Skip to main content

Risk of heart attack, stroke drops after COVID vaccination

Image
By scooby

 This study came out about COVID vaccine safety, it has some reassuring conclusions for cardiovascular issues:


https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/risk-heart-attack-stroke-drops-after-covid-vaccination-data-show

"This England-wide study offers patients reassurance of the cardiovascular safety of first, second and booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines," coauthor William Whiteley, MB BCh, PhD, of the University of Edinburgh, said in a press release from Health Data Research UK. "It demonstrates that the benefits of second and booster doses, with fewer common cardiovascular events include heart attacks and strokes after vaccination, outweigh the very rare cardiovascular complications."

Comments

Anonymous said…
The medical community was cowed into pushing masks and 6 foot separation. This is probably a CYA piece for drug companies. I suffered a serious medical problem following the 2nd Moderna shot and will be on medication for it for the rest of my life. Color me cynical.

And ignore all of those news articles about young athletes suffering cardiac issues, those are conspiracies as well.
8/31/2024 8:58 AM
Anonymous said…
https://www.cdc.gov/covid/hcp/clinical-care/underlying-conditions.html#:~:text=Having%20multiple%20conditions%20was%20also,of%20patients

Covid comorbidities

8/31/2024 12:41 PM
Anonymous said…
So if someone does some research and sees a weak correlation that vaccines could increase heart attacks or strokes would they dare try to publish it. They have retracted close to a hundred Covid studies as "bad science" or misinformation that go against the narrative. Suppose you found something would you dare try and and publish it and risk losing grant money, having your work retracted or being attacked.

Now suppose you do the same study but also see a weak correlation that vaccinations do reduce heart attacks like this study does. Now that you can publish no problem, get more grant money and approval from the blogosphere.

You see the issue now? I looked at this study and it shows a very weak correlation so there are likely many additional variables . I think this it is pretty inconclusive but will get published, Scooby will push on this blog and so on. Now some others studies which is just as inconclusive could see the opposite trend but that will be hushed up as misinformation and the scientists attacked.
8/31/2024 11:33 PM
Anonymous said…
I would take my chances with the vaccines, produced by US companies, rather than a virus (evidently) cooked up in Chinese labs. By the way, mortality is not the whole story for COVID, as you know there is a long COVID syndrome in particular which involves neurological dysfunction and brain damage, on that basis it makes sense to give the vaccine to the entire US population.

By the way the side effects of the vaccines are real, it is just that the benefits outweigh the risks, as noted in the original paper on cardiovascular risks, vaccination led to a net benefit on cardiovascular health at the population level by reducing the chance of reinfection and reducing its severity.
9/01/2024 7:05 AM
Scooby said…
Hello 8/31/2024 11:33 PM,
I do not push anything. I do my best to moderate the blog. If you
have any suggestions, I am all ears.
9/01/2024 7:53 AM
Anonymous said…
Dear 7.53AM I was not talking about this blog I was talking about the actual medical journals. The 7.05 AM poster probably has it right. We have no idea how many effects are from from long Covid vs vaccine side effects. This on top of the fact the risk/benefit analysis probably depends a lot on your age. If you are older the vaccine probably is worth the risk. If you are younger maybe not but there is no tolerance for context when it comes to Covid.




9/01/2024 11:50 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

LLNL un-diversity

By scooby
Actual post from Dec. 15 from one of the streams. This is a real topic. As far as promoting women and minorities even if their qualifications are not as good as the white male scientists, I am all for it. We need diversity at the lab and if that is what it takes, so be it.  Quit your whining. Look around the lab, what do you see? White male geezers. How many African Americans do you see at the lab? Virtually none. LLNL is one of the MOST undiverse places you will see. Face it folks, LLNL is an institution of white male privilege and they don't want to give up their privileged positions. California, a state of majority Hispanics has the "crown jewel" LLNL nestled in the middle of it with very FEW Hispanics at all!
79 comments
Read more