Blood clots in corpses make them difficult to embalm

[SueDonim]

Yes, interesting reading although it needs to be taken with a grain of salt as Swiss Policy Research has a mixed rating on Media Bias/Factcheck (...Overall, we rate Swiss Policy Research (SPR) a Moderate Conspiracy website based on the promotion of unproven claims. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to poor sources and complete lack of transparency...).

And then a fact check on your fact checker returns this (from Wikipedia): "According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

And Wikipedia is reliable? It even had articles warning about its own shortcomings. 

Basically you can find something to support anything you want to say. I prefer well known science publications that have reputation and standing in their fields. I do find Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reasonable resource when, like all things, it is used in conjunction with other knowledge/experience and/or has a view that is backed up by other sources. The article you quoted is interesting and has some good food for thought but starts to fall apart when looked at critically.

[king1]

And then a fact check on your fact checker returns this (from Wikipedia): "According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."

And Wikipedia is reliable? It even had articles warning about its own shortcomings. 

Basically you can find something to support anything you want to say. I prefer well known science publications that have reputation and standing in their fields. I do find Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reasonable resource when, like all things, it is used in conjunction with other knowledge/experience and/or has a view that is backed up by other sources. The article you quoted is interesting and has some good food for thought but starts to fall apart when looked at critically.

It looked to me like the article was just presenting an overview of a study conducted by 

A group of German pathologists, led by Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang, have studied tissue samples of about two dozen people who had died after covid vaccination.

is the interpretation of the results presented by the SWPRS you take issue with or the results of the study by the german pathologists?

[SueDonim]

And Wikipedia is reliable? It even had articles warning about its own shortcomings. 

Basically you can find something to support anything you want to say. I prefer well known science publications that have reputation and standing in their fields. I do find Media Bias/Fact Check to be a reasonable resource when, like all things, it is used in conjunction with other knowledge/experience and/or has a view that is backed up by other sources. The article you quoted is interesting and has some good food for thought but starts to fall apart when looked at critically.

It looked to me like the article was just presenting an overview of a study conducted by 

A group of German pathologists, led by Prof. Dr. Arne Burkhardt and Prof. Dr. Walter Lang, have studied tissue samples of about two dozen people who had died after covid vaccination.

is the interpretation of the results presented by the SWPRS you take issue with or the results of the study by the german pathologists?

My suspicion was aroused when a 12 month old article by a "policy" publication is quoting pathologists who don't seem to have had the work published in a peer reviewed medical journal. I didn't look too hard so may have missed it, but the references to their work seem to all be on the fringe.

Personally, I think the quote I pulled from the article is probably about right ("To what extent can a severe or even a mild coronavirus infection cause similar endothelial damage?..."). It's a pity they then went back on that concept.

[king1]

It looked to me like the article was just presenting an overview of a study conducted by 

is the interpretation of the results presented by the SWPRS you take issue with or the results of the study by the german pathologists?

My suspicion was aroused when a 12 month old article by a "policy" publication is quoting pathologists who don't seem to have had the work published in a peer reviewed medical journal. I didn't look too hard so may have missed it, but the references to their work seem to all be on the fringe.

Personally, I think the quote I pulled from the article is probably about right ("To what extent can a severe or even a mild coronavirus infection cause similar endothelial damage?..."). It's a pity they then went back on that concept.

Not sure what the age of the research has to do with it, being 12 months old seems irrelevant.  

But we are suspicious of the researchers, the publishers, the fact checkers, and wikipedia - they all get called into question.  Would a peer review actually make that much difference to some folks, Would you accept the research/evidence if it is peer reviewed?

[harm_less]

It looked to me like the article was just presenting an overview of a study conducted by 

is the interpretation of the results presented by the SWPRS you take issue with or the results of the study by the german pathologists?

My suspicion was aroused when a 12 month old article by a "policy" publication is quoting pathologists who don't seem to have had the work published in a peer reviewed medical journal. I didn't look too hard so may have missed it, but the references to their work seem to all be on the fringe.

Personally, I think the quote I pulled from the article is probably about right ("To what extent can a severe or even a mild coronavirus infection cause similar endothelial damage?..."). It's a pity they then went back on that concept.

The transcript (including images) of Professor Arne Burkhardt's presentation is in these PDF links 1 & 2. Most importantly his findings relate to vaccine injuries not COVID infections.

Call it conspiracy theorism if you want to take that stance but anyone who presents less than positive data relating to the COVID vaccination program finds it extremely difficult to have their findings published, or even taken seriously, due to the very powerful entities they are challenging. They are literally swimming against the tide.

[R2x1]

To quickly summarise my opinion - "If it agrees with me, great.=== if not, obviously fake news. Worth two Trumps plus 8 consultants=zilch +/- 100%

[Lilith7]

To quickly summarise my opinion - "If it agrees with me, great.=== if not, obviously fake news. Worth two Trumps plus 8 consultants=zilch +/- 100%

Exactly...

[C_T_Russell]

Just been watching more videos and evidence on this.
It's not actually blood clots that's the cause, but rather a symptom of something more serious.
They are pulling out strings of material out of the veins and its causing blood to clot around them.
How anyone could survive so long with this in their veins is nuts.
It appears it's a growth of proteins and/or collagen in the veins itself. They come out the exact shape of the arteries with all the branches and forks.
It made me feel sick, the blood is clotting around this mass.
Undertakers who have embalmed bodies have never experienced this before, so its definitely something worthy of investigation.