No idea. I hope you're fine

Errrrrrrr Mah Gawd!!!!! You people need to take this seriously!!!!!

I don't know........maybe I should go to the hospital and get checked out? See a neurologist?

That's the point, right? What level of behavior modification are these cucks expecting, based on the inherently flawed studies that they cite?

The original Covid doesn’t exist anymore, so those results are meaningless with regards to how people should proceed in today’s landscape with regards to Covid.






Also, why did you edit your previous post to take out the giant font of the quote
“ All but 1 patient were infected prior to vaccination”

??

Make sure you go on a day when you have a headache so it can be contributed to long Covid.

Did you see the discussion a while back where Project Veritas got the Pfizer exec to admit that covid was a cash cow for them, and that they wanted to keep it going? That in and of itself should have at the VERY least got them to ask some hard questions of themselves.... But what did they do instead?

Rage at Project Veritas and defend their sacred covid narrative as if their lives depended on it.Or brain fog..

Dog wakes you up early, can't go back to sleep, so you go into work that morning all groggy despite having several cups of coffee.

"Morning.. you ok?"

"Nope... long covid bro."

I remember Paul Stanley got the Rona, he started Reeeeeeeeeeeing, blaming it on the unvaccinated crowd members, turned out he got it from Gene Simmons, who was vaccinated......

Kind of reminds me of OPs behavior.

This whole, "It's just a cold." Yeah guy, the variant is so weak now, it pretty much IS a cold.

Brain fog? I mean, Saturdays are my rest day, no cardio, no lifting, no caffeine. Usually tired on my rest day, and with zero caffeine on that day, I'm sort of out of it.

It must be "Long Covid?"

You better go get tested ASAP.

more gaslighting.
how exactly am i a victim?

I don't think anyone is suggesting behaviour modification, rather researching what appear to be longer term effects.

Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test are both robust to unequal sample sizes and equal sample sizes are not an assumption of unpaired t-tests. I don't like frequentist methods, but it's what most groups are still using.

Early on we had an older lady at my office who was somewhat talking down to me for not being injected(I’m the only one in my office who isn’t) and she said I could give her Covid. I pointed out that all the injected people were actually more likely to give it to her(this is back when people still thought the injection drastically reduced symptoms but had already found out that injected people still spread it). She didn’t really say much after that. Fast forward about a year when boosters are gaining popularity and her sister’s doctor actually recommends that she(her sister) not get the booster because she had heart issues….so doctors already knew at that point. Her whole view on the injections have changed since her talk with me about it. I just chalk it up to her being a scared old lady, but yeah….it was weird seeing how effective the propaganda was.


And here we still have Opie sharing countless (poorly conducted) studies about how terrible Covid is. Strange to watch.

With any parametric test you are comparing models, not the actual data. The sample sizes don't need to be exactly equal, but you need to be able to estimate the parameters of the distribution. Garbage in, garbage out.

This is one of the many issues with the study and it's very small by comparison to their selection issues.

Is this the only attention you're getting in life? Is this why you make these threads?

No.

You always post in these threads, why?

Exactly. I’ve posted studies from Asia where they had all students receive evaluations from cardiologists along with ECGs and other quantifiable tests both before getting the injections and again within a week or so of getting the injection. Opie said those studies don’t mean anything. Meanwhile he can post a study where the patients were not referred by a doctor, relied on self-reporting of symptoms, and used cognition tests with no pre-infection baseline to compare against….and he thinks this is a legit study.

The study also fails to differentiate the outcomes between the injected and non-injected. For example in the non-hospitalized group around 45% of them received the injection. It would be quite easy for them to break down results by injected status. For all we know, 100% of that 45% group had much worse outcomes… and if that were the case it would indicate that receiving the injection after infection is a bad idea. However, they chose to not do that…rather they just contribute everything to the virus. But hey, that’s what Opie wants to see so that’s what he shares.

Impact of COVID-19 vaccination on the risk of developing long-COVID and on existing long-COVID symptoms: A systematic review

"Low level of evidence (grade III, case-controls, cohort studies) suggests that vaccination before SARS-CoV-2 infection could reduce the risk of subsequent long-COVID. The impact of vaccination in people with existing long-COVID symptoms is still controversial, with some data showing changes in symptoms and others did not. These assumptions are limited to those vaccines used in the studies."


https://www.thelancet.com/journals/e...354-6/fulltext

I've said before that the effect of vaccination on long covid is heterogeneous across studies. The study in OP states long covid continues despite vaccines and boosters.

But, there isn't much evidence that long covid is due to vaccination.

this is like when a "woman" rapes another woman with their penis.

just figuring this out?
i already posted his MO.
he is not here for legitimate debate.
he is here because he thinks he is so smart he can argue anything false.
but he really isn't that smart because he keeps painting himself into corners and deflecting.

i suppose he could be a paid shill.
must be nice to suck at your job and still get paid if true.

