Wired Magazine: The Painful Truth About Long Covid by Alan Levinovitz, 2026

[Trish]

I feel quite confused that a person who came here without any desire to truly learn and listen triggered a discussion longer than 800 posts. I do understand that his statements were needed to be critically challenged, however, it pisses me off that he succeeded in his manipulative clout chasing behaviour. Wish some other topics here were discussed that rigorously.

Yes, ideally we wouldn't be plagued by this sort of article and could concentrate our limited resources on more productive discussion of interesting and well conducted science. And on dissecting what's not good science, and why.

While this sort of misinformation keeps getting the media spotlight, I think it's understandable that some of us will dwell on the injustice and try to understand why it keeps happening, or simply find ways to express and share how harmful and distressing it is.

I see a lot of this long thread as standing in solidarity when we are under attack. Yes, that inevitably creates a pile on that the perpetrator can misuse to condemn us. But for me that's no loss, as he has condemned us already. His responses her made that abundantly clear.

History will show where truth and justice lie. I like this thread with all its human quirks and valid critiques being here for the world to see. It's about a lot more than one ignorant article.

 

[N_Dina]

Yes, ideally we wouldn't be plagued by this sort of article and could concentrate our limited resources on more productive discussion of interesting and well conducted science. And on dissecting what's not good science, and why.

While this sort of misinformation keeps getting the media spotlight, I think it's understandable that some of us will dwell on the injustice and try to understand why it keeps happening, or simply find ways to express and share how harmful and distressing it is.

Fair enough, that’s why I appreciate this community so much. However, not only the posts here have become somewhat repetitive but also private life details are now discussed (eg father’s day gifts - seriously??). One of the commandments of the internet is “Don’t feed the troll”. And whilst the troll is gone, the mess he left here still sparks anger. It’s not criticism of you or anyone else here, I just feel kinda sad that it takes so little from someone to suck energy out of our barely functioning bodies.

 

[Hutan]

Well, the exchange over the small garden implements/axes had me laughing out loud.

Many years ago I had a very confusing conversation with a friend in Kew Gardens, until it was all resolved by her asking me “Oh, did they make a film of Mary Poppins?” Now that is a level of disconnect to aspire to. Are we there yet @Trish ?

Beautiful. Thank you @Trish and @Peter T.

 

[MrMagoo]

The above post epitomises the generational or cultural or gender divide between me and a lot of people who post on Twitter. I look at it and am totally bemused at why a grown man would want to walk into a virtual town square and stand there, legs astride in a fake power pose holding up handfuls of small garden tools.
I feel like I'm existing on another planet.

Ah you are confused on two levels.

One, why he would go for a day at an axe-throwing experience, and two, why he would attempt a power stance holding axes at an axe-throwing experience and further, post it online to show others.

A comparison - the “trend” before axes was crazy golf (indoors with a bar) I had a night out at one of these and there are photos of our group having a hilarious time, in front of the sign (it was called “swingers” lol or tee hee gettit?)

we didn’t post it publicly online though, possibly due to being from UK.

I’m not so keen on turning it into an AL thread, I looked at his Xitter and he does seem to mix work with private life.
His choice, but the rule of the internet is people (not pwME necessarily) are going to look at it all and comment on it all, if you are doing writing which is going to cause a reaction you might want to dial down the personal info or move it to another account. Or accept that people will comment on it, and not always kindly. That’s how the internet “community” behaves.

 

[Jaybee00]

It's an American cultural thing.

Umm for the record axe throwing came from Canada.

Axe throwing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mij]

Gosh I'm even more out of touch than I realised. I assumed the tools were for actually doing some useful gardening, though I wondered why one would need more than one mini axe

He should be juggling sausages. Or known as the 'silly sausage' in UK "a light hearted affectionate British idiom used to tease someone who made a minor foolish mistake'?

 

[Utsikt]

If someone wants to see how non-monomaniacal and non-cultish brain-retraining supporters behave. /s

From the reddit thread: post

 

[MrMagoo]

It sure was a choice to categorise ME/CFS patients as any kind of homogeneous group. See also : pwLC, Scientists, Researchers.

User generated message and topic fora have rules about what you can post, who knew?

I guess thanks to the internet, we are all “patient activists” now. Whether you make a comment on X or are on the board of the MEA or are an MP, all powerful and shadowy. I’m quite offended I wasn’t asked to join.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

If all the of the proponents of brain retraining are so convinced it is The Answer, why are the courses so very expensive? (And why do they often offer lifetime subscriptions)

I have listened to some of the podcasts, which spend a lot of time with people talking about how it helped them and how helpful it is, without explaining the process and what patients need to do.

It's always "there's loads of resources online". Yes. Behind a very expensive subscription only paywall.

