Swiss Re: Expert Forum on secondary COVID-19 impacts, Feb 2021

Monbiot continues with:

 

Video of the presentation posted on another thread

"This is the video of Michael Sharpe's presentation on Long COVID to Swiss Re. It may have been removed from their website now, but, fortunately, it's been uploaded to a file-sharing site, in order that such an extraordinary contribution to medical history can be archived for posterity!"

 

George Monbiot's tweet

I think that's the wrong question. Here are some alternatives -
1. What is it worth to them to carry on denying the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people in the UK & millions worldwide?

2. In these "woke" times how long will the business model of denial of suffering and stigmatizing some of the most vulnerable in society continue?

3. Psychiatrists like Sharpe & Wessely plus other mental health care professionals like Chalder work with many extremely vulnerable people. They have a history stigmatizing the patient and denying their illness. Where is the oversight to stop this continuing?

 

I think they've badly underestimated the difference between gaslighting LongCovid and M.E. patients. Using the same old tired, discredited arguments against a vast group of people who are largely in contact with each other and all got ill at roughly the same time is not going to work this time. It's quite sad and pathetic really.

 

This is something I really would like to think. But I'm also kind of worried because in the last few weeks I've seen some long haulers saying things like "it also depends on if you want to get better - because some people just don't", "the mindset matters a lot", "you have to get back to being active, the symptoms will disappear after a while" etc.

Yesterday I saw an article in a popular women's magazine here, where the author used to be a long hauler and he said stuff like: "if you are physically able, you have to get off the couch and push yourself to go out and do things, no matter how week you feel or how little motivation you have". He equated brainfog with a state of lack of motivation and feeling hopeless. These are long haulers or former long haulers and this worries me. I don't know if they just repeat what their doctors told them or they came up with this themselves. (Or if they have the ME/CFS-like long covid and not some other sequelae.)

(I could mention that no one said anything like this in the glandular fever forums I frequented in my first 1-2 years and where almost everyone had post-viral fatigue syndrome, and people with acute cases were really rare, so it was basically a "long mono" group. Everyone was convinced there that the symptoms are real, however that forum was smaller than the LC groups, so it may be due to simple statistics and not something else.)

On the flipside: there are definitely long haulers who are adamant about this not being a psychosomatic issue.

 

If one, or a group of individuals is blamed for causing, generating, supporting, and/or aiding the continuance of a devastating disease, what might the legal ramifications of this be? Hmmmm....

 

In a legal case wouldn't they just call an 'expert' witness in their defense? They only have to show that they acted in accord with 'best practice' and as they direct that......

 

Good point @ Wonko. This would appear to be a likely scenario in a legal situation. Maligning whole groups could be explained as "best practice".

On another note, journalists daren't write about anything of concern, e.g. wars, disease, widespread financial collapse, for fear of being blamed for causing these catastrophes.

 

One thing I think should be mentioned: this is Sharpe's main career focus, he has spent decades "studying" this, wrote books and academic/clinical chapters, taught it as a professor, was gifted millions to pursue his expertise, publishing dozens of papers, presenting to professional audiences and more.

And this presentation, entirely devoid of substance, relying on a combination of circular logical fallacies, anecdotes and innuendo, is essentially a full summary of the extent of his knowledge on the issue. In presenting the sum of his career's work to a professional audience, likely paid, this is the best he can do.

There is nothing of substance in this presentation. It's entirely vague and contains no expert knowledge whatsoever. And still, it actually represents the actual sum of the knowledge this "expert" has on his main topic of expertise. I'm sure he could ramble on for hours elaborating but there would still be no substance there, only more rhetoric and sophistry.

And this pathetic accumulation of ignorance has ruined millions of lives. It's truly unbelievable when the facts are simply stated.

 

Ah but there's a big difference between someone who can get up and get their behind off the sofa, even if it feels very difficult and they're tired and not in the mood, and someone who can only do this once, twice or not at all.

I've experienced bouts of illness that have left me too weak to stand long before I got ME. As a youngster I was up and running about in no time.

As an adult, even a young adult it is harder because you have other commitments - exams, work etc. So it may take longer and regaining fitness does take effort and motivation.