Anyone paying attention will see he backs off quickly from in depth discussion of complex concepts.

bahahahahaha Long Covid. Viruses do not even exist.
Imagine thinking Viruses are real. Holy sh!t you have to be clinically retarded to believe they exist.

Germ theory is a lie.


https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ch8v4TVL9yq0/

Dynamic white matter changes in recovered COVID-19 patients: a two-year follow-up study

"Recovered COVID-19 patients showed longitudinal recovery trends of white matter. But also had persistent white matter abnormalities at two years after discharge. Inflammation levels in the acute stage may be considered predictors of cognition and white matter integrity, and the white matter microstructure acts as a biomarker of cognitive function in recovered COVID-19 patients. These findings provide an objective basis for early clinical intervention."



"Correlations results. (A) Viso were positively correlated with ESR in the acute stage within the PT2. (B) LM-A scores were negatively correlated with SII in the acute stage within the PT2. Viso, volume fraction of isotropic diffusion compartment; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; SII, systemic immune-inflammation index; LM, logical memory task; PT2, recovered patients at two years after discharge."

The exact test is an exact test.

You suggested their selected tests were invalid due to unequal sample sizes. Why do you think the parameter estimates were unstable?

To me a larger issue is with the use of frequentist methods where the data are considered random and the parameters are taken as fixed. While computationally convenient, sampling distributions don't address the questions people generally want to answer.

Neither I, nor the authors, suggest this as a perfect study. They describe the work as exploratory, not definitive.

"Our study has limitations. As is the case for any study on any disease performed in an ambulatory setting, it is based on self-selected individuals who sought care at our Neuro-COVID-19 clinic. This is similar to any studies on any disease performed in hospital setting, based on self-selected individuals seeking inpatient care, or to internet surveys, where participants self-select based on their access to technology and other socio-economic factors.42-44 However, our protocol of providing in-person or televisits to patients from the entire United States without physician referral was deliberately designed to improve access and avoid referral bias. Therefore, our patients are representative of the US Neuro-PASC population that is seeking care at post-COVID clinics. Since approximately half of the patients enrolled from both groups came from televisits, this restricted features of the neurologic exam and NIH Toolbox assessment, which is performed on a tablet. Nevertheless, patients living in Illinois and surrounding states had the opportunity to come in-person after their televisit and complete the cognitive tests. Of note, analyses of age, PROMIS quality of life measures, NIH toolbox cognitive tests and % recovery compared to pre-COVID-19 baseline showed no significant differences in either PNP or NNP group between those surveyed initially via televisit versus in-person. Our study did not have contemporaneous control groups and relied on the normative population of the NIH Toolbox cognitive tests."



I take it as yet another indicator that long covid might be real and impacting people and the economy.

Is it possible, that if covid was an engineered bioweapon designed to attack the West, that maybe it wasn't an epic fail?

And also quickly scrambles to push the “Covid is a huge threat and injections are safe and effective” narrative as needed whenever different things come up. Notice how I point out issues with the study in post 1 about how they don’t differentiate between injected and non-injected and that for all we know 100% of the injected people suffered worse symptoms. So he refuses to answer my question about the post he edited but quickly scrambles to share other poorly constructed studies about how injections don’t cause long Covid symptoms(when we already know for a fact they can).



Funny how the narrative has evolved from:

- the injections will make it almost impossible to get infected and spread the virus

- you can still get infected but your symptoms will be drastically reduced and you won’t spread it

- your symptoms will be drastically reduced and you can still spread it, but are less likely to do so

- your symptoms will be somewhat reduced and you will be as likely to spread it as someone who didn’t receive the injection, if not more so

- you’ll need a booster to maintain protection from severe symptoms, and it’s still better than natural immunity

- the effectiveness of the boosters wanes even faster than the original shot and they are less effective. They also provide worse protection than natural immunity…however they still do a good job of protecting against “long Covid”

- the shots don’t protect against “long Covid”




And on and on and on. Just lmfao at people like Opie who have been so wrong and yet still speak as if they know what they’re talking about

why are you even trying to argue with OP don't you know who he is by now?

Brain imaging and neuropsychological assessment of individuals recovered from a mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection

"In this case–control study, we demonstrate that non-vaccinated individuals recovered from a mild to moderate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection show significant alterations of the cerebral white matter identified by diffusion-weighted imaging, such as global increases in extracellular free water and mean diffusivity."

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2217232120

Difficult to attribute these results to vaccines.

What causes the brain damage after covid infection when someone isn't vaccinated?

You suggested it's vaccines, not covid.

Another really good article.

1. "but also impacts various other organ systems during the acute phase and well beyond (1, 5, 6).
Neurological symptoms, such as headache, fatigue, memory, and attention deficits, may significantly impede well-being in individuals suffering from COVID-19 sequelae (4, 7, 8).
Advancing our understanding of the underlying pathological mechanisms will be crucial for addressing future health care needs."
2. "findings indicate the presence of a prolonged neuroinflammatory response to the initial viral infection."

Source??