5x More POTS with Infection vs. Vaccine - This Study Needs Correction
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 дек 2022
- 5x More POTS with Infection vs. Vaccine - This Study Needs Correction
Let's look at the data for the POTS study again. (Study linked below.)
Want to support this work?:
Buy me a coffee :-) www.buymeacoffee.com/DrMobeen...
Become my patron: www.patreon.com/mobeensyed?fa...
PayPal: paypal.me/mobeensyed?locale.x...
My substack: mobeensyedmd.substack.com/
#drbeen #koolbeens #COVID
Disclaimer:
This video is not intended to provide assessment, diagnosis, treatment, or medical advice; it also does not constitute provision of healthcare services. The content provided in this video is for informational and educational purposes only.
Please consult with a physician or healthcare professional regarding any medical or mental health related diagnosis or treatment. No information in this video should ever be considered as a substitute for advice from a healthcare professional.
Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) Diagnosis and Treatment: Basics and New Developments
www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiol...
The risks of POTS after COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection: it’s worth a shot | Nature Cardiovascular Research
www.nature.com/articles/s4416...
Study: Apparent risks of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome diagnoses after COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-Cov-2 Infection | Nature Cardiovascular Research
www.nature.com/articles/s4416...
Table 1 Diagnoses within 90 days of exposure for study sample with documented COVID-19 vaccination (n = 284,592)
www.nature.com/articles/s4416...
Table 2 Diagnoses within 90 days of exposure for study sample with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 12,460)
www.nature.com/articles/s4416...
Fig. 4: Study design. | Nature Cardiovascular Research
www.nature.com/articles/s4416...
10 most common diagnoses and procedures in primary care
www.definitivehc.com/blog/10-...
Dr. Blitshteyn - Dysautonomia Clinic
www.dysautonomiaclinic.com/dr-...
POTS, a debilitating heart condition, is linked to Covid and, to a lesser degree, vaccines
www.nbcnews.com/health/health...
What is the relation between COVID-19 vaccination and new POTS-related diagnoses?
www.news-medical.net/news/202...
Risk of POTS heart condition linked to COVID-19, study says - UPI.com
www.upi.com/Health_News/2022/...
Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome post-COVID vaccination less likely vs. infection
www.healio.com/news/cardiolog...
COVID Infection, Vaccination Linked to Heart Condition
www.cedars-sinai.org/newsroom...
COVID Infection, Vaccination Linked to Rare Heart Condition
www.webmd.com/heart-disease/n...
A New Study Links COVID-19 With This Debilitating Disease - Health News Hub
healthnewshub.org/a-new-study...
POTS, a debilitating heart condition, is linked to Covid and, to a lesser degree, vaccines
www.yahoo.com/now/pots-debili...
What you need to know about COVID-19 and POTS | Fronteras
fronterasdesk.org/content/183...
mRNA Vaccines and COVID Linked to POTS, a Debilitating Condition Affecting Heart, Other Organs • Children's Health Defense
childrenshealthdefense.org/de...
Both COVID-19 and Vaccines Can Lead to Higher Risk of Heart Condition, Study Says
www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app...
Rapid Heartbeat Condition 5 Times More Likely With COVID Than With COVID Vaccine
www.usnews.com/news/health-ne...
Top news stories from AMA Morning Rounds®: Week of Dec. 12, 2022 | American Medical Association
www.ama-assn.org/about/public...
This study had 15 authors, 3 reviewers, 2 POTS experts writing an editorial on it, and it was published in the best journal. It came out of Cedars-Sinai, a medical system with an IRB, manuscript review process, and lots of prestige. It was amplified by WebMD, NBC News, AMA, Eric Topol, and countless others. And it is 100% false. I agree with Been that it appears willfully false. If the rest of peer-review medical research resembles this in any way, well, draw your own conclusions. This is a watershed failure of the system. If you thought the rumblings of medical corruption & incompetence were overblown, here is your evidence that they were not. Bias overwhelmed the system. Go read the original paper and the 2 editorials that amplified it; wonder at the audacity of their statements, all unfounded.
Blatant attempt to head of the growing facts of harm in my opinion. Can be seen in other very strange data reports being seen in recent weeks...
Well said.
Don’t forget no less than the Lancet published a study on HCQ that was so flawed that they had to retract it. But the damage was done.
What I understand they issued a dose level known to have side effects, and then concluded HCQ unsafe for C19 treatment.
Huge reaction. It was retracted. But with zero headlines.
@@glenndavis4452 They used toxic doses of HCQ to “ fail “ it
are you saying the medical people aren't corrupt
If this was actually peer reviewed the reviewers should be permanently sanctioned from any future reviews. Also, they should be investigated for fraud.
We live in a corrupt world..... believe only what you see.
@@jonnes__4657You can't even believe what you see. Even on movies/videos CGI can give completely false images, which look realistic. 🧐
@@kiriakiria9685 I mean whart figures and data you see and can verify.
.
Everyone should support Dr. Mobeen. He is neither captured nor biased for profit. Bravo doctor! Thank you!
My main concern is the narrative that they’re trying to push
Who is "they" ?
There are people (doctors included) who figured out everything back in March 2020. For obvious reasons they have been segregated and therefore those people who cannot do their own research do not know true information. Dr. Been is too late to the "party".
And this is why they banned all kinds of public debate.
You are too generous. If they intentionally misrepresented the odds calculation, they likely manipulated the cohorts as well.
As I said in the previous video if the POTS incidents of the two cohorts is as disparate as in this study BEFORE either vaccination or infection then there is fraud in the selection criteria for each cohort. Clearly those selected for the vaccine cohort are substantially healthier than those selected for the infection cohort. So ridiculous is the differential that it seems likely the study authors intentionally selected candidates for the infection cohort from those predisposed to POTS either as a consequence of genetics or lifestyle. By discovering the background rate of POTS in the general population an expose of the fraud can be made.
There is dishonesty here.
It's dogmatic at this point. Religious fanatics.
I believe you are right on both counts.
Good point, and how are we supposed to even believe the most basic unit of data reported is legitimate? We'd have to be able to analyze each individual, original patient record to know the truth, i.e. we'd have to replicate the whole thing ourselves to believe any claim they are making. Seeing how easily the Dominion Voting machines altered the elections with their algorithms, it's obviously easy to run this data through an algorithm to subtly alter the data to say anything they want it to say. It doesn't have to even be gross logical errors like Dr. Been is finding here.
I find it hard to believe that anyone with any integrity would allow themselves to be associated with this clearly agenda driven study. I view the study results as fraudulent. You're the best Dr. Been!
The results aren't so much fraudulent as they are (almost certainly) intentionally misleading. Those who would use the study to imply a specific message are frauds if they are "news" platforms.
Exactly..... this study is a typical manipulation. Absolute risk and relative risk. ☝️
Correct, They dont have integrity.
They took their 30 pieces of silver; they did not have integrity in the first place.
it is about the $$$$$
My 42yo sister had POTS for decades. She was vaccinated on the 21st of August, 2021. She had a cardiologist a year ago not be able to tell her why her heart was getting worse. She died in her sleep just 6 days ago (20-Dec 2022). We're devesated waiting for the long drawn out autopsy and toxicology reports, delayed due to the holidays. She's not even buried yet. I need to archive this video. I absolutely believe you are squarely on to something substantial. God speed, Dr Been. You're a literal lifesaver. 🙏🏻❤️😥
Condolences and praying for you and your family.
My daughter is 22 years old, was diagnosed with POTS after vaccination, she had 2 doses, she is not in good health and I fear the worst.
I feel for your loss, it makes me think of what can happen to my daughter.
RIP to your sister. There are people (doctors included) who figured out everything back in March 2020. For obvious reasons they have been segregated and therefore those people who cannot do their own research do not know true information. Dr. Been is late to the "party".
I am sorry for your loss. I too have POTS as well as SFN (sensory and autonomic confirmed via punch biopsy). I refused the latest jab as I believe my SFN was caused by a work mandated flu jab in 2014, as all other causes have been ruled out. Interestingly, I asked my neurologist if the flu jab could have been the cause of my SFN, she stated she had not read or heard of any connection, no VAERS report was done. Before the jab, I was very healthy, putting in 14-16-hour workdays with ease. After the jab, I experienced incredible fatigue, sensory issues as well as POTS issues, gastroparesis issues, temperature regulation, brain fog issues et al autonomic issues and sensory issues. My life is forever altered.
Again, my condolences.
Soo sorry 😢
You’re spot on, Dr. Been. What this teaches us is to never read the title of a study or the conclusion and believe what the study says. You should always study the entire study, because this kind of study manipulation actually happens often in this very corrupt world.
👍👍
You are so right, and I am still shocked this is the case. Prior to 2021, I always just read the abstract, then if I was interested skipped down to summary, and then if still interested, I skimmed through the discussion. All in the interest of time. Sadly, now I don't bother to read any studies because I still don't have the time to critically analyze every detail of methodology and results, and I now know it's a waste of time to even read abstracts. About 5 years ago I had seen a documentary about how corrupt, flawed, and profit-driven professional research publications had become, but I couldn't really believe research had become as fake as the documentary proclaimed... but now I realize it had been practically minimizing the problem.
Read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis. I think it's the most cited paper of all time.
Dr Been proves how easily they can slip a headline conclusion past people without the analytical skills to check the study.
This is becoming very prevalent practice.
Thanks again for those who, like Dr Been, bother to explain truthfully.
Another prevalent practice is to state the benefits in terms of relative risk, but the harms in terms of absolute risk.
This is way more damaging than a misleading headline. It is top-down approval and deliberate manipulation to reach a conclusion. A peer reviewed article who people have put their careers behind approving. If significant retractions, resignations and changes to their review process, then I am confident this is happening across the board and is becoming common practice and it frightens me as much as it infuriates me
Wow…did the person that did the statistical analysis even take a stats course? Yes, it appears that this omission was intentional. This is actually malfeasance and would raise suspicion if it hadn’t been raised already.
As I said in the previous video if the POTS incidents of the two cohorts is as disparate as in this study BEFORE either vaccination or infection then there is fraud in the selection criteria for each cohort. Clearly those selected for the vaccine cohort are substantially healthier than those selected for the infection cohort. So ridiculous is the differential that it seems likely the study authors intentionally selected candidates for the infection cohort from those predisposed to POTS either as a consequence of genetics or lifestyle. By discovering the background rate of POTS in the general population an expose of the fraud can be made.
Ok, this is why they should investigate all excess deaths.
They will investigate it, as soon as they write the algorithms that will produce their desired narrative. There's probably still infighting over what that narrative will be.
@@christopherrobinson7541 do you think it could be done for less than $100B? Because obviously we have that kind of cash just burning a hole in our national pocket, so we decided to throw it away in Ukraine just to get rid of it.
@@cherylmockotr Who is "they" ?
@@georgeinjapan6583 the CDC and other NIH entities.
Well, starting in the second half of 2021, all cause mortality increased 40%, as documented by life insurance companies. I've yet to hear a feasible explanation for that. Missed cancer screenings in 2020 seems to be the excuse.
Thank you for providing proper peer review Dr Been. Such poor quality studies should be withdrawn yet these have become drivers of political control. Awful.
I really hope one day you could go over studies used for childhood vaccines. I think you'll find they played the same games there.
Yes please do this soon!!
I am starting to think they need to post a bond of at least 10K to publish an article of this kind. A bond they lose when the materially misrepresent something, and fail to retract within 30 days after notice. They only get the bond back after 1 year.
Yeah. Cuz a few seconds worth of profit will deter pharma backed “scientists”
Nice explanation Dr Been. This is disturbing. People doing this work and the editors know quite well what an odds ratio is. How do they think they can get away with this?
As it fits the narrative, the authors of the study will get away without being sanctioned.
This study is considered as a "virtuously misleading" paper by the the power that should not be.
The authors may even be rewarded by a promotion.
Thank you Dr Been- integrity, intelligence and fearlessness belong to you and all at FLCCC -may God continue to bless you
Thank you for your kind words Bee! Hope you are staying safe and healthy
@@DrBeenMedicalLectures since i got the vax i have anxiety panic abd faunting
if intentionally maipulated like this that is very troublesome indeed.
sure supports the adage that "figures don't lie but liars can figure"
Well done for bring the light on this misinformation!
it's not misinformation, it's disinformation
I can't believe anyone actually reviewed this study & then let it stand as is.
Great Catch, this is why you are the KING Been!
As it fits the narrative, the authors of the study will get away without being sanctioned.
This study is considered as a "virtuously misleading" paper by the the powers that should not be.
The authors may even be rewarded by a promotion.
And do we know that all the infected group weren't also vaccinated? They didn't count it till 14 days had passed.
Considering the starting group already had a drastically larger occurrence of POTS, it likely includes people who were, or at least had prior infections.
I love the compulsion and compassion for reality and truth backed by math and science.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the real problem with the data is that the "infected" group has not been separated into 2 groups: vaccinated and infected and unvaccinated and infected to measure the cross section of being both vaccinated and infected vs being unvaccinated then infected.
Vaccinated and infected as a 3rd group would of been better, and mostly so we know they are not in the infected.
I don’t trust these not to do something stupid like including vaccinated infected as infected.
According to the article in Nature: "The study is based on a large series of approximately 300,000 vaccinated individuals from one geographic territory in the USA (Los Angeles County)"
So far, I understand this to mean that there are no unvaccinated people included in any cohort for the analysis.
that's because they doesn't want to do anything with the unvaccinated
Yet they found enough money to do a study in Canada that unvaxxed are more likely to cause car accidents. But not to study the vaxxed vs unvaxxed anything else.
@@rolline555 Hi,
Blitshteyn and Fedorowski's article actually references Kwan et. al's study in Nature Cardiovascular Research, published Dec. 12, 2022. In the study they reference, it is indeed vaccinated individuals as by the end of the study they had received their first vaccine exposure. The primary exposure in the post-vaccine cohort was first vaccine exposure, and the primary exposure for the post-infection cohort was first documented SARS-CoV-2 infection.
In the post-infection cohort, they excluded those who had received first vaccine exposure before and within 90 days after infection. In the post-vaccine cohort, they excluded those who had been infected before and within 90 days after first vaccine dose. In this way, the study did indeed include unvaccinated individuals. The primary exposure in the post-vaccine cohort was first vaccination documented in an electronic health record. Then they identified POTS-associated diagnoses within 90 days of exposure. By definition thus, the primary cohort - the post-vaccine cohort was vaccinated, and the secondary cohort - the post-infection cohort was unvaccinated.
I thank God we have brilliant minds like Dr Been to make some sense of this and to point out these blatant discrepancies.
Thanks for always bringing truth to light in such a clear way. 🙏
Thanks for this tireless work you are doing Dr. Bean!!
How could these two groups be so different? Wouldn't you want to start with groups that were similar is all other respects? It looks like they took people who were likely to be POTS candidates also unvaxxed for their unvaxxed group.
You should write a comment or letter to Nature
There are also many people who are asymptomatic. The number of people who are vaccinated is known but the number of infected people is far larger and it will substantially diminish the number of people who got POTS after infection.
Doesn’t change the fact that this study is completely wrong worked up although it went through peer reviews and got published in nature 😮 unbelievable
And by the way- the study didn’t compare vaccinated with general population but vaccinated with infected. So whether there are asymptomatic or not is irrelevant because they’re not part of the cohorts you’re comparing.
@@luhe4885 We're both saying that the same thing: that the study is bogus.
There are people (doctors included) who figured out everything back in March 2020. For obvious reasons they have been segregated and therefore those people who cannot do their own research do not know true information. Dr. Been is too late to the "party".
@@paolorossi5989 at least he's at the party. Glass half full. 😁
That does not tell the whole story. This should be seen as a state machine starting with the initial status "unvaccinated and uninfected" and comparing the two final status:
1) "unvaccinated and infected"
2) "vaccinated and infected"
This is because we are all going to end up being infected.
Then we should compare POTS for 1) and 2) and the answer as whether the vaccine has some benefit on somewhat protecting against POTS or not, would be there.
Surely the raw data would have permitted the approach you suggest. It would be interesting to run the numbers. I suspect little difference would be found but that is not an interesting story to tell and wouldn't get any media interested. Still, I would be very interested in the results because they are far more relevant to the real world.
Relative risk is something I've been arguing myself since the Japan study back in July 2021. Back then it was becoming clear that the Vid was mutating and the treatment was becoming less effective, plus the study showed that the mechanisms did not work as promised and exposed us to more potential risk. At that point reinfection became very likely and the question was no longer "which is worse, the treatment or infection?" but "How much risk does the treatment mitigate short-term for what possible long-term risks?"
Considering how high the starting POTS group was for the infected study, my guess is that the number includes people who received the treatment previously.
I never get tired of listening to your shows. Thank you and the folks working with you for your work!
4.7X POTS in the pre-infection group? What is up with that group?
Dr. Mobeen uncovering indicators of incompetence and/or corruption.
How the heck did this get through peer review? Such a basic error!
it highlights the fallacies of the peer review system. As Dr Bean shows, the data is correct and calculations are in essence correct. However how the calculations are applied and how the narrative is "crafted" is clearly debatable. Therefore if the person undertakes the peer review has a similar "agenda", then all is correct, and study is approved. If the peer reviewer has any biases, then the process fails. A peer reviewer has to start to try and disproves the study. But they only have to verify the data.
peer review is a joke
Thank you Dr Been for getting the truth out to us.
There is not much to debate. You are absolutely correct! Science has been high-jacked by actors with a different agenda.
SOCK IT TO 'EM, DR BEEN Happy Winter Solstice
Thank you, Dr Been. I watched the original video and am pleased to see this follow up.
Instead of this piece-meal of vaxxed or unvaxxed has more what diseases or what accidents, why not release all-cause mortality stratified based on the number of COVID shots received. I am pretty sure this information is readily available but can only guess why it's not made public. It would do wonders to cure "hesitancy," wouldn't you think??
wow, I agree with your interpretation. It is troublesome that the reviewer did not catch that. It seems a very obvious mistake.
Thank you Dr. Syed for spotting this flaw in the study. I wrote an article about this too, and cited you in my blog, thanks again
Great work Dr Been.
This reminds me of the studies on statins using imbalanced numbers for benefits of the drug and then mismatching using absolutes with the risks.
Thank you for taking the time to dissect this.
Thank you, Dr. Been!
Thank you for being Dr Been.....
Thanks for honest thinking!
Bravo!! A doctor telling us the truth!
Thank you for reaching out to them, and for informing us.
Thank You!
Thank you Dr.
Your amazing King Been
Thank you for the insight.
What are the cancer rate percentages?
They could have just told us which group has higher all-cause mortality, vaxxed or unvaxxed. That info should tell you conclusively whether or not you'd be better off getting the shot in a statistical sense.
Dr. Bean, you are absolutely right, but as a physicists it strikes me again, how little medical people are familiar with elementary mathematical principles. Not only that it is so hard for you to convince the group involved in the study, but also that it is so hard for you to explain your point. The truth is actually worse than your observation. In a group with higher risk not only the numbers will increase in absolute terms but also in relative terms. Thus the increase in risk may be more like zero. Take a simple example. You have two groups with different sensitivity to sunburn. Say Group1 at an exposure of E has a aE percentage with sunburn, group 2 has a percentage of bE. This is the baseline. Now you double the exposure. Then your percentages will be 2aE in group1 and 2bE in group2. To take the DIFFERENCE 2(b-a)E as an indicator is nonsense because it only says something about the initial risk difference b-a. What you have to look at is the RATIO. It is 2aE/aE or 2bE/bE = 2 In both groups. Thus there is no difference in risk change at all.
Thank you, Dr Been. (and commenter under the name of “Throw Away”) What I don’t understand though, is 1) Why all these baseline conditions of POTS to begin with?? What is their causation? And 2) Why the huge difference of baseline POTS in the two cohorts?
Thanks for this analysis of this paper. It is most illuminating for the issues it exposes regarding the lack of scrutiny afforded to papers whose “results” reflect or support the “official narrative”. It also causes me to wonder though… if we see evidence that vaccination raises the incidence of POTS, what would the cohort of unvaccinated people who got infected against a cohort of vaccinated people who got infected look like? I mean, if there was a predisposition of vaccinated to develop POTS, perhaps infection might tip them more easily into the POTS group also, hmmm? Such a breakdown would also be interesting but then… that wouldn’t be a possibility the funding authority might want to look for…
Excellent analysis
Thank you.
Its disheartening to see so much bad science and lying with statistics done in this study.
Luckily there are people with integrity who will look at the scientific data and scrutinise it...Thanks Dr Been
Thank you..
I think the thing is to ignore, question or downplay any studies that one doesn’t like. And to only support those studies that one agrees with. When one has a public platform or has taken a fixed public position on an issue, that becomes so much easier to do.
