Last week, a paper was published in the Lancet that drew some alarming conclusions about the number of complications associated with COVID-19 hospital patients, generating a predictable number of alarming headlines. However, our in-house doctor has cast his eye over it and has spotted a number of flaws. Here is an extract:
My main criticism of this paper lies in the conclusions drawn from the data. The majority of the discussion section concentrates on the incidence of complications from acute Covid in hospitalised younger patients – defined as under 50 years of age. Yet only 12.6% of the sample size were under 50 years of age. Very little discussion is made of the other 87.4% of patients in the older age groups, who actually had the worst outcomes.
Major emphasis is laid on the incidence of renal complications seen in the younger subgroup and what implications that might have for the future health of the patients. Inference is drawn that such acute kidney injury may lead to higher risks of subsequent renal failure and heart disease in later life.
Yet the authors extrapolate those conclusions based on citations of other papers which do not reflect the subgroup of younger patients referred to in their own figures. In my view it is not reasonable to compare a group of patients under 50 experiencing transient acute kidney injury in the context of another acute disease with a cohort of much older patients having AKI after recent heart attacks (as in one of their citations). Equating the long-term outcomes from these two distinct groups is likely to be a flawed assumption.
I note with interest that the incidence of acute kidney injury as a proportion of overall complications in each age group decile up to the over 90s was remarkably consistent at between 32% and 35%. No distinction was made in the analysis between people requiring renal replacement with dialysis or filtration and those experiencing transient biochemical renal dysfunction that was correctable with intravenous fluid replacement and other simple interventions. This observation supports my suspicion that the parameters of ‘renal injury’ have been set too wide to distinguish between mild dysfunction of no long-term consequence and serious renal damage.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Scapegoat for the corrupt and incompetent NHS…
It’ll be us tax payers paying for he huge compensation when she’s released…
I thought you were leaving DS?
That was posted before the multi parrotting of the bs narrative.
So stfu..
There’s absolutely nothing on this site that I can’t find on msm.. It’s nothing but pretence.. Day after day, week after week, year after year of nothing but parrotting of the forced narrative by the same old people, saying nothing new, all while the likes of you think you’re being a Sceptic…… Clueless
“So stfu.”
Your rudeness amply displays the thugish level at which you seek to engage with the members of this site but I can assure you it is not considered acceptable by the vast majority.
“There’s absolutely nothing on this site that I can’t find on msm.. It’s nothing but pretence.”
Which naturally begs the question, ‘why are you here?’
If you can find the same information in the Main Stream Media as DS provides then surely your shekels would be better spent in a local town centre boozer where perhaps opinions might not be so nuanced as are found here. That is not meant to wish you good riddance as I am sure DS Editorial welcome contributions from whatever sources, no matter how humble, but surely some self reflection is warranted, no?
The Daily Sceptic has developed over the four years I have been a member / subscriber and I believe it is a site which supports lively, informed, opinionated but always well mannered discussions. We do not all share the same opinions, fortunately but surely in these frankly dark and dangerous times the ability to talk freely but politely is to be welcomed and supported.
At least you have provided a degree of low level comedy via your postings but I really do think you should be looking elsewhere for people with whom you can vociferate. There must be outlets available somewhere.
Toodle pip.
Epic.
Evidently the kind of person whose picnic is totally devoid of sandwiches.
It’s the fact he’s literally spent money to come on a site he’s previously ( in different guises ) and continuously moans about, saying “I’m done” then just comes back with a different name time and again…What rational person goes on like that?
Thanks Mogs.
She’s as guilty as hell.
The transcripts I have read indicate that Ms Letby is wholly innocent but there are two or three doctors who appear to have been negligent and that’s a generous assessment.
And you know this how?
Her guilt was shown by the fact that she was always on duty when the babies died, except when she wasn’t… something a little inconsistent there.
Statistical rounding error…
Yes didn’t Norman Fenton carry out some analysis about various doctors and nurses attending the ward and basically showed anyone could have been responsible? Looks like a cover up to me of NHS incompetence.
The modelling shows that this could never happen – so that proves it.
(whatever it is)
Experts. Don’t you just love them. Poor Sally Clark all over again perhaps.
The NHS seem certain she’s guilty though –
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2023/08/commenting-on-the-verdict-in-the-lucy-letby-trial/
Ruth May needs to keep her trap shut.
The NHS are still pushing the bloody C1984 “vaccines.” So far I have received two text messages “inviting” me and a further email.
Two days ago I had to attend A & E. The tannoy is still pumping out messages telling people to wear masks, socially distance and wash hands – unbelievable given the damages the first two have caused.
One thing’s for sure. It’s quite certain that particularly with their jab rhetoric the NHS has caused and will continue to cause the death of thousands more than Lucy Letby ever has.