MOZOM-analyse

White clots after corona: medical alarm bell or ignored research question?

IJIRMS, NEJM, EMA, CDC, ASH, McGill University, Nature, PubMed en factcheckbronnen Health 19 juli 2026 om 13:45

Type: Analyse Author: the MOZOM.nl editorial team Published: 19 juli 2026 om 13:45 Report a correction

Realistic medical visual of white fibrous clot-like structures on a forensic laboratory tray, examined with gloves and sample vials in the background.

Source: IJIRMS, NEJM, EMA, CDC, ASH, McGill University, Nature, PubMed en factcheckbronnen
MOZOM headline: White clots after corona: medical alarm bell or ignored research question?
Original headline: New IJIRMS publications put reports of white fibrous structures during embalming back on the agenda
Author: the MOZOM.nl editorial team
Date: 19 juli 2026 om 13:45
Subject: MOZOM investigates reports of white fibrous structures during embalming after the corona period, the recognized clot side effects after certain COVID vaccines and the question of why major independent forensic research is still limited.

Summary of the original report

The first IJIRMS publication describes a survey among 808 embalmers from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. Many respondents reported white, rubbery or fibrous structures in decedents since 2020-2021. The second IJIRMS publication examined two samples with Raman spectroscopy and protein analysis and described protein-rich, atypical structures. The limitations are major: voluntary self-reporting, possible selection bias, few samples, no complete medical history, no vaccination status per body and no fixed comparison with pre-2020 control material. At the same time, NEJM, EMA, CDC, ASH and McGill show that rare vaccine-associated clot events such as VITT/TTS have been officially recognized, especially with adenovirus vector vaccines. This does not automatically make the white structures vaccine damage, but it also makes reflexive dismissal too easy.

Own source research

MOZOM has divided the source layer into four categories. Category one: the two IJIRMS publications, useful as a signal but limited in evidential value. The journal calls itself peer-reviewed, but does not have the same status as NEJM, Nature or a large university cohort study. Category Two: Recognized medical sources on VITT/TTS, including NEJM, EMA, CDC, and ASH. Those sources confirm that rare serious clot reactions after certain COVID vaccines exist, but do not describe the same phenomenon as large white post-mortem structures upon embalming. Category three: COVID and long COVID literature on fibrin, microclots, and inflammatory coagulation. This makes it biologically plausible that corona and spike-related processes may be related to coagulation, but does not prove a cause for the embalming findings. Category four: countersources from pathology and fact checks. These indicate that post-mortem clots are known and that images without medical data are easily misread. MOZOM's own conclusion: this is not a proven vaccine case, but it is a serious research leak.

Striking in this debate

The debate is quickly drawn into two camps. On the one hand it sounds: this proves vaccine damage. On the other hand it sounds: this is nonsense and normal postmortem coagulation. Both frames close the most important question too early. The better journalistic question is: what research would be needed to clarify this, and why has that research not yet been widely and independently discussed?

Less visible context

What is less visible is that embalmers are outside the normal medical data chain. They see bodies after death and during embalming, but often do not have complete medical records, vaccination status, COVID infection history, medications, cause of death or standardized sampling. As a result, a real signal can remain weak, but a normal postmortem finding can also appear larger than it is. A university or forensic institute could solve this with blind sample assessment, histology, Raman/FTIR, proteomics, control material from before 2020 and complete medical background data. It is precisely the lack of such a study that is the striking point.

Possible message behind the news

The visible message of many fact checks is: there is no evidence that vaccines cause these white clots. The critical MOZOM reading is: that is correct, but no evidence is not the same as no research question.

Neutral conclusion

The conclusion: the white fibrous structures are not a proven vaccine issue. Anyone who presents this as certainty goes further than the sources bear. But anyone who dismisses the subject completely because post-mortem clots exist is also moving too quickly. Official sources acknowledge rare clotting problems after certain COVID vaccines, COVID itself can disrupt clotting and embalmers from several countries report something they experience as abnormal. This does not require panic, but a large, blind and independent forensic investigation. Until that is done, the correct formulation remains: medical alarm bell possible, evidence for cause not yet provided, research gap clearly visible.