[jtorsella]

The opposite is true:

  These 444 cases of blood clots are after an estimated 24.9 million first [Astrazeneca] doses, and 24.2 million second doses of the vaccine in the UK. Of the 444 people who developed blood clots, 80 died. Six of these deaths occurred after the second dose.

Source: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga...

  Up to 23 November 2022, there were 554 suspected cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported in the 18 to 29 age group following the vaccine. This is an average rate of 31 reports per million doses.

  In the 30 to 39 age group, there were 470 cases suspected cases of myocarditis or pericarditis reported in the same time period. This is an average rate of 27 reports per million doses.

  Studies looking at myocarditis and pericarditis after the vaccine have not found any increased risk of death or cardiac arrest, compared with being unvaccinated. A large study of 4 million vaccinated people in Denmark, published in the BMJ found there were no deaths or diagnoses of heart failure in people who were diagnosed with myocarditis or pericarditis after being vaccinated.

Source: https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga...

A higher rate of myocarditis in the highest risk groups compared to blood clotting, but there is a more than an order of magnitude difference in the severity of blood clotting vs Myocarditis. In addition, blood clotting from the Astrazeneca Vaccine is thought to be incidental to immune response development, while Myocarditis with all covid vaccines is related to the strength of the immune response and is also a symptom of COVID-19.

[headsoup]

Not necessarily. In the US they weren't even monitoring for them: https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/how-do-you-miss-the-most-...

[shlant]

you should really re-evaluate your ability to determine what is reliable and factual information if you are sharing that link. Blows my mind that so many people who point to VAERS as evidence still have no understanding whatsoever of what VAERS is.

[briandon]

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is jointly-run by the US FDA and CDC established by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (the same legislation that transferred liability for vaccine injuries from drug manufacturers to US taxpayers through federal funding of vaccine injury compensation) and is one of a handful of tools for monitoring vaccine safety.

The greatest concern with regards to VAERS has been underreporting. A HHS-commissioned study (PDF available here: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/electronic-sup...) found, about a decade ago, that "Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of 'problem' drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed."

So, no, VAERS is not some conspiracy theory website and was created at the same time that vaccine manufacturers were relieved of legal liability for injuries and deaths caused by their products. It's a government-run system for identifying vaccine safety signals that, if anything, suffers from underreporting. Any entity or any individual seeking to discredit VAERS with nebulous handwavery in the absence of a workable, running alternative is engaging in extremely dubious, vaccine-safety denialism.

[DiogenesKynikos]

> VAERS is not some conspiracy theory website

Of course it isn't. However, it is raw data, and it takes careful analysis to separate the signal from the noise.

Most of the reported events are not caused by vaccines. VAERS is meant to be used as a tool for identifying possible rare vaccine side-effects. If a pattern emerges in VAERS reports, then there is further study.

As the FDA explains,[0]

> VAERS reports generally cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. Some events may occur coincidentally after the administration of a vaccine while others may in fact be caused by a vaccine. As a result, if a safety signal is found in VAERS, further studies can be conducted in safety systems such as the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), or the Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment (CISA) project. These systems do not have the same limitations as VAERS and can better assess health risks and possible connections between adverse events and a vaccine.

0. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccine-adverse...

[headsoup]

If you read what I linked above, this is specifically what the CDC is failing at (the CDC is responsible for reviewing adverse events).

[headsoup]

What is your point? I don't think you read what I linked at all.