On July 2, fitness blogger Sandro Jibladze shared a video on Facebook discussing a possible link between the COVID-19 vaccine and death. The video was accompanied by a caption stating, “The largest post-vaccine autopsy study showed that 73.9% of sudden deaths were caused by the vaccine.” According to the translated text of the video, a large-scale study involving autopsies determined that 73.9% of vaccinated individuals died as a result of the vaccine.
Some of the claims made in the post regarding the link between COVID-19 vaccines and death contain inaccuracies. The information is being circulated based on a study co-authored by cardiologist Peter McCullough. This study has been retracted from several scientific journals due to inconsistencies and a lack of connection between the methodology and its conclusions. Furthermore, the study relies on other scientific sources whose validity and scientific value are also questionable. The biographies of the study’s co-authors are also controversial, as many of them have previously spread misinformation and have ties to companies promoting anti-vaccine policies.
The video circulating on social media is dated May 21 and shows a U.S. Senate hearing on the risks of COVID-19 vaccines. The man speaking in the video about the autopsy-based study is Dr. Peter McCullough. During the hearing (at 9:00), he states that he co-authored a study in which autopsies revealed that 73.9% of deaths were caused by the vaccine.
He is likely referring to the study titled “A Systematic Review of Autopsy Findings in Deaths after COVID-19 Vaccination.” McCullough is listed as a co-author alongside eight other scientists. The study was published in 2024. According to the methodology, the authors examined a number of studies conducted by the same methodology and analyzed a total of 325 autopsied cases. The authors concluded that there was a high probability that the deaths were linked to causes related to the COVID-19 vaccine. The study reports that the majority of cases – 240 deaths or 73.9% – were due to sudden cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, cerebral hemorrhage, and other conditions. In their conclusion, the authors state that the study once again confirmed a strong causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death and call for immediate further investigation alongside scientific research.
The study was initially published in the journal “Forensic Science International” last year but was later retracted by the journal’s editors. The journal’s website explains the reasons for this decision, citing concerns raised in the scientific community. The article was withdrawn for violating several criteria, including inappropriate citation of sources, inappropriate design of methodology, errors, misrepresentation, lack of factual support for the conclusions, and failure to recognize and cite disconfirming evidence. The preliminary version of the same study was also published on the website of the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), which is linked to the scientific journal “The Lancet.” It was soon removed from this website as well, with the reason being inconsistencies between its methodology and conclusions.
Peter McCullough has previously promoted unsubstantiated links between vaccination and death. Myth Detector contacted the American science-focused fact-checking platform Science Feedback for further information about McCullough and his claims. The platform has published several articles on the same study. According to their researchers, the study shows signs of bias and relies on weak analysis. Most notably, McCullough’s study draws on other autopsy-based studies, which it misrepresents. For example, one case attributes a vaccinated man’s death from myocarditis to “preexisting cardiovascular diseases” and determines it was not vaccine-related, but McCullough and his co-authors include this case in the vaccine-related death statistics. Science Feedback also questioned the selection criteria for the source materials used in the study and why specific articles were deemed significant. They questioned the impartiality of the study after discovering that many of the articles cited were based on small-sample studies, some involving just a single patient.
While myocarditis is considered a potential side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine, it is very rare and usually mild. It can also occur following COVID-19 infection itself.
- What Do We Know About the Study’s Authors?
Dr. Peter McCullough’s medical practice is controversial. He is the Chief Scientific Officer at The Wellness Company, which sells products claiming to detoxify the body from spike protein. Several of his co-authors – Richard Amerling, Paul Alexander, Heather Gessling, and Roger Hodkinson – are also associated with the company. During the pandemic, cardiologist McCullough was known for spreading misinformation about vaccination, which was widely circulated on social media. U.S. fact-checking organizations repeatedly verified his claims related to the pandemic and vaccination. Other co-authors of the study also have ties to McCullough or The Wellness Company. For example, Nicolas Hulscher works as an epidemiologist at the Peter McCullough Foundation.
Paul E. Alexander served as a science advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term. He promoted mass infection of the population as the best way to fight the epidemic. He also works for the Brownstone Institute (archive – July 14, 2025), which actively used health issues for propaganda during the pandemic.
Many of the authors have a history of spreading misinformation. One such figure is Richard Amerling, a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, who used that platform to spread false information about AIDS and abortion.
Myth Detector regularly fact-checks scientific misinformation. This includes manipulative and false claims about COVID-19 and vaccines, which remain widespread.
The article has been written in the framework of Facebook’s fact-checking program. You can read more about the restrictions that Facebook may impose based on this article via this link. You can find information about appealing or editing our assessment via this link.
Read detailed instructions for editing the article.
Read detailed appeal instructions.
