Quote:
Originally Posted by mtdjed
I was referring to the fact that the signal that came from a study of a sample of 550,000 persons over 65 of which 130 had a stroke within 21 days of getting the booster shot. That quantity seemed to trigger an adverse effect signal. They go on to say they used the same data and analyzed with a different methodology and could not duplicate the results.
I realize that they could have used more detailed analysis such as a closer look at the age distribution etc , but if the number 130 out of 550,000 within 21 days sets off a trigger, it would seem that a better explanation would be more convincing. What would be the normal expectation of that type of stroke in a population and age of this type? Seemingly, they infer that the grouping of those strokes was within 21 days of the start date, and then perhaps not an issue. How does different methodology yield different results and why does that mitigate the initial trigger?
I was hoping not to trigger any arguments and harsh comment regarding other data offered. I think it is fair to offer other data without citing sources but my subject is the cited adverse trigger event data.
I realize that samples from other sources don't replicate the results of concern but get concerned when I see CDC stating that the analysis of subject data can't be replicated.
|
The government reports that out of 350,000,000 (350 million) people in the US, there are about 600,000 first-time strokes per year. That's one(1) stroke for every 583 people per year.
So, for 550,000 people, 943 would have a stroke in a year's time. That's 18.8 strokes per week or 56 strokes in 3 weeks.
The issue then is that 130 strokes in 3 weeks is several multiples of the 56 expected in that time frame using the historical data as a predictor. By my math, a person is 2.32 (130/56) times more likely to have a stroke in the 3-week window after taking the booster.