4 ms·

1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. They were not aware of any data collection around this and my condition. I did explicitly ask them. 2. Where is this data?

1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. They were not aware of any data collection around this and my condition. I did explicitly ask them. 2. Where is this data? If it's being collected, we should be able to see it or clear conclusions from it? It's a very simple data set too. I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media.

autoexec 4y ago
> I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vaccine-due-to-blood-clot-risk/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the adverse effects of these vaccines, including heart problems and blood clots. Your doctor is certainly aware of this program and if they are dealing with covid patients they are most likely involved in collecting and sharing their own observations and data as well. > blood clots became a concern starting in April 2021, when the government put a pause on the J&J shot after six women who received it developed rare blood clots—and one died. All of these cases were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national early reporting warning system to detect safety problems with U.S.-licensed vaccines. (https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...) Data on the problems the vaccines might be causing is continuously being collected and evaluated. Researchers all over the globe are exchanging data on every facet of this novel virus and the new vaccines we've developed. The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored and research is not forbidden. If people are telling you otherwise, you might want to ask them to clarity their position or you may want to reevaluate where you've been getting your information.
- zackees 4y ago
  [dead]
- locustous 4y ago
  The problem is that if the front line medical staff don't collect the data the existence of collections organizations and publications is effectively irrelevant because they end up totally blind to this potential data. "Blind man reports on sky color" is pretty meaningless. Generously we may call this an oversight that so many in front line medical believe there is no collection method or refuse to use it. Negatively, it provides plausible deniability to high minded academics while the process is intentionally shortcutted at the ground level in a massive fraud and cover up. For myself, I've personally seen this lack of reporting for years, even before COVID, by nurses and doctors at various hospitals. There is a very pervasive attitude of, the vaccines are safe therefore your problem immediately following is total coincidence and we will report nothing. Given it's existence for years and the lack of general training in this regard I can't help but lose trust in the entirety of the system as, at best, extremely dysfunctional.
  - locustous 4y ago
    To the down voters. Because there exists a backend and reporting system that is extolled for it's beauty and elegance doesn't mean the users reporting front end issues are wrong. And such front end issues prevent all the data from getting to that backend and thus the reports are inaccurate. For the system to function properly every step must operate well. Not just the ones you might like best. Otherwise it is broken. It only takes one bad line of code to break a system. Ignoring user reports of it's brokenness is so common because those users have effectively worn out their welcome with the constant complaints. There are better ways than blame the user though :P
- landemva 4y ago
  > The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored Several years after initial outbreak, I wonder if continuation of the emergency use authorization can be justified, or if it continues because it allows the medical establishment to not be liable for realized risks. Possible risks don't matter to manufacturers, because nobody is liable for injury.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    The observed risk of naive infection continues to outweigh the possible risks of the vaccine. The long-term effects of both are still being studied. In fact, several treatments that were granted emergency use authorization have been revoked [1], because on the balance, they were not effective enough to justify the authorization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Use_during_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Us...
  - vgt 4y ago
    What do you mean by "continuation of emergency use authentication??". They're all fully approved by the FDA by now [0]: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
    - bassrattle 4y ago
      As I understand, Pfizer got Comirnaty approved, but virtually no one has been administered Comirnaty still.
    - landemva 4y ago
      FDA continues to re-issue EUA, first issued under Trump, which shields liability and allows use without long-term studies of effectiveness. Scroll down this URL and read some of the EUAs. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-... "On October 19, 2022, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the September 12, 2022 letter of authorization in its entirety to authorize the use of Novavax COVID‑19 Vaccine"
- nyrulez 4y ago
  I think you provide a good link that's a basic start. Here is my central issue: I still can't find basic cohort level information about blood clot incidences at the cohort level: covid/vaccinated/not vaccinated. I think this is pretty basic stuff. Since you seem to be knee or chest deep into this, any idea why this information is so hard to find? It's a pretty obvious question that I think someone like you would be curious too I assume? I remember the study you provided. It was from the early days. What happened since then? Millions of people have been vaccinated repeatedly in the US itself, so where is the follow up for clots and other issues? My cousin who works with a healthcare provider mentioned casually to me that health insurance claims around blood clots have gone up rapidly in the last 2 years. I am all for believing its purely covid related, but why not just dispel any myth and release the cohort information as I mentioned above. It's pretty basic stuff as a data scientist myself. There is a bit of "trust me bro" vibe going on around any kind of large scale cohort analysis for vaccines that makes me very uncomfortable. If I am completely misguided about my last sentence, would love to see concrete numbers at a population scale (from a credible source), not just a study among some participants. It would be make me pretty happy to see real population level vaccine cohort data, which so far seems to have been evasive for me (any my doctors). ---- Independently, I am going to share something else. My doc was VERY uncomfortable even implying that vaccine could be a possible culprit behind my issues, even though there was such a clear temporal link and I'm young/healthy otherwise. I guess there is a lot of pressure on docs to not be considered Anti Vax or even have their credibility be tarnished. But I think you can see how that can bias data and reporting one way or the other.
  - lazyhummingbird 4y ago
    A cousin mentioning something and a bunch of inductive DYOR googling are both far weaker than the data provided. The main pressure on doctors is to remain scientific, which is currently incompatible with claims linking clots to the rigorously tested, surveilled, and proven vaccine. There is also a hard bias against doctors saying that spiritual possession causes epilepsy or that smoking is secretly healthy —and I’m glad. The CDC continuously updates its surveillance of the vaccine via VAERS. Via VAERS, if any of those early warning signals reached significant levels, they would follow up with deeper studies. To date, that is not the case. There are many questions worth asking yourself before you attribute your health issue to a vaccine: Did I ever get COVID-19? The risk of blood clots increases for at least 6 months after the virus. Regardless of current fitness, have I ever had years of sedentary employment? A computer heavy job (for instance coding) or lifestyle (say, one where you write long replies online or play videogames often) can be a major cause of cardiovascular issues for years. Will another answer than the one you’re searching for satisfy you? Or is this truly a search for confirmation? Nobody is saying that a link between your clots and the vaccine is impossible. They are gently reminding you that a massive body of evidence suggests it is as likely as a forest fire being caused by rain.
abcc8 4y ago
This type of data is being collected at large academic institutions who are doing longitudinal analyses of their patient population.
ivan_gammel 4y ago
>1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. Looking at general condition of healthcare systems around the world, I would never put 100% confidence into what one or a few doctors say. They are just people with ordinary motivations and beliefs, not always committed to stay informed about the progress in their fields, not always having time etc. Their observation probably comes not from reading scientific papers, but from experience of working with the healthcare system bureaucracy that may distribute information or collect data, or may not. This won't be any evidence of nothing happening.

