IT'S OFFICIAL! Clots ten times more likely to occur without vaccination! - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Provision of the two UN HDI indicators other than GNP.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15187409
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

So the information we already knew has been confirmed. You want to prevent clots, strokes, thrombosis, imflammation etc, you are better off taking the jab. Clots ARE STATISTICALLY 10 TIMES LESS LIKELY to occur in people who are vaccinated compared to those who are not and catch Covid19. Let that sink in. You are less likely to develop a clot vaccinated than not. So unless you are a complete midwit who loves a meme and doesn't want to be vaxxed because you believe you are risking your health doing so as you consider yourself too fit to die from Covid, well not only do you not risk complications such as Long Covid, you prevent the spread, cease lockdowns and indeed stop death from Covid, but you also reduce your chances of dying from clots as well. That is what is known as a win-win-win-win-win.
#15187414
A major review of vaccines suggests the AstraZeneca jab does raise the risk of blood clots and another serious condition that can cause bleeding.


Still not getting jabbed.

But the study found the risk of such problems following a coronavirus infection was still much higher.


*In high risk individuals.

Proof:
It found that for every 10 million people vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine:

an extra 107 would be hospitalised or die from thrombocytopenia, which can cause internal bleeding and haemorrhages, but that was nearly nine times lower than the risk of the same condition following an infection
an extra 66 would be hospitalised or die from blood clots in the veins, but that was nearly 200 times lower than the risk following an infection

For every 10 million people vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, it found:

143 extra strokes would be seen, but that was nearly 12 times lower than the risk following an infection


Now align that with the fact vast majority of unvaccinated deaths from corona are disproportionately the elderly over 70, followed distantly by younger fat cunts.

The clot shot clots perfectly healthy persons. It does not discriminate like the virus. Time to stop spinning with the spin. They found the vaccines do indeed cause clots and bleeds across the board and spun it into 'bu buh bu the virus does this to old people won't somebody jab the non-300lbs children it doesn't affect'.

Pathetic. :lol:
#15187416
@Igor Antunov, your post in conjecture. Stats don't lie. The risks are ten times lower. There is no age and health indicators in the link so why have you done that? I know why. Because you have invested in your belief and cannot accept the truth. You want to believe that the young and healthy was not part of the study because that fits in with your narrative. Well you are wrong and although I don't care whether you get vaccinated or not, I only want to show you that 90% of what you believe is wrong. Memes on the Internet are not evidence. They are manipulation tools that warp the mind of the weak.
#15187417
B0ycey wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

So the information we already knew has been confirmed. You want to prevent clots, strokes, thrombosis, imflammation etc, you are better off taking the jab. Clots ARE STATISTICALLY 10 TIMES LESS LIKELY to occur in people who are vaccinated compared to those who are not and catch Covid19. Let that sink in. You are less likely to develop a clot vaccinated than not. So unless you are a complete midwit who loves a meme and doesn't want to be vaxxed because you believe you are risking your health doing so as you consider yourself too fit to die from Covid, well not only do you not risk complications such as Long Covid, you prevent the spread, cease lockdowns and indeed stop death from Covid, but you also reduce your chances of dying from clots as well. That is what is known as a win-win-win-win-win.


The article is abysmal. No link to the study. No information on study design. Just throwing some numbers out there.


In any case, here's a peer-reviewed study that looks pretty good to me (of course nothing beats a clinial trial):

The Clalit Research Institute, in collaboration with researchers from Harvard University, analyzed one of the world's largest integrated health record databases to examine the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2 vaccine against COVID-19. The study provides the largest peer-reviewed evaluation of the safety of a COVID-19 vaccine in a nationwide mass-vaccination setting. The study was conducted in Israel, an early global leader in COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Previous efforts to characterize vaccine safety have relied on voluntary active reporting by vaccinated individuals, which is known to be incomplete. The present study relies on the analysis of millions of anonymized electronic medical records, which are far more comprehensive.