Thank you, Dr Been. I hope more people strive to follow your example of clear thinking and logical analysis in looking at data. :) As you have pointed out in this and your other recent POTS videos, it is an improvement that there is now data acknowledging that POTS and other serious problems can occur after vaccination. However, this data is based on the number of DIAGNOSED cases. I have a feeling that there are a lot of people who do not realize that they have POTS or that it might be due to the vaccination. I also wonder if people who complain of symptoms after Covid might be taken more seriously than someone who complained of symptoms after vaccination (in the early days many people with adverse effects were told it was just anxiety)? If researchers are drawing comparisons btw vaxxed and recovered, in addition to looking at the baselines, it's important that the rate of diagnoses be similar btw the two groups. And so on.
Thank you and a very Happy Christmas 🌲
I have had these symptoms for the past 40 years. I stand up too fast, and I get dizzy. Doctor said it was my low bloodpressure, and I had to eat crisps and drink red whine. I was fifteen and I really agreed with his treatment.
But I was fifteen so my mom said no way.
As always Dr.Been your analysis is spot on, explained indepth and without bias, just the facts and this layman appreciates you very much
This is mind boggling! Thank you so much for putting this video out and doing your research on it. This is proof of one out of probably hundreds of research studies that have been manipulated to favor a certain outcome. You always explain what you are presenting to your viewers. Thank you so much. This video needs to be shared.
The problem is the huge starting differences between the two cohorts - after that, everything is dubious.
Could clever data analysts/statisticians create better matched cohorts by clever filtering, without adding more reasons to invalidate the study? Maybe - I can't say for sure, as that's not my specialty!
Really, evaluating the rate of new POTS cases as a percentage of the rate of existing POTS cases in the same sample in each case is conspicuously arbitrary even if it isn't obviously invalid on its face like substituting the total rate of POTS cases for the rate of new cases after infection or vaccination. It's not like new cases are formed out of old cases, or anything that would connect the two like that.
The whole premise that these kinds of figures are meaningful seems like stumbling in the fog hoping to find some arbitrary cluster of random rocks that will fit a narrative and keep funding and recognition coming.
I admire you for doing this work and revealing the truth about this study
Ty
Thanks for sharing this study. This study is as questionable as the study from Canada " unvaccinated causing more automobile accidents"????? Questionable studies?
Any studies that you don’t like are “questionable” methinks? There’s also a couple of studies ( one from Yale) to show that more (registered) Republicans than (registered) Democrats have died of covid in the US. It’s not that hard to work out why.
@@mkkrupp2462 Yes, it's not that hard. COVID is deadlier in the elderly. Republicans are older on average and more likely to be elderly and therefore at risk of COVID death whether vaccinated or not.
Amazing that the second cohort would have such a high baseline. But we have to use the data they provided.
Dr being you are awesome and not just you but the entire cool beans hive mind is just awesome! Your ability to present is phenomenal, you break down concepts, even these complicated ones where people find errors that are very important and perhaps even intentional but I won't go there. The other thing that you of course have shown us is the importance of review, peer review.... And peer review doesn't just mean doctor review in the case of studies because statistics and how data is used is critical so statistics review of people with that skill set is critical as well!
I think this further tells us why it is important for all studies and data to be public and not just given to us by headline or even worse just given to us by law and regulation which at that point has no ability to be peer reviewed. You and the work of the cool beans are awesome and I thank you so very much for everything! I have signed up already almost a year ago for your classes, and I may just do it again because you really are so awesome.
I am an 83 yo male. I had a mitral valve repair in October 2020 and a Pacemaker installed to correct the damage they caused in Jan 2021. In March of 2020 I began using a self mixed solution of 1.5% Betaine in Normal Saline solution every 4 hours if I leave the house and am around other people. Since March of 2021, I have been taking 15 my og Ivermectin once per week. I take, among others, B complex, B-12, C, 15,000 units D3, E, CoQ10, Omega-3, melatonin, Zinc, Quercetin, Black Seed, Nac, Multi-it/Min. I have not been vaccinated, and I have not had COVID.
Think you're overdoing the vitamin D. I don't think there's any benefit to taking that much. Once your 25OH level is above 40, your risk of getting serious Covid is almost zero. You should also be taking K2.
There is one other point to take into consideration.
You have two(2) cohorts in complete population, vaccinated and unvaccinated, not vaccinated and infected.
So if You assume 2-2.5% infection rate per month of complete population for one(1) year You would have 25% of population infected.
Let's leave asside infected vaccinated part of population and concentrate on unvaccinated part of population.
