Why do you write authoritatively on these topics when your knowledge of them is minuscule? Ask yourself the following - do you know what an echocardiogram is? Have you looked at one before? Do you know how to interpret one? Do you know the sensitivity or limitations of an echo for the detection of heart disease? Do you know what an ejection fraction is, how it is calculated, or what a normal ejection fraction is? Do you know the typical symptoms of heart disease, including artery disease, valvular, and congestive heart failure? Do you know the atypical symptoms? Can you name the valves of the heart? Do you understand right vs left heart failure?
These questions, for which you do not know the answer, could go on forever. And they are very pertinent to truly understanding this study. Yet despite having essentially no knowledge of what was done in this study, you write authoritatively. And even worse, you do not even bother to try to read the study and learn something. You're a blowhard.