Mediaboss Marketing

University says project will continue research on 2024 election misinformation

The status of Stanford Universitys controversial Internet Observatory, a research group accused of participating in social media censorship, appears unclear after recent conflicting reports about its future.

A recent report by the tech newsletter Platformer suggested the observatory may be closing after several key staffers, including founding director Alex Stamos, left or did not have their contracts renewed.

Other news outlets reported the observatory was collaps[ing] under pressure, being wound down and closing. Some popular social media posts suggested it was being permanently shut down.

However, the university contradicted those reports in a recent statement on the observatorys website.

Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure, it stated. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted. As a result, SIO continues to actively seek support for its research and teaching programs under new leadership.

SIO will continue its critical work through the publication of the Journal of Online Trust & Safety, the Trust & Safety Research Conference, and the Trust & Safety Teaching Consortium, it stated.

Furthermore, the observatorys staff will be conducting research on misinformation during the 2024 election, according to the statement.

The observatory is a non-partisan, on-campus political research group that focuses on the misuse of social media, including issues related to elections and COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, according to its website.

But it has faced criticism for its role in a joint project called the Election Integrity Partnership with the University of Washington during the 2020 and 2022 elections. Its purpose was to defend our elections against those who seek to undermine them by exploiting weaknesses in the online information environment. However, reports allege the universities frequently collaborated with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in order to censor what they viewed as misinformation online.

According to the Stanfords recent statement, its SIO project will continue under new leadership. It also stated Stanford remains deeply concerned about congressional and legal efforts to undermine the legitimacy of much needed academic research at universities across the country.

University spokesperson Mara Vandlik directed The College Fix to the statement in an email Wednesday in response to multiple inquiries about the observatorys future. Vandlik did not respond to a follow-up email asking for more details about the observatorys 2024 election research and the online censorship accusations.

Meanwhile, a receptionist at the university presidents office told The Fix on Wednesday to send its questions via email, but the office did not respond to the email.

Matt Taibbi, who has written extensively about online censorship as the publisher of Racket News, said he would not be too quick to celebrate if the Stanford Internet Observatory truly is closing.

Rumors persist that even more aggressive EIP-type programs are in development for use in this cycle, perhaps not under Stanfords roof, but somewhere, using some of the same personnel and making use of support from deep-pocketed funders of anti-disinformation programs, he wrote in a recent article on his substack.

Mike Davis, founder and president of the Article III Project and former chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, said he also thinks censorship problems are more wide-spread.

College campuses are the central battlefield for Americans freedom to speak their mind. A culture of censorship is pervasive at college campuses, and theres no reason to believe this was an isolated incident, he told The Fix in a statement via email this week.

MORE: Universities get $3 million from feds after helping government censor election integrity stories

According to a Real Clear Investigations report, the Election Integrity Partnership surveilled hundreds of millions of social media posts and collected from the cooperating government and non-governmental entities that it calls its stakeholders. According to the report, this could be a potential violation of social media platforms policies concerning election speech.

Team members of the partnership would highlight a piece of offending social media content, or narrative consisting of many offending posts, by creating a ticket, and share it with other relevant participants by tagging them, according to the report.

This would then prompt social media companies to take action by removing the content outright, reducing its spread, or informing users about dubious posts by slapping corrective or contextualizing labels on them, the report states.

During the 2020 election cycle, EIP generated a total of 639 tickets, covering some 4,784 unique URLs disproportionately related to the delegitimization of election results, according to the report.

Platforms such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook responded to tagged tickets at a response rate of 75 percent or higher; the platforms labeled, removed, or soft-blocked 35 percent of the URLs shared through EIP, the report states.

Taibbi wrote the EIP scheme occurred on as many as 10 different platforms, including Twitter, now known as X. However, Stanford has outright denied its actions of switchboarding and censorship, he wrote.

According to Taibbi, Stanford also wrongly claimed the Election Integrity Partnership did not receive direct requests from the Department of Homeland Securitys Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to eliminate or censor tweets and did not make recommendations to the platforms about what actions they should take.

According to Taibbi, a U.S. House committee investigation, led by Republican Congressman Jim Jordan, found 75 instances of the EIP ticketing system specifically using the words recommendation or we recommend.

