Risk of blood clots in lung doubled for COVID survivors: U.S. study

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

where in the study does it say the blod clots are in vaccinated, ive read the study it says every person who contracted covid, whether vaccinated or not. sorry the unvaccinated are desperate to find legitimacy to their narrative

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

Limitations of the study included the fact that data on sex, race, and geographic region were not considered, nor was vaccination status.

so excited that you didnt even read the facts about the trial

Vaccinated individuals have high risk of blood clot.

Please do not post misinformation. Thank you.

Being non-vaccinated and catching covid has a greater risk on blood clot than being vaccinated.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/27/covid-not-vaccinations-presents-biggest-blood-clot-risk-study.html

The data

In the eight to 28 days after a first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, researchers identified an increased risk of rare blood clotting events and low platelet counts. In the same time period after a first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the study found the risk of blood clots and strokes caused by restricted blood flow to the brain (ischaemic stroke) increased.

However, these risks were significantly lower than the risks posed by Covid-19 infection.

The source of the data is listed in the scientific article

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7121e1.htm?s_cid=mm7121e1_w

The data was not collected for the purpose of this study but it was used for retroactively form cohorts for comparison. There is no purpose being served to eliminate vaccination from the data because, again, it is more likely that patients diagnosed with covid have a lower rate of vaccination according many other sources of information, if vaccinated patients are in lower percentage in the covid cohort that would lead to the conclusion that vaccination is correlated with lower risk for blood clots.

Virus,they are in denial,lots of Covid patient developed clots as the virus spread , through out their body

I have a factual source for my statement:

Your source proves the contrary, under lack of evidence of the efficacy of masks at the beginning of the pandemic there was no possible scientific recommendation, baselessly guessing is not a valid scientific argument, when the evidence of mask efficacy on the general population appeared the recommendations reflected that, thanks for proving my argument.

Doubling down on circular reasoning argument=Textbook Circular Reasoning

Not addressing the reasons given (and of course not disproving them) is a much more clear example of circular reason. Why don't you address the arguments?

Scpecifically, what arguments do you have to refute the fact that if vaccinaton was the cause then there should not be a difference between the groups?

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

This is something to be concerned about.

And no, we should not blindly follow "advice" from agencies like the CDC or the WHO. 

I’d ask you to read the article, but I know how that goes already.

Whatever makes you happy (well, angry)

It’s not COVID that’s doing the damage. Stop reading MSM nonsense and you’ll be healthier.

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/japanese-cardiovascular-surgeon-stop-the-vaccine-boosters-now-due-to-serious-risks-fca9a6f3

So having symptomatic Covid only doubles your chance of blood clots in the lung!

According to the scientific article this means "only" one in 5 survivors will have these complications happening one month after recuperating from COVID, that means this comes on top of the well characterized risks during the acute phase of the infection. This is nothing to downplay.

How does this compare with vaccine-induced thrombosis?

for the J&J vaccine this means a total of 60 events out of 18 million vaccinated people, a tiny microscopic fraction of what was identified in this study.

Pfizer data dumps shows these "vaccines" have considerable adverse effects, which for some reason we never hear about here on JT...

That is incorrect, data from literally billions of vaccinated people demonstrate that what antivaxxer group call adverse effect of the vaccines are simply health problems that are presented in equivalent rates in unvaccinated people of the same demographics. Unless the argument is that vaccines somehow produce the same problems in unvaccinated people it should be clear that these problems are not related.

How was Covid treated? Did the treatment include aspirin?

COVID also cause an increase of the risk of bleeding, so anticoagulant therapy is not indicated as a regular intervention but requires strict criteria to be used.

It is extremely unlikely that aspirin during the treatment of the acute probelm would have any effect on the patients of this study because the results are focused on problems presented more than one month after the recovery.

Some will think that vaccination will protect against clots, but it might in fact increase the chances.

According to the best available science this is not true, the risk from clots in covid is on the order of thousands per million patients, for the vaccines is on dozens in several million patients.

https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj-2021-069590

Limitations of the study included the fact that data on sex, race, and geographic region were not considered, nor was vaccination status.

Well there's a gaping hole in the study's validity. I guess if you ignore a potential critical factor, then it you can pretend there's no problem associated with it.

A bit like when health bureaucracies, vaccine makers and the governments they instruct have conveniently ignored or cherry-picked age stratification and comorbidities when it comes to susceptibility to severe illness from the SARS-CoV-2 virus in order to lock down populations, and mandate vaccination and masking.

