If you skim through that study, you will quickly discover that this "study" actually means nothing at all.
This cohort study included 382 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and a control group of 85 SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals
So ... HOW did they determine if an individual was (a) positive or (b) negative for SARS-CoV-2?
Of course, it was done via the fraudulent PCR, which is meaningless:
This cohort study included nonhospitalized individuals ... who underwent reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.
Once you understand that PCR is NOT a valid dignostic tool, then you understand that you have nothing more than 382 false-positive individuals in one group, and 85 false-negative individuals in the other group.
In other words, there is no difference at all, other than a fake test.
Which is why ...
When applying the World Health Organization case definition of PCC, prevalence at 6 months was 49%, but was also comparably high (47%) in the control group.
Right, because there was NO DIFFERENCE in the two groups, other than a fake PCR test, and a fake World Health Organization "case definition."
Absolutely, 100% meaningless.
Which is why:
PCC was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors.
What they are saying is that they have no clue why these people were sick, if they exhibited signs of sickness at all.
Notice that the so-called positive patients did not show any signs of sickness that the negative patients did not?
They ONLY use fake definitions based on fake tests to CLAIM there were two different groups to study.
They seem to have a HINT that something is wrong with the whole thing, when they say:
These findings suggest that persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore question the usefulness of the WHO case definition of PCC.
But ... they can't figure it out because they are still working within the false Germ Theory paradigm. Therefore, they will not be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions -- which is exactly what happens here.
They just shrug their shoulders and say it's a BIG MYSTERY ... but we need MOAR MONEY TO STUDY IT!!!
Moar gibs, please!
They conclude:
This finding raises questions about the utility of the World Health Organization case definition
Gee, ya think?
The WHO case definition is nothing more than a made-up fantasy.
Their conclusion is on the right track, even though they have no idea why.
Quite pathetic, really, for so-called "scientists."
If you skim through that study, you will quickly discover that this "study" actually means nothing at all.
This cohort study included 382 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and a control group of 85 SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals
So ... HOW did they determine if an individual was (a) positive or (b) negative for SARS-CoV-2?
Of course, it was done via the fraudulent PCR, which is meaningless:
This cohort study included nonhospitalized individuals ... who underwent reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.
Once you understand that PCR is NOT a valid dignostic tool, then you understand that you have nothing more than 382 false-positive individuals in one group, and 85 false-negative individuals in the other group.
In other words, there is no difference at all, other than a fake test.
Which is why ...
When applying the World Health Organization case definition of PCC, prevalence at 6 months was 49%, but was also comparably high (47%) in the control group.
Right, because there was NO DIFFERENCE in the two groups, other than a fake PCR test, and a fake World Health Organization "case definition."
Absolutely, 100% meaningless.
Which is why:
PCC was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors.
What they are saying is that they have no clue why these people were sick, if they exhibited signs of sickness at all.
Notice that the so-called positive patients did not show any signs of sickness that the negative-patients did not?
They ONLY use fake definitions based on fake tests to CLAIM there were two different groups to study.
They seem to have a HINT that something is wrong with the whole thing, when they say:
These findings suggest that persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore question the usefulness of the WHO case definition of PCC.
But ... they can't figure it out because they are still working within the false Germ Theory paradigm. Therefore, they will not be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions -- which is exactly what happens here.
They just shrug their shoulders and say it's a BIG MYSTERY ... but we need MOAR MONEY TO STUDY IT!!!
Moar gibs, please!
They conclude:
This finding raises questions about the utility of the World Health Organization case definition
Gee, ya think?
The WHO case definition is nothing more than a made-up fantasy.
Their conclusion is on the right track, even though they have no idea why.
Quite pathetic, really, for so-called "scientists."
If you skim through that study, you will quickly discover that this "study" actually means nothing at all.
This cohort study included 382 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and a control group of 85 SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals
So ... HOW did they determine if an individual was (a) positive or (b) negative for SARS-CoV-2?
Of course, it was done via the fraudulent PCR, which is meaningless:
This cohort study included nonhospitalized individuals ... who underwent reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.
Once you understand that PCR is NOT a valid dignostic tool, then you understand that you have nothing more than 382 false-positive individuals in one group, and 85 false-negative individuals in the other group.
In other words, there is no difference at all, other than a fake test.
Which is why ...
When applying the World Health Organization case definition of PCC, prevalence at 6 months was 49%, but was also comparably high (47%) in the control group.
Right, because there was NO DIFFERENCE in the two groups, other than a fake PCR test, and a fake World Health Organization "case definition."
Absolutely, 100% meaningless.