Imagine the arrogance of denying that one makes concrete recommendations while sitting on a pile of documents doing exactly that, Taibbi wrote.

As for not receiving direct requests to eliminate or censor tweets, he wrote, a combination of emails Jordans team dug up and documents we ourselves either had in the Twitter Files or obtained via FOIA made it clear that the EIPs labyrinthine reporting system was designed so the government could deny it originated complaints, while EIP could deny it received complaints from the government.

Moreover, Taibbi wrote EIPs opinion on removing content had a large effect on whether a social media platform decided to remove the content.

The EIP even allegedly chastised sites like YouTube that expressed hesitancy about removing misleading content, according to Taibbi.

Additionally, the observatory is being sued. One case accuses the university of conspiracy with the federal government to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users, The Fix reported.

MORE: Stanford flagged thousands of election social media posts with Homeland Security

IMAGE: M3Li55@/flickr

Read More

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Read more:
Stanford insists Internet Observatory, which engaged in election-time censorship, will stay open - The College Fix

Turkey blocked 219,054 URLs (website addresses) in 2023, with corruption and misconduct-related news being the most frequently targeted, a report released on Wednesday revealed. The report was presented during a panel organised by the Media and Law Studies Association (MLSA) and Free Web Turkey on Friday in Istanbul.

The Free Web Turkey 2023 Internet Censorship Report details that 14,680 news articles were blocked, primarily covering corruption involving public officials and individuals close to the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP). Additionally, the report highlights that censorship extended to domain names, social media posts, accounts and even Google reviews.

Journalist Diren Yurtsever from Mezopotamya Agency stated, As our news gets censored, we produce even more. Yurtsever emphasised that 35 of their articles have faced access restrictions, mainly those addressing human rights violations and corruption involving government-appointed trustees.

Panellist Furkan Karabey underscored the gravity of media suppression, saying, No power can rule for long with such illegality. Journalists must persist in reporting the truth. He added that censorship infringes on the publics right to be informed, and journalists must steadfastly uphold their duty to report the truth.

Yiit Gnay, Chief Editor of Sol news portal, called for a more robust media presence and resistance against censorship. Despite years of pressure, Kurdish media continues to work. Those trying to stifle free press cannot break the chain surrounding it, he highlighted.

Go here to read the rest:
Censorship report reveals extensive media suppression in Turkey - Medya News

(JTA) - A gallery in London canceled an exhibition about censorship under Vladimir Putin because it objected to social media posts by one of the artists mourning the victims of Hamas attack on October 7.

In an Instagram statement posted July 4, Metamorphika studio accused Maria Sarkisyants, who is Jewish and comprises one-half of the artist duo Pomidor, of neglecting the deaths of Palestinians. The exhibition, Even Elephants Have Elections, was open for one day.

As a coalition of artists, founders, and more, we believe in the freedom of occupied Palestine, the studio wrote. And we ask our collaborators and artists to condemn oppression in its all [sic] geopolitical contexts without exemptions.

The statement added, Some of our members have contacted us sharing their concerns about certain publications by Mrs. Sarkisyants [on her] personal page taking [a] position on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine.

The artist, who goes by Maria, told the London Jewish Chronicle the gallery had received complaints about her social media posts. They said it was wrong that I support Israel, she said. She added that she had offered to remove her name from the exhibition to keep it open, but the gallery owners had refused.

The problem came up because Maria is from Israel, Maria and her partner, Polina Egorushkina, who also goes by her first name, wrote on Instagram in Russian. On another post accompanying an image of a poster at the exhibition reading Silence Like A Cancer Grows they added, Why were we allowed to put in so much effort only to have it canceled the opening day?

The incident was reminiscent of other Israel-related controversies that have swept the art world since October 7. Last fall, the staff of Artforum magazine resigned in protest after their editor was fired for publishing a letter that strongly criticized Israel. In April, Israels chosen representative artist at the Venice Biennale shut down her countrys pavilion while calling for a ceasefire and the return of hostages.

This move was itself condemned by a pro-Palestinian artist coalition, who argued that Israel never should have been invited to participate in the first place. And last month, a Vancouver comics festival banned an artist over her past Israeli military service before later apologizing.

