Some of his remarks with masking have been good. I generally had a problem with his remarks on Long COVID since it tended to lean more into sometimes appearing to downplay rather than raising criticisms. I generally argue that any Long COVID study out there likely have many methodological issues, so it seems a bit strange to select a few that seems to agree with his opinion.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. When I've heard him talk about long covid, I don't know that he really believes people and the symptoms they report. It seems like he chalks it all up to psychosomatic symptoms. It's true that psychosomatic symptoms can be very powerful and physically felt (in my experience). But I think people have unexplained but significant symptoms from the different toxins in our environment and sometimes poor food quality (and maybe other reasons too), then an illness exacerbates things. Maybe he's had patients with symptoms that can't be fully explained by tests and that he can't help them, and that's hard for him. Or maybe it's a personality quirk. 🤷
I think this is partially psychosomatic for some people. When you induce such fears into the masses we can't expect any less. At the same time, the fact that some people may have psychological underpinnings for their Long COVID doesn't mean that other people aren't experiencing actual symptoms. I hesitate when I see people deny Long COVID due to the fact that it just seems like another way to brush things off as mania or hysteria. I bring up the female bias reported often to reiterate the fact that it becomes very easy to take a "well, it's happening in women because women be crazy!" stance on all of these.
I also won't deny that many environmental factors can contribute. Loneliness during the lockdowns are likely to increase the risk of brain fog, although that would still relate to the actual infection being the causative factor in the cascade of symptoms.
One aspect I always miss is, how many of the "Long COVID symptoms" are in fact 'just' "Long Illness symptoms". That is not to belittle these symptoms, but what is the difference between getting a severe flu case vs severe COVID. There seem to be some indication that some symptoms might be unique or at least more common after COVID (e.g. losing permanent partial smell capability), but for many others they sound to me 'just' common illness related. Every time one gets severely sick, especially as you age, it has a chance of more lasting effects. Again, that is not to belittle those affected, but only whether COVID is special.
That matters, as some people are still more afraid of COVID than let's say flu. But the question is whether that is warranted. That would only be warranted if COVID is more common to cause long symptoms or more likely to cause more severe symptoms. I personally am skeptical that is the case, and suspect if you would do a study on flu or RSV you'd find mostly similar long term effects, be it with some unique flavors.
"Ultimately, biomedicine must seek to aid all people who are suffering. . . . those whom medicine seeks to help."
Fascinating that this study can speak so altruistically about medicine, while AT THE SAME TIME IT IS MURDERING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITH THE COVID BIOWEAPON SHOTS!!!!
Any study prior to the vaccine rollout will lean towards that direction. The big problem is that many of those studies are likely to not confirm COVID positivity since PCR tests and serology wasn't conducted in the early months of 2020, so this is likely to be a place with a lot of ambiguity. As to any study having an unvaxxed control group, I do recall a recent one (not a Long COVID study) that seemed to have an unvaxxed group, but in general this isn't going to happen as many researchers may run into an ethics issue. Also, being outed as unvaccinated in a study would likely lead to problems for the individual. So unfortunately no study will really contain a viable unvaccinated group.
Great analysis, thank you.
I have appreciated a few of Dr Prasad's videos critical of masking studies.
Some of his remarks with masking have been good. I generally had a problem with his remarks on Long COVID since it tended to lean more into sometimes appearing to downplay rather than raising criticisms. I generally argue that any Long COVID study out there likely have many methodological issues, so it seems a bit strange to select a few that seems to agree with his opinion.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. When I've heard him talk about long covid, I don't know that he really believes people and the symptoms they report. It seems like he chalks it all up to psychosomatic symptoms. It's true that psychosomatic symptoms can be very powerful and physically felt (in my experience). But I think people have unexplained but significant symptoms from the different toxins in our environment and sometimes poor food quality (and maybe other reasons too), then an illness exacerbates things. Maybe he's had patients with symptoms that can't be fully explained by tests and that he can't help them, and that's hard for him. Or maybe it's a personality quirk. 🤷
I think this is partially psychosomatic for some people. When you induce such fears into the masses we can't expect any less. At the same time, the fact that some people may have psychological underpinnings for their Long COVID doesn't mean that other people aren't experiencing actual symptoms. I hesitate when I see people deny Long COVID due to the fact that it just seems like another way to brush things off as mania or hysteria. I bring up the female bias reported often to reiterate the fact that it becomes very easy to take a "well, it's happening in women because women be crazy!" stance on all of these.
I also won't deny that many environmental factors can contribute. Loneliness during the lockdowns are likely to increase the risk of brain fog, although that would still relate to the actual infection being the causative factor in the cascade of symptoms.
One aspect I always miss is, how many of the "Long COVID symptoms" are in fact 'just' "Long Illness symptoms". That is not to belittle these symptoms, but what is the difference between getting a severe flu case vs severe COVID. There seem to be some indication that some symptoms might be unique or at least more common after COVID (e.g. losing permanent partial smell capability), but for many others they sound to me 'just' common illness related. Every time one gets severely sick, especially as you age, it has a chance of more lasting effects. Again, that is not to belittle those affected, but only whether COVID is special.
That matters, as some people are still more afraid of COVID than let's say flu. But the question is whether that is warranted. That would only be warranted if COVID is more common to cause long symptoms or more likely to cause more severe symptoms. I personally am skeptical that is the case, and suspect if you would do a study on flu or RSV you'd find mostly similar long term effects, be it with some unique flavors.
"Ultimately, biomedicine must seek to aid all people who are suffering. . . . those whom medicine seeks to help."
Fascinating that this study can speak so altruistically about medicine, while AT THE SAME TIME IT IS MURDERING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WITH THE COVID BIOWEAPON SHOTS!!!!
Looks to me like a lot of denial going on here!
DR PHILIP MC MILLAN
https://www.youtube.com/live/n7DQyU27YNY
Have you seen any study that attempts to disentangle vaxx injury from long covid? Any unvaxxed control group?
Any study prior to the vaccine rollout will lean towards that direction. The big problem is that many of those studies are likely to not confirm COVID positivity since PCR tests and serology wasn't conducted in the early months of 2020, so this is likely to be a place with a lot of ambiguity. As to any study having an unvaxxed control group, I do recall a recent one (not a Long COVID study) that seemed to have an unvaxxed group, but in general this isn't going to happen as many researchers may run into an ethics issue. Also, being outed as unvaccinated in a study would likely lead to problems for the individual. So unfortunately no study will really contain a viable unvaccinated group.