I was going to leave it at that, but really I’d like to drive the point home.
The paper I analysed in the previous two posts wasn’t some obscure analysis, never to be read except by a few experts in the field. Rather, the paper was eagerly received by those promoting the vaccination of non-risk groups for covid as evidence that the vaccines were safe and that covid was a higher risk. I can’t prove that the opposite is true, but I am certain that the paper significantly underestimates the vaccine risk for at least some of the conditions they investigated, and that the publicity that the paper got might well have resulted in people receiving vaccination with an erroneous understanding of their safety.
There is a similar paper by the same authors that I hinted at in the previous post. This paper used a similar method self-control method to calculate the relative risks of thromobocytopenia and related conditions for the period after vaccination vs the period after covid infection. Again, it appears to me that there are risks that the 28 day period post-vaccination that they used to calculate the relative risk was too short and some post-vaccination effects corrupted their baseline data. Again, this paper was widely promoted at the time as it suggested that the vaccine risks from thrombocytopenia were very low.
Finally, the thrombocytopenia paper is rather interesting because it shows how many people were hospitalised because of thrombocytopenia (and related conditions) in the 28 days after vaccination between the 1st of December 2020 and the 24th of April 2021 (see table 2). I leave it as an exercise for the reader to compare the totals they found by trawling through hospitalisation records and comparing to the vaccination database, and the indication of thromobocytopenia type side effects that we find in the Yellow Card database for that period (hint — the Yellow Card data for those conditions is rather lower).