health

Study confirms AstraZeneca jab's higher risk of very rare clot

33 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

33 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

There were a total of 862 "thrombocytopenia events" recorded in the 28 days after a first dose of AstraZeneca, compared to 520 for Pfizer, the study said.

So actually both vaccines cause the life threatening blood clot.

It's just that one is worse.

These should have been thoroughly test prior to use on the general public.

5 ( +12 / -7 )

So actually both vaccines cause the life threatening blood clot.

In a much lower rate than the clotting risks product from the infection, which means they still work reducing that risk, it is just that some vaccines are better (reduce the risk more).

https://osf.io/a9jdq

These should have been thoroughly test prior to use on the general public.

They have according to the world professionals that deal with the topic, and they are still much safer than the alternative of not vaccinating. No medical intervention is perfect, but if taking the vaccine means less risk than not doing it then that should remain the recommendation.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

So what's the risk of clotting from the infection? This is always brought up in an obvious effort to sway people's own risk benefit analysis it seems. For an otherwise healthy adult or child, what's the risk of life threatening blood clots from a covid infection vs a covid injection? You can't simply state the infection is always worse for everyone than the injection. That kind of logic assumes too much unknowable variance.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

So what's the risk of clotting from the infection? This is always brought up in an obvious effort to sway people's own risk benefit analysis it seems

There is a reference already provided where the authors detected over 10 times more clotting problems by infection than by vaccines in a population controlled by demographics.

So yes, it can be states that the infection is worse for everybody unless you have evidence to contradict it.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

@Bronco: Well, Then I'll happily go ahead with my Moderna Booster next week, I seem to have survived the first three with no issues! Made travel a whole lot easier back into Japan too!

FluMist this weekend. Get that one ticked off too.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

This doesn't even scratch the surface.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

If there's a reference, can it be provided? I would be sceptical of any claim given the immense ongoing conflict of interest surrounding all research publications both for and against. The mere fact that this article is being published on JT should give pause to a lot of readers who otherwise championed the vaccine campaign. These shots do not come without a real risk. Infection might be risky too but let's not forget that nothing has proven to stop infection yet.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

@Algernon LaCroix

In YOUR opinion and that of the media you choose to read and what you choose to ignore to suit your narrative. You personally offer no evidence. I also guess 'extremely rare' means nothing to you - In 'my' opinion there is there are many more deaths occurring (just as an example) from people misusing OTC painkillers on a daily basis, yet they continue to be sold in supermarkets on open display with no checks.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

theResidentToday  10:03 am JST

@Algernon LaCroix

In YOUR opinion and that of the media you choose to read and what you choose to ignore to suit your narrative. You personally offer no evidence. I also guess 'extremely rare' means nothing to you - In 'my' opinion there is there are many more deaths occurring (just as an example) from people misusing OTC painkillers on a daily basis, yet they continue to be sold in supermarkets on open display with no checks.

False equivalency. OTC painkillers haven't been forced on the public for fear of losing basic civil rights.

And why should I trust a captured mainstream media, many of the medical journals and institutions not to mention governments, that have been captured by the money from the big pharmaceutical companies (through advertising, funding, donations, etc), over independent doctors, nurses and medical scientists who put their careers on the line by getting the truth out?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

If there's a reference, can it be provided? 

It is already there in the first comment rebuking the misrepresentation of risk, It has been offered even from before you asked for it, one big problem is people that baselessly claim no evidence is available even when it is clearly there,

These shots do not come without a real risk.

Nothing comes without a risk, but the vaccines have a tiny fraction of the risk that comes from not being vaccinated.

Infection might be risky too but let's not forget that nothing has proven to stop infection yet.

That is not an argument because as long as the vaccines can demonstrate to reduce the risk from the infection then they are still the best option. Vaccines do not stop the infection of polio virus or rabies virus, but they surely reduce the risk that come from that infection, that is the purpose of a vaccine.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

False equivalency. OTC painkillers haven't been forced on the public for fear of losing basic civil rights.

Vaccines either, what has been done is to subject to people to the valid, logical consequences of their irrational actions that increase the risk for others, the same as has happened all the time for other personal decisions that have that effect.