autoexec 4y ago

> I have not seen any clear national level data or any discussion around it for vaccination status/blood clots in any media. In research: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35582622/ In media: https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vaccine-due-to-blood-clot-risk/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/fda-restricts-jjs-covid-19-vac... I'll be generous and suggest that your doctor misunderstood your question. VAERS is a nationwide data collection program being used to collect evidence for the adverse effects of these vaccines, including heart problems and blood clots. Your doctor is certainly aware of this program and if they are dealing with covid patients they are most likely involved in collecting and sharing their own observations and data as well. > blood clots became a concern starting in April 2021, when the government put a pause on the J&J shot after six women who received it developed rare blood clots—and one died. All of these cases were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), a national early reporting warning system to detect safety problems with U.S.-licensed vaccines. (https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-clots https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/coronavirus-vaccine-blood-...) Data on the problems the vaccines might be causing is continuously being collected and evaluated. Researchers all over the globe are exchanging data on every facet of this novel virus and the new vaccines we've developed. The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored and research is not forbidden. If people are telling you otherwise, you might want to ask them to clarity their position or you may want to reevaluate where you've been getting your information.

zackees 4y ago
[dead]
locustous 4y ago
The problem is that if the front line medical staff don't collect the data the existence of collections organizations and publications is effectively irrelevant because they end up totally blind to this potential data. "Blind man reports on sky color" is pretty meaningless. Generously we may call this an oversight that so many in front line medical believe there is no collection method or refuse to use it. Negatively, it provides plausible deniability to high minded academics while the process is intentionally shortcutted at the ground level in a massive fraud and cover up. For myself, I've personally seen this lack of reporting for years, even before COVID, by nurses and doctors at various hospitals. There is a very pervasive attitude of, the vaccines are safe therefore your problem immediately following is total coincidence and we will report nothing. Given it's existence for years and the lack of general training in this regard I can't help but lose trust in the entirety of the system as, at best, extremely dysfunctional.
- locustous 4y ago
  To the down voters. Because there exists a backend and reporting system that is extolled for it's beauty and elegance doesn't mean the users reporting front end issues are wrong. And such front end issues prevent all the data from getting to that backend and thus the reports are inaccurate. For the system to function properly every step must operate well. Not just the ones you might like best. Otherwise it is broken. It only takes one bad line of code to break a system. Ignoring user reports of it's brokenness is so common because those users have effectively worn out their welcome with the constant complaints. There are better ways than blame the user though :P
landemva 4y ago
> The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored Several years after initial outbreak, I wonder if continuation of the emergency use authorization can be justified, or if it continues because it allows the medical establishment to not be liable for realized risks. Possible risks don't matter to manufacturers, because nobody is liable for injury.
- klyrs 4y ago
  The observed risk of naive infection continues to outweigh the possible risks of the vaccine. The long-term effects of both are still being studied. In fact, several treatments that were granted emergency use authorization have been revoked [1], because on the balance, they were not effective enough to justify the authorization. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Use_during_pandemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Use_Authorization#Us...
- vgt 4y ago
  What do you mean by "continuation of emergency use authentication??". They're all fully approved by the FDA by now [0]: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
  - bassrattle 4y ago
    As I understand, Pfizer got Comirnaty approved, but virtually no one has been administered Comirnaty still.