Furthermore, in order to provide the necessary context for interpreting vaccine safety findings, this study is the first to examine a wide range of adverse events both among vaccinated individuals and among unvaccinated individuals who were infected with the coronavirus. Thus, two separate analyses were conducted:

Vaccination Outcomes Analysis: 884,828 vaccinated individuals aged 16 and over were carefully matched with 884,828 unvaccinated individuals based on an extensive set of sociodemographic, geographic and health-related attributes. Individuals were assigned to each group dynamically based on their changing vaccination status (235,541 individuals moved from the unvaccinated cohort into the vaccinated cohort during the study). Rates of the 25 potential adverse events within three weeks following either vaccine dose were compared between the two groups. This analysis took place from December 20, 2020, the launch of Israel's national vaccination campaign, through May 24, 2021.
Infection Outcomes Analysis: To provide context for the vaccine safety findings above, a separate analysis was conducted that estimated the rates of the same 25 potential adverse events among 173,106 unvaccinated individuals who were infected with the coronavirus, compared to 173,106 carefully matched controls who were not infected with the coronavirus. This analysis took place from March 1, 2020 (the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel) through May 24, 2021.
The vaccine was found to be safe: Out of 25 potential side effects examined, 4 were found to have a strong association with the vaccine.

Myocarditis was found to be associated with the vaccine, but rarely—2.7 excess cases per 100,000 vaccinated individuals. (The myocarditis events observed after vaccination were concentrated in males between 20 and 34.) In contrast, coronavirus infection in unvaccinated individuals was associated with 11 excess cases of myocarditis per 100,000 infected individuals.

Other adverse events moderately associated with vaccination were swelling of the lymph nodes, a mild side effect that is part of a standard immune response to vaccination, with 78 excess cases per 100,000, appendicitis with 5 excess cases per 100,000 (potentially as a result of swelling of lymph nodes around the appendix), and herpes zoster with 16 excess cases per 100,000.

In contrast to the relatively small number of adverse effects associated with the vaccine, high rates of multiple serious adverse events were associated with coronavirus infection among unvaccinated patients, including: Cardiac arrhythmias (a 3.8-fold increase to an increase of 166 cases per 100,000 infected patients), kidney damage (14.8-fold increase; 125 excess cases per 100,000), pericarditis (5.4-fold increase; 11 excess cases per 100,000), pulmonary embolism (12.1-fold increase; 62 excess cases per 100,000), deep vein thrombosis (3.8-fold increase; 43 excess cases per 100,000), myocardial infarction (4.5-fold increase; 25 excess cases per 100,000), and stroke (2.1-fold increase; 14 excess cases per 100,000).


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08- ... afety.html
#15187422
Rugoz wrote:The article is abysmal. No link to the study. No information on study design. Just throwing some numbers out there.


Ffs @Rugoz. Its a fucking news article, not a peer review. But I am sure you can find the data somewhere on Google if you want to study it. The basic take you should get from this is that vaccines are less likely to develop clots than catching covid19. So anyone who decides to not be vaccinated due to clots or heart inflammation fears should consider that actually statistically you are better getting the vaccine if you don't want clots given if you catch the virus you have a better chance in develop a clot.
#15187427
Igor Antunov wrote:Image

I already fact checked and adequately discredited this study. No need to get salty. Energy wasted. Gotta keep your energy levels up for that 4th booster.


Your stance is pretty hypocritical considering that your argument against the vaccine has been this clot and now you are 10 times likely to get it without the vaccine :lol:

I guess acting like a sperg is your thing.
#15187433
I love that @Igor Antunov has decided he wants to live with Australia's ridiculous permanent lockdown just to own the libs. The phrase "cutting off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

This is the beauty of Australia being an isolated desert country: it makes no difference to the rest of us if you guys want to return to life as a literal prison colony, where people are tear gassed for saying hi to their neighbours in a futile effort to "flatten the curve", while other countries gradually get back to normal life. Go right ahead. :lol:
#15187440
B0ycey wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58347434

So the information we already knew has been confirmed. You want to prevent clots, strokes, thrombosis, imflammation etc, you are better off taking the jab. Clots ARE STATISTICALLY 10 TIMES LESS LIKELY to occur in people who are vaccinated compared to those who are not and catch Covid19. Let that sink in. You are less likely to develop a clot vaccinated than not. So unless you are a complete midwit who loves a meme and doesn't want to be vaxxed because you believe you are risking your health doing so as you consider yourself too fit to die from Covid, well not only do you not risk complications such as Long Covid, you prevent the spread, cease lockdowns and indeed stop death from Covid, but you also reduce your chances of dying from clots as well. That is what is known as a win-win-win-win-win.


The problem is, these people will still not care when the data is so obvious.
#15187443
JohnRawls wrote:Your stance is pretty hypocritical considering that your argument against the vaccine has been this clot and now you are 10 times likely to get it without the vaccine :lol:


It's always something with these people. Mental hoops and gymnastics, goal post moving, obfuscation, the works. They just bullshit around.

Igor is a true midwit at this point.
#15187445
Rugoz wrote:The article is abysmal. No link to the study. No information on study design. Just throwing some numbers out there.