The London cancellation comes after Maria expressed sympathy for Israel on social media on October 7, the day of Hamas attack. She grew up in Russia, where she and Polina founded Pomidor in 2018 before relocating it to the United Kingdom in 2022 following Russias invasion of Ukraine. Maria, who holds Israeli citizenship, moved to Israel in 2022 and lived in Ashkelon, one of the coastal cities attacked by Hamas on October 7.

Israel my beloved, we are here, we are here to support each other, all my thoughts are with the kidnapped, she wrote in Russian in one post, adding a prayer that they be returned home alive. A month later, she called for Israeli hostages in Gaza to be freed.

Her posts in the aftermath of October 7 remain pinned to her Instagram profile, as does another mourning Russias invasion of Ukraine.

The posts were unacceptable to Metamorphika, the studio said, because Maria did not acknowledge the deaths of Palestinians. The gallery suggested that this made the politics of her exhibit, which confronts the repressive state of Russia, inconsistent: We believe that this understanding of brutality and violence shouldnt stop at one countrys borders.

The gallery also insisted their decision has nothing to do with ones nationality or identity but with a two [sic] polarized understanding of repression.

Excerpt from:
Censorship gallery in London censors exhibition over artist's pro-Israel stance - The Jerusalem Post

Modesto Agero, one of the most prominent voices in Cuban sports commentary who spent decades covering major events, shared insights on how censorship operates within official media and how journalists and commentators must adhere to the rules to avoid losing their jobs.

Now residing in Spain for the past seven years, the former member of the Communist Party of Cuba revealed in an interview with the portal Diario de Cuba what happened when an athlete defected from their delegation.

"I knew what I could say and what I couldn't, just like my colleagues. Indeed, athletes who left their delegations couldn't be mentioned. Some people still write to me asking why I talk about Cuban players in the Major Leagues now when I didn't do it in Cuba. I once responded, 'Because I didn't know you. If I had known you, I would have talked about them because I knew that when I got kicked out of the ICRT, you would support me.' We couldn't talk about it then, and we still can't," he emphasized.

The veteran commentator recalled an incident in a meeting at the ICRT where he questioned why, in a country where baseball is the national sport, Major League games were not broadcast, while professional international soccer was.

"So, it's not a matter of professionalism. Major League Baseball, which is the best baseball in the world, isn't shown in Cuba," he questioned.

"They didn't like my statement in the meeting, but nothing happened," he noted.

Modesto, who continues his professional work in Spain with the women's softball league, referred to an incident last year when Cuban television removed his narration of the Softball World Cup simply because he lives in another country.

"I was both surprised and annoyed to learn that in Cuba they removed my narration and had someone in Havana do it. They didn't respect my 40 years as a sports commentator on Cuban TV," he said in a Facebook post.

He told Diario de Cuba that the excuse given was that if they didn't have a narrator in Havana, they couldn't get paid.

Agero moved to Spain after retiring, accompanied by his wife to reunite with their daughters. He acknowledges feeling happy and fulfilled, although he admits missing the affection of Cuban fans.

"Here, I go out on the street, and no one knows me. When I meet a Cuban, I'm the happiest person in the world because I can talk about sports with them. The other day, on the subway, someone said, 'Hey, Modesto Agero,' and I was the happiest person in the world," he shared.

Below are some questions and answers that delve deeper into the issue of censorship in Cuban media and its impact on journalists and commentators like Modesto Agero.

Censorship in Cuba requires sports commentators to follow strict guidelines on what they can and cannot say. Mentioning defected athletes or certain international competitions is prohibited, and failure to comply can result in losing their jobs.

Modesto Agero's narration was removed because he lives in another country. The official excuse was that without a narrator in Havana, the team couldn't get paid, despite Agero's 40 years of experience as a sports commentator in Cuba.

In Spain, Modesto Agero enjoys his work and feels happy and fulfilled. However, he misses the recognition and affection from Cuban fans, as fewer people know him in Spain.

View post:
Modesto Agero Opens Up About Censorship in Cuban Television: "We Knew What We Could and Couldn't Say" - Cuba Headlines

SciCheck Digest

COVID-19 vaccination is generally very safe, and except for extremely rare cases, there is no evidence that it contributes to death. Social media posts about a now-published, but faulty review of autopsy reports, however, are repeating an unfounded claim from last summer that 74% of sudden deaths are shown to be due to the COVID-19 vaccine.

