In response to some criticisms (at far bottom) about the Subject Abstract, I offered the following.
The Abstract Published in the American Heart Association
I agree with some of what you say, I tried to search for the whole article and couldn’t even find that. What is really a shame is that someone else with hundreds of millions to study COVID couldn’t pony up for a similar study with a much higher population and a control group. Its disappointing, and frankly, suspicious. As even this preliminary result is alerting if not alarming. Don’t miss my nifty charts at the bottom.
- There is a control group, the patient himself
- 566 patients is a pretty good size number, I have seen many medical studies with less than 100, this and the 8 years of prior tracking at every 3 to 6 months, Dr john Campbell call this a good baseline
- Agreed that these people already had cardiac problems as their biomarkers were already above the norm, but that does nothing towards throwing out the data. It may be true that someone with existing cardiac problems would be greatly affected, and completely healthy people may be able to take the inflammatory assault pretty much in stride.
- Indeed this study looks at Markers. And it needs to because we can’t just watch for 5 years to count the heart attacks and deaths, we need to be more proactive. These markers are good markers, and Doctor John Campbell explains why, he accepts all of them as good and logical. Dr Campbell has 2M followers, he does a great presentation using drawings and props. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEBGl8MVE-c
- I did a simple statistical analysis, and it is obvious from the whisker plots that there are wide difference in individual reaction, but clearly an elevation in these injurious markers.
- The above also serve as a debunk to this Medscape attempt at a Debunk (heads up….Medscape is almost as horrible as JAMA in terms of being so politically slanted)
This is the company that created the PULS test. It looks pretty good!
Misleading title. It does not report an increase in heart damage. It reports an increase in markers that may lead to heart damage.
These patients all had risk factors to start with, else why were they going to a cardiologist every 6 months? It was a private clinic, not part of an academic study.
The data has not been processed for statistical validity. However, the averages and ranges are strongly suggestive of an impact, and the N is not small.
We know of at least one person who had a cardiac/metobolic reaction to the vaccine, but significant risk factors were present beforehand. A tiny fraction of patients react to this or that vaccine – this doesn’t invalidate the effectiveness of vaccines.