Did two (2) separate autopsy studies reveal (Schwab et al. Germany & Chaves et al. Columbia) that most deaths post COVID mRNA technology injection are due to the spike protein? YES!!!!

We have reports of sudden cardiac arrest, myocarditis, clotting, massive bleeding etc.' It is clear now that we have a catastrophic problem with these COVID mRNA technology shots! MUST be stopped!

Study 1:

SOURCE:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36436002/

Initial cohort was n=35, and 10 removed to leave 25 for further examination:

Researchers ‘describe the autopsy findings and common characteristics of myocarditis in untreated persons who received anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Standardized autopsies were performed on 25 persons who had died unexpectedly and within 20 days after anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

In four patients (16%) (who received a mRNA vaccination, we identified acute (epi-)myocarditis without detection of another significant disease or health constellation that may have caused an unexpected death.

Histology showed patchy interstitial myocardial T-lymphocytic infiltration, predominantly of the CD4 positive subset, associated with mild myocyte damage.

Overall, autopsy findings indicated death due to acute arrhythmogenic cardiac failure.

Thus, myocarditis can be a potentially lethal complication following mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.’

Study 2:

SOURCE:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9618417/pdf/main.pdf

Researchers sought to ‘describe the results of autopsies of patients vaccinated for SARS CoV-2 carried out in two major centers in Colombia.

A descriptive cross-sectional study of 121 autopsies was performed following Colombian regulations in two main hospitals in Bogotá, Colombia, between March 1st and April 31st, 2021.

118 of the 121 patients (97.52%) had been vaccinated with CoronaVac (Sinovac); only 3 had received other vaccines.

Sudden cardiac death was the leading cause of death, with pulmonary embolism another critical finding.’

Specifically:

‘Among the critical comorbidities reported in the medical history were: arterial hypertension in 93 patients (76.85%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 36 patients (29.75%), diabetes mellitus in 24 patients (19.83%), congestive heart failure in 20 patients (16.52%), history of acute myocardial infarction in 18 patients (14.87%), history of neoplasia in 15 patients (12.39%), hypothyroidism in 15 patients (12.39%), dyslipidemia in 13 patients (10.74%), cardiac arrhythmia in 13 patients (10.74%), dementia in 11 patients (9.09%), chronic kidney disease in 8 patients (6.6%) and autoimmune disease in 4 patients (3.3%).

SCD was the leading cause of death with 69 cases (57.02%), followed by acute myocardial infarction in 53 patients (43.8%) and other cardiovascular diseases (aortic dissection, aortic aneurysms, arrhythmias) in 23 patients (19%). 45 of the SCD cases were secondary to acute myocardial infarction and a further 18 cases secondary to other cardiovascular diseases. In 6 cases of SCD no diagnostic findings were found. Pulmonary embolism (PE) was found in 25 cases (20.66%).’

Authors can interpret the findings however it wishes, we look at the data and numbers. We look at the biological plausibility, we look at consistency, we look at the temporal relationship, we look at dose response etc. We impose Bradford Hill on these types of (non-comparative effectiveness research) data to assess causality and I can say YES. There is strong evidence of such! These researchers must prove me wrong!