• Home
  • Editorial Board
  • Articles
    • Editorials
    • Guest Articles
  • News
    • Featured
    • Biotech News
  • Interviews
    • Interviews – Academia
    • Interviews – Industry
  • Issues – Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending
  • CDC Boss kicked out in RFK Jr.’s War on Corruption in pharma and healthcare
  • Prof. Rajeev Varshney FRS, now joins Australian Academy of Science
  • Dr. Cyrus S. Poonawalla, SII unveiled the newly built School for Hearing Impaired in Pune
  • AdFalciVax: ICMR’s New Malaria Vaccine: Hope or Premature Hype?”
  • The Sudden Deaths and COVID Vaccines: A Critical Analysis of the ICMR and AIIMS Studies
  • KGMU Scandal: Dr. Tulika Chandra Exposed in Crore Rupee Forgery and Scam
  • Zydus to launch market-specific dosage variants of Semaglutide, MD says
  • Biocon Biologics Launches Nepexto, Etanercept Biosimilar in Australia
Wednesday, October 1
Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn
Biotech Express
  • Home
  • Editorial Board
  • Articles
    • Editorials
    • Guest Articles
  • News
    • Featured
    • Biotech News
  • Interviews
    1. Interviews – Academia
    2. Interviews – Industry
    Featured
    04/01/20241

    Interview: Reach to common man is the heart and soul of India International Science Festival- Dr. Arvind C Ranade Chief Coordinator, IISF- 2023

    Recent
    04/01/2024

    Interview: Reach to common man is the heart and soul of India International Science Festival- Dr. Arvind C Ranade Chief Coordinator, IISF- 2023

    22/05/2023

    Prof Rajeev Varshney becomes the 4th Indian Agricultural Scientist to be elected as Fellow of the Royal Society

    26/07/2022

    We are making best hygiene solutions through Biotech applications: Dr Rachna Dave, founder MicroGO

  • Issues – Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
Biotech Express
You are at:Home»Articles»The Sudden Deaths and COVID Vaccines: A Critical Analysis of the ICMR and AIIMS Studies

The Sudden Deaths and COVID Vaccines: A Critical Analysis of the ICMR and AIIMS Studies

0
By Biotech Express on 17/09/2025 Articles, Editorials

The sudden and often tragic deaths of seemingly healthy young adults in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic have become a source of profound public concern and widespread speculation. As countless anecdotal reports flooded social media and local news, a narrative linking these fatalities to COVID-19 vaccines gained traction, fueling anxiety and vaccine hesitancy.

In response, India’s premier medical research bodies, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), undertook extensive studies to provide a definitive answer. Their findings, published in the Indian Journal of Medical Research (Vol. 158, October 2023), and widely circulated through government press releases, declared that no conclusive link exists between COVID-19 vaccines and sudden deaths. While these official findings were presented as a final and reassuring word on the matter, a closer examination reveals critical limitations and a political context that warrant a more nuanced and skeptical interpretation.

Self declared Study Limitations:

1. Potential for misclassification of cases and controls.
2. Difficulty in fully confirming the “explainability” of a death due to lack of documentation or undiagnosed conditions.
3. Risk of bias in the selection of controls, particularly those who were unavailable for
interview (e.g., due to inebriation), which could overestimate the link to binge drinking.
4. Potential for information bias during data collection, as information for cases was from proxies while controls were interviewed directly.

The studies’ key conclusions were straightforward and seemingly unequivocal. A multicentric case-control study by the ICMR found no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of unexplained sudden death in young adults. On the contrary, the study suggested that receiving two vaccine doses might even significantly reduce the odds of such an event. Concurrent research by AIIMS, while still ongoing, indicated that the leading cause of sudden death in young adults remains heart attacks, and that the pattern of these fatalities has not fundamentally changed compared to pre-pandemic years. Instead of vaccination, the studies pointed to a confluence of lifestyle and clinical risk factors, including a history of hospitalization for COVID-19, a family history of sudden death, and high-risk behaviors such as binge drinking, substance use, and vigorous-intensity physical activity. This official narrative, reinforced by statements from government officials like Union Health Minister J. P. Nadda, was positioned as a final refutation of the swirling “misinformation.”

However, this presentation of a “conclusive” result ignores a number of critical factors. For starters, the very public and politically-charged context of the studies’ release is a major point of concern. The findings (the other paper) were not just published in a scientific journal; they were delivered via a press release from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, just a day after the Chief Minister of Karnataka had publicly suggested a link between vaccines and sudden deaths. This timing and framing suggest that the studies’ purpose may have been as much about crafting an official government position to quell public debate as it was about pure scientific inquiry. The focus on “lifestyle factors” and pre-existing conditions could be viewed as a convenient way to shift blame away from the vaccination program, a move that is ironically contradicted by the government’s lack of action in banning or severely restricting the very substances—like alcohol and tobacco—that the study identifies as major killers.

