A major new autopsy report has found that three people who died unexpectedly at home with no pre-existing disease shortly after Covid vaccination were likely killed by the vaccine. A further two deaths were found to be possibly due to the vaccine.
The report, published in Clinical Research in Cardiology, the official journal of the German Cardiac Society, detailed autopsies carried out at Heidelberg University Hospital in 2021. Led by Thomas Longerich and Peter Schirmacher, it found that in five deaths that occurred within a week of the first or second dose of vaccination with Pfizer or Moderna, inflammation of the heart tissue due to an autoimmune response triggered by the vaccine had likely or possibly caused the death.
In total the report looked at 35 autopsies carried out at the University of Heidelberg in people who died within 20 days of Covid vaccination, of which 10 were deemed on examination to be due to a pre-existing illness and not the vaccine. For the remaining 20, the report did not rule out the vaccine as a cause of death, which Dr. Schirmacher has confirmed to me is intentional as the autopsy results were inconclusive. Almost all of the remaining cases were of a cardiovascular cause, as indicated in the table below from the supplementary materials, where 21 of the 30 deaths are attributed to a cardiovascular cause. One of these is attributed to blood clots (VITT) from AstraZeneca vaccination (the report was looking specifically at post-vaccine myocarditis deaths), leaving 20 from other cardiovascular causes.
For the five deaths in the main report attributed as likely or possibly due to the vaccines, the authors state:
All cases lacked significant coronary heart disease, acute or chronic manifestations of ischaemic heart disease, manifestations of cardiomyopathy or other signs of a pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease.
This indicates that the authors limited themselves to deaths where there was no “pre-existing, clinically relevant heart disease”, making the report very conservative in which deaths it was willing to pin on the vaccines.
Dr. Schirmacher told me:
We included only cases, in which the constellation was unequivocally clear and no other cause of death was demonstrable despite all efforts. We cannot rule out vaccine effects in the other cases, but here we had an alternative potential cause of death (e.g. myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism). If there is severe ischemic cardiomyopathy it is almost impossible to rule out myocarditis effects or definitively rule in inflammatory alterations as due to vaccination. These cases were not included.
We did not aim to include or find every case but the characteristics of definitive, unequivocal cases beyond any doubt. Only by this way you can establish the typical characteristics; otherwise less strict criteria may lead to ‘contamination’ of the collective; it is absolutely plausible that by these criteria we may have missed further cases but the intention of our study was never quantitative or extrapolation and there are numerous positive and negative bias. But we wanted to establish the fact not the size.
It is of course very possible that the vaccines also cause death where there is an underlying cardiovascular condition, and indeed, that it is more likely to do so. Thus these five deaths are the minimum from these autopsy cases in which the vaccines are involved – those in which there is no other plausible explanation.
It is worth noting here that initially in 2021, when the autopsies were first carried out, Dr. Schirmacher stated his team had concluded 30-40% of the deaths were due to the vaccines. These earlier estimates may give us a better indication of how many of the deaths the authors really think are attributable to the vaccines, when they are unconstrained by highly conservative assumptions (and looking at causes besides myocarditis). Note that these percentages are based on a selection of deaths that occurred shortly after vaccination, not a random sample of all deaths, so the authors rightly warn that no estimation of individual risk can be made from them.
Did the autopsies find spike protein from the vaccines present in the heart tissue? The samples from the five vaccine-attributed deaths were tested for infectious agents including SARS-CoV-2 (in one instance revealing “low viral copy numbers” of a herpes virus, which the authors deemed insufficient to explain the inflammation). However, no tests were done specifically for the virus spike protein or nucleocapsid protein, such as have been used successfully in other autopsies to aid attribution to the vaccine, so unfortunately this evidence was unavailable for these autopsies.
The autopsies in the report also only cover doses 1 and 2, not any booster doses, and only deaths within 20 days of vaccination, so the report doesn’t address directly the question of what’s been causing the elevated heart deaths since the booster rollouts from autumn 2021 or whether the vaccines can trigger cardiovascular death weeks or months later. (Other autopsies have confirmed that the spike protein can persist in the body for weeks or months after vaccination and trigger a fatal autoimmune attack on the heart.)
