How do worrisome results from JAMA Cardiology like this get shuffled under the rug?
Findings from July 2020, of 100 relatively young (median age 49) patients who recovered from SARS, nearly 80% showed myocardial inflammation or other cardiac symptoms!
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamac…
Findings from July 2020, of 100 relatively young (median age 49) patients who recovered from SARS, nearly 80% showed myocardial inflammation or other cardiac symptoms!
jamanetwork.com/journals/jamac…
Well, these patients were relatively young and healthy so Minimizers couldn't use "underlying conditions" and "comorbidity" to dismiss and blame the patient.
So, why were these findings dismissed?
So, why were these findings dismissed?
"67 (67%) recovered at home, while 33 (33%) required hospitalization"
Only one in three was hospitalized and none of them died!
Who cares, AMIRIGHT!?!
Only one in three was hospitalized and none of them died!
Who cares, AMIRIGHT!?!
"A total of 33 severely unwell patients (33%) required hospitalization."
Sure this was the start of the pandemic and there wasn't a line-up out the door for ER and a gluttony of nurses to respond to patients going into code. These 33 "unwell" MOFOs would be sent home in 2023!
Sure this was the start of the pandemic and there wasn't a line-up out the door for ER and a gluttony of nurses to respond to patients going into code. These 33 "unwell" MOFOs would be sent home in 2023!
How can you tell this study was conducted back in the Dark Ages of the pandemic? They still used "draconian isolation" for those other 67 patients who were sent home. They could actually rest. Consequently none of them suffered #SpontaneousDeath from a heart embolism!
I'm seething in anger today and I apologize for the very angry nature of my tweets.
May I inquire @NMHheartdoc if follow-up patient outcomes from University Hospital Frankfurt was ever requested?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
