THE MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT CONTINUES TO MAKE ITSELF LOOK FOOLISH: Drudge linked this study, which purports to show that “recovered” Covid patients have high rates of heart issues as detected via imaging. I read the study and I saw a lot of problems, the most glaring of which is the way the authors define “recovered.” Recovered means that the subject tested negative for Covid after previously testing positive. The subjects may have just tested negative the day before they were imaged. In other words, while they no longer had Covid, their bodies did not have time to heal/recover from whatever damage Covid wrought.

I thought to myself that perhaps, though I do teach scientific evidence and thus know how to read a study, surely I’m missing or misunderstanding something. But then I read the accompanying editorial comment, which states, “There are important residual questions about potential selection bias and generalizability and not all of the patients may have recovered…”

What? You can’t (well, you obviously can, but shouldn’t) publish a paper that purports to be about “recovered” Covid patients when you, the editor, has doubts about whether (or how many of) the subjects were actually recovered!