And why should I trust a captured mainstream media

Why indeed? you can go to the primary sources of information that still clearly prove your personal opinion and the world wide conspiracies you believe are false.

If your whole argument is that everybody that have a valuable opinion is "bought" and subject their own families to supposedly damaging things for money, then you are already without any argument.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

And why should I trust a captured mainstream media, many of the medical journals and institutions not to mention governments, that have been captured by the money from the big pharmaceutical companies (through advertising, funding, donations, etc), over independent doctors, nurses and medical scientists who put their careers on the line by getting the truth out?

Yes very true. They have their tentacles in media, medical institutions, regulators, journals, social media...

Best to avoid these products until we have a free open and unbiased discussion; which we clearly are not having now.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

None of these companies products are worth having for me.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

the vaccines can demonstrate to reduce the risk from the infection then they are still the best option.

Which was already explained to you as completely false.

Always repeating your false statements make zero sense.

The best option to get not under a risk of infection or getting sick is "social distance", and NOT the vaccine.

If you don't keep enough social distance, even you are vaccinated, you can get infected and you can get sick.

So if you keep enough social distance it doesn't matter if you are vaccinated or not, you are safe.

"Keep distance" is also the key point for the quarantaine, and not "be vaccinated".

Keep distance from the danger, and you are safe.

Therefore, "Keep distance" is always the best option!

If you do, if you can and if you want to use this option in your daily life, is up to each person, and is another topic.

But again, the best option to be safe or to lower the risk of infection or getting sick is NOT the vaccine. It is "social distance".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

For a very limited time, we can watch for free a documentary that explains much of this:

https://www.therealanthonyfaucimovie.com/trailer/?sub4=0ca73541e00b468bba9b5a4bddcabfdf&afid=362

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Raw BeerToday  11:25 am JST

For a very limited time, we can watch for free a documentary that explains much of this:

Watching it right now :-)

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Yes very true. They have their tentacles in media, medical institutions, regulators, journals, social media...

Which is still completely irrelevant since the scientific data is what support their value, for the conspiracy to be relevant it would still need to include the whole scientific and medical community of the world, which makes it obvious it is impossible.

Best to avoid these products until we have a free open and unbiased discussion; which we clearly are not having now.

The discussion is there, the problem is that you choose to ignore it because it does not include the disproved information you like to believe, but since that is the only appropriate thing to do with falsehoods then there is no other valid option.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Which was already explained to you as completely false.

Saying that you don't want to believe the experts is not a reason to prove something is false, that just explains that you just don't accept any evidence that contradicts what you want to believe, and call your own ideas "reality" even without any evidence to support them.

Studies prove vaccines reduce infection and transmission but more importantly they reduce the risk of vaccinated people. If you don't have evidence that refute this then the only rational option is to accept this conclusion, just baselessly claiming it must be wrong is not.

So if you keep enough social distance it doesn't matter if you are vaccinated or not, you are safe.

There is no measure that can guarantee a person is safe, not even social distancing. And if for people keeping the social distance means losing their jobs, health or life then your "solution" is worse than the problem. Vaccines do not require this, so they are a much more cost/benefit efficient measure, they reduce the risk of getting infected and specially of getting sick, complicating and dying without people having to starve to death to reach the same result.

But again, the best option to be safe or to lower the risk of infection or getting sick is NOT the vaccine. It is "social distance".

Still not, according to the best experts of the world. The best option is being vaccinated so the infection risk is reduced to background levels (the only realistic limit of risk) while letting people still work, go to the hospital, etc.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@Raw Beer: Come on mate - A Jeff Hays 'film' being promoted by BitChute. Only the delusional and extreme will consider taking seriously. Yet you promote it like something on a shopping channel!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

theResidentToday  12:47 pm JST

@Raw Beer: Come on mate - A Jeff Hays 'film' being promoted by BitChute. Only the delusional and extreme will consider taking seriously. Yet you promote it like something on a shopping channel!

Don't shoot the messenger. The corruption is so blatant now, how could any thinking person fail to notice it?

Oh, I see...

