Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the difference in blood clot risk between mRNA and traditional COVID vaccines?
Executive summary
Large-scale studies and reviews show that rare clotting linked to adenovirus-vector vaccines (Oxford–AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen) — called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS or VITT) — is a measurable but very uncommon risk, while most reporting finds mRNA vaccines (Pfizer–BioNTech, Moderna) carry little if any comparable TTS risk; several multinational analyses found higher thrombotic risks after adenovirus vaccines than after mRNA vaccines [1] [2]. Crucially, infection with SARS‑CoV‑2 produces a far larger increase in clotting risk than any vaccine: some studies estimate cerebral venous thrombosis is ~8–10 times more likely after COVID‑19 than after mRNA vaccination, and infection raises venous clot risk many‑fold compared with vaccination [3] [4].
1. What the evidence says: adenovirus vaccines show a small, specific TTS signal
Researchers comparing vaccine platforms consistently flagged a small increased risk of the rare syndrome TTS/VITT after adenovirus‑vector vaccines (AstraZeneca/ChAdOx1 and Janssen/Johnson & Johnson) compared with mRNA vaccines; a multinational BMJ analysis and reporting from Oxford found a detectable small increase in thrombosis with low platelets after adenovirus shots versus mRNA ones [1] [2]. Public health bodies restricted or revised use of some adenovirus vaccines because regulators judged the very low but present TTS risk important for policy [5].
2. mRNA vaccines: overall low TTS signal but some studies note small or mixed findings
Multiple public‑facing health organizations and clinical reviews state that Pfizer and Moderna have not been linked to the same TTS pattern seen with adenovirus vaccines and that major safety reviews show no clear large increased TTS risk for mRNA shots [6] [7]. That said, academic literature and case series record rare thrombotic events temporally associated with mRNA doses and some self‑controlled studies report small incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for thromboembolic events after mRNA vaccines in a narrow range (for example IRRs ~1.04–1.22 in some SCCS analyses cited by a risk‑benefit review) — findings that require careful interpretation because of confounding and the much larger clot risk from infection itself [8] [9] [10].
3. Comparative magnitude: infection >> vaccination for clot risk
Across multiple studies the signal is clear: COVID‑19 infection elevates risk of venous and arterial thrombosis far more than vaccination. An Oxford study and related analyses estimated that cerebral venous thrombosis is many times more likely after infection than after mRNA vaccination (roughly 8–10× in some analyses), and self‑controlled studies report IRRs for clotting after infection that are orders of magnitude higher than those reported after vaccination [3] [4] [8]. Public health commentaries therefore emphasize that vaccination reduces the overall population risk of clotting by preventing infections that are a dominant driver of thrombotic events [2] [11].
4. How to read the numbers: rare events and study design matter
When studies report “increased risk” after a vaccine, the absolute probability remains very small because these conditions are rare; a 30% relative increase in a rare outcome still produces a low absolute incidence [2]. Study designs differ — self‑controlled case series, retrospective cohorts, and passive reporting systems each have strengths and limitations; confounding (for example, different testing or healthcare seeking around an event) can inflate or obscure associations, and direct comparisons between vaccine types are more informative for relative safety than comparisons with no vaccination [1] [8].
5. Clinical and policy takeaways: platform choice and recommendations
Health systems and expert groups shifted guidance to favor mRNA vaccines where possible because the adenovirus‑vector vaccines carried a distinct TTS signal even though the number of cases was small; many clinicians and institutions continue to assert that Pfizer/Moderna are “safer” with respect to TTS [7] [6]. At the same time, authorities stress that vaccination overall prevents far more clotting and severe outcomes by averting COVID‑19 infection [11] [4].
6. Limitations, open questions, and alternative viewpoints
Available sources show consistent comparisons between platforms but do not fully settle every small reported signal after mRNA vaccines — some SCCS and case‑series reports note modest associations that warrant further study and mechanistic work [8] [9] [10]. Fact‑checking reporting and later reviews caution against overstating long‑term or large risks from mRNA vaccines and note that claims of very long‑term thrombosis risk lack evidence in the provided reporting [5]. Overall, policymakers weighed rare vaccine risks against the substantially larger thrombotic harms of COVID‑19 itself when making recommendations [1] [4].
If you want, I can (a) pull specific absolute‑risk estimates and age/sex stratifications from the cited studies, or (b) summarize regulatory decisions (which countries restricted adenovirus vaccines and when) using these same sources.