Thread by @mimifontaine

Oxford’s Dodgy Dossier (Part 1): How Oxford University researchers twisted facts and manipulated statistics to make the Oxford vaccine look better and mRNA vaccines look worse

Last week a group of Oxford scientists released a pre-print comparing the incidence of dangerous (1/x)

blood clots in the two weeks following 1) a Covid diagnosis 2) vaccination with the Oxford vaccine 3) vaccination with an mRNA vaccine

ox.ac.uk/news/2021-04-1…

While the main headline grabber of the report was the claim that Covid infection carries a higher risk of blood (2/x)

clots than the Oxford vaccine, the paper also claimed the incidence of unusual, dangerous blood clots after mRNA vaccines was much, much higher than after the Oxford vaccine

To be specific, the paper claimed that 4 out of every million people vaccinated with an mRNA (3/x)

product had suffered blood clots in the brain (cerebral venous thromboses / CVT), compared with 5 out of every million vaccinated with Oxford AstraZeneca

The paper also looked at the incidence of splanchnic thrombosis - blood clots in the abdominal veins - and claimed (4/x)

that a whopping 44.9 out of every million people vaccinated with mRNA vaccines had suffered this, compared with only 1.6 per million people who had received the Oxford vaccine.

Now that’s a head scratcher. Why is all the fuss about the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine if Pfizer(5/x)

and Moderna actually cause more of these dangerous blood clots?

Let’s take a closer look at the Oxford paper.

The first thing you’ll notice is that the data for the mRNA vaccines is based on a small sample of 489 thousand people and was pulled from a database called(6/x)

TriNetX which relies on reporting from 59 healthcare organisations covering 81 million patients (mostly in the US).

In contrast, the data for the Oxford vaccine is based on all 34 million people in Europe who have received the vaccine and was reported by the EMA which (7/x)

relies mainly on the EudraVigilance system for picking up adverse reactions to medicines and vaccines

Yikes. Call me picky, but mixing and matching data sources doesn’t seem to be the right ingredient for making a “like for like” comparison between the Oxford and mRNA (8/x)

vaccines. Both of these systems have completely different reporting criteria and the illnesses are coded differently. In short, it’s a big old mess to try and match things up

And why is the mRNA dataset so small - not even half a million in size when over 115 million first(9/x)

doses of mRNA had been given in the US by that time? That’s less than ideal - bigger is better when it comes to samples with very rare events

If only there were somewhere we could find sizeable, comparable and unbiased datasets for both the Oxford and Pfizer vaccines….(10/x)

Enter the UK’s Yellow Card Scheme

By 31 March around 20m first doses of Oxford AstraZeneca and 11m first doses of Pfizer had been given in the UK

Let’s see what side effects had been reported by the next available Yellow Card report on 5 April: (11/x)

A pattern emerges… The incidence rates for CVTs and PVTs seen after the Oxford vaccine in the UK pretty much match the Oxford paper.

But the incidence rates after the mRNA vaccines are much lower than claimed in the Oxford paper - in the case of PVTs there have been (12/x)

ZERO reported after 11 million Pfizer first doses!

Perhaps this is just another example of British exceptionalism - maybe in the UK our veins are made of sterner stuff than our cousins across the pond.

Or maybe we should take a closer look at the US data...

(13/x)

By April 12, 115m people had received a first dose of either of the two mRNA vaccines in the US. An incidence rate of 4 per million would mean there had been 460 CVSTs in individuals after these vaccines.

Let’s see how many the CDC thinks there have been based on (14/x)

reports into VAERS, the US equivalent of the Yellow Card Scheme...

Three. Yes, three.

So how do we reconcile this?

Let’s look again at Oxford’s source, the TriNetX database. This covers 81 million (mostly US patients). Oxford pulled their data from TriNetX on 25th (15/x)

March, by which time over 25% of the US population had received at least one mRNA dose.

In other words, if this dataset were representative of the US public it would have contained around 20 million people who had received an mRNA vaccine, not fewer than half a million (16/x)

Sadly here is no explanation in the Oxford paper as to how a sample of around 20 million whittled down to just 489k AND managed to include 2 of the only 3 CVSTs reported as vaccine side effects in the US.

Rather unfortunately, the data won’t be released until after (17/x)

peer review. (Spoiler alert: the paper will never be peer reviewed)

And so we are left with just one explanation: The CDC must be hiding hundreds of CVTs and thousands of PVTs caused by Pfizer and Moderna as part of a co-ordinated plan with the EU to scare people (18/x)

off the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine.

And there’s more - looking at the Yellow Card data, there is another country which is also part of this vast, global conspiracy to under-report these side effects of the mRNA vaccines and discredit the British-developed, Oxford vaccine(19/x)

.... the UK! (20/x)

Or perhaps there is another explanation...

Is it possible that mRNA vaccines do not in fact cause these dangerous blood clots and the Oxford authors knew this but cooked up a bullshit paper using the magic of data manipulation to try and show it anyway? (20/x)

Stay tuned - more to follow soon in Part 2! (END)