How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?

More thanhalf a billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have now been administered in the U.S. and only a few, very rare, safety concerns have emerged. The vast majority of people experience only minor, temporary side effects such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, or muscle pain or no side effects at all. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said, these vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.

A small number of severe allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis, which are expected with any vaccine, have occurred with the authorized and approved COVID-19 vaccines. Fortunately, these reactions are rare, typically occur within minutes of inoculation and can be treated. Approximately 5 per million people vaccinated have experienced anaphylaxis after a COVID-19 vaccine, accordingto the CDC.

To make sure serious allergic reactions can be identified and treated, all people receiving a vaccine should be observed for 15 minutes after getting a shot, and anyone who has experienced anaphylaxis or had any kind of immediate allergic reaction to any vaccine or injection in the past should be monitored for a half hour. People who have had a serious allergic reaction to a previous dose or one of the vaccine ingredients should not be immunized. Also, those who shouldnt receive one type of COVID-19 vaccine should be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving a different type of vaccine.

There is evidence that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines may rarely cause inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) or of the surrounding lining (pericarditis), particularly in male adolescents and young adults.

Based on data collected through August 2021, the reporting rates of either condition in the U.S. are highest in males 16 to 17 years old after the second dose (105.9 cases per million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine), followed by 12- to 15-year-old males (70.7 cases per million). The rate for 18- to 24-year-old males was 52.4 cases and 56.3 cases per million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively.

Health officials have emphasized that vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis cases are rare and the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks. Early evidence suggests these myocarditis cases are less severe than typical ones. The CDC has also noted that most patients who were treated responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been linked to anincreased risk of rare blood clots combined with low levels of blood platelets, especially in women ages 30to 49. Early symptoms of the condition, which is known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, can appear as late as three weeks after vaccination andincludesevere or persistent headaches or blurred vision, leg swelling, and easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin outside of the injection site.

According to the CDC, TTS has occurred in around 4 people per million doses administered. As of early April,the syndrome has been confirmed in 60 cases, including nine deaths, after more than 18.6 million doses of the J&J vaccine. Although TTS remains rare, because of the availability of mRNA vaccines, which are not associated with this serious side effect, the FDA on May 5 limited authorized use of the J&J vaccine to adults who either couldnt get one of the other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines because of medical or access reasons, or only wanted a J&J vaccine for protection against the disease. Several months earlier, on Dec. 16, 2021,the CDC had recommended the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots over J&Js.

The J&J vaccine has also been linked to an increased risk of Guillain-Barr Syndrome, a rare disorder in which the immune system attacks nerve cells.Most peoplewho develop GBS fully recover, although some have permanent nerve damage and the condition can be fatal.

Safety surveillance data suggest that compared with the mRNA vaccines, which have not been linked to GBS, the J&J vaccine is associated with 15.5 additional GBS cases per million doses of vaccine in the three weeks following vaccination. Most reported cases following J&J vaccination have occurred in men 50 years old and older.

Link to this

Last July, an unpublished paperauthoredby several physicians known for spreading COVID-19 misinformationbrieflyappearedon a preprint server hosted by the prestigious British medical journal the Lancet.

The paperclaimedto have reviewed autopsy reports and found in the opinion of three of its authors that 73.9% of the selected deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. Those conclusions, however, wereoften contraryto the original scientists determinations. Moreover, abundant evidence contradicts the suggestion that the COVID-19 vaccines are frequently killing people.

The preprint repository quicklyremovedthe manuscript because, it said, the studys conclusions are not supported by the study methodology, and indicated that the preprint had violated its screening criteria.

Social media soon flooded with posts highlighting the purported findings and alleging censorship, with many falsely stating that the paper had been published in the Lancet.

Multiplescientistsandfactcheckersdetailednumerous problems with the preprint and the resulting social media posts. As Dr. Jonathan Laxton, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Manitoba who frequently debunks misinformation online,wrote at the timeon Twitter, this is not a conspiracy, the paper was literally biased hot garbage and the Lancet was right to remove it.