ETA: missing word

 

[Hutan]

If all the of the proponents of brain retraining are so convinced it is The Answer, why are the courses so very expensive? (And why do they often offer lifetime subscriptions)

For those people who aren't already on the road to recovery, these products put people into an endless loop of self-blame. There will always be some reason for a 'relapse' - the person screwed up, they didn't follow the prescription, that's the reason why the supposed gains did not hold.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

For those people who aren't already on the road to recovery, these products put people into an endless loop of self-blame. There will always be some reason for a 'relapse' - the person screwed up, they didn't follow the prescription, that's the reason why the supposed gains did not hold.

And lots of people in the programme support groups asking why it is not working for them.

I am always surprised how many of these programmes people have tried, when I though it was a pretty standard process? Calm nervous system, don't panic at symptoms, journal, listen to the podcasts/read the books and move more?

 

[Chandelier]

Post from r/cfs:

Wired Retraction Campaign: Fight Back Against "The Painful Truth About Long COVID"​

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/wired-retract-painful-truth-long-covid-scott-hugo-mblqc
TLDR: Wired published an appalling article on LC, ME, and other infection-associated chronic conditions. We are mobilizing, fighting back, and demanding retraction; join us!

Hi friends, are you fed up with the same misinformation being repeated, over and over?
Join us and fight back! A number of patients started a campaign demanding that Wired retract the atrocious feature article, "The Painful Truth About Long COVID" (what an irresponsible, clickbait headline.) [text of open letter copied below]

Please comment, repost, cross-post, etc. to increase visibility and raise the costs to Wired for their choice to (1) platform this egregious case of misinformation and (2) refuse to correct course. To my knowledge, none of the advocates (myself included) have received so much as an acknowledgement of the emails we have sent to Wired's editorial staff and to Condé Nast (who owns Wired) - let alone a meaningful response.

If we do not hold Wired accountable for this, we embolden other authors and publications to keep spewing misinformation without repercussions.

I am trying to keep this post short, so will include more info in comments.
Millions Missing, unite and fight back!

[Note: please do not visit Wired's website and reward irresponsible journalism with clicks!]

*******

An open letter to WIRED and Katie Drummond:

Ms. Katie Drummond and the WIRED Editorial Team,

I have endured the ravages of Long COVID for over two years; I am writing this plea to retract "The Painful Truth About Long COVID"because of the damage it has already done to longhaulers (and the broader chronic illness community) and the damage it will continue to do if Wired continues to promote and support it.

I can imagine Wired has received scores of heartfelt, detailed, and scientifically-sound letters from the public about why the article is so inaccurate, misleading, and damaging. (For context: r/cfs bans promotion of brain retraining.) Compare the assertions made in the article to evidence-backed scientific research actually being conducted by Long COVID experts like Dr. Akiko Iwasaki and Dr. David Putrino. You can also read the detailed rebuttal by Professor Todd Davenport , another expert on Long COVID.

It would be disappointing to see the piece published by any prominent news outlet, but what makes this even more distressing is how a respected publication such as Wired chose to prominently feature the article (which was then amplified by Apple News).

Ms. Drummond, I believe that you are in journalism for the right reasons and that you want to do the right thing by longhaulers. It is not too late for Wired to correct course. By publicly retracting the article, Wired will demonstrate that the staff cares about science, cares about longhaulers, and listens to feedback.

With hope,

Scott

PS. It is a major effort for me to invest the brain power and energy into writing an email like this. I choose to do it because I care.

[Note: this was originally an email I sent on June 9th. I have not received a response, so I decided to make it an open letter]

Statement of Values

• We believe in rigorous and civil discussion of difficult issues.
• We do not believe in ad hominemattacks, let alone threats to personal safety, and are committed to ensuring the retraction campaign disavows them.
• We believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt and assuming best intentions until proven otherwise. So, in this case, we assume both the article's author and its editor believe in the contents and believe that they are doing the right thing.
• We support each patient’s right to their own recovery, and recognize that different things may work for different people. We may have honest questions about correlation vs. causation with those stories, but we are here to support individual patients and not attack them.
• We believe that prominent publications like Wired have a public duty to complete thorough fact-checking, to honor and accurately represent the current state of scientific knowledge, to avoid misleading statements and outright misrepresentations, and to protect readers from predatory and exploitative actors.

 

[rvallee]

If all the of the proponents of brain retraining are so convinced it is The Answer, why are the courses so very expensive? (And why do they often offer lifetime subscriptions)

I have listened to some of the podcasts, which spend a lot of time with people talking about how it helped them and how helpful it is, without explaining the process and what patients need to do.

It's always "there's loads of resources online". Yes. Behind a very expensive subscription only paywall.

