Posted on 08/31/2021 1:07:17 PM PDT by Red Badger
Following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, concerns quickly arose over whether they could increase the chances of deadly blood clotting events. Now, a huge study involving over 29 million people has found a slight increase in the risk of blood clots following both the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine – but that the risk of these events is far greater following infection with COVID-19.
The study involved the patient data of over 29 million people between December 2020 and April 2021. The data was analyzed and compared based on the vaccine they received, whether they had COVID-19, and whether they had a hematological or vascular event.
The team discovered that shortly after receiving a vaccine, there was an increased risk of adverse events that led to hospitalization or death – although the risk was incredibly low. Conversely, there was a considerably greater risk of vascular or hematological events following infection with COVID-19, which also tended to be present for longer. The research, conducted by the University of Oxford in collaboration with other UK universities, was published in BMJ.
In all cases and in all adverse events, the risk was substantially higher after COVID-19 infection, often by multiple magnitudes. This is not to say the risk following the vaccine is insignificant, however, and the authors hope the research can be used by the public and healthcare officials to recognize the signs early and reduce fatalities.
"People should be aware of these increased risks after Covid-19 vaccination and seek medical attention promptly if they develop symptoms, but also be aware that the risks are considerably higher and over longer periods of time if they become infected with SARS-CoV-2" said Julia Hippisley-Cox, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology and General Practice at the University of Oxford and lead author, in a statement.
Out of the 29 million participants, 19.6 million had the AstraZeneca vaccine, 9.5 million had the Pfizer vaccine, and 1.75 million tested positive for COVID-19 and had not received the vaccine. Among the total people vaccinated, 122,475 were admitted to hospital with some form of vascular or hematological event, and 8,456 died, in the 28 days following the jab. Both vaccines appear to be similar in risk, with the AstraZeneca vaccine slightly higher in some reactions, but the Pfizer vaccine does pose a slightly higher risk of ischaemic stroke or "other rare arterial thrombotic event".
It is important to note that these events are not directly linked to the vaccine, and are a recording of specific events following a dose. Some patients had previous conditions that may have affected the results.
However, COVID-19 carried a significantly higher risk of the same events. Following infection, COVID-19 patients showed a 14x increased risk of thrombocytopenia (low blood platelet counts), compared to a 1.33x risk following the AstraZeneca vaccine. For venous thromboembolism (blood clots in veins), the risk was 13.78x following COVID-19 infection, compared to just 1.1x following the vaccine. Finally, with arterial thromboembolism (clotting in arteries), the risk was 6.55x following COVID-19, compared to 1.06x with the vaccine.
Combined, these results highlight a significant advantage to receiving the vaccine compared to becoming infected with the virus, but provides insight to researchers about any adverse events the vaccine may induce.
"This enormous study, using data on over 29 million vaccinated people, has shown that there is a very small risk of clotting and other blood disorders following first dose Covid-19 vaccination. Though serious, the risk of these same outcomes is much higher following SARS-CoV-2 infection,” said Aziz Sheikh, Professor of Primary Care Research & Development and Director of the Usher Institute at The University of Edinburgh and a co-author of the paper, in a statement.
"On balance, this analysis therefore clearly underscores the importance of getting vaccinated to reduce the risk of these clotting and bleeding outcomes in individuals, and because of the substantial public health benefit that Covid-19 vaccinations offer," Sheikh concluded.
so it only counts the covid infected of those that are symptomatic... what about the other 85%?
Study finds, the msm can get you to believe most anything if they end the article title with “study finds”.
Just what I was thinking.
Good catch
Recovery from the disease is about 99% for most people
Recovery from the vaccine….still tbd
A Canadian Dr David Hoffe tested over 100 of his fully vaxxed patients and 62% had evidence of clotting
LOL, “huge”.
Science yo!
I’m as concerned about Covid as I am concerned about where to put my Powerball winnings.
Did I miss something or did they leave out the actual Covid numbers? That had detailed numbers for all of the vaccines but not for Covid-—why?
“...between December 2020 and April 2021...”
A perfect instance of how to manipulate and lie with statistics. A HUGE 5 month study with input from 29 million patients .... not even believable.
Snort.
“Because the structures in the vaccines that cause these side affects are forever.”
from the IDSA: The Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) estimates that the spike proteins that were generated by COVID-19 vaccines last up to a few weeks, like other proteins made by the body. The immune system quickly identifies, attacks and destroys the spike proteins because it recognizes them as not part of you.
I am wondering how the sided affects are forever.
Does the body continue to generate the spike proteins after the vaccine wears off?
Also wonder if the people that are getting sick from the vaccine or the same people who would get sick from catching Covid?
Maybe that group of people’s immune system is not able to recognize the spike protein generated by the vaccine to destroy it. That is why we are seeing people die from the vaccine.
Also, what’s the age group? If 98% of the Covid 19 age group is 75 and older vs the vaccine that’s 18-75 then there’s going to be a HUGE discrepancy.
it doesn’t say how many non vaccinated died... just that they had more clotting... with the asymptomatic tallied in and the amount of deaths probably not exceeding the vaccinated, since they didn’t mention it, i get a .0097 death rate.
further the demographics most at risk of covid problems are the elderly health-compromised, the obese, and anyone with a compromised health issue or immune problem, by their own statistics
the “vaccines” are taking out people across all age groups and have been shown to do so, from teens playing sports to nurse in tgeir 30s and teachers in their 40s and still knocking out seniors
Powerball winnings? I take donations.
