In 2024, an analysis was published that compiled 325 autopsies of people who died shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Its authors concluded that in 240 of those cases (approximately 73.9%), death was directly caused or strongly influenced by the vaccination. The reported effects ranged from myocarditis and IVUT to embolisms, heart attacks, hemorrhages, and sudden cardiac death. If these data were taken as valid for the entire vaccinated population, they would pose an enormous risk—a silent catastrophe.
But be aware: that article has been retracted by the very journal that published it. Many experts point out that the cases analyzed lack sufficient clinical information, medical history, comorbidities, or rigorous forensic details. In other words, they are isolated cases, possibly real, but insufficient to establish a generalizable pattern.
Moreover, population studies—which measure mortality, hospitalizations, and excess deaths—show that vaccines have saved millions of lives and do not demonstrate an overall increase in mortality after their use. This does not eliminate the possibility of serious adverse effects, but it does indicate that their frequency—if causality exists—is very low compared to the collective benefit.
In short: this “large forensic study” raises valid questions, alerts us to risks that may be rare, and warrants further investigation. But it can in no way serve as “proof” that vaccines caused hundreds of thousands—or millions—of deaths.
The most honest thing to do now would be to demand more autopsies, more transparency in the data, and serious monitoring of adverse effects, without falling into absolute fear or total denial.
What if that "big forensic study" on vaccines does have data — but the interpretation is different?
🔬 What the study you cite says
The article titled "A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination" compiles 44 autopsy studies with a total of 325 cases (plus one partial autopsy case) of people who died after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. SciPublicHealthLaw.com +2 ResearchGate +2
According to the authors, in 240 of those 325 cases (73.9%), they concluded that the death was “directly due to or significantly contributed to by vaccination.” SciPublicHealthLaw.com
The most frequently involved organs are the cardiovascular system (49% of cases), followed by the hematologic system (17%), respiratory system (11%), and multisystemic involvement in some cases. SciPublicHealthLaw.com
The most common causes include sudden cardiac death, heart attack, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis (including VITT syndrome—thrombosis plus low platelet count), myocarditis, and cerebral hemorrhage, among others. SciPublicHealthLaw.com
The time from vaccination to death, when reported, averages approximately 14 days, although many cases died within a few days (median 3 days). SciPublicHealthLaw.com
The authors argue that the consistency of the findings, the biological plausibility (relative to the behavior of the Spike vaccine, nanoparticles, inflammatory responses, etc.), and a review of the cases by forensic experts, allow them to assert a “high probability of a causal link” between vaccination and death in these cases. SciPublicHealthLaw.com +1
So yes: the study provides a “forensic/medical” basis that, for its authors, justifies alarm and calls for a thorough re-evaluation of vaccine safety, especially regarding their rare but serious adverse effects.
⚠️ But: why is this study controversial — and why are many experts urging caution?
The same article has been marked as “withdrawn” by its journal . PubMed +1
Independent reviewers note that the evidence for individual causality is weak or uncertain : in many cases, complete clinical data, medical history, and comorbidities are lacking—making it difficult to determine whether the vaccination was truly the cause of death or simply a coincidence. PMC +1
Larger studies of vaccine safety—population monitoring, mortality registries, and excess mortality studies— have not found a widespread increase in deaths attributable to vaccination. On the contrary, they show that vaccines substantially reduced COVID-19 mortality. Science Feedback +2 FactCheck.org +2
In most of the cases considered in the forensic study, these were isolated deaths, very rare compared to the total doses administered—suggesting that the risk exists, but is extremely low. FactCheck.org +1
Extrapolating from these few cases to “all deaths after vaccination” or “mass vaccine deaths” is not rigorous: there is a huge selection bias. Only reported cases (deaths + autopsies) are analyzed, which are a tiny fraction of the hundreds of millions of doses administered. FactCheck.org +1
A video has gone viral on social media in which a doctor declares before a committee that "the largest autopsy study ever conducted shows that 73–74% of sudden deaths were caused by vaccines . "
It sounds devastating. But... is that what science says?
Let's take it one step at a time.
1. The study they use to say “74% died from the vaccine”
The line in the reel didn't come out of nowhere. It's based on a review titled "A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths after COVID-19 vaccination ," by Hulscher et al., published in the journal Forensic Science International in 2024. ScienceDirect +1
Key points of that review:
The authors compiled published autopsy cases of people who had died after being vaccinated against COVID-19.
This is not a study of the entire vaccinated population, but of a very specific group: only those cases that were already suspected and had been reported as “possibly related” deaths. PubMed
Then, the same authors “re-evaluated” those cases and concluded that in a high percentage the vaccine had probably contributed to the death.
Hence the famous 73–74% figure , which is then repeated in reels as if it were:
“74% of all deaths after vaccination were due to the vaccine.”