  - landemva 4y ago
    FDA continues to re-issue EUA, first issued under Trump, which shields liability and allows use without long-term studies of effectiveness. Scroll down this URL and read some of the EUAs. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-... "On October 19, 2022, having concluded that revising this EUA is appropriate to protect the public health or safety under section 564(g)(2) of the Act, FDA is reissuing the September 12, 2022 letter of authorization in its entirety to authorize the use of Novavax COVID‑19 Vaccine"
nyrulez 4y ago
I think you provide a good link that's a basic start. Here is my central issue: I still can't find basic cohort level information about blood clot incidences at the cohort level: covid/vaccinated/not vaccinated. I think this is pretty basic stuff. Since you seem to be knee or chest deep into this, any idea why this information is so hard to find? It's a pretty obvious question that I think someone like you would be curious too I assume? I remember the study you provided. It was from the early days. What happened since then? Millions of people have been vaccinated repeatedly in the US itself, so where is the follow up for clots and other issues? My cousin who works with a healthcare provider mentioned casually to me that health insurance claims around blood clots have gone up rapidly in the last 2 years. I am all for believing its purely covid related, but why not just dispel any myth and release the cohort information as I mentioned above. It's pretty basic stuff as a data scientist myself. There is a bit of "trust me bro" vibe going on around any kind of large scale cohort analysis for vaccines that makes me very uncomfortable. If I am completely misguided about my last sentence, would love to see concrete numbers at a population scale (from a credible source), not just a study among some participants. It would be make me pretty happy to see real population level vaccine cohort data, which so far seems to have been evasive for me (any my doctors). ---- Independently, I am going to share something else. My doc was VERY uncomfortable even implying that vaccine could be a possible culprit behind my issues, even though there was such a clear temporal link and I'm young/healthy otherwise. I guess there is a lot of pressure on docs to not be considered Anti Vax or even have their credibility be tarnished. But I think you can see how that can bias data and reporting one way or the other.
- lazyhummingbird 4y ago
  A cousin mentioning something and a bunch of inductive DYOR googling are both far weaker than the data provided. The main pressure on doctors is to remain scientific, which is currently incompatible with claims linking clots to the rigorously tested, surveilled, and proven vaccine. There is also a hard bias against doctors saying that spiritual possession causes epilepsy or that smoking is secretly healthy —and I’m glad. The CDC continuously updates its surveillance of the vaccine via VAERS. Via VAERS, if any of those early warning signals reached significant levels, they would follow up with deeper studies. To date, that is not the case. There are many questions worth asking yourself before you attribute your health issue to a vaccine: Did I ever get COVID-19? The risk of blood clots increases for at least 6 months after the virus. Regardless of current fitness, have I ever had years of sedentary employment? A computer heavy job (for instance coding) or lifestyle (say, one where you write long replies online or play videogames often) can be a major cause of cardiovascular issues for years. Will another answer than the one you’re searching for satisfy you? Or is this truly a search for confirmation? Nobody is saying that a link between your clots and the vaccine is impossible. They are gently reminding you that a massive body of evidence suggests it is as likely as a forest fire being caused by rain.

abcc8 4y ago

This type of data is being collected at large academic institutions who are doing longitudinal analyses of their patient population.

ivan_gammel 4y ago

>1. My doctor(s) (in USA) told me so. Looking at general condition of healthcare systems around the world, I would never put 100% confidence into what one or a few doctors say. They are just people with ordinary motivations and beliefs, not always committed to stay informed about the progress in their fields, not always having time etc. Their observation probably comes not from reading scientific papers, but from experience of working with the healthcare system bureaucracy that may distribute information or collect data, or may not. This won't be any evidence of nothing happening.