3 ( +7 / -4 )

One of the great things about Japan vis a vis vaccines is you have a choice and no one is privy to your status

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Exactly Geeter.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Clearly you didn't read the post properly

That is still irrelevant as long as the increase of risk for others is clear, it makes as much sense as complaining about drunk people not being left free to drive. In short, your argument requires to demonstrate the measures are not justifed, which you have not done, just use a supposed conspiracy that includes everybody that knows about vaccines, infections and health and that they supposedly are acting against their own interests for not real reason. That is still impossible to believe.

Don't shoot the messenger. The corruption is so blatant now, how could any thinking person fail to notice it?

A compilation of personal opinions from people that have repeatedly lied to the point of being found guilty in courts (or even forced to pay millions for deceiving people) is not shooting the messenger, is just saying that relying on the credibility of people known to lie and deceive others (since they produce no evidence to support their beliefs) is not exactly a good source, it is the opposite.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

virusrex wrote: "from people that have repeatedly lied to the point of being found guilty in courts (or even forced to pay millions for deceiving people) is not shooting the messenger, is just saying that relying on the credibility of people known to lie and deceive others (since they produce no evidence to support their beliefs) is not exactly a good source, it is the opposite." You've just described Big Pharma, except that it's billions not millions.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

 You've just described Big Pharma, except that it's billions not millions.

Which claim about the covid vaccines do you believe is only supported by what someone says while the scientific evidence proves the opposite?

Because that is what the linked video is doing, people telling you to ignore the scientific evidence and the professional opinion of scientists and doctors of every single institution of the world, and that they are not lying to you this time, even when they have done so repeatedly in the past.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Will the public ever trust their governments again? It’s all coming out. Expect some pretty severe verdicts and prison sentences over the next few years. What an absolute mess.

The ‘loss of trust’ is going to be the biggest ‘mental virus’ in the coming years and decades. Once lost, it’s almost impossible to regain. This we all know instinctively from our own personal relationships. .

3 ( +7 / -4 )

@Ricky Kaminski13: I'm not expecting any severe verdicts and/or prison sentences against governments. On what grounds? I do expect more 'Alex Jones' type scenarios however as the conspiracy theorists push things too far.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Big Pharma execs. Pfizer CEO Alberta Boulanger for one, a no show for The European Parliamentary hearing the other week. Not exactly Alex Jones. Lot of lawyers about to make a lot of money. Complicit over acting over reaching governments, may take a decade or so for it all to come out but it will. A tidal wave of realizations to be had.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Hippocratic Oath: "Do no harm."

Pandemrix got withdrawn much faster even with a lower risk profile: https://archive.hshsl.umaryland.edu/bitstream/handle/10713/8270/Doshi_Pandermrix2018.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Not a single Executive of one of the large Pharmaceutical companies that bought Covid Vaccines will see time behind bars (let alone even be convicted and a sentence suspended) from 'charges' related to said vaccines. There will be a tidal wave of nothing but wasted legal fees.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

A compilation of personal opinions from people that have repeatedly lied to the point of being found guilty in courts (or even forced to pay millions for deceiving people) is not shooting the messenger, is just saying that relying on the credibility of people known to lie and deceive others (since they produce no evidence to support their beliefs) is not exactly a good source, it is the opposite.

Nice try.

Your talking about pharma execs, right?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

may take a decade or so for it all to come out but it will

So when things are clearly against what you believe the exit is to bet that in the future the opposite will come true? that is more an excuse than an argument.

Pandemrix got withdrawn much faster even with a lower risk profile:

Because better purified vaccines were already available, so there was no benefit to keep one with nucleocapsid contamination in the market.

In this case of course the main risk came also from the viral infection, the virus obviously produce much more nucleocapsid (and much more narcolepsy) than any lot of vaccine could do. If anything this is an argument for the vaccines, not against them.

Your talking about pharma execs, right?

Again, which execs are saying that you should ignore the scientific consensus to believe them when they contradict the available scientific evidence? none? well that would be completely different from the people in the video, that are doing exactly that.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

So actually both vaccines cause the life threatening blood clot.

That can't be concluded from the article. We'd need to know how many non-vaccinated people typically suffer thrombocytopenia events and compare with the vaccinated groups. I can't find clear data about that. According to the article below, "Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) occurs with an incidence rate of 1.6 to 3.9 per 100,000 patient-years". I'll let you do the comparison calculations.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30868551/

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites