long grass life Epstein files (for instance).

Exactly right - these debunked, poorly constructed “studies” fail miserably time and again when trying to undercut vaccine science.

There is no greater shame for a scientist than to have a published study withdrawn.

13 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Good stuff.

Can't let the vax news be swept into the long grass life Epstein files (for instance).

There is no such tking as a mRNA vaccine; Just toxic filth made in labs.

Too bad you don't really pay attention to Nature... instead you just use it as a crutch.

Nature's foremost rule is...... evolve or die! The only real constant about Nature.....it's constantly changing.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by gamb00ler

On 7/23/2026 at 10:29 AM, connda said:

Covid Bro's. Keep getting your clot shots. Safe and Effective.

Me? I find these stats chilling. There is a place for mRNA technology, but ONLY AFTER years (decades) of systematic, INDEPENDENT research on the use and effects of mRNA vaccines and tech.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385892772_A_Systematic_Review_Of_Autopsy_Findings_In_Deaths_After_COVID-19_Vaccination

You probably only watch movies that get horrible reviews..... the reviews of this 'study' are going to earn it the equivalent of a Razzie.

This text is from a widely criticized and initially withdrawn preprint (Preprints with The Lancet) titled "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination". Independent scientific and public health analyses found its core claim—that 74% of deaths following vaccination were caused by the vaccine—to be methodologically flawed.

Methodological Flaws and Biases

• Selection Bias: The review only looked at case reports where death occurred after vaccination, ignoring the vast background population rates of death and failing to use a control group of unvaccinated individuals.

• Subjective Adjudication: Having three study-aligned physicians re-evaluate heterogeneous, published case reports without standardized, blinded post-mortem criteria introduced massive confirmation bias.

• Confounding Factors: The analysis largely ignored underlying pre-existing conditions, advanced age (mean age 70.4 years), and alternative natural causes of death

Edited July 24Jul 24 by gamb00ler

8 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

You probably only watch movies that get horrible reviews.....

Most guys in this thread only watch horror movies.

Edited July 24Jul 24 by save the frogs

22 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There is no such tking as a mRNA vaccine; Just toxic filth made in labs.

You're just jealous because you didn't invent the technology.

23 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

There is no such tking as a mRNA vaccine; Just toxic filth made in labs.

You are completely discrediting scientists who spend decades of their lives developing these technologies.

Here's yet another one:

Multi-Year Study Involving 800+ Embalmers and Funeral Directors Across Five Countries Reveals 75.2% Noticed “Unusual White Fibrous Structures” in Corpses

Conclusions: Multiple years of surveys document consistent self-reported observations by experienced embalmers of unusual white fibrous structures in a substantial fraction of corpses, with a clear increase noted around 2020–2021. These findings constitute a potential safety signal that warrants independent investigation by forensic pathologists and biomedical researchers to characterize the structures and determine their etiology.

Self-Reported Observations of Unusual White Fibrous Structures in Embalmed Corpses: Multi-Year Survey Results from Embalmers in Five Countries, 2022–2025

I'm with Dr Drew on this one. I don't know what caused the excess deaths and other symptoms, whether it was the jabs or Covid itself. I just want them to allow the science to do what science is supposed to do, without squelching results that don't conform to the accepted narrative.

I'd add that I also want to know what caused the left side of my face to go numb and caused me to lose my sense of balance the day after my 2nd Pfizer. The quality of my life took a dump that day, and I still haven't recovered over 5 years on.

5 hours ago, save the frogs said:

You are completely discrediting scientists who spend decades of their lives developing these technologies.

How dare he? Blasphemer!

Edited July 24Jul 24 by rattlesnake

Possible connection to shingles vaccine and dementia:

A recent study published in Alzheimer's & Dementia found that older adults who received the two-dose recombinant shingles vaccine (Shingrix®) had a significantly lower risk of developing dementia, including Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia, compared with those who were not vaccinated. While this research does not prove that the vaccine prevents dementia, it adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting a potential protective effect on brain health.

The paper’s conclusion is unreliable: it cherry-picks case reports without controls, cannot establish causation from temporal association, and was withdrawn/rejected for unsupported conclusions. � It overinterprets autopsy findings, ignores baseline mortality, and suffers strong selection and confirmation bias, making its “causal” claims invalid.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Conclusion: You're not a scientist and you have no idea what the <deleted> you're talking about. 🙄

On 7/24/2026 at 7:46 PM, save the frogs said:

You are completely discrediting scientists who spend decades of their lives developing these technologies.

Yes OK; if you say so.

Discredited scientists you say. The science is settled; 'safe n effective' Have we forgotten Thailomide so soon?

