The Establishment’s Take on the White Clots and Strings Found in Cadavers: A Critique, By Chris Knight (Florida)

The establishment's take on claims about white clots and strings found in cadavers by undertakers, as reported in various sources, leans heavily toward dismissal and scepticism, though it stops short of outright denial in some cases. The narrative from mainstream health authorities, fact-checkers, and medical professionals is that these claims lack scientific rigour and are often rooted in misinformation or misinterpretation, they allege.

Official bodies like the FDA and CDC, as noted in reports from 2024, state they've found no safety signals linking fibrous white clots to Covid-19 vaccines. The FDA has also argued that observations made on cadavers fall outside its regulatory purview, effectively sidestepping the issue rather than engaging with it directly. This stance suggests a reluctance to investigate further, which some might interpret as a form of denial through inaction. Vascular health experts, cited in outlets like Reuters and PolitiFact in 2022, assert that fibrous clots are a common post-mortem phenomenon, occurring naturally as blood separates after death and during embalming processes, regardless of vaccination status. They emphasise that embalmers aren't medical professionals and lack the expertise to diagnose pathological clots or link them to vaccines.

Fact-checking organisations, such as those from Reuters, FactCheck.org, and Full Fact between 2021 and 2023, consistently "debunk" these claims, labelling them as baseless or false. They argue there's no evidence connecting these clots to Covid-19 vaccines, pointing out that clots can form after death due to natural decomposition, embalming chemicals like formaldehyde, or refrigeration. They also note that Covid-19 itself is more likely to cause clotting than vaccines, with studies showing elevated clotting risks for up to six months post-infection. Some sources, like Science-Based Medicine in 2022, highlight that the clots shown in viral videos (e.g., "Died Suddenly") resemble typical post-mortem clots, not vaccine-related pathology.

However, the establishment's response isn't a blanket denial. They acknowledge rare clotting events associated with certain Covid-19 vaccines, like the Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca shots, which can cause vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT)—a condition involving clots with low platelets. But they stress this is extremely rare (e.g., 4 cases per million doses for J&J, per FactCheck.org in 2023) and unrelated to the fibrous clots embalmers describe. They also argue that the vaccines' benefits far outweigh these risks, a point reinforced by the CDC's preference for mRNA vaccines over J&J.

Critically, the establishment's approach seems to prioritise maintaining trust in the vaccine rollout over investigating undertakers' claims. The dismissal of embalmers as unqualified to make medical judgments, while factually accurate, ignores the possibility that their observations might warrant further study. The lack of federally funded investigations into these clots, as noted in some sources, suggests a broader unwillingness to entertain alternative narratives that could undermine public health campaigns. This could be seen as a form of denial—not of the clots' existence, but of their significance or connection to vaccines. Meanwhile, the censorship of dissenting voices, as mentioned in posts on X and reported by outlets like Children's Health Defense in 2024, fuels anti-establishment sentiment, with some of us claiming the medical system is suppressing inconvenient truths.

In summary, the establishment doesn't outright deny the existence of white clots or strings but dismisses their link to vaccines as unproven and attributes them to normal post-mortem processes or the virus itself. Their response prioritises narrative control over curiosity, which leaves room for scepticism about whether they're fully engaging with the issue.

And there is a critical flaw in the establishment's response: the circular logic of demanding peer-reviewed studies to validate claims about white clots while the culture of denial and suppression stifles the very research needed to produce those studies! This creates a catch-22 that protects the mainstream narrative and dismisses dissenting voices like those of undertakers and researchers raising alarms about fibrous clots in cadavers.

This circularity is a deliberate tactic. The lack of peer-reviewed studies on these white clots—described by embalmers as unprecedented fibrous structures since 2021—isn't just a coincidence. The medical establishment, tied to Big Pharma and government agencies like the CDC and FDA, has a vested interest in maintaining the "safe and effective" vaccine narrative. Investigating claims that could link vaccines to abnormal clotting risks undermining public trust and inviting liability. As a result, researchers who might pursue such studies face significant barriers:

Funding Suppression: Most medical research is funded by government grants (e.g., NIH) or pharmaceutical companies. Studies challenging the vaccine narrative are unlikely to get greenlit. Independent researchers, like Dr. Kevin McCairn, often self-fund or rely on crowdfunding, as seen in his work on amyloid clots (Natural News, 2025). Without institutional backing, their findings struggle to gain traction or be published in mainstream journals.

Publication Bias: Peer-reviewed journals, often influenced by editorial boards with ties to the medical establishment, may reject studies that contradict the dominant narrative. A 2023 study in Research Integrity and Peer Review found that journals are less likely to publish "controversial" findings, especially on topics like vaccine safety, due to reputational risks. This gatekeeping ensures that claims about white clots remain "unproven" in the eyes of the establishment.

Censorship and Deplatforming: Scientists and whistle-blowers who raise concerns are often silenced. Posts on X from 2024 highlight how embalmers like Richard Hirschman and researchers like McCairn have been deplatformed or labelled as misinformation spreaders. This suppresses their ability to collaborate, share findings, or attract peers for validation studies. The 2022 Twitter Files revealed how government pressure led to the censorship of vaccine-sceptical voices, a pattern that continues to stifle open inquiry.

Cultural Denial: The establishment's default stance—dismissing embalmers' observations as anecdotal and unqualified—creates a chilling effect. Researchers may avoid studying these clots to protect their careers. A 2024 survey in Nature Human Behaviour found that 40% of scientists self-censor on controversial topics due to fear of backlash. This culture of denial ensures the cycle persists: no studies, no credibility, no studies.

The undertakers' claims, backed by their hands-on experience, are thus trapped in this loop. They report seeing fibrous clots unlike anything in their decades of work—clots that are tough, elastic, and often found in vaccinated bodies since 2021. Yet, the establishment demands peer-reviewed evidence to take them seriously while simultaneously ensuring such evidence can't be produced. Meanwhile, related peer-reviewed studies, like those in Thrombosis Journal (2023) showing spike proteins can induce abnormal clotting, or McCairn and Pretorius' work on amyloidosis (2025), suggest there's a plausible mechanism for these clots. But these studies are either ignored or downplayed by the mainstream, further entrenching the denial.

This isn't just negligence—it's a systemic cover-up. The circular logic serves as a shield for the medical-industrial complex, protecting profits and power while leaving the public in the dark. Breaking this cycle requires independent research, free from establishment gatekeepers, and a groundswell of public pressure to force transparency. Until then, the undertakers' observations—and the potential health crisis they point to—will remain sidelined, dismissed as "unproven" in a system designed to keep it that way.