News about Long Covid including its relationship to ME/CFS 2020 to 2021

(Ireland)
Both the deputy chief medical officer and the Minister for Health mention Long Covid in this article.
---

---

---
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0716/1235549-covid-figures-friday/

 

Academy of Medical Sciences (UK Establishment, including Wessely) report on 'COVID-19: Preparing for the futureLooking ahead to winter 2021/22 and beyond':

https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/4747802

Has quite a bit on Long Covid.

There are references to CFS, and hints of problems here, but often in a way that doesn't say much:

This, on maintaining resilience, stood out after the importance of "behavioural fatigue" early in the pandemic:

 

History on an endless loop . So sad
https://twitter.com/user/status/1415739124301058048

 

Still stuck on the fatigue needle. Pathetic inability to learn. No good treatments, but obviously rehabilitation should help. Right. With "experts" like this, no wonder everything is screwed up.

 

Shocking. I've heard that drug mentioned maybe 50+ times in references to long covid.

 

Long Covid blood test possible after scientists find condition may be linked to immune system

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/me...mune-system/ar-AAMkvdZ?ocid=ASUDHP&li=BBoPWjQ

Hmm, that sounds vaguely familiar somehow. I wonder why, because of course this is an Entirely New Disease that Nobody has Ever Come Across Before ...

 

New video from dr. John Campbell. This time about Long Covid with two guests;
Ondine Sherwood from LongCovidSOS
Vicky van der Togt from the Long Covid Netherlands (PASC) Support Group

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRTKIlS7egI

Really impressed with these two patients and all the knowledge they've accumulated. Two great advocates for Long Covid.

ME is briefly mentioned after 56 minutes as something similar, but that the jury is out whether it's the same thing or not.

 

The reality that people who deny chronic illness use bad faith arguments is slow to sink in but it is sinking in. Problem is people making blatantly bad faith arguments has no consequences, even and especially in medicine. A reasonable person would assume that professionals making obviously bad faith arguments would have consequences. And they would be right, it's just that sometimes the consequences are borne entirely by the people who are the target of those blatantly bad faith arguments.

It's basically impossible to find examples of this outside politics. It's a feature of the worst that politics have to offer. No big deal, though, those are just life and death consequences for millions, attention to details is for nerds.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1417955792796504068

 

USA having a ton of new covid cases in the unvaccinated, plus many vaccinated infected and either asymptomatic or mildly ill.

What isn't clear is: what is the tiny risk of getting long covid if you are vaccinated? I suppose I shouldn't be worried. It's just the ubiquity of cases in our community now.

 

I think there's a study about to be published on that, but can't remember where I read/heard it (This Week in Virology, perhaps), just that it looked promising in that vaccines also seem to protect against Long Covid.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1417997845345443844

 

Dr. Nancy Clancy on exercise rehab: "giving someone an exercise prescription where they get their maximum heart rate and have them walk for a period of time . . . take 60-70% of that and have them do 20 minutes a day . . . come into the PT clinic once to train them so they can have a physical training program at home and they will more likely do them then if I just tell them to do it".

 

Long COVID: A ‘mysterious’ syndrome with ‘no clear pattern’ of symptoms

Quite a long article, with several doctors/researchers sharing their opinion on long covid. In addition, this is what Sandra A. Fryhofer, MD, chair-elect of the AMA (American Medical Association) board of trustees said:

Fryhofer said the AMA has begun “to advocate for legislation to provide funding for research, prevention, control and treatment of post-viral syndromes and long-term sequelae associated with viral infections, such as COVID-19.”

“The AMA believes ongoing and future long-haul COVID research results that are inclusive of all populations, including people with disabilities and underlying health conditions, are needed in real time to support providers through development and dissemination of best practices for long-haul COVID care,” she said. “As part of its new policy, the AMA will provide physicians and medical students with accurate and current information on post-viral syndromes and collaborate with other medical and educational entities to promote education among patients about post-viral syndromes, which should help minimize the harm and disability current and future patients face.”​

https://www.healio.com/news/infecti...us-syndrome-with-no-clear-pattern-of-symptoms

 

If they listened to ME/CFS and post-viral patients back in Jan/Feb 2020, they'd already have conducted prospective population studies and it would not be a mystery.

 

That poses a very significant question. In 1957ish in anticipation of the Asian flu's arrival in the US Imboden, Canter and Cluff conducted a prospective trial, inadequate as it was, which led to the conclusion that long term sequelae were psychiatric in nature. The follow up period was about 6 weeks.

It is surprising that what could be anticipated in 1957 could not be in 2020.

 

This could be a major turning point. Or not, I cannot take anyone talking for medical institutions at their word on this topic, decades of deceit and malfeasance have earned that level of suspicion. But if it is genuine, it could be a tipping point. The lack of any reference to the past indicates a very muted effort, however. This isn't "someone screwed up and there's water leaking somewhere", this is "someone fucked up and a nuclear bomb detonated in a large city and it was easily and completely avoidable".

More than anything I wonder how they will deal with those raging against it. Many will be outraged at *checks note* medicalizing a serious chronic disease. They will express that rage and in turn the outcome of that expression will depend on how much support there is for what inevitably comes with the eventual recognition of having majorly fucked up. Will the angry crowd rabble to success? Or will reason silence them? Or maybe the sure threat of massive litigation, this being the US and all. The only saving grace of the US health care system: liability. It's minimal but contrary to everywhere else, it's not zero.

 

Independent SAGE briefing from 23rd July, focusing more on Long COVID. Includes some mentions of ME, nothing that I thought particularly noteworthy, apart from one "ooooh, it's a terribly difficult area to work in" type of comment.

Code:

https://youtu.be/omJP53VAQcw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJP53VAQcw

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1418696473177362432

 

I'm seeing a growing number of people reporting LC symptoms after vaccination. Are those symptoms caused by vaccines? No one knows. Could they have been caused by mild or asymptomatic infection that went unnoticed and was worsened by the vaccine? No one knows either.

But until people find out for good many are speculating, for the same reason why some people are claiming they recovered from exercise/fasting/niacine/whatever: it's the only correlation they can see. Also the same reason why some people push other weird things, from drinking aged urine to gaslighting CBT for chronic disease, without science to determine what's true, it's all about who has the better marketing program for their particular beliefs.

No doubt this will be used by the antivaccine crowd. And with good reason, in that it's easy picking without a firm answer. Uncertainty brings incoherence like this, is bad overall for the public good. And this is largely happening because of a delusional fantasy that not talking about it means it won't be a problem (no point asking why the problem remains, they don't care and have no pressure to provide any coherent reason), a belief system reinforced by being able to then point out that no such reports exist.

Will Richard Horton and The Lancet manage to fuel the antivaccine crowd not just once, kickstarting it, but twice, amplifying it? Appears so. Not alone on this later chapter but still, imagine being responsible for this and not only keeping your job but being praised as a courageous disinformation fighter. Rewarding failure looks just as bad in real life as it sounds.