Excellent, a new way to test for the "fibrinaloid clots", a term that has only recently appeared in the literature since 2022, directly after the first experimental injections were administered worldwide and 2 years after the declared pandemic. It sounds like the authors are assuming "long Covid" comes from Covid rather than the experimental injections without ever having ruled out the latter, even though the onset correlates temporally with the experimental injections far more than the declared pandemic. Since this term never existed in the literature during the first 2 years of the declared pandemic, and only finally appeared in 2022 (and only in 1 article) before it started gaining traction, we must ask ourselves the following questions if we are truly interested in pursuing the scientific method: 1. Did the authors categorize the test subjects by those who had received the COVID-19 injection and those who had not? 2. If not, how do we rule out these effects being long-term effects from the experimental injections which cause people's bodies to continually produce the Spike protein the authors discuss in their paper as being the cause of the "fibrinaloid clots"? 3.Isn't this continual production of Spike induced by the injections something that should be controlled for to answer the question one way or another?
Suggestions: Test for "fibrinaloid clots" in subjects who have had confirmed COVID-19 and categorize them by how many experimental injections they received; include patients who received none. Then plot the number of experimental injections per patient on the x axis and the detected microclot size on the y axis.
Best regards to all.