That is false, advice comes from scientific data being available, when new data contradicts previous recommendations obviously the recommendations change, that is completely consistent.

You have no evidence for your claim.

I have a factual source for my statement:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

You completely misunderstood the comment, the reasons already exposed are why this is not true, not because they have been written before (as you mistakenly interpreted) but because they have not been eliminated by any contrary argument.

Doubling down on circular reasoning argument=Textbook Circular Reasoning

Vaccinated individuals have high risk of blood clot.

How do you just casually skip over information like that!?

It is not about skipping about something, the study is a retrospective matched cohort that means getting information that has been already registered from patients and making two groups according to one variable, in this case covid diagnosis, it is not like they can go back in time and collect more data than what is available, even if vaccination status is known for some of the patients this is not something that can be reported unless it is known for all.

A bit like when health bureaucracies, vaccine makers and the governments they instruct have conveniently ignored or cherry-picked age stratification and comorbidities when it comes to susceptibility to severe illness from the SARS-CoV-2 virus in order to lock down populations, and mandate vaccination and masking.

Good point. And agencies like the WHO have been inconsistent on their "advice" throughout this crisis.

Risk of blood clots in lung doubled for COVID survivors: U.S. study

This is actually the biggest news in the US right now.

This is not true, as I mentioned already if the vaccine was the reason then there would not be an observable difference between covid patiens and those without the disease,

It's not true because you mentioned it before= Textbook Circular Reasoning

Good point. And agencies like the WHO have been inconsistent on their "advice" throughout this crisis.

That is false, advice comes from scientific data being available, when new data contradicts previous recommendations obviously the recommendations change, that is completely consistent.

It's not true because you mentioned it before= Textbook Circular Reasoning

You completely misunderstood the comment, the reasons already exposed are why this is not true, not because they have been written before (as you mistakenly interpreted) but because they have not been eliminated by any contrary argument.

So, what argument do you have to refute the fact that if vaccination was the reason for the clots this would mean same rates in people with and without covid related medical visits?

Turning tails on a conspiracy theory - it wasn't the vaccinations causing blood clots after-all, but COVID itself.

Yes, in some people, symptomatic Covid can lead to clots (at twice the rate as uninfected). But how does this rate compare to the reported vaccine-induced clots? Some will think that vaccination will protect against clots, but it might in fact increase the chances.

And what rate of clots should we expect now with Omicron which is much less likely to produce symptoms?

This is troubling news indeed.

vic.MToday  08:47 am JST

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

This is something to be concerned about.

And no, we should not blindly follow "advice" from agencies like the CDC or the WHO. We can recall some of their major gaffes that just make us shake our heads now.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-masks-recommendation-trnd/index.html

The blood clots are from the vaccinated. Do people still believe everything the CDC, WHO and FDA say ?

that is not the case because the study found statistical differences between patients that suffered COVID and the rest of the population, which would make no sense if the factor was vaccination. If that was the case patients or not they would have the same or lower incidence (because not being vaccinated is correlated with higher hospitalization rates).

And no, we should not blindly follow "advice" from agencies like the CDC or the WHO. We can recall some of their major gaffes that just make us shake our heads now.

Nobody is doing that, the scientific evidence for the advice and recommendations is available for the professionals to examine, following the advice comes because the professionals understand this evidence and coincide with the conclusions.

Well there's a gaping hole in the study's validity. I guess if you ignore a potential critical factor, then it you can pretend there's no problem associated with it.

This is not true, as I mentioned already if the vaccine was the reason then there would not be an observable difference between covid patiens and those without the disease, after all both groups can be considered at least having similar rates of vaccination (if not less vaccinated percentage in the symptomatic patients because this happens more frequently in unvaccinated people).

There is a big difference proved between the groups, to say vaccination may be the reason it would be necessary to first demonstrate a similar difference in vaccination rates between the groups, there is no data that indicates this.

It is a limitation of the study because it could help understanding even more the situation (for example, if unvaccinated covid patients had 4X the risk, while vaccinated covid patients had the same risk as non-covid patients) But it does not disqualify the findings in the least.

So having symptomatic Covid only doubles your chance of blood clots in the lung!

How does this compare with vaccine-induced thrombosis? The recent Pfizer data dumps shows these "vaccines" have considerable adverse effects, which for some reason we never hear about here on JT...

How was Covid treated? Did the treatment include aspirin?