🧵OF KEY CONCERNS We've now read Alan Levinovitz's WIRED piece on Long Covid. Our concern isn't that it discusses psychological theories. Our concern is that it repeatedly conflates criticism of evidence with creating a "climate of fear". Those are not the same thing. /1

‼️⚠️Please read this until the end. A widely shared article has presented a deeply misleading view of Long COVID, suggesting once again that cognitive behavioral therapy, exercise, and “mind-body” approaches may be the uncomfortable truth patients refuse to accept. This needs to be challenged. Not because the nervous system does not matter. Not because psychological support cannot help. But because confusing support with cure, physiology with psychology, and heterogeneity with “it might be in your head” is exactly how medicine has harmed post-infectious patients for decades. There are articles about Long COVID that look like science journalism, but in reality they repackage, in modern language, a very old idea: if we do not fully understand a disease, maybe the problem is in the patient’s mind. And that is not science. That is repeating history. The article begins with a striking sentence: “There isn’t a single approved pharmaceutical treatment, not even a test to verify the presence of the illness.” This may sound forceful, but it is a very misleading way of presenting the problem. The fact that there is still no drug specifically approved for Long COVID, or a single diagnostic test, does not mean that “nothing has been found.” It means that we are dealing with a heterogeneous disease, probably with several biological subgroups, and that medicine has not yet converted those findings into validated clinical tools. “No single diagnostic biomarker” is not the same as “no biology.” In just a few years, immunological, vascular, neurological, endocrine, and metabolic abnormalities have been described in subgroups of Long COVID patients: autonomic dysfunction, herpesvirus reactivations such as EBV/HHV-6, alterations in the cortisol axis, autoantibodies against GPCR receptors — including adrenergic and muscarinic receptors — persistent viral antigens, endothelial damage, muscle abnormalities after exertion, mitochondrial dysfunction, persistent inflammation, and differential immune changes. Is everything settled? No. Does that mean it is psychological? Also no. Science does not work like that. Multiple sclerosis did not stop existing before we had MRI. Many autoimmune diseases do not show up in routine blood tests. If a complete blood count, a basic biochemistry panel, or an X-ray comes back “normal, normal, normal,” that does not prove the absence of disease. It only proves that you are looking with inadequate tools. One of the article’s most serious mistakes is this: it confuses the absence of a simple clinical test with the absence of organic disease. And that mistake has caused harm for decades. The article also says: “Almost $2 billion and half a decade of international effort have yielded little more than hypotheses about micro blood clots and spike proteins and mitochondrial dysfunction.” No. That is not correct. A hypothesis is a provisional explanation. But when you compare patients and controls and find significant differences in muscle tissue, metabolism, response to exertion, immune biomarkers, viral antigens, autoantibodies, or vascular dysfunction, you are no longer talking about “little more than hypotheses.” You are talking about lines of biomedical evidence that still need to be organized, replicated, stratified, and translated into treatments. That is not scientific failure. That is research into a complex and new disease. 🔵Continued in the next post.👇🏻 (1/6)

Vast majority of Canadians want health system changes: survey ctvnews.ca/health/article/va…

About 20% of beds are occupied with someone who picked up a disease while in hospital 😢😢😢

Actually, it is illegal for the CDC to tell you to “return to normal activities” while infected with a deadly communicable disease. Very illegal.