ETA: missing word

It would be interesting if someone did some detective work revealing what's in their programs.

I doubt it would have much of an effect, since the content is mostly borrowed from and refers to psychosomatic research, but it could help a lot of people avoid getting scammed.

 

[SNT Gatchaman]

Thread for article in FAIR: Media Won’t Stop Psychologizing Long Covid

A recent piece in Wired (6/1/26), titled “The Painful Truth About Long Covid,” advocated for a model known as “brain retraining” to treat Long Covid. This approach focuses on rewiring the brain to not overreact to perceived threats, based on the belief that the overreaction, not the exposure, is the primary driver of symptoms. The article cited some patients who say they benefited from the approach.

The author, Alan Levinovitz, previously disclosed his views more bluntly on X last year, posting, “I happen to believe 60–80% of Long Covid is…psychogenic symptoms/illness.”

In Wired, Levinovitz took aim at claims that Long Covid patients with ME/CFS are limited in their ability to exercise. He argued that the problem isn’t exercise, but the belief that exercise is harmful. “Patients cursed themselves by believing their symptoms had a strictly biological cause,” he wrote.

Levinovitz cited an influential British study from 2011, known as the PACE trial, which determined that Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and guided exercise were appropriate treatments for ME/CFS. While he acknowledged that the PACE trial faced backlash and fell out of favor, he failed to mention that scientists determined the study was invalid due to improper methodologies. Levinovitz portrayed patient advocates as misguided zealots who have interfered with progress by pushing back on PACE and exercise/mind-body approaches.

The Wired article has faced mass outrage and criticism from patients, scientists, doctors and journalists. Articles and social media threads have debunked its claims on scientific grounds, citing its omission of key studies, including mind-body studies that did not support the model’s effectiveness. People mentioned in the article have spoken out against how they were represented. Some critics have shared their own experiences with brain retraining, describing it as a cult-like multi-level marketing scheme.

After publication, Levinovitz spent days fighting with critics online, dismissing research findings and issuing personal attacks, even going after one woman’s efforts to crowdfund for her medical care. (He has since deleted some posts, and acknowledged that he misstated facts in one thread.)

 

[MrMagoo]

I noticed in the Wired article that some people had to do a few different brain training programmes before one worked.

I hate to be a bumbling and biomedical-obsessed “let’s quantify treatments with a trial” kind of patient advocate, but if anything this undermines the brain-training case because you’ve stated it doesn’t always work.

Not only do you have to buy it, you have to buy a few different types until you find one that works.

How are they different? Isn’t stopping the feedback brain loop and remodelling the brain’s plasticity all done the same way?

Do some work and some not work?

what are the differences?

If you are so faithful and invested in brain training that you keep purchasing it even after it doesn’t work, shouldn’t that be enough to have made it work? But it didn’t?

 

[Hutan]

Not only do you have to buy it, you have to buy a few different types until you find one that works.

I guess that they can always put the blame on the sick person - 'you weren't ready to get well when you did those earlier programmes.'

 

[Sean]

I am less interested in getting the article retracted, than in Wired giving its critics a fair right of reply, of equal prominence to the original article.

I actually tend strongly to thinking the article should be left up for all to see forever, with no edits to try hiding its original content.

 

[MrMagoo]

AL wrote an article analysing narative and tribalism but then he seems to be part of the narative and tribalism himself, joining in online with gusto but also unable to find anyone to discuss the article in the way he sees as fit. A quixotic position to be in. Strange, even. Nothing about it adds up. He and the patient advocates seem to have captured WIRED.com. Science is out, naratives and anecdote is in, and it seems the Professor of Religion is advising someone, on Twitter, against having an operation!

Meanwhile his article has prompted numerous blog posts, petitions and discourse denouncing it, as well as according to AL lots of zoom calls with people who find it interesting, whilst extremely online (aka bedbound pwME) constantly misunderstand his article. Psychopaths!

He has somewhat “become the story” older UK-based tv watchers may recall when Angus Deayton had to leave Have I Got News For You as it became impossible for him to host a quiz on the news because he was very much The Lead Story in the news.

That’s an analysis of the narrative situation only, no need to dive into the specifics or history of why!

 

[Mij]

I guess that they can always put the blame on the sick person - 'you weren't ready to get well when you did those earlier programmes.'

Stop your brain training before you feel mentally exhausted, foggy, or overly frustrated. Pacing up the brain programme-- part 27.

 

[MrMagoo]

I think asking sick people to pay for something repeatedly until one works is as bad as the junk journalism, promoting junk science which causes sick people to pay for treatments which haven’t been properly tested.

I guess that’s why we construct naratives because nobody really knows anything. And if nobody knows anything, then brain trainers don’t know anything either.