As an add-on to my thread explaining why regulators are unlikely to detect an increase in the risk of blood clots generally due to the #AstraZenecaVaccine (annotated 100% with #JurassicPark GIFs!) I present:
Hang on a minute, *does* AZ increase overall clot risk??
[thread]
The previous thread outlined how the analysis done by #EMA and #MHRA to detect an increase in the incidence of #BloodClots after AZ was crap because they forgot they were dealing with vaccine reporting (reports filed *if* someone suspects vax link) and…
*not* a clinical trial where participants are monitored and all health issues are reported
So they ended up comparing a huge baseline rate to the tiny number of clots that actually got reported to them and now they think the AZ vaccine reduces the risk of blood clots by 98%
So I checked for myself using the UK Yellow Card data if there was any sign of blood clots happening more frequently after the #AstraZenecaVaccine
The results are very interesting
We know comparisons to baseline are meaningless for conditions like DVTs and pulmonary embolisms because they are fairly common so doctors aren’t surprised to see them and are therefore less likely to suspect a link to the vaccine and file a Yellow Card report
If only we had a control group...
We do (kind of) - the Pfizer side effect reporting!
Of course there are caveats - Pfizer rolled out earlier, differences in the kind of person who got Pfizer instead of AZ (age, gender etc) but hey - it’s better using the baseline
To avoid potential over-reporting of clots after #AstraZenecaVaccine due to the media attention on AZ and blood clots from mid March I’ll compare the rates of clots reported between the two vaccines as of 15 March
If AstraZeneca increased the risk of common blood clots, as well as the rare and dangerous ones, would we even know about it?
[thread]
The focus of the blood clot risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine has been on the clots in unusual (and dangerous) sites such as the brain and abdomen that have been found alongside low platelets (thrombocytopenia)
Thanks to Norway and Denmark, this new syndrome was rapidly identified and reported as a risk, even if certain parties were initially in denial (looking at you MHRA)
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
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)