The potential causes vary wildly between sources, yet these sources all agree what the culprit isn't. Also, a (perhaps too bright) light in the darkness
First, on the items in “four-by-four grid of squares” – those are examples of the some of the worst kinds of journalism. Those are essentially press releases slightly (if that) rewritten, with perhaps one sentence along the lines of “Dr. ABC from XYZ institution, who was not involved in the study, said …”. Researchers and their institutions like to put out press releases whenever they have something published. The types of examples in your graphic are usually from small studies of diet and/or exercise that are unlikely to be able to be replicated but are “newsworthy” because they came up with a different result from things that had been published previously. Observational studies of diet are notoriously hard to replicate, not necessarily because of any incompetence on the part of the researchers, but because usual diet is VERY hard to assess accurately. Short-term studies of diet, such as a 24- or 48-hour weighed food record may be more accurate, but how well they represent USUAL diet is highly questionable. (I’ll admit to having been involved in at least one study of an association between a dietary factor and an outcome -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29039795/.)
Much of my work over the past 20+ years has been on studies related to cardiovascular disease (CVD), but I have no insights into the association between COVID-19 vaccines and CVD in young people. The participants in the studies I work on are middle-aged or elderly. In the biggest one, they are now all over 80 (they were aged 45-64 when recruited in the late 1980s). It is likely to take a few years before good results are available for studies of COVID-19 (and COVID-19 vaccines) and CVD outcomes. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable in terms of identifying the real cause of death. For our studies of CVD we use a combination of hospital records, death certificates, and questionnaires sent to doctors and next-of-kin of the deceased. Then, typically, two physicians well trained on the study’s event classification rules independently review each case and assign a cause. Disagreements are adjudicated by a third physician. It takes time to compile the information and go through the adjudication process. So, for instance, for the study mentioned above in which the participants are now aged over 80, last month we released event information through 2020 to our collaborators – that is for events that occurred before the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines.
Two of the studies I work on are part of a large collaboration of cardiovascular disease studies that are combining information to look at various aspects of COVID-19. Some background is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35279711/. It will be a while before anything related to outcomes is published. (Today, on a conference call unrelated to COVID, the tenth author of that publication mentioned he had just come from a talk in which the speaker mentioned that marathon runners are at increased risk of atrial fibrillation. He (the person on the call) said very smugly that that is why he doesn’t run marathons.
I’ve given up expecting more people to wake up to what’s happening right in front of them. If they haven’t seen it, or don’t understand it even a little bit, they never will. But that’s just my nature. The economy has tanked already, it’s just floating on a sea of printed money and debt. When it finally sinks, most people will attribute it to whatever they’re told.
What gets me is Why is no one questioning whether the “vaccines” and heart issues are correlated? If the “experts” are so sure they’re not, then prove it. Shut us all up.
A few comments:
First, on the items in “four-by-four grid of squares” – those are examples of the some of the worst kinds of journalism. Those are essentially press releases slightly (if that) rewritten, with perhaps one sentence along the lines of “Dr. ABC from XYZ institution, who was not involved in the study, said …”. Researchers and their institutions like to put out press releases whenever they have something published. The types of examples in your graphic are usually from small studies of diet and/or exercise that are unlikely to be able to be replicated but are “newsworthy” because they came up with a different result from things that had been published previously. Observational studies of diet are notoriously hard to replicate, not necessarily because of any incompetence on the part of the researchers, but because usual diet is VERY hard to assess accurately. Short-term studies of diet, such as a 24- or 48-hour weighed food record may be more accurate, but how well they represent USUAL diet is highly questionable. (I’ll admit to having been involved in at least one study of an association between a dietary factor and an outcome -- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29039795/.)
Much of my work over the past 20+ years has been on studies related to cardiovascular disease (CVD), but I have no insights into the association between COVID-19 vaccines and CVD in young people. The participants in the studies I work on are middle-aged or elderly. In the biggest one, they are now all over 80 (they were aged 45-64 when recruited in the late 1980s). It is likely to take a few years before good results are available for studies of COVID-19 (and COVID-19 vaccines) and CVD outcomes. Death certificates are notoriously unreliable in terms of identifying the real cause of death. For our studies of CVD we use a combination of hospital records, death certificates, and questionnaires sent to doctors and next-of-kin of the deceased. Then, typically, two physicians well trained on the study’s event classification rules independently review each case and assign a cause. Disagreements are adjudicated by a third physician. It takes time to compile the information and go through the adjudication process. So, for instance, for the study mentioned above in which the participants are now aged over 80, last month we released event information through 2020 to our collaborators – that is for events that occurred before the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines.
Two of the studies I work on are part of a large collaboration of cardiovascular disease studies that are combining information to look at various aspects of COVID-19. Some background is here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35279711/. It will be a while before anything related to outcomes is published. (Today, on a conference call unrelated to COVID, the tenth author of that publication mentioned he had just come from a talk in which the speaker mentioned that marathon runners are at increased risk of atrial fibrillation. He (the person on the call) said very smugly that that is why he doesn’t run marathons.
I’ve given up expecting more people to wake up to what’s happening right in front of them. If they haven’t seen it, or don’t understand it even a little bit, they never will. But that’s just my nature. The economy has tanked already, it’s just floating on a sea of printed money and debt. When it finally sinks, most people will attribute it to whatever they’re told.
What gets me is Why is no one questioning whether the “vaccines” and heart issues are correlated? If the “experts” are so sure they’re not, then prove it. Shut us all up.