Also, something that I did not mention that is pretty critical is that the measure for PCC is so loose that you're essentially not accounting for the symptoms in question and really just shuffling people on the basis of COVID positivity.
For instance, the COVID negative group may be comprised of a large portion of people who record dizziness or a cough at some point throughout the week and be considered a case of PCC sans a COVID infection. However, if someone were to get additional symptoms, such as loss of smell/taste and or shortness of breath along with the other typical symptoms you'll still be counted in the same way as someone with just an occasional cough. There's no measure of "more PCC" in this study and so you can't differentiate based on multiple symptoms.
Both ideas can be held without them being contradictory. Evidence from previous viruses suggest that post-viral syndrome is a plausible phenomenon, which itself is not well-studied given some reticence in the medical community. As I noted a while back in the interview with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh the comments were filled with people saying "I just had some cold or flu one day and just never recovered". Anecdotes are poor measures since they can't be quantified, but it at least suggests that these are things that have existed.
That also doesn't mean that attempts to quantify Long COVID have been done well. The inclusions are so broad that you are essentially going to capture baseline individuals as possible PCC, or you may inherently enroll people who have symptoms of some sort whether it's ascribed to COVID or some other disease.
So we can argue that there appears to be Long COVID but attempts to measure them or very poor. My point here is more that one cannot extrapolate certainty from ambiguity, and if a study such as this one is used to immediately argue against Long COVID then that's the wrong approach. I don't think Dr. Prasad is doing that here but it's popped up quite often enough that I raise some concerns about immediately denying the existence of these maladies.
I wouldn't be surprised if many places do. I can't recall if Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh are associated with a university. They're just two people I'm aware of that have attempted to treat Long COVID outside of the FLCCC that I've seen in interviews.
Why does that matter when the argument is over Long COVID? Do I dismiss ideas because I disagree with some aspect of the people who hold those arguments? Again, that modality lacks nuanced thought. I don't have to agree with everyone on every little aspect, and in fact I would hope that people aren't just agreeing with everyone and creating their own echo chamber.
I think the fact that they never verified her symptoms with a serology test (at least that's not how it seems from the article) does raise some suspicions.
I think it's an interesting personal account but it doesn't provide much else in fruitful information aside from anecdotes.
We likely won't ever really get a clear measure of Long COVID because we would need to track people to a much closer degree than what is done in these studies, such as sending out a questionnaire more frequently than once after 6 months.
For those who prefer a video Dr. Prasad actually went over the study for those interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZspGfen11E
Also, something that I did not mention that is pretty critical is that the measure for PCC is so loose that you're essentially not accounting for the symptoms in question and really just shuffling people on the basis of COVID positivity.
For instance, the COVID negative group may be comprised of a large portion of people who record dizziness or a cough at some point throughout the week and be considered a case of PCC sans a COVID infection. However, if someone were to get additional symptoms, such as loss of smell/taste and or shortness of breath along with the other typical symptoms you'll still be counted in the same way as someone with just an occasional cough. There's no measure of "more PCC" in this study and so you can't differentiate based on multiple symptoms.
Hopefully that adds more context.
I am very torn on Long Covid.
I firmly believe in its existence as I know several people who have/had it.
On the other hand, LC has not been researched properly. It was not even defined, not even subsets of it.
Most research was cheap surveys and such. Very little investigative lab work, little attempts to define it etc.
What attempts are made to quantify it, they always come up with lower prevalences.
Both ideas can be held without them being contradictory. Evidence from previous viruses suggest that post-viral syndrome is a plausible phenomenon, which itself is not well-studied given some reticence in the medical community. As I noted a while back in the interview with Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh the comments were filled with people saying "I just had some cold or flu one day and just never recovered". Anecdotes are poor measures since they can't be quantified, but it at least suggests that these are things that have existed.
That also doesn't mean that attempts to quantify Long COVID have been done well. The inclusions are so broad that you are essentially going to capture baseline individuals as possible PCC, or you may inherently enroll people who have symptoms of some sort whether it's ascribed to COVID or some other disease.
So we can argue that there appears to be Long COVID but attempts to measure them or very poor. My point here is more that one cannot extrapolate certainty from ambiguity, and if a study such as this one is used to immediately argue against Long COVID then that's the wrong approach. I don't think Dr. Prasad is doing that here but it's popped up quite often enough that I raise some concerns about immediately denying the existence of these maladies.
UCLA has a department dedicated to treating long covid.
I wouldn't be surprised if many places do. I can't recall if Dr. Patterson and Dr. Yoh are associated with a university. They're just two people I'm aware of that have attempted to treat Long COVID outside of the FLCCC that I've seen in interviews.
Yo and Patterson still promote the vaccine.
Why does that matter when the argument is over Long COVID? Do I dismiss ideas because I disagree with some aspect of the people who hold those arguments? Again, that modality lacks nuanced thought. I don't have to agree with everyone on every little aspect, and in fact I would hope that people aren't just agreeing with everyone and creating their own echo chamber.
Remember pre covid when the Dr didn’t know what was wrong with you and just said ‘it’s a virus’.
Not anymore.
No test, no antibodies but got the covid rash, whatever that is?
https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/05/ive-had-long-covid-for-nearly-2-years-im-sharing-my-dna-to-help-others-15510252/amp/
I’m not saying long covid doesn’t exist but what chance have we got of sorting it out with newspapers printing stories like this one.
I think the fact that they never verified her symptoms with a serology test (at least that's not how it seems from the article) does raise some suspicions.
I think it's an interesting personal account but it doesn't provide much else in fruitful information aside from anecdotes.
We likely won't ever really get a clear measure of Long COVID because we would need to track people to a much closer degree than what is done in these studies, such as sending out a questionnaire more frequently than once after 6 months.