There's always a way to cook the books in favor of protecting the sacramental vaccines, hiding their damage, and insuring their deadly rampage for years to come. Disgusting.
The injections does mutate. I heard a few of your talks about S1S2 viral proteins from the injections you leave out that very important point that they do mutate.
(/2 - calculating odds and Odds Ratios (OR). (note p = probability). ODDS = (p of having POTS) / (p of not having POTS). For vaccinated |Pre = 0.00018 / 0.9982 = 0.001803. For vaccinated |Post = 0.0027 / 0.9973 = 0.002707. OR = (Odds pre)/(Odds post) = 1.5014. Similarly, for infected, OR = 0.00999899 / 0.02124183 = 2.1244. So we have to compare 2 ORs: 1.5014 / 2.1244. But we face interpretation problems: (1) Is it methodologically valid to compare the 2 cohorts given how different they were? (2) Even if it is, is that a statistically significant difference? (3) Could the difference in "POTS" acquisition rates have been due to something else (like people with Covid likelier to visit a doctor so their problems will be likelier recorded). PS - Agree that 90 days is too short and anyway they didn't use the consensus, evidence-based test for POTS (which usually wouldn't have happened within 90 days, if ever) that you showed at the beginning of your talk.
(Copying my 2 posts over from the YouTube). /1: In post 2 are calculations for odds and odds ratios (OR). However, as Dr. Been pointed out, it's really glaring that pre-intervention (vaccine or infection) POTS prevalences are dramatically different - this has to imply something about the comparability of the patients. I'd be surprised if the ORs are statistically significantly different with this sample size. Also possible is that people with Covid were likelier to visit their doctor in the 90 days post-intervention and thereby likelier to report various symptoms that were part of the authors' "POTS proxy." To their credit the authors recognized a number of limitations and tried to correct for some of them (e.g. incidence of other primary care diagnoses and gender) but come on Nature--you're among the very top science journals in the world! Also am not aware POTS is a "heart disease" - I think those in the EDS and MCAS scientific communities consider POTS to be a dysautonomia - in other words, neurological and (possibly) inflammatory with vascular consequences. Probably we'll find out there's more to it (understatement). We're WAY not close enough to understanding what SARS-CoV-2 or its vaccines do to the body. Nor is the virus done with us (I sure hope I'm wrong). Of course we have to make decisions based on what we know and our personalized assessment of risk/benefits, but we need some authentic analysis of the analysis before deciding this study is helpful. PS: Usually the AMA journals' editors are more skeptical than this. Over the years they've published a long wonderful and very useful series on "The User's Guide to the Medical Literature." Hmmm....
There's always a way to cook the books in favor of protecting the sacramental vaccines, hiding their damage, and insuring their deadly rampage for years to come. Disgusting.
The injections does mutate. I heard a few of your talks about S1S2 viral proteins from the injections you leave out that very important point that they do mutate.
Jean-claude Perez shows vaccines create mutate viral proteins.
http://stateofthenation.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/preprints202104.0034.v3.pdf
They also have an over expression of MutS Homolog 3 (MSH3) and dihydrofolate (DHFR) both used to generate a mutated and wild type mitochondria
Given Jean-claude Perez and Luc Montagnier both have said, "vaccine create the variant"
This company has been selling the Mutations of those variants.
This site has been selling S1 mutations since early 2020
https://www.antibodies-online.com/protein/6953166/SARS-CoV-2+Spike+S1+RBD+protein+His-SUMOstar+Tag/
(/2 - calculating odds and Odds Ratios (OR). (note p = probability). ODDS = (p of having POTS) / (p of not having POTS). For vaccinated |Pre = 0.00018 / 0.9982 = 0.001803. For vaccinated |Post = 0.0027 / 0.9973 = 0.002707. OR = (Odds pre)/(Odds post) = 1.5014. Similarly, for infected, OR = 0.00999899 / 0.02124183 = 2.1244. So we have to compare 2 ORs: 1.5014 / 2.1244. But we face interpretation problems: (1) Is it methodologically valid to compare the 2 cohorts given how different they were? (2) Even if it is, is that a statistically significant difference? (3) Could the difference in "POTS" acquisition rates have been due to something else (like people with Covid likelier to visit a doctor so their problems will be likelier recorded). PS - Agree that 90 days is too short and anyway they didn't use the consensus, evidence-based test for POTS (which usually wouldn't have happened within 90 days, if ever) that you showed at the beginning of your talk.
(Copying my 2 posts over from the YouTube). /1: In post 2 are calculations for odds and odds ratios (OR). However, as Dr. Been pointed out, it's really glaring that pre-intervention (vaccine or infection) POTS prevalences are dramatically different - this has to imply something about the comparability of the patients. I'd be surprised if the ORs are statistically significantly different with this sample size. Also possible is that people with Covid were likelier to visit their doctor in the 90 days post-intervention and thereby likelier to report various symptoms that were part of the authors' "POTS proxy." To their credit the authors recognized a number of limitations and tried to correct for some of them (e.g. incidence of other primary care diagnoses and gender) but come on Nature--you're among the very top science journals in the world! Also am not aware POTS is a "heart disease" - I think those in the EDS and MCAS scientific communities consider POTS to be a dysautonomia - in other words, neurological and (possibly) inflammatory with vascular consequences. Probably we'll find out there's more to it (understatement). We're WAY not close enough to understanding what SARS-CoV-2 or its vaccines do to the body. Nor is the virus done with us (I sure hope I'm wrong). Of course we have to make decisions based on what we know and our personalized assessment of risk/benefits, but we need some authentic analysis of the analysis before deciding this study is helpful. PS: Usually the AMA journals' editors are more skeptical than this. Over the years they've published a long wonderful and very useful series on "The User's Guide to the Medical Literature." Hmmm....
Q:
Why can't I say the following:
0.91- 0.68= 0.23
4.86- 3.2=1.66
1.66÷ 0.23= 7x higher risk post infection compared to vx...?
I am so curious how they will react. Thanks for the post.