There is no such thing as an mRNA vaccine. There may well be stuff in petri-dishes that have effects on other added stuff. If they want to do lab science; first find the entity. Not pretend they have it when they have not.

Nature rules!

On 7/25/2026 at 12:41 AM, rattlesnake said:

How dare he? Blasphemer!

Any nonsense out there; I'll be on the case.

Oh sinner man; where yer gonna run to?

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Oh sinner man; where yer gonna run to?

Love Nina Simone. Did you know 16 Horsepower had done a great cover of that one?

https://search.brave.com/ask?q=What+is+the+history+of+this+paper%3A%22a+systematic+review+of+autopsy+findings+in+deaths+after+covid-19+vaccination%22%3F+It+appears+to+have+been+withdrawn+but+also+to+have+been+published.&conversation=095e87da2e53aa80fcc1720925cf56f30b5e#vSD8nBlpgfm1NjkKEnSD39BUoe_G6kzR0iiv-AnklS8

Origins and Initial Preprint (2023)

The paper titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination” first appeared on July 5, 2023, as a preprint on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), a server associated with The Lancet. Authored by nine researchers, including cardiologist Peter McCullough, the review analyzed 325 autopsy cases from 44 studies. The authors concluded that 73.9% of the deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination.

However, the preprint was removed just one day later by the SSRN/Lancet group, which stated that “the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology.” Despite its removal, the paper gained traction online, with claims of censorship circulating widely on social media and alternative news outlets. It was subsequently reposted on Zenodo, where it amassed over 180,000 views by late July 2023.

Peer-Reviewed Publication and Retraction (2024)

Approximately a year later, on June 21, 2024, a version of the paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal Forensic Science International. This publication reignited debate, with the paper briefly becoming a trending research topic globally.

However, in early August 2024, the journal retracted the article. The editors cited multiple serious concerns raised by the scientific community, including:

* Inappropriate citation of sources and design of methodology.

* Errors, misrepresentation, and lack of factual support for the conclusions.

* Failure to recognize and cite disconfirming evidence.

Although the authors submitted a revised manuscript, independent peer reviewers concluded that it did not sufficiently address these concerns, rendering it unsuitable for publication. The retraction notice highlighted that the authors disputed the grounds for withdrawal.

Republication in Alternative Journal (Late 2024)

Following its retraction from Forensic Science International, the paper was republished on November 17, 2024, in the journal Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. This journal describes itself as peer-reviewed but is not indexed on PubMed.

Critics note that the editor-in-chief, James Lyons-Weiler, and several board members are known for spreading vaccine misinformation. Some of the paper’s own authors also sit on the journal's board. This republication has been used by vaccine opponents to bolster claims about vaccine safety, despite the fact that the study’s fundamental methodological weaknesses—such as selection bias, lack of control for confounding factors like age and underlying health conditions, and the controversial background of the adjudicating physicians—remain unaddressed.

Scientific Consensus and Criticism

The broader scientific community and fact-checking organizations maintain that the study’s methodology is flawed and inadequate for establishing a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death. Key criticisms include:

* Selection Bias: The authors excluded 90 out of 134 identified studies without clear justification, potentially skewing results.

* Lack of Objectivity: The three physicians who adjudicated the causes of death (including McCullough) have histories of spreading COVID-19 misinformation.

* Ignoring Confounding Factors: The review did not adequately account for other risk factors such as age and pre-existing health conditions.

* Contradiction of Broader Data: Extensive safety surveillance data indicates that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of death by preventing severe illness, and serious side effects are extremely rare compared to the benefits.

In the same vein (no pun intended): Dr. john Campbell discusses a more recent, similar paper:

Naturally I wondered how often this one had been retracted:

https://search.brave.com/ask?q=what+is+the+history+of+this+paper%3F+%22Self-Reported+Observations+of+Unusual+White+Fibrous+Structures+in+Embalmed+Corpses%3A+Multi-Year+Survey+Results+from+Embalmers+in+Five+Countries%2C+2022%E2%80%932025+Thomas+F.+Haviland+%C2%B7+Laura+Kasner+%C2%B7+Daniel+Santiago%22&conversation=095e66eb7fa5ddab5244236acc9d05f17008#5Ax9SlAE2Qr5JwGJOHswjDOH96re-TCzV12ozMq54FU

The authors stress that while the survey confirms the existence and timing of the phenomenon, the etiology (cause) of the structures remains undetermined and requires further independent forensic and biomedical investigation.

