https://twitter.com/P_McCulloughMD/status/1610257536162332672?s=20&t=UG37urzIX71gOKIAeLfihw
Don't bring medical studies and peer reviewed papers into this. The libs don't deal in facts, only emotions.
Is it peer reviewed? It's listed as "letter to editor".
Letter uses absolute values instead of rates. How many athletes were in sports in 1966-2004 versus 2020-2022?
What was the source of statistics for those years? Are they comparable in how they were taken? How reliable are those statistics? Where is the data for 2005-2019?
What types of sports had the highest rate of cardiac injury? What about race?
Great questions. Were any asked of the CV jab trials?
No need to answer.
The fact that Pfizer asked a federal judge to withhold answers for 75 years[/i][/b] says it all.
In this case, the author Dr Peter McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country. With over 600 peer-reviewed, published papers on his resume he is head and shoulders above the field. I think it's fair to say he's earned a bit of discretion if those questions aren't perfectly addressed (but likely are given his track record).
I really hope this helps.
They should've been asked and accounted for in the trials. And if people have questions or concerns, then they need to be addressed.
I don't like that Pfizer wants to withhold answers either, but it's how pharma operates and it leads to distrust of medicine in the population.
I don't care if McCullough is the top cardiologist in the country, these are basic questions in epidemiology and biostatistics. How do you do a cohort analysis when the two source populations are different?[/b]
In theory, wouldn't a cardiologist be a better source of understanding and identifying side effects that effect the heart than an epidemiologist?
Essentially, this is a database review which is a common form of surveillance to try to identify correlation between exposure and outcome. It doesn't appear to be more than identifying a statistic that an event happened (cardiac arrest) in an athlete (source population) given the vaccine (exposure). There would need to be control for confounding variables (race, age, gender, what sport they played, how long they played, etc.) to isolate how strong the outcome is correlated to the exposure. If the paper were more about reviewing the cases and determining whether a case was legitimately cardiac arrest or some other major cardiac event, then the cardiologist would be a much better fit.
To me, one suggestion I have with the data he presented is that the demographics in the US changed such that there's going to be more background cases of cardiac arrest. It seems to occur more often in blacks and in soccer than say whites and baseball, and I'd wager that the percentage of blacks and soccer has grown since the 1960s to the 2020s. That said, there could be excess cardiac events because of the virus or the vaccine, but it's uncertain with how the data was presented in that letter.
