All such effects might have been caused by the fact that vaccinated people behaved differently after receiving vaccination because they thought they were completely protected. So they exposed themselves to covid more. So they might have higher chance of having asymptomatic covid, esp. since vaccine might have reduced the symptoms to the level of common cold that didn't raise suspicion enough to even consider getting tested.
So the vaccinated population in any such research might have higher exposure rates to sars-cov-2 than unvaccinated. Especially to earlier, more harmful strains. And since we know that even asymptomatic covid can have rare severe long term harmful effects on human body it's entirely possible that vaccination harmed us not through some biological mechanism but by making us more foolhardy and lockdown and mask less.
Remember that some people lost their jobs, freedoms and relationships for rejecting this vaccine.
I do wonder how many unknown side effects less researched vaccines have! And at this point, there is probably a huge research gap between the covid vaccines and all other vaccines.
PS: I am not an anti vaxxer. I paid 500€ to get the damn HPV vaccines and next week I am gonna get my second meningococcal vaccination (one of the most painful vaccinations), because it also provides limited protection against gonorrhea and I want to minimize the chance of me having to take fluoroquinolone antibiotics again despite being sex addicted. Everyone should do their own risk assessment.
Another discussion points out some apparent issues: https://old.reddit.com/r/COVID19/comments/138330i/risk_asses...
> The vaccinated group were older (52.6) and generally unhealthier. They had an average of 1.27 comorbidities per person and were taking 1.31 medications per person.
> The unvaccinated group was younger (46.7) and had an average of 0.48 comorbidities per person and were taking 0.6 medications per person.
> 15.2% vaccinated had T1DM vs 5.5% unvaccinated.
Paper summary: risk of blindness from blood clots more than doubled amongst people who took the vaccines, with a particularly sharp effect for AstraZeneca. Most risk concentrated in the first two weeks, rest spread out over the first twelve.
Paper assessment: not bad work overall. The usual problems such papers acquire in the process of getting past the gatekeepers are present, as expected, but can be ignored when you know what to look for.
The good: Very large sample size, cohorts aligned according to many important variables. Goes well beyond just age/gender matching and includes comorbidities, medications.
The bad: They do a lot of exclusions. Is it reasonable to exclude everyone with a history of RVO from the analysis? You'd imagine that people prone to it already might be affected worse and that this would matter for real world outcomes. Also, the paper shows signs of pre-publication tampering by someone other than the authors. The conclusions are dishonest and full with logical fallacies. But it's hard to blame the authors for this. If you don't include the usual bromides and deceptive comparisons then you can't get this sort of paper published. People who Follow The Science will draw the wrong conclusions as intended, the rest of us can incorporate it into our priors for future decision making purposes (when we're allowed).