Overview and Publication

The paper titled "Self-Reported Observations of Unusual White Fibrous Structures in Embalmed Corpses: Multi-Year Survey Results from Embalmers in Five Countries, 2022–2025" was published on July 1, 2026, in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (Vol. 11, No. 07). The study was conducted by Thomas F. Haviland (a retired U.S. Air Force Major, mathematician, and data analyst), Laura Kasner (a survey methodology specialist), and Daniel Santiago (a Doctor of Pharmacy).

The research documents a multi-year survey (2022–2025) of 808 embalmers across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. It quantifies the prevalence of unusual white fibrous structures observed in corpses, noting a marked increase in sightings beginning in 2020–2021. The authors conclude that these findings constitute a "potential safety signal" warranting independent investigation by forensic pathologists and biomedical researchers.

Origins of the Reports (2020–2021)

The impetus for the study arose from anecdotal reports beginning in late 2021 and early 2022. Experienced embalmers and funeral directors in multiple countries began describing large, tough, rubbery, white or off-white fibrous structures in the veins and arteries of deceased individuals. These were distinct from classic postmortem clots (such as "chicken-fat" or "currant-jelly" clots) in terms of texture, color, size, and adherence to vessel walls.

Early public accounts came from UK funeral director John O’Looney and Alabama embalmer Richard Hirschman, the latter of whom provided photographic documentation. By October 2022, Indiana embalmer Wallace Hooker reported that a majority of attendees at an Ohio Embalmers Association convention confirmed observing these structures over the preceding 16–18 months. This professional confirmation, including verification by OEA Vice President Woody Wilson, prompted the lead author to initiate systematic data collection.

Survey Methodology (2022–2025)

To quantify these observations, the researchers conducted four annual cross-sectional online surveys between 2022 and 2025 using SurveyMonkey. The target population included active embalmers in five English-speaking countries.

The distribution strategy was twofold:

1. Top-down: Survey links were emailed to approximately 50 national, regional, and state funeral director and embalmer associations.

2. Bottom-up: Direct emails were sent to over 1,700 funeral homes in major cities across the five nations.

The surveys were anonymous and voluntary. Core questions assessed whether embalmers had observed the unusual structures, the estimated percentage of corpses affected, and (in the 2022 survey) the year of first observation. The study was determined exempt from institutional review board oversight due to its nature as an anonymous survey of aggregate, non-identifiable workplace observations.

Key Findings

The study aggregated data from 808 total responses over the four-year period. The results indicated a consistent and widespread phenomenon:

* Prevalence among Embalmers: The proportion of embalmers reporting observations of these structures ranged from 66% to 83% across the survey years. Combined, 75.2% of respondents reported seeing the clots.

* Prevalence in Corpses: The weighted average prevalence of affected corpses ranged from 19% to 27%, with an overall estimate of 23.4% of embalmed bodies containing the structures.

* Temporal Pattern: The 2022 survey data revealed a marked increase in first observations beginning in 2020, accelerating in 2021. This timeline coincides with the global rollout of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, though the survey itself did not verify individual vaccination histories or establish causation.

Embalmers described the structures as obstructive, often impeding blood drainage and requiring specialized techniques to ensure proper perfusion of embalming fluids.

Related Laboratory Analysis

While the primary paper focused on survey data, a second paper published concurrently by some of the same authors (led by Daniel Santiago) provided preliminary laboratory analysis of representative samples. Using Raman micro-spectroscopy, protein quantification, and amino-acid profiling, researchers found strong protein signatures indicating atypical protein aggregates.

The analysis suggested a progression from a native-like α-helical state to a β-sheet-enriched configuration, a structural change often associated with amyloid formation. However, the authors emphasized that additional testing is required before classifying the structures definitively as amyloid fibrils. These findings align with previous research suggesting a link between spike protein exposure and the formation of fibrinolysis-resistant aggregates.

Reception and Context

The publication of this study marked a significant shift from anecdotal reports to peer-reviewed documentation. Prior to this, similar findings had been presented at professional meetings, such as the June 2025 Tennessee Funeral Directors Association meeting, and discussed in various media outlets and documentaries like Died Suddenly (2022).

The study faced initial hurdles; an earlier version submitted to Preprints.org was reportedly declined with a statement that the topic lacked "novelty and general significance." The eventual publication in July 2026 in a medical journal was seen by proponents as a validation of the embalmers' observations. The authors stress that while the survey confirms the existence and timing of the phenomenon, the etiology (cause) of the structures remains undetermined and requires further independent forensic and biomedical investigation.

22 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Love Nina Simone. Did you know 16 Horsepower had done a great cover of that one?

22 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Love Nina Simone. Did you know 16 Horsepower had done a great cover of that one?

$innerman/vaccine man, the grave don't want you.

Plenty of others that will join the filthy vaccinators and vaxx developers. Military keeping perpetual war on the go!!