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. 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.

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

> The possible risks of these vaccines are not being ignored

At this point a couple years later, I wonder if continuation of the emergency use authorization can really be justified, or if it continues because it allows the medical establishment to not be liable for realized risks.

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 In fact, several treatments that were granted emergency use authorization have been revoked [1], because on the balance, they were not effective enough to justify the authorization.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#Us...

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-diseas...

As I understand, Pfizer got Comirnaty approved, but virtually no one has been administered Comirnaty still.

FDA continues to re-issue EUA, first issued under Trump, which shields liability and allows use without studies of effectiveness.

Scroll down this URL and read some of the EUAs. 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"

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.

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.

There is no data that I've seen that shows blood clots for vaccinated vs covid vs unvaccinated. Everyone keeps saying there's full transparency while not linking a single source. It's quite paradoxical.

If all this data is so well connected, how come my heamtologist has no clue about this? He is a pretty senior doctor.

If data is being collected, how come my doctor didn't report this potentially adverse event?

If people are being careful about this, why did the doctor outright reject any connection between vaccination and clots, even if they happened next to each other. How is that scientific if you reject observations that don't meet your theories.

I'll believe it when I see an actual study or data on this topic. The lack of transparency around vaccinated cohorts is very evident.

If you disagree strongly, I'd love for you to link me to anything. Just saying "trust me" isn't very scientific.

Just to be clear, did you or did you not have COVID-19 prior to getting your blood clots? Not for the convenience of argument, but in reality.

It sounds like you’re requesting a study that nobody will conduct. Conducting a vaccinated vs. unvaccinated cohort study on blood clots before VAERS identifies blood clots as a statistically significant potential adverse effect is like conducting a study on why it’s raining when there’s not a cloud in the sky. VAERS identified ischemic stroke as a potential risk for those over 65. That was ultimately rejected as a risk by subsequent study(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/bi...). The effect of getting COVID-19 on the same cohort is well established. You can’t Google “ischemic stroke covid” without running into a handful of studies.

If you are unable to see VAERS and the early warning apparatus for what it is, nothing will help you.

And no, nobody is publishing raw data for underpowered minds to wildly misinterpret and recast into a HIPAA violating database match.

You keep referring to things as “not scientific” but it’s you. If anyone here is saying “trust me bro” it’s the guy pitting his anecdote against millions of reports into VAERS, a body of data which contradicts the notion that clotting is even in the ballpark.

You also mention there's a massive body of evidence in this regard. Where is it? I'm genuinely curious as I've wanted to dig into it.