Despite these efforts, the same claims are back this summer after the paper waspublishedin the journal Forensic Science International on June 21. Capitalizing on the papers now-published status,numerouspostsareonceagainspreading the reviews supposed findings and realleging censorship.

Largest autopsy series in the world. Censored by what was the most reputable peer reviewed journal, readsonepopular Instagram post. 74% of the 325 Suddenly Died Autopsies point the cause to the dart, it added, using coded language to refer to the COVID-19 vaccines.

Anotherpost, from Dr.Sherri Tenpenny, an osteopathic physician in Ohio known for her opposition to vaccines and her false claim that the COVID-19 vaccines magnetize people, also repeated the falsehood that the paper had been previously published in the Lancet.

Bottom line results: 74% of sudden deaths are shown to be due to the COVID-19 vaccine, the post went on to say. This paper is a game changer. Sadly, it was censored for ONE YEAR. Just think of all the lives that could have been saved.

As weve explainedbefore, publication in a peer reviewed journal does not necessarily mean a paper is accurate or trustworthy, although the process can improve manuscripts and weed out bad science. In this case, the published paper is highly similar to the previously criticized manuscript. Experts say its conclusions are unreliable and misleading.

The vast majority of these cases do not show a causal, but coincidental, effect, wrote Marc Veldhoen, an immunologist at the Instituto de Medicina Molecular Joo Lobo Antunes in Portugal, in a thread on X, addressing the papers central claim. This certainly does not apply to the general population!

When asked about the published paper, Dr. Cristina Cattaneo,co-editor-in-chiefof Forensic Science International, told us the journal was currently looking into the matter.

For their review, the authors searched the medical literature for published autopsy studies related to any kind of COVID-19 vaccination. After excluding duplicates and studies without deaths, autopsies, or vaccination status information, the authors were left with 44 studies comprising 325 autopsies. Three of the authors then reviewed the described cases and decided for themselves if the deaths were vaccine-related; if at least two agreed, the death was counted as being attributable to COVID-19 vaccination.

In the end, the authors thought 240, or nearly 74%, of the reviewed autopsies were vaccine-related (rounded to one decimal, 240 out of 325 is actually 73.8%, not 73.9% as reported in the paper). Among these deaths, 46.3% occurred after a Sinovac vaccine, 30.1% after a Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, 14.6% after an AstraZeneca vaccine, 7.5% after a Moderna vaccine and 1.3% after a Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

As others havepointed outbefore, theres reason to suspect that the authors may have been biased in their determinations. All three adjudicators, including Dr.Peter McCullough, are well known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Dr. William Makis, a Canadian radiologist, haspreviously claimed, without evidence, that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID-19 vaccines. The only pathologist, Dr. Roger Hodkinson, incorrectlyclaimedin 2020 that COVID-19 was a hoax and just a bad flu.

Hodkinson and McCullough, along with five other authors, are also affiliated with and have a financial interest in The Wellness Company, a supplement and telehealth company thatsells unproven treatments, including for purported protection against vaccines.

Perhaps most tellingly, the scientists who conducted many of the autopsy studies came to opposite conclusions than the review authors. Of the 240 cases, for example, 105 come from a singlepaperin Colombia, whose authors found [n]o relation between the cause of death and vaccination.

Similarly, the review authors counted 24 of 28 autopsies from astudyfrom Singapore as vaccine-related, even though the original authors identified no definite causative relationship to mRNA vaccines.

The authors of a Germanstudyalso attributed 13 of 18 autopsy deaths to preexisting diseases, but the review authors decided 16 cases were vaccine-related.

In aLinkedIn postdebunking the preprint, Dr.Mathijs Binkhorst, a Dutch pediatrician, went back to each cited paper, and found that of the 325 autopsies and one heart necropsy the review authors said were vaccine-related, only 31, or 9.5%, were likely related and 28, or 8.6%, were possibly related. The rest 267, or 81.9% were unlikely, uncertainly, or not related to vaccination.

In other words, even among a set of studies that is more likely to identify some vaccine involvement, less than a fifth of deaths were possibly or likely vaccine-related.

Even if the authors arent biased, this type of study is not able to provide information on how frequently COVID-19 vaccination leads to death, and whether the risks outweigh the benefits.

