This story is interesting: 
Now that you are all scientific thinkers, I am sure you are all wondering:
Although I am curious, the reason I am not panicking... YET... is this:
Uncle Darrel's rule of diseases is:
"The more ill you are,
the more ill you are."
"The more ill you are,
the more ill you are."
According to that rule, symptomatic people with something should generally have more obvious abnormalities than asymptomatic people.
When I find a disease where, regardless of disease severity, the same proportion of people have some feature, e.g.
Baldness,
Need glasses,
Ears pierced
Baldness,
Need glasses,
Ears pierced
Then I suspect that the disease is not causing that feature.
Just my rule of thumb.
Not a Nobel-prize winning insight.
But it does sometimes contribute some panic reduction.
Just my rule of thumb.
Not a Nobel-prize winning insight.
But it does sometimes contribute some panic reduction.
So to people who panic easily, I suggest this.
1. Check what the control group was. It made an enormous difference, in the JAMA Cardio paper. Here there seems to be no control group, so definitely don't panic.
2. Check what the abnormalities were, and whether they were detected blinded, by multiple observers.
2. Check what the abnormalities were, and whether they were detected blinded, by multiple observers.
3. Remember Uncle Darrel's rule.
If 30% of smokers need glasses, and it is the same regardless of whether they smoked 1 per day for just 6 months, or 40 per day for 40 years,
then it is a fair bet that the needing of glasses is nothing to do with the coffin-nails.
If 30% of smokers need glasses, and it is the same regardless of whether they smoked 1 per day for just 6 months, or 40 per day for 40 years,
then it is a fair bet that the needing of glasses is nothing to do with the coffin-nails.
Yes this is now science, well done!
That would be step 1, and it hasn't been done yet, as far as I know.
It would involve scanning all members of a team, REGARDLESS of Covid status .
It would involve scanning all members of a team, REGARDLESS of Covid status .
Step 2 is to get the analysis of the scans done blinded to Covid status, and by multiple independent people.
Like we did with ORBITAs stress echo results.
Hard work, non-obvious that it will help, but creates highly reliable results.
ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CI…
Like we did with ORBITAs stress echo results.
Hard work, non-obvious that it will help, but creates highly reliable results.
ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CI…
If bigly 10 want to do something useful to answer their own question, they could do that study.
Pay for whole cohorts of players to get MRIs (small price for bigly 10 to pay).
Put the images on line for Medtwitter to report.
And once the opinions are all in, unblind.
Pay for whole cohorts of players to get MRIs (small price for bigly 10 to pay).
Put the images on line for Medtwitter to report.
And once the opinions are all in, unblind.
That is science.
While everyone panics and runs round in all directions simultaneously, conduct a useful experiment and report the results.
Don't have to hype the implications.
Other scientists will instantly recognise it as a well constructed experiment.
While everyone panics and runs round in all directions simultaneously, conduct a useful experiment and report the results.
Don't have to hype the implications.
Other scientists will instantly recognise it as a well constructed experiment.
If they can afford 2 scans they should scan all the athletes now, and then wait.
Some will get Covid over time.
Scan EVERYONE again (not just the covid getters).
Show images in publically, blinded to group and time point.
Med Twitter will then give your answer.
Definitively.
Some will get Covid over time.
Scan EVERYONE again (not just the covid getters).
Show images in publically, blinded to group and time point.
Med Twitter will then give your answer.
Definitively.