In any case, here's a peer-reviewed study that looks pretty good to me (of course nothing beats a clinial trial):



https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-08- ... afety.html


Here's the paper:

https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n1931

It follows a similar methodology as that Israeli one, and has similar results.

Also, if these effects have a very low probability of occurrence (they definitely do, even for COVID itself) then it's unlikely you will ever feasibly have a large enough clinical trial to detect them.

At least now it's clear anti-vaxxers are just wrong as far as short term effects that can be more clearly traceable to the vaccines are concerned. This figure is illustrative:

Image

Incidence rate ratio:

BMJ wrote:Statistical analysis

We described the characteristics of each cohort (patients who had been vaccinated with the outcomes of interest) in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity. The self-controlled case series models were fitted using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of the risk period. Incidence rate ratios, the relative rate of hospital admissions or deaths due to each outcome of interest in risk periods relative to baseline periods, and their 95% confidence intervals were estimated using each model. Exposure terms for both vaccines and for infection with SARS-CoV-2 were included in the same model. To account for temporal changes in background rates, we divided the study period into weekly blocks starting on 1 December 2020 and adjusted for these changes as discrete covariates in the analysis. We used Wald tests to compare risks associated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 mRNA vaccines. We investigated whether the associations between vaccine exposures and outcomes are sex or age dependent by running the analyses in separate subgroups by sex and age group (younger or older than 50 years).


It's also clear that either plenty of people catching COVID also might have been at a greater baseline risk than the vaccinated (but this would NOT account for the whole difference) or that there is a fair amount of noise involved for them, which I find interesting. But even clearer is the fact that it's hard to find a greater incidence ratio for the vaccinated compared to baseline, which again could be a result of the higher sample sizes.
#15187477
Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections
This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 21262415v1

Is that big enough for you. Can you read it?
#15187479
Isn't the whole point of the vaccine to prevent catching Covid19 @Igor Antunov? What you suggest is catching the virus to be immune to it which is by definition circle reasoning. Although even if you believe you are Superman, the job of the vaccine is to speed up herd immunity and to prevent new variants from emerging. Everyonw just catching the virus speeds up the evolution process along with increasing who has Long Covid and deaths of course.
#15187483
B0ycey wrote:
Isn't the whole point of the vaccine to prevent catching Covid19 @Igor Antunov? What you suggest is catching the virus to be immune to it which is by definition circular reasoning.

Although even if you believe you are Superman, the job of the vaccine is to speed up herd immunity and to prevent new variants from emerging. Everyone catching the virus speeds up the evolution process along with increasing the number of people that get Long Covid and deaths of course.



I thought, after millions had been vaccinated, the numbers would speak for themselves.

I guess not, if you're batsh*t crazy.
#15187487
Igor Antunov wrote:Is that big enough for you. Can you read it?

Natural immunity is always stronger than vaccine-induced immunity. The reason we vaccinate people is because doing so produces a significant degree of protection against infection, while carrying none of the risk of severe illness (or death) associated with getting the disease in the first place, which is required for natural immunity to develop.

Schoolchildren can understand this concept. Can you? :)
#15187515
B0ycey wrote:Isn't the whole point of the vaccine to prevent catching Covid19 @Igor Antunov? What you suggest is catching the virus to be immune to it which is by definition circle reasoning. Although even if you believe you are Superman, the job of the vaccine is to speed up herd immunity and to prevent new variants from emerging. Everyonw just catching the virus speeds up the evolution process along with increasing who has Long Covid and deaths of course.


1) Vaccination does not prevent catching the virus.

2) I've already caught the virus.

Therefore I don't need to get vaccinated. I already have 17x greater immunity than a naked vaxxie. I don't need experimental vaccines to give me even more immunity to a virus I already had and will probably have seasonally every year now that it has replaced the flu. I'll wait for the vaccines to mature into mixed variant booster shots but even then like the flu I never took a flu shot it did too little for healthy persons. I think masks will be the way of the future, they're way too effective to ignore. I've already got a bunch of different styles and art designs picked out.

late wrote:You may not knows this, but that frog is blatantly racist here.

Ok then have this frog instead.
Image
Last edited by Igor Antunov on 28 Aug 2021 03:30, edited 1 time in total.

Potemkin, until someone understands and groks the[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

1] TtP, OK the water condenses out at high altitu[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

@XogGyux People pay for the foolish stupidity o[…]

You're as smart as a goat, @QatzelOk . How is th[…]