Anders Hviid
@anders_hviid
Followers
1,578
Following
472
Media
152
Statuses
900
Head of Epidemiology Research ( @SSI_AEF ) at @SSI_dk & Prof. of PharmacoEpi at @UCPH_health 🇩🇰. Views my own. Academic interests: 💉🦠🧠🫀🤖💊
Copenhagen
Joined September 2018
Don't wanna be here?
Send us removal request.
Explore trending content on Musk Viewer
#Mchoice2024
• 1834169 Tweets
#บัสซิ่งไทยแลนด์FinalEP
• 219712 Tweets
Texas -6.5
• 186576 Tweets
MCHOICE X ML
• 126915 Tweets
#Venue101
• 100171 Tweets
#liSTeningPARTY
• 94238 Tweets
#SixTONESANN
• 84702 Tweets
TOP ELITE ARTIST V
• 43087 Tweets
#ZMZMINZM
• 33589 Tweets
リスアニ
• 27449 Tweets
ROCKSTA SA CALAMBA
• 26718 Tweets
デスゲーム
• 19387 Tweets
紫耀くん
• 16492 Tweets
Hysteria
• 14384 Tweets
Lee Carsley
• 11772 Tweets
Wayne Rooney
• 11115 Tweets
アクキヨ
• 10841 Tweets
カンスト
• 10724 Tweets
ビーフシチュー
• 10558 Tweets
#LEO_HBD_26th
• 10253 Tweets
#HAPPYLEODAY_2024
• 10068 Tweets
Last Seen Profiles
I have been added to this list for conducting a study which did not produce the wanted results.
People can bitch and moan, but that is how science works. If you do not like it, show me a better study, or even better, conduct one yourself.
61
44
379
🚨New study out!🚨
Does SARS-CoV-2 infection weaken the immune system? No, not to the extent that it increases the risk of non-C19-ID-hosp.
🔵2.4 mil. 50-yr-olds+
🔵Jan 1 ´21 - Dec 12 ´22 🇩🇰
🔵930071 infected
🔵Any non-C19-ID-hosp. IRR = 0.90 (0.88-0.92)
🧵
42
116
354
Our new study out looking at the concern that HPV vaccination reduces fertility through primary ovarian insufficiency. We found no support for an association.
In a large nationwide cohort of 996,300 Danish-born females, there was no association between HPV vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency.
@anders_hviid
0
20
79
7
90
354
🚨🚨PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT 🚨🚨
Our recent study on myocarditis () is a prognostic study of myocarditis patients. It is NOT a study designed to compare excess risks of myocarditis following vax vs inf. Please interpret responsibly.
22
72
294
@Debunk_the_Funk
@TheChiefNerd
The myocarditis/pericarditis associations have been described already. The association between the first Moderna dose and ADEM, if causal, corresponds to 1 case in 1.75 million vaccinated. Extremely rare and only possible to detect because of the huge size of the study.
16
38
266
@Debunk_the_Funk
@TheChiefNerd
Yes, they have been very effective in preventing severe disease. The few serious side effects observed in this and other studies have been rare. The new signals appear to be related to the first shots and should not deter any of the target groups for seasonal Covid-19 vax.
38
44
265
Last week we published three papers on C19 vax effectiveness and safety in
@BMJ_latest
based on 🇩🇰🇫🇮🇳🇴🇸🇪 data. What can we learn from these results with respect to future strategies?
🧵1/n
13
85
223
Our new 🇩🇰nationwide study, published in
@DiabetesCare
, adds to the ongoing debate on whether SARS-CoV-2 infection in children increases the risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Key finding: NO increased risk observed. 🧵1/3
15
75
213
Deja-vu? Are we talking about this again.🤨 Let me clap it out: There👏is👏no👏link👏between👏MMR👏and👏autism👏
Andrew Wakefield Confronts Twitter “Fact-check” Smears and the Infamous Lancet Paper
The Lancet alleged Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 paper concluded MMR vaccines cause autism.
“So not only did I not say that, but we said actually quite the opposite,” responded Wakefield. The paper
115
910
2K
100
51
200
By now 13.3 billion doses have been administered globally in a short time-frame to almost all age-groups. Every disease under the sun, can and will occur by chance among someone who is vaccinated, and can thus be reported to pharmacovigilance systems.
