When the EU and UK versions of the FDA reviewed blood clots that happened after the patients received the AZ vaccine it was found that the % of vaccine patients with clots was lower than what would happen randomly in the general population. Six J&J recipients with clots out of however many million who received the J&J vaccine may also be lower than what would happen randomly. IF that is the case, then what? IF that is the case, could it be argued that the J&J vaccine is somewhat protective against clots?
Recipients of any vaccine - not just a Covid vaccine - are asked to report any "adverse event" after receiving the shot. Determining whether the vaccine was relevant to the adverse event is a separate process, and many are determined to be unrelated. So the blood clots might be found to be caused by the J&J vaccine, or they might be found to be unrelated.
Just general info ... the J&J vaccine and AZ vaccine use the same technology, "viral vector", but are not identical in details of implementation. Moderna and Pfizer use an entirely different technology and are attacked by anti-vaxxers with a different conspiracy theory.
The MSM are purveyors of Panic Porn in support of government control. Sadly, reports like the topic of this DU thread must be taken with a sizable block of salt.