That's a huge distortion . The review only looks at a handful of selected cases (the most suspicious ones) and then calculates a percentage within that group , not of all vaccinated people.
Furthermore, this review has been heavily criticized by independent experts and scientific fact-checkers such as FactCheck.org, who rate it as "flawed" by: FactCheck.org +1 (Left-wing writers)
Subjective criteria for deciding which death was “caused” by the vaccine.
Lack of important clinical information in several cases.
Do not compare with expected death rates in the general population.
And a very important detail: the journal itself marked the article as withdrawn , meaning it no longer endorses it as a valid publication . ScienceDirect +1
2. What do serious autopsies actually show?
There are indeed rare cases where the vaccine appears to have played a role in death, primarily through myocarditis (inflammation of the heart):
A review of cases of fatal myocarditis following vaccination found a small number of deaths where, after detailed autopsy, pathologists considered the vaccine a likely cause. PMC +1
There are also isolated case reports (for example, young people with fatal arrhythmias shortly after vaccination) where autopsy points to a possible link. Meridian +1
These posts show something important:
The vaccine can, in very rare cases, trigger myocarditis or other serious problems that can be fatal.
That's not a conspiracy: it's recognized in medical literature and by the regulatory agencies themselves.
In fact:
Reviews in Circulation and other journals describe post-mRNA myocarditis as a rare adverse effect , more common in young men and typically mild, although sometimes severe. AHA Journals +1
The CDC and FDA have updated the warnings in the prescribing information for Pfizer and Moderna to highlight this risk of myocarditis/pericarditis in males aged 12 to 24. CDC +1
But the existence of a rare risk does not mean that the vaccine is causing a "silent holocaust" or that most sudden deaths are due to it.
3. The big picture: what happens if we look at the ENTIRE population?
When instead of looking at a few hundred selected autopsies we look at millions of people , the picture changes dramatically:
A global analysis estimated that vaccines prevented approximately 19.8 million COVID-19 deaths in the first year of vaccination alone (December 2020–December 2021) . PMC
Another economic study found that, as of August 2021, the global campaign had prevented approximately 2.36 million deaths in 141 countries , using excess mortality data. NBER
Research in Europe concludes that between 2020 and 2023, vaccination reduced COVID-19 deaths by 59% in the countries studied. The Lancet
A 2025 study estimated that, in the WHO European Region alone, more than 2.5 million lives were saved (1 death averted for every 5,400 doses administered). JAMA Network
When we look at total mortality (all causes), several analyses find that:
In 2021–2022, countries with higher vaccination rates and stronger control policies experienced less excess mortality than those with low coverage. OUP Academic +1
Meanwhile, security reviews show:
The risk of myocarditis is real , but it is on the order of 2–11 cases per 100,000 vaccinated individuals, depending on age and sex, and the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is generally higher than from the vaccine. CDC +1
4. So, how do you read those types of reels?
Inflated and out-of-context number.
The “74%” figure comes from a highly controversial, now-removed article that only considers suspected cases. Presenting it as if it were a snapshot of the entire vaccinated population is misleading.Data Selection:
The reel shows you a shocking figure from a single study, but it doesn't show you:millions of autopsies unrelated to vaccines;
nor the global mortality studies that show millions of lives saved.
Questionable Authority:
Some of the promoters of this study—such as Peter McCullough and other co-authors—have been cited by medical organizations for spreading misinformation about COVID and vaccines. FactCheck.org +1Real but rare risks.
Yes, there are serious adverse effects: especially myocarditis in young men receiving mRNA vaccines. That's why authorities have added warnings and, in some countries, adjusted doses and schedules. That's science in action, not hiding it.
5. Mind map to avoid getting lost
If you want to summarize it for your audience, you can leave it like this:
❌ False / exaggerated: “The largest autopsy shows that 74% died from the vaccine.”
✅ More aligned with the evidence:
There is a much-criticized autopsy review that reports a high percentage of causality within a small, selected group of suspected cases .
The article was withdrawn by the journal itself due to methodological problems.
There are rare cases where the vaccine appears to have contributed to death (mostly due to myocarditis), but these are exceptional compared to the total number of doses administered.
6. Closure
We can—and should—debate about:
the political handling of the pandemic,
the mandates,
the pressure on certain populations,
the transparency of pharmaceutical companies.
But it's quite another thing to claim that "most sudden deaths" or "74% of autopsies" prove a silent genocide.
When we look at the complete literature, that is not supported by the data .
Link
A Systematic Review Of Autopsy Findings In Deaths After COVID-19 Vaccination
Suggested hashtags/tags:#COVID19 #Vacunas #Autopsias #SeguridadVacunal #Investigación #SaludPública #Controversia