🧵1/n
While the Biden administration and Big Pharma continue to blindly push mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, Florida remains dedicated to responding to public health concerns guided by data and common sense.
489
4K
15K
9
25
190
A fourth dose did provide significant additional protection against severe outcomes in 50+ yr olds, even in highly vaccinated populations with previous infections. This supports a seasonal strategy in high-risk groups for the foreseeable future.
🧵3/n
23
36
151
Hurra, hurra🥳🍾🎉 Resultatet af den danske coronastrategi var få dødsfald.
Vanvittigt var det. Dyrt var det også.
Nu viser nye tal, at 450 danskere under 70 år døde af corona:
239
39
503
82
10
147
🚨Our new study out in
@aap_peds
🚨 High protection against C19-hosp. in 12-17-yr-olds from 💉
🇩🇰🇫🇮🇳🇴🇸🇪
🔵½ mil. vaccinated matched 1:1
🔵May 28, 2021, to April 30, 2023
🔵6-12 months of follow-up
🔵VE, 73-86% against 🛏️
🔵Severe C19 was rare in 12-17-yr-olds
🧵
32
61
153
Why are you quoting this misleading tweet. Its a time-to-event analysis. The mortality rates in the groups are similar. He is mis-reading table 1.
I wanted to write a thread on this too, but others have already said this. If your study shows post-COVID risk of hospitalisation from other infections is *lower* than those who aren't infected (no plausible explanation for this)- odds are that your groups aren't comparable.
14
88
457
8
13
119
This is probably a good time to ask🙂Any good tools out there for automated blocking?
I just challenged
@anders_hviid
and his co-authors to a debate on whether vaccines cause autism. I'm putting up the $25,000 prize money. Panel of neutral judges mutually agreed upon. I predict they will decline to defend their scientific work.
68
104
390
76
5
108
🟠You seem to have left out Sup Fig 6 which shows that the result is not robust towards changes in the main risk period. E.g. a main risk period of 18-weeks yields a RR of 0.82 (0.48-1.39).
🟠The Florida study was rubbish, which is also acknowledged in the 🏴Nat Com study.
🏴New self-controlled case series of 12-29 yos in England w/findings not inconsistent w/
@FLSurgeonGen
's study, this finding a 70%⬆️d incidence of cardiac death post dose 2 mRNA vaccine in 12-29 yo males, however it wasn't significant (1.70 [0.98, 2.97])🧵
49
70
219
9
21
100
Residual DNA in vaccine production is not a new phenomenon and neither are the concerns of oncogenicity and infectivity. For people who want to read peer-reviewed litterature on the subject, the link below has some good starting points.🧵
19
28
100
Its one of the big mysteries of the pandemic that these methodologically weak studies have been and are being published in top journals.
Another big study on
#LongCOVID
out. It's being reported as showing that Long COVID is really bad, even two years after the initial infection
I'm not so sure that's true 1/n
91
121
362
5
18
97
📢 Results: We found no robust associations between pre-specififed "hot lots" and serious adverse events.
💡 Conclusion: Our study provides strong evidence against the "hot lot" theory, reinforcing the safety of the BNT162b2 vaccine across different batches. 🙌
🧵
8
9
92
Bivalent boosters were safe with respect to 27 adverse events. Importantly, there was no support for a cerebrovascular infarction association - a previous signal from the US.
🧵4/n
3
9
86
🚨It is a time-to-event analysis of the complete 🇩🇰 population 50+ - there is no selection by design.
🚨You cannot interpret table 1 in that way.
🚨We control for variables in table 1+do strat./supp. analyses (30 pg worth) - read again.
TLDR = it's solid
There's a new study claiming no increased risk of new any type infection after covid infection. I don't have a strong opinion on either side of this argument at this point. Let's take an objective look at what this study actually shows (TLDR, it's poor):
16
135
515
6
11
84
🔥EFTER-COVID is on fire🔥 2nd study out within a week!
Impact of Omicron & booster💉on long-covid.
👉16,261 Omicron-, 9,868 Delta cases and 18,424 controls
👉Omicron reduced risk of LC vs Delta
👉Booster 💉reduced risk of LC
Out in
@AmJEpi
🧵1/2
10
22
79
Jo, vaccinerne er undersøgt grundigt. Debat om covid-19 vaccinerne i
@politiken
med
@StabellBenn
. Sjælden mulighed for at komme til orde som forsker i dagspressen i langt format. Tak til
@IgumRasmussen
for at tage initiativ til dette.🧵
37
4
76
A huge amount of work has gone into these studies! In particularly
@nw_andersson
and Emilia Myrup Thiesson have done a lot of the heavy lifting. Also thanks to our 🇳🇴🇫🇮🇸🇪 colleagues and to
@EMA_News
for sponsoring two of the studies.
@SSI_dk
@SSI_AEF
5
3
76
To suggest that public health- and regulatory authorities have been dismissive about c19 vaccine safety concerns is blatantly FALSE. People have worked tirelessly to monitor the safety of the c19-vaccines since their wide global roll-out in late 2020. 🧵
5
20
75
Maybe for the best🙂 I wasnt following the guy, but the algorithm kept putting his tweets in my feed?! A lot of tantrums.
16
6
74
🧐 We conducted a nationwide cohort study in Denmark, examining the safety of different batches of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.
We evaluated 27 serious adverse events, 2 negative control outcomes, and all-cause mortality within 28 days post-vaccination in two studies.
🧵
7
9
74
🚨New study out in
@GreenJournal
!🚨
Covid-19 & post-acute psychiatric- and neurological conditions
🔵3.2 mil. 🇩🇰
🔵1.8 mil infected
🔵11 psychiatric and 30 neurological outcomes
🔵No increase in psych. 1-12 mo. post inf.
🔵Slight increase - 5% - in neuro.
@SSI_dk
@SSI_AEF
🧵
6
24
71
🚨New study out in
@JAMA_current
🚨 from
@SSI_dk
@SSI_AEF
@nw_andersson
🔵XBB.1.5 safety study
🔵1 mil. 🇩🇰 65+-yr-olds
🔵Sep 2022 - Jan 2024
🔵28 adverse events of special interest
🧵
7
25
70
No association between batch size and safety in new analysis from
@LMSTdk
Early batches had more reports due to increased awareness and since they were given to health-care personel and high-risk elderly.
The largest rate was observed with AZ and not the mRNA vaccines.
7
16
70
@TracyBethHoeg
@anish_koka
@a_husby
But that is not what we have done?! Our primary reference grp is conv. myo. Comparing vaxmyo vs c19myo directly, we restrict to "individuals aged 12-39 years, with no predisposing comorbidities".
3
11
68
Mixing types of vaccines do not appear to reduce effectiveness. This is good news. Going forward mixed schedules will be unavoidable.
🧵2/n
1
6
68
Der har aldrig været mere data på én vaccine. Der er aldrig blevet forsket mere i en vaccines effekter. Og de 🇩🇰 myndigheder har været transparente hele vejen igennem.
Tillid til vacciner skabes med data og ærlighed.
Det halter med begge dele for COVID-19 vaccinerne: Det er blevet forsømt at skaffe gode data på den samlede sundhedseffekt, og det går for langsomt med at fortælle om vaccinernes mindre positive sider.
39
51
377
36
2
62
This does not imply causality and there is no comparable situation with respect to other vaccinations for comparison. At best these reports can provide a safety signal for further evaluation. The safety of the C19 vaccines have been scrutinised extensively. 🧵2/n
1
4
64
And we will continue to scrutinise the safety of the C19 vaccines. This is best done in large observational studies and not by misrepresenting adverse event reports. 🧵3/3
2
5
63
It has been suggested that non-live vaccines increase risk of non-targeted infections in females. The HPV vaccine is a non-live vaccine most commonly administered in young females. Fortunatly, we did not observe a deleterious effect in Danish females.
🆕📃Claims that vaccines weaken immunity against non-targeted infections spread needless worry. A nationwide Danish study by
@anders_hviid
&co
@SSI_dk
shows no evidence that quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination increases risk of infections.
👇
0
4
10
4
7
58
Thank you for the kind words. Its a time-to-event analysis in the complete 🇩🇰 pop.
There is 3.4 mil vs 600,000 person-years of follow-up in the uninfected vs infected groups + the uninf are 5 years older.
Its a pretty decent study.
The study is majorly flawed. 5 times risk of death in the *uninfected* in a study of millions of people is *ridiculous*
It also could not repeat other findings. Again, it has low sensitivity, reliability, and extrapolatability.
It's a bad study
20
89
548
8
7
57
🚨New study🚨 on the impact of variant and 💉 on the symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 🇩🇰.
🔵130,202 infections
🔵September 1, 2021 to March 16, 2022
🔵Across variants, 💉individuals reported fewer symptoms.
Great work by collegaues at
@SSI_dk
@SSI_AEF
@SteenEtTo
Link below
6
16
55
"In conclusion, the evidence presented in the study is not sufficient to indicate that there is a safety signal and that it is batch-dependent as the authors conclude given the lack of information and the targeting of each batch."
Viral vaccine paper, Dr Vibeke Manniche via
@YouTube
Great discussion with Dr Manniche on her latest paper. She asks the obvious questions and gets surprising, if disconcerting answers.
43
213
635
8
12
53
Not exactly🙂
🔵There is little support for associations between the majority of infections (asym/mild) and hard clinical endpoints such as CVD and autoimmune disease.
🔵Studies such as the VA studies, have limited external validity and questionable internal validity
🧵
So
@anders_hviid
is too polite to say it, but I’m not: this is the second huge study in a month to suggest long Covid doesn’t exist (at least for anyone who wasn’t hospitalized/intubated with Covid)
Naturally the Covidians are freaking out
30
146
578
3
10
55
🟢The authors behind the "Danish paper" only had access to data on when batches were shipped from
@SSI_dk
🟢 They compare batches without taking into account different lengths of follow-up for reporting SAEs - small batches with 1-yr of follow-up vs big batches with 1-wk
The batch adverse event claims in the “Danish Paper” were bad enough, but Dr John Campbell has added a new level of ridiculousness to them. Cindy and I set the record straight:
271
62
325
6
11
50
@BGLTHMND
@5267w
@KStateTurk
@Tiffany72291719
@FreedomSpartan
@mcfunny
@TeddyFreddy11
@Paulwady
@EDalmayne
@cappsie
@Rosewind2007
@gooner62
@ianfmusgrave
@krebiozen
@doritmi
@latimeralder
@kfunk937
@jkellyca
@immunotoxPhD
@TandT_SEO
@LesleyStock5
@ChristRescues
@GeoffSchuler
@crabb_vicki
@JaneEOpie
@Death_is_final
@FrankDElia7
@TheFrankmanMN
@weaponizedword1
@LynnleeMavakay
@ChrisJohnsonMD
@qtbeauty
@drewawerd1
@natedoromal
@chaoticsx2
@Monstercoyliar
@djrazorgirl
@KatLaRue7
@TruthTwt
@microRNApro
@LaLaRueFrench75
@WendyOrent
@kidoctr
@TinFoilAwards
@anniecherokee
@AuriaZepherine
@Flying_Shadowz
@LightControl2
@Takethatdoctors
@Caffeine_Sam
Not correct. If the probability of being diagnosed with autism during childhood was greater in vaccinated vs unvaccinated, the hazard ratio obtained from a follow-up study in childhood such as ours would be increased. It was not.
19
16
55
Our results support that hybrid > vax alone during big Omicron wave. I think the most relevant question would be "I have had covid, should I get a booster?". People who got the booster despite having had covid, benefitted. Our study:
🧵
Looking at these 2 studies, I wonder what *good* evidence we have to suggest vax provides sig addt'l benefit to those who have nat immunity
L:"hybrid" vs "natural" immunity against infection
R: "h" vs "n" against hospitalization
7
91
284
5
5
50
🚨MISINFORMATION 🚨
* The batch volumes are SHIPPED vax and NOT administered vax
* The small batches were from start of the vax roll-out given to risk groups with enhanced saf. surv.
* The batches with ZERO reports have not been used.