They only looked at published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to COVID-19 vaccination, Veldhoensaidof the published study on X. If you look only at autopsies of those related (in time) with drugX: X-involvement is then a high proportion of all cases.

Indeed, as Binkhorst noted, the autopsy reports come from 14 countries that collectively administered some 2.2 billion vaccine doses. If the COVID-19 vaccines truly were as dangerous as the review authors contend, this would be evident in other data sources but its not.

Vaccine safety surveillance systems and other studies from across the globe have found that serious side effects can occur, but they are rare.

The Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca vaccines, for example, can in very rare cases cause a dangerous and sometimes fatal blood clotting condition combined with low blood platelets.

Rarely, the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech have caused inflammation of the heart muscle or surrounding tissue, known as myocarditis or pericarditis. In almost all cases, however, those conditions are not deadly.

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of death and has led to excess deaths or a large number of deaths. Instead, a wealth of data supports the notion that COVID-19 vaccines protect against severe disease and death from COVID-19. The flawed autopsy review doesnt change this.

Roley, Gwen. Misinformation swirls around unpublished paper on Covid-19 vaccine risks. AFP. 14 Jul 2023.

Hulscher, Nicolas et al. A Systematic REVIEW of Autopsy findings in deaths after covid-19 vaccination. Forensic Science International. Available online 21 Jun 2024.

Binkhorst, Mathijs. McCulloughs misinformation. LinkedIn post. Archived 4 Sep 2023.

Laxton, Jonathan (@dr_jon_l). McCullough et al attempted upload a preprint to the Lancet server, and it was removed because it was hot garbage. However, I feel going through this paper for you guys will help you spot dodgy science X. 6 Jul 2023.

Payne, Ed. Fact Check: A Lancet Study Does NOT Show COVID Vaccine Caused 74% Of Deaths In Sample Lancet Rejected Paper And Its Methods. Lead Stories. 7 Jul 2023.

Carballo-Carbajal, Iria. Flawed preprint based on autopsies inadequate to demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines caused 74% of those deaths. Health Feedback. 31 Jul 2023.

Jaramillo, Catalina. Review Article By Misinformation Spreaders Misleads About mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines. FactCheck.org. 16 Feb 2024.

Veldhoen, Marc (@Marc_Veld). Does We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by COVID-19 vaccination. Hold? No. The vast majority of these cases do not show a causal, but coincidental, effect. This certainly does not apply to the general population! X. 22 Jun 2024.

Cattaneo, Cristina. Co-Editor-in-Chief, Forensic Science International. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Jun 2024.

No evidence that 80 Canadian doctors died from COVID vaccinations. Reuters Fact Check. 22 Dec 2022.

Lajka, Arijeta. Pathologist falsely claims COVID-19 is a hoax, no worse than the flu. AP. 2 Dec 2020.

Yandell, Kate. Posts Push Unproven Spike Protein Detoxification Regimen. FactCheck.org. 21 Sep 2023.

Chaves, Juan Jos et al. A postmortem study of patients vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2 in Colombia. Revista Espaola de Patologa. 31 Oct 2022.

Yeo, Audrey et al. Post COVID-19 vaccine deaths Singapores early experience. Forensic Science International. 19 Jan 2022.

Schneider, Julia et al. Postmortem investigation of fatalities following vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines. International Journal of Legal Medicine. 30 Sep 2021.

Yandell, Kate. Study Largely Confirms Known, Rare COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects. FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2024.

Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. CDC. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.

COVID-19 vaccines: key facts. European Medicines Agency. Accessed 5 Jul 2024.

Robertson, Lori. A Guide to Johnson & Johnsons COVID-19 Vaccine. FactCheck.org. 27 Feb 2021.

Lai, Francisco Tsz Tsun et al. Prognosis of Myocarditis Developing After mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination Compared With Viral Myocarditis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 5 Dec 2022.

Yandell, Kate. No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online. FactCheck.org. 17 Apr 2023.

McDonald, Jessica. Flawed Analysis of New Zealand Data Doesnt Show COVID-19 Vaccines Killed Millions. FactCheck.org. 15 Dec 2023.

Here is the original post:
Flawed Autopsy Review Revives Unsupported Claims of COVID-19 Vaccine Harm, Censorship - FactCheck.org