Beyond the political optics, a deep dive into the studies’ methodology reveals significant limitations that undermine the “conclusive” label. The study itself, in its self-declared limitations, acknowledges several potential biases. The case-control design relied heavily on information provided by proxy respondents for the deceased, while data for the controls was obtained through direct interviews. This fundamental difference in data collection introduces a massive potential for “information bias” and “differential misclassification,” which could skew the results in either direction. For example, a grieving family member might not be aware of all of the deceased’s lifestyle choices, such as recreational drug use, leading to an underreporting of these risk factors among cases. Conversely, a living control may be more likely to underreport high-risk behaviors.

Moreover, the studies’ design overlooked key variables that were central to the public’s concern. The research did not distinguish between the types of vaccines administered, a crucial oversight given that a particular vaccine, Covishield, was under more specific scrutiny for potential rare adverse events like blood clots. The failure to differentiate between vaccine platforms (viral vector vs. inactivated virus) is a significant drawback that limits the study’s ability to provide a comprehensive answer. The study also took a very short-term view of the problem, with a time frame of only one month for analysis of death post-vaccination. This is a critical flaw, as thrombotic events or other serious cardiovascular issues can take weeks or even months to develop. A study looking for a link between vaccination and a long-term medical condition would require a much longer follow-up period than what was reportedly used.

Further questions arise from the sample selection process itself. The provided text notes that out of 24,398 potential cases, only 777 (or 3.2%) met the eligibility criteria. This drastic reduction in the sample size raises concerns about how representative the final group of “unexplained” deaths truly is. The discrepancy in the number of cases and controls also introduces potential percentage errors, as a larger control group can easily give a false sense of statistical significance. The study’s focus on “unexplained” deaths also leaves a lingering question: what about the deaths that were “explained”? The studies do not explore whether the patterns of other, seemingly “explained,” causes of death have changed in the post-pandemic landscape, a crucial part of the puzzle that was left uninvestigated.

In conclusion, while the ICMR and AIIMS studies have made a valuable contribution by providing some of the first large-scale, indigenous data on sudden deaths post-COVID, it is premature and misleading to present their findings as the final word. The combination of a politically-charged release, a narrow focus on sudden death, and significant methodological limitations—including the failure to differentiate between vaccine types and to examine long-term morbidity—means that these studies are far from definitive. The public deserves transparency, and a truly conclusive answer can only come from more robust, long-term, and independently-funded research that addresses the full spectrum of public health concerns. Until then, the debate will likely continue, fueled by the very uncertainties that these studies, despite their intentions, failed to fully resolve.

by Kamal Pratap Singh, kamal9871@gmail.com

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Biotech Express
  • Website
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

ISSN: 2454-6968 | Biotech Express Magazine publishes articles in the field of biotechnology and allied sciences in a way that have never been presented earlier. It publishes Editorials, Guest Articles, Reports, Interviews, Current News of Govt. Academics and Business, Research Highlights and Notifications of Events, Jobs, Research Proposals in the field of Biotechnology, Biological Sciences, Life Sciences, Microbiology, Biochemistry, Neurosciences, Genetics, Medical Sciences, BioPharma etc.

Related Posts

CDC Boss kicked out in RFK Jr.’s War on Corruption in pharma and healthcare

Prof. Rajeev Varshney FRS, now joins Australian Academy of Science

Dr. Cyrus S. Poonawalla, SII unveiled the newly built School for Hearing Impaired in Pune

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Current Issue – September 2025
Biotech Express – e-ISSN: 2454-6968

Editorial Board

For Authors – Article Submission and Guidelines

Peer Review Policies

License and Copyright

Advertisement

Recent Posts
  • CDC Boss kicked out in RFK Jr.’s War on Corruption in pharma and healthcare 21/09/2025
  • Prof. Rajeev Varshney FRS, now joins Australian Academy of Science 20/09/2025
  • Dr. Cyrus S. Poonawalla, SII unveiled the newly built School for Hearing Impaired in Pune 19/09/2025
  • AdFalciVax: ICMR’s New Malaria Vaccine: Hope or Premature Hype?” 18/09/2025
  • The Sudden Deaths and COVID Vaccines: A Critical Analysis of the ICMR and AIIMS Studies 17/09/2025
  • KGMU Scandal: Dr. Tulika Chandra Exposed in Crore Rupee Forgery and Scam 16/09/2025
  • Zydus to launch market-specific dosage variants of Semaglutide, MD says 15/09/2025
  • Biocon Biologics Launches Nepexto, Etanercept Biosimilar in Australia 15/09/2025
  • India launched its first National Biofoundry Network 15/09/2025
  • India has 94 Biotech Incubators across 25 states over 13 years 15/09/2025
Archives
Categories
  • Articles
  • Biotech News
  • Controversial
  • Editorials
  • Events
  • Featured
  • Guest Articles
  • Interviews
  • Interviews – Academia
  • Interviews – Industry
  • News-Industry
  • News-Research
  • Policies
  • SARS- CoV2 & COVID-19 Updates
  • Start-ups
About Us

About Biotech Express

Advisory and Editorial Board

Contact Us

Submission Policy and Guidelines

Submission policies

 

 

Follow us on Social Media
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies. Copyright © 2013-2025 Biotech Express except certain content provided by third parties.

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.