12
13
48
Denmark's high test rates per capita (90% of all Danish children tested) & use of national health registries provided a robust dataset. Study also analyzed SARS-CoV-2 variant predominance, revealing no specific patterns affecting risk. 🧵3/3
1
8
48
I wonder how much money you make on a book titled "Vaccines: Truth, Lies, and Controversy". Sad to see former Cochrane heavy-weight shill to get food on the table. ☹️ There is absolutely nothing to suggest that infant vax is associated with infant mortality in🇩🇰
Studies show a positive correlation between vaccine doses and infant mortality . This needs further study. Aaby’s studies have shown that some inactivated vaccines increase mortality and that the vaccine sequence influences mortality
7
67
170
6
8
48
Oh boy, a podcast on observational studies.....however, the claims of 90% and 75% of c19-hosp and mort being incidental is FALSE and since they are being repeated again and again, I have some comments. 🧵1/n
3
5
45
The bottom-line is that there was nothing to suggest that the vast majority of infected in the Danish 50-yrs-+ population suffered immunosupression resulting in non-C19-ID-hosp. in the post-acute period.
Great work by
@nw_andersson
and colleagues at
@SSI_dk
@SSI_AEF
3
7
47
🚨New study out 🚨 in
@NatureComms
What was the impact of Covid-19 on post-acute sick leave in 🇩🇰?
🔵88,818 participants (51,336 pcr+, 37,482 pcr-)
🔵Index/alpha period
🔵study outcome = 1 mo.+ of sick leave 1-9 mo. after infection
🧵
7
17
46
Vores nye EFTER-COVID studie: 🚨Væsentligt sygefravær i lang tid efter infektion.🚨
🟢37,482 smittede, 44 år, 61% K
🟢4.5 smittede per 100 oplevede væsentligt sygefravær (3.3 mere end forventet)
🟢0.8 per 100 oplevede meget langvarigt sygefravær (0.5 mere end forventet).
🧵
21
12
43
Immortal time bias introduced by design (imputing date of test-pos. in exposed) in the recent paxlovid RWE study:
Including only participants with a known test.pos. date the result for aOR for all-cause hosp is 0·68 (0·42–1·07).
1/n
1
6
42
Jeg vil postulere,
🟠myndighederne tager bivirkninger alvorligt!
🟠 at sundhedsvæsenet ikke har rystet på hånden i forbindelse med de sikkerhedssignaler der har været for C19💉
🟠at der er mindre berøringsangst med kommunikation omkring bivirkninger nu end før C19💉
Jeg er bange for, at læger og myndigheder ikke tager bivirkninger til vacciner alvorligt nok, og at folk med reelle skader ikke får hjælp. Det er opskriften på mistillid, og det vil forhindre os i at lave den nødvendige forskning. Læs mere her.
34
50
372
32
4
43
Our new study on the safety of covid-19 vaccination with respect to self-reported physical, mental health and cognitive symptoms out now as a preprint in
@SSRN
:
🧵1/7
22
10
41
Join us at
@SSI_dk
for a long covid workshop (in 🇩🇰 ) March 14. What do we know about long covid, and what do we not know. Both the clinical and the public health perspective will be covered.
11
6
39
Our study contradicts some earlier reports from the CDC, another 🇺🇸 study, and a 🇳🇴study, all of which suggested an increased risk. Instead, it aligns with a 🏴 study showing no association. 🧵2/3
Link:
3
11
40
🚨It makes no sense to compare large shipped batches which have not been administered or have no follow-up for adverse events to small batches which have been administered, have ~1 yr of follow-up and were under enhanced surveillance. Links to now two letters of concern below.🧵
"a very small part of the batches, actually only 4.2% of the batches were related to 71% of the reported side effects" I speak to Dr
@MannicheVibeke
about her paper on bad batches.
This you must listen to - out tomorrow
18
191
354
9
7
40
Should we compare risks of vax-myo and c19-myo directly? Probably not. Some thoughts🧵:
1) Vax-myo has better prognosis. It is an 🍏vs 🍊comparison.
1/n
14
14
40
@PeterSweden7
How convenient and scientific that you are able to guestimate the denominators from your own personal experiences with C19 to distort our results🙄
The point of our study is that vax myo does not carry the same risk of HF and death as other types of myo.