Which is why:
PCC was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors.
What they are saying is that they have no clue why these people were sick, if they exhibited signs of sickness at all.
Notice that the so-called positive patients did not show any signs of sickness that the negative-patients did not?
They ONLY use fake definitions based on fake tests to CLAIM there were two different groups to study.
They seem to have a HINT that something is wrong with the whole thing, when they say:
These findings suggest that persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore question the usefulness of the WHO case definition of PCC.
But ... they can't figure it out because they are still working within the false Germ Theory paradigm. Therefore, they will not be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions -- which is exactly what happens here.
They just shrug their shoulders and say it's a BIG MYSTERY ... but we need MOAR MONEY TO STUDY IT!!!
Moar gibs, please!
They conclude:
This finding raises questions about the utility of the World Health Organization case definition
At least, they got that right, even though they have no idea why.
Quite pathetic, really, for so-called "scientists."
If you skim through that study, you will quickly discover that this "study" actually means nothing at all.
This cohort study included 382 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and a control group of 85 SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals
So ... HOW did they determine if an individual was (a) positive or (b) negative for SARS-CoV-2?
Of course, it was done via the fraudulent PCR, which is meaningless:
This cohort study included nonhospitalized individuals ... who underwent reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.
Once you understand that PCR is NOT a valid dignostic tool, then you understand that you have nothing more than 382 false-positive individuals in one group, and 85 false-negative individuals in the other group.
In other words, there is no difference at all, other than a fake test.
Which is why ...
When applying the World Health Organization case definition of PCC, prevalence at 6 months was 49%, but was also comparably high (47%) in the control group.
Right, because there was NO DIFFERENCE in the two groups, other than a fake PCR test, and a fake World Health Organization "case definition."
Absolutely, 100% meaningless.
Which is why:
PCC was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors.
What they are saying is that they have no clue why these people were sick, if they exhibited signs of sickness at all.
Notice that the so-called positive patients did not show any signs of sickness that the negative-patients did not?
They ONLY use fake definitions based on fake tests to CLAIM there were to different groups to study.
They seem to have a HINT that something is wrong with the whole thing, when they say:
These findings suggest that persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore question the usefulness of the WHO case definition of PCC.
But ... they can't figure it out because they are still working within the false Germ Theory paradigm. Therefore, they will not be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions -- which is exactly what happens here.
They just shrug their shoulders and say it's a BIG MYSTERY ... but we need MOAR MONEY TO STUDY IT!!!
Moar gibs, please!
They conclude:
This finding raises questions about the utility of the World Health Organization case definition
At least, they got that right, even though they have no idea why.
Quite pathetic, really, for so-called "scientists."
If you skim through that study, you will quickly discover that this "study" actually means nothing at all.
This cohort study included 382 SARS-CoV-2–positive individuals and a control group of 85 SARS-CoV-2–negative individuals
So ... HOW did they determine if an individual was (a) positive or (b) negative for SARS-CoV-2?
Of course, it was done via the fraudulent PCR, which is meaningless:
This cohort study included nonhospitalized individuals ... who underwent reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing.
Once you understand that PCR is NOT a valid dignostic tool, then you understand that you have nothing more than 382 false-positive individuals in one group, and 85 false-negative individuals in the other group.
In other words, there is no difference at all, other than a fake test.
Which is why ...
When applying the World Health Organization case definition of PCC, prevalence at 6 months was 49%, but was also comparably high (47%) in the control group.
Right, because there was NO DIFFERENCE in the two groups, other than a fake PCR test, and a fake World Health Organization "case definition."
Absolutely, 100% meaningless.
Which is why:
PCC was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors.
What they are saying is that they have no clue why these people were sick, if they exhibited signs of sickness at all.
Notice that the so-called positive patients did not show any signs of sickness that the negative-patients did not?
They ONLY use fake definitions based on fake tests to CLAIM there were to different groups to study.
They seem to have a HINT that something is wrong with the whole thing, when they say:
These findings suggest that persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection, and therefore question the usefulness of the WHO case definition of PCC.
But ... they can't figure it out because they are still working within the false Germ Theory paradigm. Therefore, they will not be able to arrive at any meaningful conclusions -- which is exactly what happens here.
They just shrug their shoulders and say it's a BIG MYSTERY ... but we need MOAR MONEY TO STUDY IT!!!
Moar gibs, please!
They conclude:
This finding raises questions about the utility of the World Health Organization case definition and has implications for the planning of health care services as well as for further research on PCC.
At least, they got that right, even though they have no idea why.
Quite pathetic, really.