What the report does do, however, is establish that people who die suddenly in the days immediately following vaccination may well have died from a vaccine-related autoimmune attack on the heart. It also confirms how deadly even mild vaccine-induced myocarditis can be – and thus why studies like the one from Thailand, finding cardiovascular adverse effects in around a third of teenagers (29.2%) following Pfizer vaccination and subclinical heart inflammation in one in 43 (2.3%), and the study from Switzerland finding at least 2.8% with subclinical myocarditis and elevated troponin levels (indicating heart injury) across all vaccinated people, are so worrying.
The authors of the new study diplomatically write that the “reported incidence” of myocarditis after vaccination is “low” and the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with COVID-19 are “stated to be greater than the recorded risk associated with COVID-19 vaccination” – notably declining to commit themselves to the official propositions that they dutifully repeat.
The fact that those who die suddenly after vaccination may have died from the hidden effects of the Covid vaccine on their heart is thus now firmly established in the medical literature. The big remaining question is how often it occurs.
Stop Press: Dr. John Campbell has produced a helpful overview of the report’s findings in his latest video.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Personally Im a fan of correct speling but not of remooving superfluous language from other peoples work
I disagree. Every word should count. Words that do not hold their place make for uncomfortable reading.
Actually I am not a fan of the superfluous in anything be it food, art, literature, cars and so on. I am not a minimalist but add ons need to enhance and not confuse or detract.
“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Airman’s Odyssey.
Thank you Marcus.
Not sure about “remooving.”
My entire comment was meant to be a misspelt joke! Tickled me, anyway.
A further point:
This paragraph is in itself a bit of a bobbing turd :
“I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views.”
So why is the bank closing Sir Nigel’s accounts? Why has the true reason for debanking not been disclosed in the letter?
A poorly constructed letter which deliberately adds insult to injury.
Indeed.
“legally held political and personal views” This implies that it’s possible to have “illegally held” political and personal views. I wonder what these could be?
‘Legally held’. People like to make things sound grander or give them gravity and authority than they warrant. Like the chumps who put official looking ‘No Parking’ signs up but have ‘Polite Notice’ to make it look like ‘Police Notice’. This effort from Dame Rose does appear to indicate she was distracted part way though dictation, spun around a bit for a couple of paragraphs, then remembered where she was for the closing sentiments.
Possibly. My reading of it is more like this:
“Your views are distasteful to me and to the bank and to polite, rightthinking people everywhere, but they are not so extreme as to be illegal, so sadly we cannot use them to justify closing your account, as we will get into trouble.”
And then: “However, others might have such extreme political and personal views that certainly ought to be illegal and may well be illegal if expressed publicly and for such people we would certainly be closing their accounts without hesitation”
Farage is sort of mainstream. Don’t think as many people would be defending Tommy Robinson’s right to have a bank account.
But they should be – being allowed to unperson him was testing the water, and has emboldened the scum running these businesses.
I tend to agree. Robinson has been convicted of fraud, perhaps that’s relevant to having a bank account, but in general everyone should be able to have a bank account, unless it can be proved they are laundering money or something.
But they ought to, especially as he exposed local government bribery to silence teachers and others in an apparent bullying case.
Investigative journalists used to do that. What happened to them?
This has been bothering me as well. Provide there is actually something as an illegal opinion (definitely in Germany) that’s no business of a bank as banks are not responsible for prosecuting criminals.
“I believe very strongly that freedom of expression and access to banking are fundamental to our society and it is absolutely not our policy to exit a customer on the basis of legally held political and personal views.”
There is so much that is wrong and actually downright nasty in this paragraph:
How on earth does ‘freedom of expression’ and having a bank account become linked? Offering a bank account is simply a business transaction. End of.
“access to banking are fundamental to our society”…but we are shutting you down and there is sod all you can do about it. Eh? Come again?
“exit” with clear etymological links to “execute.” Nice.