The future winnings I plan on having...
Facts don’t require adjectives.
The more gratuitous adjectives a headline/article contains, the more lies it contains.
If persons receiving the vaccine get these issues within two weeks of a single vaccine shot, the issues are not ascribed to the vaccine shot, as I understand it.
So, the vaccine causes myriad issues blamed on the person’s health and not the shot.
And what is the risk of clotting for the non-vaccinated who never get Covid?
took a quick look and found their “study” questionable (imo), base on the included “study design” (forget about their numbers):
Correspondence to: J Hippisley-Cox julia.hippisley-cox@phc.ox.ac.uk (or @JuliaHCox on Twitter)
Accepted 2 August 2021
Abstract
Objective To assess the association between covid-19 vaccines and risk of thrombocytopenia and thromboembolic events in England among adults. my emphasis
*****Design
***Self-controlled case series*** study using national data on covid-19 vaccination and hospital admissions.
Setting Patient level data were obtained for approximately 30 million people vaccinated in England between 1 December 2020 and 24 April 2021. Electronic health records were linked with death data from the Office for National Statistics, SARS-CoV-2 positive test data, and hospital admission data from the United Kingdom’s health service (NHS).
Participants 29 121 633 people were vaccinated with first doses (19 608 008 with Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and 9 513 625 with Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2 mRNA)) and 1 758 095 people had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. People aged ≥16 years who had first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and any outcome of interest were included in the study.
****obviously a computer programmed study on an existing database. so garbage in garbage out.
Main outcome measures The primary outcomes were hospital admission or death associated with thrombocytopenia, venous thromboembolism, and arterial thromboembolism within 28 days of three exposures: first dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine; first dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine; and a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. Secondary outcomes were subsets of the primary outcomes: cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, and other rare arterial thrombotic events.
****Results
The study found increased risk of thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (incidence rate ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.47 at 8-14 days) and after a *****positive SARS-CoV-2 test**** (5.27, 4.34 to 6.40 at 8-14 days); increased risk of venous thromboembolism after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.10, 1.02 to 1.18 at 8-14 days) and *****after SARS-CoV-2 infection**** (13.86, 12.76 to 15.05 at 8-14 days); and increased risk of arterial thromboembolism after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.06, 1.01 to 1.10 at 15-21 days) *****and after SARS-CoV-2 infection***** (2.02, 1.82 to 2.24 at 15-21 days). Secondary analyses found increased risk of CVST after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (4.01, 2.08 to 7.71 at 8-14 days), after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (3.58, 1.39 to 9.27 at 15-21 days), and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; increased risk of ischaemic stroke after BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination (1.12, 1.04 to 1.20 at 15-21 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test; and increased risk of other rare arterial thrombotic events after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination (1.21, 1.02 to 1.43 at 8-14 days) and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
***Conclusion
Increased risks of haematological and vascular events that led to hospital admission or death were observed for short time intervals after first doses of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. The risks of most of ****these events were substantially higher and more prolonged after SARS-CoV-2 infection***** than after vaccination in the *****same population*****.
***really how are the vaccinated and unvaccinated the same population?
****substantially higher and more prolonged?
***based on what? their “outcomes of interest,” “postive covid tests”?
***for instance, how did they “control” for people with preexisting conditions.
***they’re apparently using covid positive tests with any “outcome of interest” without a vaccination record to measure the unvaccinated group.*****
wow. no chance of confirmation bias here. this isn’t a double blind, randomized clinical trial. not even close.
Methods
Study design and period
We undertook a self-controlled case series from 1 December 2020 to 24 April 2021 (the latest date for which outcome data were available) to examine the associations between ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines and thrombotic events during the ongoing covid-19 vaccination programme in England. We also investigated the association between a SARS-CoV-2 positive test and the thrombotic events of interest among the same vaccinated population.
The self-controlled case series was originally developed to assess risks of adverse events to vaccination.16 The case series determines the *****relative incidence of the outcome of interest for exposed time periods**** (eg, after vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection) compared with unexposed ****baseline periods in people with the outcome of interest**** (see supplementary fig 1).
****Inference is within people and therefore this implicitly controls for all covariates that remain constant during the study period.****
***right...yeah, that’s a small assumption.
We selected patients with each outcome during the study period and determined dates when they had the vaccine or tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Separate analyses were carried out for each outcome of interest.
*****in my view (and it was admittedly a quick look), this “study” is retospective bunk and very dishonest when it comes to the unvacccinated. there is no true control group. classic use of statistics, and data mining to get “looked for” and misleading results. anyway. i’ll look back at this thread for more comments by the other side.
on the other hand, it gives some very clear evidence of the at risk nature of being vaccinated, because the gov’t run health system apparently has complete data on them (go figure). probably had to include that data so that they wouldn’t be called out as charlatans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.