I'm not covering for shit. Lapado took data from the study and stratified it to a greater extent giving better granularity. Here's an example of what I'm saying.UNI88 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 3:13 pmIf it was a shit study then proper response was to not publish it, not to unilaterally change it without data from that study to backup the changes.SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 2:36 pm
That is part of the process. His edits were even titled Dr L's edits as the article states.
Do you notice how the article won't specifically list what as "taken out" and even refers to it as "stuff".
Their just pissed because he showed they were rigging the report. That's like when StOnge says "the author never said that", but it's plain as day in the data. Of course they didn't say that, they had a drug to promote.
If we want to get nitpicky, you can damn well bet chemistries were not run before and after to measure heart inflammation. That's on the original authors. Shit study in which the obfuscated heart damage data
You're covering for this clown just like JSO covers for the lockdown clowns.
This is the same data, but it is increasingly more stratified. See how the myocarditis signal starts to appear as you start stratifying the numbers? That's what Lapado did. Showed who really was at risk.