“legally held political and personal views”
So Alison Rose and or the bank hold the rights to defining what is legal and even what is personal. As opposed to what exactly?
And this is a banking group that has catered to mafia personnel, General Pinochet and those arch grifters, ne’er do wells and tax dodgers the Saxe-Coburgs – German links again.
Oh yes Natwest group a paramount within the banking industry.
Disgusting and appalling.
Not that this is a surprise, but it’s obvious she is unrepentant and doesn’t think she has done anything wrong, except get caught “exiting” someone with the balls and clout to stand up to her. As per my post above, it’s clear that she thinks “views” are relevant, and the reference to “legally held” is really just saying “views that right thinking people like me find abhorrent but cannot as yet get away with using to stop someone having a bank account”.
Agreed tof.
No surprise at any of that. A competent secretary and legal team should have corrected all those errors!
Its secretary will also be a diversity hire, probably not having English as its first language.
Simply another unqualified diversity hire – nothing to see here.
Variable noun? I think just about any noun is now variable. But honestly, how do you practise social distancing? Withdraw into a corner or melt into the shrubbery when people are about? You’d get carted off to the local insane asylum. I can’t imagine anything more daft. Well, I can but I won’t get into that now….
Now, now Aethelred. Don’t forget what your Mum told you – “practise makes perfect.”
My favourite bit is “I would like to make it clear that they do not reflect the view of the bank.” Really? Then who’s view do they represent, and how did they come to be in a subject access request report produced by… her bank?
To me the main problem with this letter is the bit that says, “they (the comments) do not reflect the view of the bank.”
Clearly, these are exactly the views of the bank. It wasn’t one misplaced word – it was forty pages of social media tittle tattle deliberately constructed to smear a customer, and then acted on by senior management.
She committed a banker’s cardinal sin, and so did Davies, a former chief regulator FCS, by ignoring of not defending it.
In Switzerland, both would already be in prison and everywhere, they are now toast professionally in finance.
And actually, there is also expensive precedence for what happens and should happen when a bank’s CEO can’t keep his mouth shut:
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breuer-Interview
Howard Davies – head of the FCA at the time of the crash in 2008. Clearly about as much use as a chocolate teapot. I wonder where he will be promoted to next?
Aged 21 in the early 80’s, I met a friend of my parents; he was a Director of National Westminster Bank. After a few pints – he said to me, “Let me give you some advice in business. Never trust the buggers that take it too seriously”.
His advice has served me well. I suspect Alison Rose may fall into the group he was warning me about.
Reflexive pronouns are used by call centre staff all the time. It’s a plague.
Agree with those, other than “the government make”, which could, according to various (confusing and contradictory) websites, just as reasonably read “government makes”. To my ear, the singular sounds more natural – and in the end I think it’s more a question of what sounds natural, don’t you think? That said, I wouldn’t ever say “the police makes…” – which would have to be plural. Curious.
“They’d genuinely rather have a less qualified ethnic minority who can’t even compose an email to the clients because it helps with their ESG Rating,”
Most definitely not in the same league, but a few years ago when I was a Civil Servant a black woman who had recently migrated to the UK was recruited. She was very pleasant; very anxious to please but simply couldn’t do the job. She really shouldn’t have passed her probation period. But the department was located in a part of the country where very few “minorities” chose to live so diversity targets had not been reached ….. and her employment was confirmed by those higher up the hierarchy …. who didn’t have to work directly with her.
You missed one…
”To achieve this, sector–wide change is required, but your experience, highlighted in recent days, has shown we need to also put our own processes under scrutiny
too.”To also put?
Don’t be surprised if Rose is the next CEO of the National Trust. I dropped my membership 3 years ago as they wanted me to be ashamed of my heritage
Spoiler alert: Speaking from experience, Bank executives don’t write their own letters – a PA or junior manager will write all their letters for them. All the executive has to do is to read it and sign it. Of course, read before you sign is the important bit, because of that other unofficial legal maxim – signature attracts liability.
This letter looks to me as though it was written and signed in a hurry without anyone of experience taking a few minutes to knock it into shape.