2
1
40
"...we found that people using social media as the main source of information are much more vaccine hesitant compared to people who use classical media sources (TV, Press and Radio) especially because of conspiracy beliefs (COVID risk is exaggerated and/or COVID does not exist)"
Trust and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy
1
3
7
31
6
38
7
3
40
Reassuringly, there were no increased risks of hospitalisation in the period from day 29 after being infected for the first time with SARS-CoV-2 (positive PCR).🧵
5
3
39
We looked at URTIs, LRTIs, Influenza, gastrointestinal infections, skin infections, UTIs, invasive bacterial disease etc. 🧵
1
5
38
We estimate that 2.0 (95% CI 0.5–5.0) and 0.9 (0.5–1.3) per 100,000 12-to-39-year-old males will experience myocarditis hospitalization within 28 days of MOD and BNT booster vaccination, respectively.
3
8
36
New 🇩🇰study: Substantial sick-leave in the c19 post-acute period!
🟠37,482 infected, 44 yrs old, 61% F with control grp.
🟠 4.5 per 100 w substantial sick-leave (3.3 more than expected)
🟠0.8 per 100 w longterm sick-leave (0.5 more than expected).🧵
4
10
36
The majority of participants would have been vaccinated during the study period, but among those who were unvaccinated when infected, we did observe a tendency for higher post-acute risk than for booster vax breakthrough. 🧵
5
4
36
"COVID-19-senfølger vil påvirke samfundet fremover, både i form af sygdomsbyrde og livskvalitet for de enkelte, men også økonomisk i form af udgifter til behandling, sygefravær og eventuelt pension."
19
6
35
Big thanks to my Nordic colleagues! Feels like ages ago that we submitted the paper🙂LINK:
4
4
34
But currently, on a week to week basis, incidental c19-mortality is low in relation to mortality due to c19.
@TracyBethHoeg
please🙏 do not make claims about Nordic c-19 surveillance that you cannot document or have misinterpreted.
🧵4/4
1
0
31
Det har vi set på i 🇩🇰 data. Vi observerede intet bekymrende.
En forskel på 🇩🇰 og 🇺🇸 er at vi ikke har anvendt de samme influenza vacciner. Amerikanerne har eks. brugt en del højdosis.
Jeg er interesseret i, om
@SSTSundhed
har overvejet, at 1) det kan være forbundet med øget risiko for stroke at få COVID-19 og influenza vaccine samtidigt og 2) der ikke er data, der viser klinisk gavn af COVID-19 vaccine, når man først har haft COVID-19.
40
70
349
13
4
32
I am getting a super-villain team hideout vibe here🙂. And is DeSantis saying mNRA? But seriously, this was not a scientific discussion. This had undertones of agitprop.
9
8
31
LINK:
4
6
31
Denmark had extensive testing in the study period, but some misclassification of uninfected follow-up is likely from people without PCR verified infection. We believe this bias is minor, since it will primarily be present in the period post 1. omicron wave.🧵
3
2
30
If we had only discovered the effectiveness of ivermectin early in the pandemic we would have had no need for vaccines.😂Dont worry, I did not watch the entire 3hr30m. I only spot checked.
5
3
28
Nice overview of our 3 🇩🇰🇫🇮🇳🇴🇸🇪studies on C19💉booster effectiveness and safety this week in
@bmj_latest
@nw_andersson
Newly published studies show that mRNA covid-19 boosters, including those updated against newer variants, are effective and safe in protecting older adults from severe covid-19.
But what does that mean for healthcare providers and patients?
7
13
17
4
6
29
24 mo. follow-up of 165 🇸🇪 patients (index var. infected) w post covid condition at 4 mo.
Improvement BUT
👉 84% persisting problems
👉 cognitive, sensorimotor and fatigue issues persisting
👉 40% on sick leave at 4 mo. still on sick leave at 24 mo.
3
10
30
Mini reviews of key vaccine safety concerns including one on residual DNA in vaccines :
4
8
28
@DGBassani
It is indiviual-level survival times (time to event) that are aggregated according to covariates. This yields counts and person-years that are analysed w. Poisson reg. Table 1 that you refered to does not have pyrs.
1
1
30
🚨New study out🚨 from the Global Covid Vaccine Safety project on background rates.
🇩🇰🏴🇫🇮🇫🇷🏴🇹🇼🇦🇷🇦🇺🇨🇦
197 million participants!
