Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

drpvn t1_j3rylfm wrote

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/search-long-covid

1

PsychopathStealth t1_j3s8xv5 wrote

That study has flaws , for example they did basic tests nothing advance and had less then 200 people enrolled. The study mostly included people with mild symptoms where’s it did not include people with CFS/ME or POTS.

My best friend has Long Covid and his lung capacity is half of what it was I’m 2019, he has tests to show it. And he had Covid 2 years ago. He had an MRI done Feb 2020 of his brain and his MRI from Oct 2022 look completely different, while in 2020 it was normal now it’s show that gray matter has shrunk or something like that. Super concerning for someone in his 30s.

8

drpvn t1_j3s9iid wrote

Are you aware of a better study involving a control group?

1

PsychopathStealth t1_j3sav7r wrote

There really isn’t any. Long Covid patients will be ignored like CFS/ME are.

The good news for my friend is that he has been recovering but that half mile walk test they gave , first 6 months wouldn’t have been completed if he was taking it. He’s a former Army Ranger, NYC marathon runner, Ironman and now he struggles to hit 2 mile run. So there is hope of a slow recovery but with brain changes and low lung capacity it’s unknown if he will ever be able to be as fit.

10

drpvn t1_j3t3gz5 wrote

The problem is that until we get such a study, there isn’t really strong evidence that “long Covid” exists as anything more than a series of one-off phenomena.

1

PsychopathStealth t1_j3tgn1y wrote

It’s not one off, it’s estimated that 3-4.5 million people aged 25-45 are out of workforce with issues relating to post Covid symptoms.

If you look at long Covid subreddits and Facebook groups for example you can see it’s a big problem with ton of different symptoms. It will take years if study and research to develop testing, treatment and cure.

I’m just hoping it doesn’t end up being buried like CFS\ME and Lyme.

6

drpvn t1_j3titz5 wrote

Read the article I posted to get a sense of the problem

1

fradleybox t1_j3u06y1 wrote

ME/CFS patients not displaying any obvious biomechanical differences from controls is not a new phenomenon. there's a reason why it is a diagnosis of exclusion rather than a diagnosis by biomechanical test. this doesn't mean the disease does not exist, it means you are testing the wrong biomechanical factors. your exercise test demonstrates that the disease exists.

3

drpvn t1_j3u0g3m wrote

Not following that last sentence.

2

fradleybox t1_j3u2bhz wrote

from the study

​

>There was no statistical difference in pulmonary function (spirometry, lung volume, etc.), and no statistical differences in any of the cardiovascular tests (echocardiograms, etc.) But the median distance walked in a six-minute walking test was lower for the post-Covid patients as compared to the controls (560 meters versus 595). But even then, the changes in walking distance did not correlate with PASC symptoms.

​

the study draws the wrong conclusion, but the walking test does show the expected reduced exercise performance found in ME/CFS patients. The reason why PASC symptom intensity does not correspond with this reduction is because onset of malaise in ME/CFS is Post-Exertional, called Post-Exertional Malaise or PEM. If the symptom intensity had been measured again a day or two after the exercise test, the expected increase in symptom intensity would have been observed.

The majority of Long Covid patients are ME/CFS patients. learn about ME/CFS and you will understand why the study is incorrectly designed to test for ME/CFS.

The author's smugness about his "controversial" results are palpable and revolting. He's just deeply uninformed about the topic he is studying.

3