That is not the same thing at all as having ME. I daresay for many with long covid it won't be the same thing either. If you are able to get off that couch and slowly regain your stamina and health then by definition you do not have the same thing. It really is that simple.

Comparing yourself to someone suffering from ME or long covid that is ME-like is like an Olympian athlete wondering why you, as a healthy person, can't compete with them as a chosen sport.

It's a nonsense.

 

Bravo!

 

Turns out it's actually worse than this, a "world-leading expert" on the topic of post-infectious illness literally did not see the obvious coming, the obvious that much of the patient community did predict and warn about, as well as the actual experts that this ignoramus dismisses.

Turns out that fake expertise is indeed entirely fake and of no value whatsoever in itself. In this case Sharpe is doing exactly the only value his quackery has ever had: provide insurers with implausible cover the same way the scientists working with the tobacco industry to kill people for profit did.

 

My N=1 evidence is equally as valid as any other's. If anecdotes from one source are referenced as valid, then so are others.

 

Blaming journalists for writing about long COVID - no freedom of the press then?

What's next? A list of suitably acceptable topics?
Topics that don't cause financial risk to vested interests?

 

I don't have any medical training; perhaps others with expertise in the area of lung disease etc., may wish to comment.
Did I hear correctly on the presentation:
Fibrosis from COVID is reversible?

This article doesn't seem to paint such a definite picture:





Indian J Tuberc. 2020 Nov 10
doi: 10.1016/j.ijtb.2020.11.003 [Epub ahead of print]
PMCID: PMC7654356
Post covid 19 pulmonary fibrosis- Is it reversible?
Deependra Kumar Rai,∗ Priya Sharma, and Rahul Kumar
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Go to:
Abstract
After the COVID-19 outbreak, increasing number of patients worldwide who have survived COVID-19 continue to battle the symptoms of the illness, long after they have been clinically tested negative for the disease. As we battle through this pandemic, the challenging part is to manage COVID-19 sequelae which may vary from fatigue and body aches to lung fibrosis. This review addresses underlying mechanism, risk factors, course of disease and treatment option for post covid pulmonary fibrosis. Elderly patient who require ICU care and mechanical ventilation are at the highest risk to develop lung fibrosis. Currently, no fully proven options are available for the treatment of post inflammatory COVID 19 pulmonary fibrosis.

3. Conclusion
Considering huge numbers of individuals affected by COVID-19, even rare complications like post covid pulmonary fibrosis will have major health effects at the population level. Elderly patient who require ICU care and mechanical ventilation are the highest risk to develop lung fibrosis. Currently, no fully proven options are available for the treatment of post inflammatory COVID 19 pulmonary fibrosis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7654356/

ETA: Thank you @Esther12 for the transcript of this talk.

From the transcript re fibrosis:

"the main imaging abnormalities are just
um chest x-ray and chest ct
where you generally see resolving
fibrosis and that's
that's the main abnormalities that we see"

ETA #2:

From this same study -

"Many studies have shown that most common abnormality of lung function in discharged survivors with COVID-19 is impairment of diffusion capacity, followed by restrictive ventilatory defects, both associated with the severity of the disease21 , 22 Both decreased alveolar volume and K CO contribute to the pathogenesis of impaired diffusion capacity.23 At 3-months after discharge, residual abnormalities of pulmonary function were observed in 25.45% of the cohort which was lower than the abnormal pulmonary function in COVID-19 patients when discharged.10 Lung function abnormalities were detected in 14 out of 55 patients and the measurement of D-dimer levels at admission may be useful in prediction of impaired diffusion defect.16"

 

Auto-transcript part 1:

 

part 2:

 

Trying to remember the paper where I first read this, I think it Wessley or White, but it was an older paper that highlighted financial gain (e.g. from disability) as well.

edit: So far, couldn't find the paper I was looking for, although this one (1992) by Sharpe. My bolding.

Telling, conclusion in Sharpe's own words, I wonder, if he is present the conclusion that support groups are dangerous, and his own conclusions are uncertain and opposite, that maybe did he mention both sides in the presentation or present evidence for his conclusion? As the paper above provides no evidence that they are a perpetuating factor.

 

Just a couple of excerpts from Sharpe.

On PACE:

On Long Covid rehab: