Many have been concerned about the syndrome that is called “Long Covid.” While a very real situation for many, it lacks a precise definition which is why it’s called a syndrome.
It is a diverse collection of symptoms that vary widely between people.
We can now report that according to a comprehensive study from Israel that neither myocarditis nor pericarditis are associated with Long Covid (defined in the study as the period of time +10 days post-positive Covid test and six months).
A second Israeli study that compared emergency service calls for cardiac issues (heart attacks and acute cardiac symptoms) to both Covid case counts and vaccination programs found that vaccinations were most likely responsible for a 25% increase in such cases in 16-39-year-old people.
The data is continuing to stack up; these vaccines are indeed responsible for serious cardiac damage which are not yet fully studied or properly understood.
I don’t know what criticisms the editors are considering, but @GidMK wrote a nice thread here noting weaknesses in the IMF study. Yes, I know you’re skeptical of GidMK due to his positions on IVM, but he includes others’ analysis as well and some of his points seem reasonable on their face.
I don’t know what criticisms the editors are considering, but @GidMK wrote a nice thread here noting weaknesses in the IMF study. Yes, I know you’re skeptical of GidMK due to his positions on IVM, but he includes others’ analysis as well and his points seem reasonable on their face.
GIDMK has obvious biases that severely limit my interest in trying to decipher if this time he’s using his brain wisely or perversely.
On the whole IVM front, it’s been revealed that he had undisclosed conflicts of interest that included taking money from Andrew Hill’s organization which got a $40M payout from the B&M Gates Foundation for trashing the WHO IVM meta analysis and letting someone else write the conclusions.
But GIDMK also trashes researchers (rightly) in the IVM space for not releasing their data. Then he himself refused to hand over his ‘data’ for the cherry-picked IVM study trashing he and his fellow conflicted-of-interest had done. Ooops. Selective science isn’t how any of this works.
It goes on from there. I consider him dishonest at best. But more to the point, his ““analyses”” are so one-sided as to be laughable. I can tell you his “conclusions” on any subject relating to pharma profits and government talking points before even reading what he’s written.
Might as well spend time studying the process used at a kangaroo show trial. If the conclusion was never in doubt, why bother?
I’m not just skeptical of GIDMK, I consider him to be the very worst sort of human; intelligent but morally willing to use that intelligence to cause human harm and suffering.
Thank you for that response.
Here I was more interested in the precise criticisms of the IMF study that he and others have made, and his thread just seemed like a convenient collection of them. I’ll look through them more carefully and see if I can pull out a few that look particularly solid. (They all look reasonable at first glance, but I suppose they deserve as much scrutiny as the study itself.)
Even when all you hear is crickets, you can tell the temperature by how often they chirp: To convert cricket chirps to degrees Fahrenheit:
Just count the number of chirps in 14 seconds, then add 40 to get the temperature.
The number you get will be an approximation of the outside temperature. Example: 30 chirps + 40 = 70° F To convert cricket chirps to degreesCelsius:
Count the number of chirps in 25 seconds, divide by 3, then add 4 to get the temperature. Example: 48 chirps /(divided by) 3 + 4 = 20° C
FWIW Consider the source Mr. Green. If you want to corroborate information from one source to help validate an issue, try to begin with a known honest and accurate base rather than a known disinformation agent.