I wasn’t planning to speak as I am currently travelling, but sometimes the information is too urgent to wait. What I came across was a presentation from Japan that I believe could be a turning point in our understanding of vaccine safety—if we’re brave enough to confront it.
This wasn’t a peer-reviewed paper. It wasn’t published in Nature or The Lancet. It came from a press conference, broadcast in mid-June 2025, led by Professor Yasufumi Murakami and a group of concerned scientists and citizens using Japan’s Freedom of Information laws. The dataset? An analysis of 21 million COVID-19 vaccination records.
Censored LinkedIn Post
Since the pre-pandemic era, excess mortality has remained elevated across many highly vaccinated regions, a trend that continues to puzzle public health experts. People are still dying but they cannot seem to identify who that is.
Recent data from Japan, based on a Freedom of Information Act analysis of 21 million COVID-19 vaccine recipients (presented by Prof. Yasufumi Murakami and Masako Ganaha on July 13, 2025), highlights a peak in deaths 90-120 days post-vaccination.
The standard 28- to 42-day monitoring period for vaccine safety has largely missed these delayed effects, hence it would not be seen on standard research analysis.
The Japanese data suggests a delayed mortality risk, potentially linked to autoimmune responses or reinfection dynamics (termed the "COVID STORM" Spike Triggered autOimmune Response Mechanism), which may not align with traditional monitoring windows.
This raises critical questions about long-term health impacts and the need for extended data collection beyond initial post-vaccination periods.
As a professional community, we must advocate for robust, transparent research—ideally including autopsy data—to identify the causes of these persistent excess deaths.
Now, let me be upfront. The group behind this effort—United Citizens for Stopping mRNA Vaccines—makes their stance very clear. They are openly critical of the vaccination campaign. But that doesn’t invalidate the data. And what they uncovered should be ringing alarm bells across the globe.
Video available here on X post >
What they found was a distinct peak in mortality—120 days after vaccination. Not within the usual 28-day monitoring window most health systems rely on. Not even within the two-week period typically considered relevant for causality. This raises critical questions.
I’ve been arguing since the early days of the pandemic that short-term monitoring is woefully inadequate for detecting immune complications—especially autoimmune ones. If adverse outcomes cluster three to four months after vaccination, we’re missing them. Period. And that’s not just a Japanese issue. That’s global.
Link to article and presentation slides (scroll to bottom for English) >
The dataset also showed another disturbing trend: the more doses a person had received, the shorter the time between inoculation and death. If that doesn’t make you pause, I don’t know what will.
From my perspective, this aligns uncomfortably well with what I’ve called the “COVID Storm”—a phenomenon where immune priming from vaccination, followed by repeated infections, creates an overwhelming autoimmune response targeting organs. It’s not the cytokine storm of severe acute COVID. It’s more insidious. Subtle enough to be missed. Deadly enough to matter.
And yet, what we lack is what we always lack: autopsies. The Japanese are one of the few nations even attempting to trace pathology in post-vaccination deaths. Without post-mortem evidence, we’re left trying to connect statistical dots while the scientific community pretends the dots don’t exist.
Why aren't we asking why excess deaths remain elevated in so many highly vaccinated countries? Why haven’t we demanded access to mortality data linked to vaccine doses? And why do we keep dismissing these patterns instead of investigating them?
The Japanese team may have political motivations, but they’ve done something our institutions have failed to do—ask hard questions, dig through massive data, and present it publicly. They’ve shown their work. Now the burden is on others to either confirm or refute it.
We need global Freedom of Information efforts. We need analysis from Denmark, the UK, the US, Australia. We need to know: is there a similar delayed mortality pattern elsewhere?
Because if there is, we can no longer hide behind short-term data windows or vague statements about “safe and effective.” We will have to admit what should have been obvious all along: science is not about slogans. It’s about evidence—even when the evidence is uncomfortable.
Let this be the turning point. Not to fan fear, but to restore integrity.
Because public trust is built on transparency—and it's dangerously close to breaking.
Share this post