drpvn t1_j3titz5 wrote on January 10, 2023 at 11:31 PM

Reply to comment by PsychopathStealth in How to Get Help for Long COVID in NYC by exgalactic

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

fradleybox t1_j3u06y1 wrote on January 11, 2023 at 1:30 AM

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.

drpvn t1_j3u0g3m wrote on January 11, 2023 at 1:32 AM

Not following that last sentence.

fradleybox t1_j3u2bhz wrote on January 11, 2023 at 1:45 AM

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.