Thank you to an anonymous person, for looking after her neighbour kindly.
Negative thanks for sending me a duff story.
So overall, net neutral. 8-)
(Details in thread that follows)
Negative thanks for sending me a duff story.
So overall, net neutral. 8-)
(Details in thread that follows)
For the education of the general public, this is how a scientist reads a news story.
Step 1. Look at the important bit of the story.
biospace.com/article/releas…
Step 1. Look at the important bit of the story.
biospace.com/article/releas…
Which is this
Step 2.
Read abstract.
This becomes an instant "wow!"
Read abstract.
This becomes an instant "wow!"
So I wouldn't even read the rest of the abstract. I would want to know the source of this information, which the authors seem to take as an accepted fact.
Luckily this is science, so one has to show one's reasons. References are not linked in the abstract, but in the main paper.
Luckily this is science, so one has to show one's reasons. References are not linked in the abstract, but in the main paper.
From which I of course am now interested in the multiple independent references, showing this heart damage in PATIENTS.
Note that it was DYSFUNCTION in the abstract, but now just DAMAGE, which is completely different to a cardiologist.
Anyway I am getting really excited now.
Note that it was DYSFUNCTION in the abstract, but now just DAMAGE, which is completely different to a cardiologist.
Anyway I am getting really excited now.
It's not dysfunction, but rather damage, but it is in patients in these THREE clinical research studies.
Have a look at the three studies, and think about which is going to be the most compelling case for
OVER 50% of
PATIENTS (i.e. complete people, not bits of rat etc)
having SIGNIFICANT heart DAMAGE
OVER 50% of
PATIENTS (i.e. complete people, not bits of rat etc)
having SIGNIFICANT heart DAMAGE
Which will be most compelling?
Step 3.
Detailed evaluation of whether to read the sources.
Conclusion
Detailed evaluation of whether to read the sources.
Conclusion
Heh heh. Yes, life is just too short, I am sorry.
If people have accidentally linked to gibberish, which even a schoolchild can see are not relevant sources, what chance do you give them of doing the fancy biochemical, geney, proteiny whatnot correctly?
If people have accidentally linked to gibberish, which even a schoolchild can see are not relevant sources, what chance do you give them of doing the fancy biochemical, geney, proteiny whatnot correctly?
Actually, false! I'm wrong.
There is another reference section! Two reference sections!
There is another reference section! Two reference sections!
The new 6-8.
All look plausible now. Let's go through them.
6 is this one.
People with Covid bad enough to be ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL
Not just that. So bad that a QUARTER OF THEM DIED.
6 is this one.
People with Covid bad enough to be ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL
Not just that. So bad that a QUARTER OF THEM DIED.
Yes some of them did have elevations in CRP and Troponin, which are commonly found in patients with severe infections of almost any kind.
Not relevant.
Not relevant.
7. Is this review (not an original research paper).
Three sources cited. Two of them are the papers that are separately cited as original "independent" sources, and one is another article by one of the same authors.
And that one non-repeat article says this
What is relevant is the people who don't die of Covid.
What proportion of them had myocardial injury (defined as troponin blah blah).
What proportion of them had myocardial injury (defined as troponin blah blah).
Hopefully nobody picked the one which is not only unjustified in principle, but also is obviously arithmetically wrong.
Let's see.
Let's see.
Click here for rest of thread:
