© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Horowitz: Pro-vaccine German pathologist believes vaccine deaths are undercounted based on autopsy findings
Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Horowitz: Pro-vaccine German pathologist believes vaccine deaths are undercounted based on autopsy findings

Before the government rushes to approve the Pfizer shot, which in this case will likely lead to a de facto mandate, shouldn't we get a sense of how many people are dying or getting injured from this very novel "spike protein approach" to vaccination? How many people really trust that the government has properly investigated the extent of serious adverse events and that we are getting accurate numbers, given the harsh censorship? Failure to do so will actually weaken the faith in longstanding, important vaccines, which is why a pro-vaccine German pathologist is seeking to study the true death count.

The Deutsches Ärzteblatt, a weekly German-language medical magazine, reported this week that Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, found that toxicology reports indicate that 30%-40% of a sample of 40 people who died within two weeks of vaccination indeed died from the vaccine. Schirmacher embarked on this study because he strongly believes that deaths are being underreported. The following is an English translation (via Google translate) of the article:

The doctor now wants to get to the bottom of rare, serious side effects of vaccination — such as cerebral vein thrombosis or autoimmune diseases. The problem from his point of view: Vaccinated people usually do not die under clinical observation. "The doctor examining the corpse does not establish a context with the vaccination and certifies a natural death and the patient is buried," reports Schirmacher. "Or he certifies an unclear type of death and the public prosecutor sees no third-party fault and releases the corpse for burial."

Is Dr. Schirmacher suggesting that 40% of all people who died within two weeks necessarily died of the vaccine? No. Obviously, there is a need for further study, but the point is that given the already-unprecedented number of deaths and adverse events – plus the stigma and censorship behind reporting them — it is incumbent upon those forcing the vaccines on us to categorically rule out a higher incidence of death and injury.

As the article states, Schirmacher himself got the vaccine and is still even supportive of it but wants to make sure we can make an informed cost-benefit analysis according to each person's risk level.

Schirmacher insists on his opinion. "My colleagues are definitely wrong because they cannot assess this specific question competently," he responded. He does not want to spread panic and is by no means opposed to vaccinations, says the professor, who says he himself had himself vaccinated against corona. Vaccination is an essential part of the fight against the virus, he clarifies.

But you have to weigh up the medical reasons for vaccination individually. From his point of view, the "individual protection consideration" is overlaid by the idea of a rapid vaccination of society. The article goes on to suggest that the Federal Association of German Pathologists is urging a broader investigation.

The Federal Association of German Pathologists is also urging more autopsies of vaccinated people. This is the only way to exclude or prove connections between deaths and vaccinations, says Johannes Friemann, head of the autopsy working group in the association. However, from his point of view, too little autopsies are carried out to speak of an unreported number. "You don't know anything yet."

This is very important news not getting out to Americans. The government has no right to categorically make the determination that this vaccine is not only safe enough to use, but safe enough to mandate, without studying the short-term effects, much less the blackhole on long-term safety.

We are seeing a lot more smoke, which should engender further investigation to ensure there is no greater fire than what we already see. For example, the CDC admitted that there is a heightened risk of myocarditis among young people vaccinated, but downplayed the numbers. However, a brand-new analysis published in JAMA by researchers from the Providence health care system showed "vaccine adverse event underreporting" for both myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of the lining outside the heart).

They found by researching electronic medical records of all those vaccinated in 40 Providence health care system hospitals that there was roughly a 60% increase in myocarditis and pericarditis among those vaccinated than during the pre-vaccination period. They further found that "Myocarditis developed rapidly in younger patients, mostly after the second vaccination. Pericarditis affected older patients later, after either the first or second dose."

The mitigating factors within the study seemed to indicate that the limitations of their study would likely low-ball the incidence of vaccine-induced heart inflammation

We already have a study from the Norwegian Medicines Agency, which examined the first 100 nursing home patients to subsequently die after having gotten the Pfizer shots and found a causal link between the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and death to be "likely" in 10 of the 100 cases, "possible" in 26 cases. Those are very high numbers. The onus is on the global governments to better study these questions with more transparency before shoving them on us.

We already know that the vaccine doesn't protect against illness and may only protect against critical illness for a short period of time. This is likely why Israel, which vaxxed the majority of its people several months before the U.S., is seeing the ICU and death rates of the vaccinated match or exceed the unvaccinated.

Short-term efficacy against critical illness is definitely some benefit, but it's a far cry from near 100% long-term protection against severe illness and 80%-90% efficacy against infection, as was advertised. Parlayed against the known and unknown risks of the vaccines, in addition to the fact that there are so many early and prophylactic treatments, provides us with a very different spread of cost-benefit analysis.

With Moderna now openly saying that immunity is waning and calling for a universal third shot, which will bring the same side effects to an entire population all over again – isn't it time that the burden of proof be placed on them?

If they believe their vaccine is truly safe and effective, then it's time to place the liability on anyone who mandates them — as we do with every other vaccine or drug. They can't have it both ways.

Want to leave a tip?

We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.
Want to join the conversation?
Already a subscriber?