Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
They are CLAIMING that getting the vaxx was helpful to prevent 3 heart problems compared to "getting Covid" without the vaxx.
How did they determine that someone "had Covid?"
Either (a) a fake PCR test, or (b) a fake "clinical diagnosis" (they don't explain what that means).
There is NO EVIDENCE that the health outcomes had anything to do with vaccination. They are merely making CLAIMS that getting the vaxx was helpful -- but the actual numbers DO NOT SHOW THAT.
Overall, it is a mixed bag -- no clear advantage either way, but some of the numbers are REALLY WEIRD.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia
Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
IOW, there is NO EVIDENCE that the coof shot was the CAUSE of this or that. It is merely an association.
Overall, it is a mixed bag -- no clear advantage either way, but some of the numbers are REALLY WEIRD.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia
Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
IOW, there is NO EVIDENCE that the coof shot was the CAUSE of this or that. It is merely an association.
Even so, there does not seem to be much or any value in getting the vaxx, and in fact the unvaxxed actually did slightly better, at least in Spain.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia
Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2024).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases in England, Scotland, Wales, and Spain.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
IOW, there is NO EVIDENCE that the coof shot was the CAUSE of this or that. It is merely an association.
Even so, there does not seem to be much or any value in getting the vaxx, and in fact the unvaxxed actually did slightly better, at least in Spain.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia
Looks like they are lying about what the actual study showed.
I don't have time to really dig into it, but skimming through, this is what I found:
Original ABC article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/covid-vaccines-found-cut-risk-heart-failure-blood/story?id=108256383
In the first paragraph, they link to the study they are writing about, which can be found here:
https://heart.bmj.com/content/heartjnl/early/2024/01/24/heartjnl-2023-323483.full.pdf
Study was published December 2023.
ABC article was written yesterday (March 19, 2023).
The "study" was really just looking up information in government health records databases in England, Scotland, Wales, and Spain.
They looked for people who were vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, and health problems they found.
IOW, there is NO EVIDENCE that the coof shot was the CAUSE of this or that. It is merely an association.
Even so, there does not seem to be much or any value in getting the vaxx, and in fact the unvaxxed actually did slightly better, at least in Spain.
Go to the study, page 4.
"Cardiac Risk Factors and Prevention" is the title. It is a misleading title, since the table is not really about that, but let's continue ...
Across the top are the 4 databases from which they took data.
Along the side are the health problems they were looking at.
VTE = blood clots in veins ATE = blood clots in arteries HF = heart failure (death?)
The numbers in the columns are the total number for that event and (another number, which is how many per 10,000). The number of vaxxed and unvaxxed were not the same, so the (numbers per 10,000) are the way to compare apples to apples.
Cohort 1, CPRD database --
VTE: 2.68 vs. 2.12 ATE: 0.63 vs. 1.27 HF: 1.70 vs. 3.58
So, the vaxxed were slightly better off for VTE, but MUCH WORSE OFF for both ATE and HF.
For the majority of Cohort 1 from that database, the UNVAXXED were better off than the vaxxed.
Notice that for CPRD, Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 all did better (overall) if they were NOT vaxxed than if they were.
Only Cohort 4 is an exception, where the vaxxed did better.
So, what is going on?
Page 3 shows us the Cohort data.
Average ages --
Cohort 1: 80 Cohort 2: 58 Cohort 3: 50 & 51 (M & F) Cohort 4: 34
Number of doctor visits:
Cohort 1: 10 Cohort 2: 8 Cohort 3: 4 & 6 Cohort 4: 2
Co-morbidities: A lot for the older people, almost none for the younger
CORIVA was the second database. It is more of a mixed bag, with unvaxxed and vaxxed doing similar; probably the vaxxed doing a little better overall -- except for Cohort 4.
CORIVA, Cohort 4 (Avg. age 34, with almost no co-morbiities) had SKY HIGH health problems, especially for the UNVAXXED.
First 30 days --
VTE: 7.86 vs. near zero ATE: 7.86 vs. 4.50 HF: 24.67 vs. 7.64
WTF???
34-year old people, with no co-morbidities, suddently having heart failure at 25 per 10,000 -- unvaxxed?
Also, VTE & ATE numbers for them was identical, which seems unlikely.
Even after 6 months, those numbers are SKY HIGH.
What gives?
Well, read the fine print on page 2. This dataset is from ... Estonia.
Is there something weird going on in Estonia, or at least with their health records?
Are they counting "unvaccinated" differently that the others? Does "unvaccinated" mean "less than the full 3 shots" in Estonia?
Why do 34-year old Estonians have a sky high heart failure rate?
If we add the 4 timeframes (< 30 days, 30-90, 90-180, 180-365) the 34-year olds in Estonia -- UNVAXXED -- had 1,049 heart failures out of a total of 147,545 in the dataset.
Does that sound remotely realistic?
Did they get a vaxx and die, but it counted as "unvaccinated" due to not having all 3 shots?
I don't know, but these numbers do not seem legit. Especially since the "vaccinated" the same Cohort in Estonia had only 64 heart failures out of 22,245.
Is this why Estonia was included in this so-called "study?"
Check out the SIDIAP database records, which is from Spain.
Health problems are way higher for vaxxed than unvaxxed in Cohorts 1 & 2.
About the same in Cohort 3, but once again higher for the unvaxxed than the vaxxed in Cohort 4.
The paper says its "Key Finding" was:
Our analyses showed a substantial reduction of risk (45–81%) for thromboembolic and cardiac events in the acute phase [first 30 days] of COVID-19 associated with vaccination. (Page 7)
This is the statement that ABC "News" ran with, but it is not true.
In most of the Cohorts for Britain, the opposite was true (unvaxxed better than vaxxed). Only Cohort 4 (younger people) had these results, and nothing explains why that would be.
In Spain, the older people had fewer problems if they were unvaxxed.
Across the board, the younger people had more problems if they were NOT vaxxed, but older people were better off not vaxxed -- except for Estonia, which has sky high numbers for unvaxxed, but not "vaccinated."
There is likely A LOT of fuckery in how they defined various terms, and some of that might be in the paper.
I don't have time to sort through it all, though.
Anyone else wanna give it a shot?
We don't know WHY so many younger people had HEART FAILURE (vaxxed or unvaxxed), but I would bet that the answer is in the definitions, which might not even be disclosed in this paper -- they might be hidden in the government health stats databases.
Estonia website, stating that at least 2 shots are required, and a 3rd is advisable:
https://kriis.ee/en/sickness-health-vaccinations/vaccines-and-vaccinations/vaccination-estonia