Comment by wk_end | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wk_end | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertglatter/2020/08/17/covid-...

The study this references turned out to be based on bogus data and bad statistics. The original authors since amended their data and don't back down from their conclusions, but they seem a bit unjustified (IMO, and the opinion of their critics).

Here's the tweetstorm (sorry) from the professor that initially called this out [1], the acknowledgement of the errors [2], and the tweetstorm (again, sorry) from that professor again pointing out that the corrected data shows "Covid survivors DO have thingies in their T1. But it is JUST AS COMMON in people with similar risk factors who have NOT had Covid. In other words, yes there are those funny thingies in the scan, but it is NOTHING TO DO WITH HAVING HAD COVID. It is because of the background risk factors" [3].

Here's a news article summing this all up nicely, if you prefer [4].

[1] https://twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1288246926392070145?...

[2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...

[3] https://twitter.com/ProfDFrancis/status/1298524305945436161

[4] https://www.tctmd.com/news/message-unchanged-say-researchers...

In other words, the following paragraph from Forbes is fake news:

> The researchers, who performed MRI scan of their hearts an average of 2 months after they first were diagnosed with Covid-19, uncovered some concerning findings: 78% of patients had ongoing heart abnormalities and 60 percent had myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle. Even more concerning was that the extent of myocarditis was not related to the severity of the initial illness or overall course of the illness.

This is so important. I'm so sick of people on either "side" faking data to prove their presuppositions on this.

>I’m so sick of people on either “side” faking data to prove their presuppositions on this.

I don’t think this research is carried out with ulterior motives. Scientists make mistakes, and are prone to biases whenever they have a hypothesis. The progression of repeated studies is the final arbiter of truth. Saying that long-term heart abnormalities would be faked to push an agenda is suggesting the existence of a conspiracy. Beyond the usual “publish or perish” drive, nobody stands to benefit from reporting results either way.

Saying that Forbes has no motive to sensationalize things is a different matter entirely, though.

Plus, what am I to make of a researcher that doesn’t correct for the most basic confounding factors in their data. Are you seriously suggesting they never thought of that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com