I haven’t been able to trace the preprint publication being referred to, but if the line of argument is anywhere near as shabby as the following then it’s a real piece of work, if you get my meaning.
Sky News: COVID-19: Risk of blood clot after coronavirus is eight times higher than after Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine - study.
Key quote:
Professor Sir John Bell, the university’s regius professor of medicine, told Sky News: “The best way, if you want to have a bad clotting problem, is to get COVID. And if you don’t get a vaccine you’re going to get COVID, and if you get COVID you’ll have a very, very much higher risk of getting a bad clotting problem. So, the clotting problems of the vaccine are pretty trivial compared to the real risks of getting clotting problems if you get COVID.”
Professor Bell is not what I’d call an untarnished source. A Big Pharma Whore might be a more accurate if less polite appellation.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n490
The very fact that he’s a Sir gives the game away: he knows how the big game works and is comfortable playing it.
What a tosspot.
2 Likes
You see a lot of real BS when the scientists are at the door, but rarely is it laid on so thick.
Risk of rare blood clots far higher if you catch Covid than if you take vaccine, study suggests
There’s a lot of this headline!
Isn’t it inane? The risk of blood clots from the vaccine is 1/8th that if you get Covid, it says… ie - if you HAVE Covid. You have to catch it first! And comparing that with the vaccine that you DO have, if you choose to.
Given there will be 2nd shots, tweaks and boosters every 6 months or so, and someone would have less than a 1/8 chance of getting Covid in 6 months they’d then be more likely to get blood clots from the vaccines than from covid wouldn’t they?
It’s the unscrupulous patter of the salesman - to zoom in on the reluctant customer’s stated concern, and try to alleviate it with the best lie - rather than level with the customer, at the risk they retain their concern and your honesty costs you the sale.
1 Like
Thanks @Evvy_dense that’s the line of reasoning I was trying to articulate, but gave up on. Precisely right.
Recently there was this attempt to show relative risks of jab versus no jab for various age groups. This seemingly backed up the view that AZ jab was inadvisable for certain younger people (under 30 if I remember correctly). The problem being that by now everyone is perfectly well aware that catching a cold tends not to be a massive issue for younger people (and broadly speaking for everyone else too) so the balance of risk is almost inevitably going to put the jab in a bad light.
Hence this mutation of the narrative and the narrative of the mutants which, apparently, are way more transmissible by young people.
A desperate sales pitch is exactly what it is.