TriNetX makes me very nervous. I can see a situation in the near future where main stream medicine only accepts studies that use its black box data, and who knows what's really in that black box. Based on their claims of having all that data available, they must have quasi clandestine contracts with big EHRs such as Epic.
On the subject of Covid-19 vs Vaccine injury re heart troubles, I found this basic analysis of association football players worldwide very helpful.
In 2018, 2019 & 2020, no more than two or three pro-footballers died on-pitch of cardiac arrest. By October 2021, twelve pro-footballers had died of cardiac arrest on-pitch. As far as my rudimentary research can ascertain, this is four times higher than ever before recorded.
I wonder how many pro-footballers have died on-pitch or off-pitch thanks to the direct effects of Covid-19. I'd wager, given that pro-footballers are strong, young, healthy folk, that number is probably zero or very close to zero.
To my eyes, this is patent evidence that something has changed radically in 2021 that had not changed in 2018, or in 2019, or even in 2020 while the virus apparently raged around the world without any rushed out vaccines to "queer the pitch". See what I did there? ;)
Whatever changed in 2021 but hadn't changed in 2020 during the initial virus-but-no-vaccine phase, or in 2019 or in 2018, resulted in a four-fold increase in on-pitch cardiac arrest deaths amongst pro-footballers.
And we all know what changed in 2021 but hadn't changed in 2018, 2019 or in 2020 either...
Thank you for the analysis and inspection of these kinds of paper. It obviously takes time, diligence and effort to examine them and to tease out the nuances that are hidden (intentionally or not) in the structure of the study. Something that people like me don't have the expertise to know about or recognize. This kind of analysis helps us to learn.
Thanks for your careful analysis - as well as the insightful classification into four groups. It is helpful to have papers read so carefully. Prior to recent times, I confess that I used to regard peer-review as a careful process of this kind, in part because of my experience of peer review in non-medical fields. Clearly it is now at least delusional to regard medical peer-review as a trustworthy process and a signal for acceptability of findings. Unfortunately.
TriNetX makes me very nervous. I can see a situation in the near future where main stream medicine only accepts studies that use its black box data, and who knows what's really in that black box. Based on their claims of having all that data available, they must have quasi clandestine contracts with big EHRs such as Epic.
Thanks for an excellent dissecting job. So grateful for people like you. Keeping me sane. ❤️
On the subject of Covid-19 vs Vaccine injury re heart troubles, I found this basic analysis of association football players worldwide very helpful.
In 2018, 2019 & 2020, no more than two or three pro-footballers died on-pitch of cardiac arrest. By October 2021, twelve pro-footballers had died of cardiac arrest on-pitch. As far as my rudimentary research can ascertain, this is four times higher than ever before recorded.
I wonder how many pro-footballers have died on-pitch or off-pitch thanks to the direct effects of Covid-19. I'd wager, given that pro-footballers are strong, young, healthy folk, that number is probably zero or very close to zero.
To my eyes, this is patent evidence that something has changed radically in 2021 that had not changed in 2018, or in 2019, or even in 2020 while the virus apparently raged around the world without any rushed out vaccines to "queer the pitch". See what I did there? ;)
Whatever changed in 2021 but hadn't changed in 2020 during the initial virus-but-no-vaccine phase, or in 2019 or in 2018, resulted in a four-fold increase in on-pitch cardiac arrest deaths amongst pro-footballers.
And we all know what changed in 2021 but hadn't changed in 2018, 2019 or in 2020 either...
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/theres-something-happening-here-what-it-is-is-increasingly-clear/
Thank you for the analysis and inspection of these kinds of paper. It obviously takes time, diligence and effort to examine them and to tease out the nuances that are hidden (intentionally or not) in the structure of the study. Something that people like me don't have the expertise to know about or recognize. This kind of analysis helps us to learn.
Great work, Scott!
Thanks for your careful analysis - as well as the insightful classification into four groups. It is helpful to have papers read so carefully. Prior to recent times, I confess that I used to regard peer-review as a careful process of this kind, in part because of my experience of peer review in non-medical fields. Clearly it is now at least delusional to regard medical peer-review as a trustworthy process and a signal for acceptability of findings. Unfortunately.
Brilliant, thank you for your work exposing this fraud and the connection it has to many bad actors.
See also https://elliottmiddleton.substack.com/p/myocarditis-covid-vs-vax