re: New BMJ study confirmsCovid-19 vaccine reduces the risk of heart problems & blood clots.

Anyone getting the vaccine was an idiot. No way to sugar coat it, the vaccine kills people. My father-in-law died one week after his second shot from blood clots. Toss that in your worthless fricking study.

THE VACCINE KILLS PEOPLE!!!

Don't believe your lying eyes! Believe this study funded by groups created by the big pharmaceutical companies!

There is little trust in the medical community "research" these days. The fact that medical research is not only funded by, but also controlled by the companies with a financial interest in the results (this is undisputed even in the medical community).

I'm not "anti-vaccine" by any measure. Do I think ALL vaccines available are necessary and worth the associated risks? No. Some vaccines are truly a miracle to mankind (from our perspective that is- who knows what people will think in 100 years).

If you think all vaccines are bad, you are ignorant. If you think all vaccines are good, you are ignorant.

quote:

---

who hasn't left my home in 18 months

---

This is sarcasm right?

Your immune system weakens if you are not around people much and or not exposed to things your body has to fight off.

quote:

---

quote:
So how’d you find this article, champ?


Reading the AMA daily briefs during my morning dump. I then read the actual study in the BMJ. I posted the Hill story because BMJ is behind a firewall.

---

You got any specifics from the actual study that make it believable. The story you posted makes it seem like complete bs.

1. Almost 20 million people about 50/50 for vaccinated. Need a ton more details on this sample. A size that large was probably just an analysis of random data and not something done specifically for the study, so what was the criteria when they were looking at who to include?

2. The story you posted had blanket percentages for all the major vaccines. I'm sure that's an average for all and the actual study breaks it down further. It's a garbage article because for a sample size that large, there is no reason to not be specific when posting the results. It is not quality writing to use an average across the results in scientific writing, unless they didn't even bother to breakdown the results by type. In either case, your source is garbage and it makes it look like the actual source of the study is garbage as well.

quote:

---

The BMJ is a weekly peer-reviewed medical journal, published by BMJ Group, which in turn is wholly-owned by the British Medical Association.

---

I know nothing about The BMJ but it's going to be a hard sell for most knowing this. Kind of like trusting the AMA.

quote:

---

You got any specifics from the actual study that make it believable.

---

They are in the BMJ study that I linked in the OP. I am busy seeing patients in clinic this morning. I went post the important things from the BMJ article during my lunch break or this evening if I have time.

Interesting- I know someone who was in the Covid vax trials and he got blood clots from the vaccine

So, this is very interesting

quote:

---

Breaking news….cigarettes reduce the risk of lung cancer

---

Well, who are you going to believe? Doctors who aren't really scientists in the first place or the world's leading experts at the Tobacco Institute?

quote:

---

Please, refrain from taking this study as motivation to continue pushing the mutation juice to your patients.

---

I don’t push the vaccine on my patients unless they have comorbidities that put them at high risk for serious complications. For my relatively healthy patients I say something like “the CDC recommends a covid vaccine or booster. However, given that you are relatively healthy it’s not a pressing issue for you. If you want it then I recommend going to your pharmacy and getting it because my clinic doesn’t carry it. Do you have any questions about it?” If they say no then I document it accordingly and move on with the visit.

quote:

---

But the medical journals DID print it. And you were skeptical of it. Well, don't be surprised that people are now skeptical of EVERYTHING they do

---

I was skeptical of the mask stuff because the studies were just a review of cases of covid vs timeline of mask mandates with a vague outcome. Those were very poor studies with weak evidence to support their findings. This is a cohort study that including 20 million people and specific outcomes studied. Not as good as a randomized prospective clinical trial but still pretty strong research.