Peter Attia· MD
yesterday j sort of joined um with sort of the news of what we'd seen with the astrazeneca vaccine which was that a number of patients have been having uh venous blood clots
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
yesterday j sort of joined um with sort of the news of what we'd seen with the astrazeneca vaccine which was that a number of patients have been having uh venous blood clots
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
and the rate of death is one per 6.9 million
the rate of serious complication in this case this very serious blood clot is one per one million one hundred fifty thousand
J and J's vaccine which as as of this moment has been given to 6.9 million people in the United States has resulted in six serious clotting episodes all in women interestingly probably not a coincidence but it's too soon to tell — and one of whom has died
if you let's assume just for for the purpose of this discussion that it's roughly one case of this so-called cerebrovascular sinus thrombosis or you know blood clot in a vein of the of the brain um per million people who got this vaccine