Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

774

Think of amyloid like prion. Permanent clumps that aggregate and get bigger. Big and bad if true.

The study does not mention this. You must always read the supplemental appendicies to see what is really going on. They don't even mention this in the publication according to the article author (not the publication author)

Think of amyloid like prion. Permanent clumps that aggregate and get bigger. Big and bad if true. The study does not mention this. You must always read the supplemental appendicies to see what is really going on. They don't even mention this in the publication according to the article author (not the publication author)
You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (4).
[–] • 1 pt

No doubt, if they had separated the jabbed from the unjabbed, their paper would never have made it to publication though.

You know how things get done. Maybe they leave the real information in the appendix now.

[–] • 0 pt

The trouble is that even in the appendix, there is no way of determining which of the 5 "Long COVID" group members weren't jabbed. So the data remains conflated.

Maybe they need an appendix to the appendix that has a table that maps the participant ID to the number of jabs they got.