This morning.
Via Paul Cullen in The Irish Times:
Patients with Covid-19 face an increased risk of serious blood clots up to six months after being infected, according to new research.
There is an increased risk of pulmonary embolism – a blood clot in the lung – up to six months after infection, the study by Swedish researchers indicates.
For deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot in the leg – there is an increased risk for up to three months and for bleeding events up to two months, they found.
From the records of more than one million people with Covid-19 and four million who were not infected, the researchers identified 401 patients who had the disease and suffered a deep vein thrombosis, and 267 cases in the control group…
However…
The study is observational, so the researchers cannot establish cause. They also note limitations such as possible underdiagnosis of clotting, limited testing for Covid and the non-availability of information on vaccination.
Hmm.
Risk of blood clots rises in Covid-19 patients, Swedish study finds (Paul Cullen, Irish Times)
Meanwhile…
New research may help shed light on a rare but serious blood-clotting problem associated with the COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson….
Rare vaccine-related blood clots tied to gene (EuroNews)
‘cannot establish cause.’
This is vitally important for covid-related blood clots, but NOT for absolutely-for-certain everybody-knows 100% guaranteed vaccine-related heart attacks. The same principle applies in the question of Russian war crimes vs false flags.
I don’t wish death on anybody either through war, vaccination/no vaccination etc; that said, I believe I was right not to rush into being vaccinated citing my concern that, despite the amount of money thrown at it, the longitudional time element vital to any research was, perforce, absent.
I believe I’m also right in having a jaundiced view on the causation, influences, ‘reporting’ etc, etc of the Ukraine war which, like vaccination, seems to elicit a 99% stupid-induced slew of mindless ‘comment’.
as someone who can’t even take the contraceptive pill due to clotting issues I’m feeling pretty glad I didn’t take the vaccine.
“four million who were not infected”
How did they know if they weren’t infected? Antibody test? Does that mean they also weren’t vaccinated?
Genuinely interested if anyone knows.
Given that clots are a known side effect of the vaccines, their vaccination status is of paramount importance- yet conveniently omitted.
More whitewashing.
Yeah, seems fairly scant on details alright.
Blood clots have been known as a complication with Covid since very early on in the pandemic, particularly by those in ICU. (Clots are a fear anyway with bed bound folks – a lot would be on daily warfarin injections etc)
Just search ‘blood clots Covid’ and set the results to 2020 only, so I don’t see why it’s some big announcement now.
“a Swedish study”
No further information about the study, such as who carried it out, who published it, nothing.
And they call themselves the Paper of Record?
Swedish analysis of cohort study including 5 million people published in BMJ
10.1136/bmj-2021-069590
Suffixed by case report of 5 cases published in MedArxiv
/10.1101/2022.03.28.22272975
The Swedish study isn’t big news, it’s a sensible interrogation of a huge dataset that helps guide medical practitioners determine which patients are at risk of wha. whent. If you used google, you could find the study and read it for yourself. It’s part of a subject called public health, and it’s how we build an understanding of what factors are likely to modulate our health.
The authors are pretty clear on why they don’t include vaccination in their analysis, there are a number of reasons, all pretty sensible. One is because that wasn’t the objective of the study. Another is because the dataset isn’t big enough because clotting is rare. So no it’s not a cover up, it’s not ‘conveniently omitted’ it’s not analysable with the dataset used.
How do they know who wasn’t infected Alick?
Just curious.
The paper doesn’t go into massive detail, but it appears that they were people for whom a negative covid test in the relevant timeframe is recorded in the Swedish health database. Note, it’s a cohort study, not a randomised controlled trial, so it’s examining retrospective data (data that was already collected at the time of the study initiation). I can think of a few arguments that would suggest there could be some inherent bias, but the numbers are very large, there are in excess of 5 million in the analysis, so you’d expect the bias to even out, and the trends to fairly reflect ‘reality’.
Bird’s Eye potato waffles are awfully versatile.
Cheers Alick