In unvactinated part population POTS would be risen not for 50% but POTS would be risen 50% just for 25% of unvaccinated population. Therefore risk of POTS in unvaccinated part of population would be risen for just 12.5%, in contrast to 33% more POTS of 100% vaccinated in vaccinated part of population.
The wording of the study seems to indicate that it only included pre and post vaccinated individuals (first cohort), and and already vaccinated individuals (second cohort).
Which indicated to me the infection cohort are vaccinated individuals who developed POTS post infection, and also had higher incidence of POTS to begin with?
This is exactly what I noticed and wondered... 😎👍 Also, could the unvaxxed cohort have taken at least one jab at some point and gotten the POTS from that?
WEF recently said they own science. This explains the conflict sham paper started off with conclusion first decided.
A simpler explanation is to define gain of ucntion of Vaccine vs pre-disposed ill, yet it is not clear if the "infection" group also had same vaccine and that the vaccine was the same Vers. 4 for Omicron
This is basic deviation from the baseline - I assume that the infected group had no vaccine exposure, else that would mean infection alone has essentially zero POTS rate, and it's all due to vaccines.
Also the big hit for vaccines is on subsequent exposure (2nd, 3rd doses) as (auto) immune response is greater.
How is it possible that the unV group starts out with so much more POTS as a baseline vs. the V group when the V group would be the more likely group to have advanced age and therefore advanced and more incidence of comorbidities including POTS in the baseline?
There should be 3 groups. Include vaccinated and infected.
I never got covid. The jab I have missed 4 times..... 👍🤘✌️
The authors knew what they were doing. This is a fraud.
The reviewers are incompetent.
Dr been is very patient in explaining this, but in essence it is pretty basic stuff to get your head around.
It should be withdrawn.
These groups are too different to be compared in ANY way - even if you control for the elevated baseline. Worthless comparison. The high-baseline group obviously has some health issues to start with.
I have to say I find your interpretation compelling, Dr. Been, and the comparison scenario presented in the study seems far too obvious to be error.
Perhaps the " Paper" was authored by an A.I GPT3 program, hence no reply to attempts to contact the Authors of the Paper.
Gee. I wonder why they flat out LIED????
What about a cohort that includes after vaccine and a subsequent infection? I don't see that in there either.
I think, the only way to calculate it correctly is to divide 4.86 % per 0,91 %, wich makes an odds ratio from 5,34 and to divide 3,2 % per 0,68 %, wich gives a second odds ratio (before the exposition) from 4,706. divide the first odds ratio per the second (to compare the cohort with infection to the cohort with vaccination) and you obtain: 1,135. And this represents 13,5 % more relative risk of POTS in the cohort of infection in comparison to the cohort of vaccinated.
I agree with your version of the Maths. I think that there is more trickery involved than you have shown. The base line of the two groups is that far off, I think what the history of the two groups may be contaminated. In group two with the higher baseline, what was the long-term vaccine history of that group. Is POTS higher in that group because of that?
The authors and peer reviewers should be "Named and Shamed" as dishonest and corrupt
I almost thought Drbeen was trying to push something onto his audience, thank for not doing exactly that, I don't like loosing a reliable source. Pretty clear a deliberate loss of statistical procedures occurred among the investigators.
The 1.15 difference is a generous approach as it does not account for the unvac group apparently being more vulnerable to POTS, independent of infection factor that can exacerbate this vulnerability, than the vac group in the very first place.
This one reminds me of the study suggesting people who got the shot were less likely to have car accidents.. if this one is the one about emergency room visits and the severity of pots associated with shot vs no shot. They are going from desperately delusional to absurd trying to make it seem better to develope pots from the shot than from COVID. Even though you still get COVID even if youve had the shot.
They are all vaccinated, vaccine + infection, to vaccine unaffected is what they are comparing
Excellent excellent Dr. B
Unbelievable...😡🤬🤬🤬🤬
I'm wondering how repeatable this study is. How about repeating the study with a new group of people, including the subjects and the researchers. See if the new researchers come up with similar results. Then do it all again. And again. See how much similarity or variability there is in all the individual studies. A meta study would be nice. I'm willing to bet this study would be an outlier.
Problem is journals look for novel research. They rarely if ever accept a paper on a research subject that's already been published. I know, dumb position as science research needs to be repeatable and tested but try and get a paper published where you are trying to repeat someone else's work. Really hard.