1.2 billion person-years of follow-up!
Variability between sites and periods is important to consider!
@SSI_AEF
@SSI_AEF
@PetousisH
🧵
2
10
29
Our new study on long covid following infection with omicron out now as a preprint🔥🔥🔥
🧵1/12
3
9
28
Our first EFTER-COVID study finally peer-reviewed (previously out as pre-print) and published in
@NatureComms
1/2
10
7
29
The small and early batches has the largest rates of reports because they were given to the frail and the reporting obligations were more comprehensive at the start of the roll-out🙄
Early batches given to the most frail and health and care workers may have had fewest reports.
Illness in the most frail would be likely to be attributed to their frailty.
Health and care workers are well and unlikely to have a coincidence.
1
10
136
5
4
28
FUSK eller inkompetence?
🚨De har IKKE info på givne💉som de skriver i deres letter
🚨Tallene i figuren er helt hen i vejret i forhold til de tal der er angivet i teksten
Der er tale om vildledning.
10
3
25
Two studies of paxlovid and "long covid" (diagnoses/death 30-180 days post infection) using VA data. Different results - 🤨What are the key differences? 🧵
🟠Target trial emulation vs weighting
🟠 Jan-Feb '22 vs Jan-Dec '22
🟠1587 exp vs 35717 exp
H/T:
@walidgellad
2
5
28
As human beings we are inherently bad at properly weighing risks. We tend to magnify the risks of a preventative vaccine, but ignore e.g. the risks associated with riding a bicycle without a helmet. This will be magnified if people are constantly bombarded by spurious claims.🔚
3
2
27
Luftboblerne der blev observeret i enkelte vaccineoptræk var ikke farlige. Skyldtes ændringer i tryk og temperatur.
3
2
26
Large direct 🇩🇰comparison of 28-day risk of thromboembolisms and ischemic events between vax and c19-inf. Striking differences in favour of 💉
Risk of incident thromboembolic and ischemic events ❤️🩹 was higher during or after SARS-CoV-2 infection 🦠relative to receiving the first dose of an mRNA-based 💉 vaccine in a nationwide cohort study including 3.6mio 🧍♀️🧍out now in
@CircAHA
link in tweet 👇
@CIRL_DK
@TorBiering
8
17
31
0
6
25
C19-hosp in 🇩🇰. Green = purely incidental. No way is that 90% currently. At best 30-35%.
🧵2/n
1
0
25
RCT preprint out on metformin and long covid. Metformin treatment during the acute phase of c19-inf was associated with 42% fewer lc diagnoses.
🟠median BMI=30, 45 yrs, 56% f
🟠same trial -> metformin associated with 42% fewer severe acute c19 outcomes
3
6
26
Comparing 34,868 primary course vaccinated individuals to 1,568 unvaccinated individuals, we find no support for adverse associations between covid-19 vaccination and long-term physical, mental health and cognitive symptoms.
5/7
5
6
26
Some people are calling for vax RCTs powered to detect diffs in all-cause mort. OK. Lets calculate. In the Dec 2020 NEJM pub on BNT162b2 there were 2 and 4 all-cause deaths in vax arm and placebo arm. Each arm ~21,000 (i.e. risks of 0.01% and 0.02%). 🧵
4
5
24
C19-mort in 🇩🇰(modelled since certificates not available in real-time). Orange = incidental. No way is that 75% currently. Yes, a review of death certificates were conducted after the big omicron wave. Yes, incidental c19 was significant as reflected by the orange area.
🧵3/n
1
1
23
🔵No increased rates of hospital contacts within 28-days of 💉 for any outcomes
🔵Ischemic cardiac event RR, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.87-1.07) 🔵Cerebral infarction RR, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79- 0.96) for 🔵Myocarditis RR, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.14-2.66)
🧵
2
1
22
We evaluated the risk of myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 mRNA booster vaccination in 12-to-39-year-olds in 🇩🇰🇫🇮🇳🇴🇸🇪 :
🔵Cohorts of 8.9 mil. individuals combined
🔵12.3 mil. person-years of follow-up
🔵 1533 incident cases of myocarditis (270 females, 18%).
🧵
3
5
23