COVID Misinformation, Context-Dropping and Bad Persuasion from Public Health Authorities

re: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?

I don’t expect the average person to notice what’s wrong here, but a medical director?

Sure, why not, since most doctors are incompetent at probability. Never trust your doctor to give you the odds, at peril of your life!

49 Fully Vaccinated New Jersey Residents Have Died From COVID-19

by Zachary Stieber, July 22 2021. Emphasis added.

Forty-nine deaths among the population have been recorded since December 2020, the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed to The Epoch Times.

Some 5,300 people who had not gotten a vaccine also died with COVID-19.

The 49 deaths come from the pool of 4.8 million residents who have gotten a vaccine, making the death rate slightly greater than one in 100,000 fully vaccinated people.

“That means vaccines are about 99.999 percent effective in preventing deaths due to COVID-19,” Dr. Ed Lifshitz, medical director of the department’s Communicable Disease Service, said in an emailed statement. [WIND: FALSE claim based on invalid statistic]

...

WIND: there are multiple problems with the above as stated.

First, you cannot calculate a “death rate” versus a cohort of 4.8 million most of whom had no exposure to COVID after vaccination. It’s like saying 4.8 million people wore parachutes around all day, some unspecified number jumped off an airplane of which 49 died. The vast majority never jumped off an airplane. Did the parachutes save them too?

Second, the timeline is wrong: you cannot compare “since December”, when the vaccine only came online in significant numbers around April or so. Compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated during a relevant timeline! That would argue strongly in favor of getting vaccinated.

Third, it ignores age and risk factors. It would be a lot more meaningful to know the type of people who died (age, morbidities, etc). Again, this almost certainly argues in favor of vaccination for high-risk people. But it might argue against vaccination of young healthy people. But lumped-together statistics don’t tell us.

Fourth, the risk of Long-Haul COVID is very real (estimates are up to 25%). This argues strongly in favor of vaccination for anyone likely to get LHC. But who is likely to get LHC? That’s a risk factor conveniently ignored when hysterically demanding vaccination of children and young healthy adults, who might have very low risk of LHC (I am not aware of any solid data on this question).

Fifth, risks of vaccination (death and permanent injuries) versus going unvaccinated are not at all clear for children and young truly healthy adults. It is possible that risk of vaccination is higher in children’s very different and rapidly growing bodies.

Finally, the persuasion is awful: the 5300 dead unvaccinated vs 49 dead vaccinated is far more persuasive (but also invalid as it needs to be a rate for those actually exposed), but the “vaccination all but eliminates the risk of long-haul COVID” would be far more persuasive.

And of course the Big Life of “death with COVID” = “death from COVID” still applies—no one knows what the true COVID death rate is. Nor does anyone know whether the vaccines will case medium/long term health problems; it is a massive experiment on an unprecedented scale.

In life you often have to make a call based on incomplete information. On that basis most people 30 years old on up should probably get vaccinated barring personal factors—and that can be a serious consideration—it certainly is for me in my weakened condition and with auto-immune issues. Every doctor I’ve asked (4 or 5 now) concurs.

COVID — The Panic Pandemic: Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus

Outstanding article, covering the timeline of COVID and the death of scientific inquiry in favor of Rightthink.

The Panic Pandemic: Fearmongering from journalists, scientists, and politicians did more harm than the virus

by John Tierny, Summer 2021. Emphasis added.

The United States suffered through two lethal waves of contagion in the past year and a half. The first was a viral pandemic that killed about one in 500 Americans—typically, a person over 75 suffering from other serious conditions. The second, and far more catastrophic, was a moral panic that swept the nation’s guiding institutions.

Instead of keeping calm and carrying on, the American elite flouted the norms of governance, journalism, academic freedom—and, worst of all, science. They misled the public about the origins of the virus and the true risk that it posed. Ignoring their own carefully prepared plans for a pandemic, they claimed unprecedented powers to impose untested strategies, with terrible collateral damage. As evidence of their mistakes mounted, they stifled debate by vilifying dissenters, censoring criticism, and suppressing scientific research.

If, as seems increasingly plausible, the coronavirus that causes Covid-19 leaked out of a laboratory in Wuhan, it is the costliest blunder ever committed by scientists. Whatever the pandemic’s origin, the response to it is the worst mistake in the history of the public-health profession. We still have no convincing evidence that the lockdowns saved lives, but lots of evidence that they have already cost lives and will prove deadlier in the long run than the virus itself.

One in three people worldwide lost a job or a business during the lockdowns, and half saw their earnings drop, according to a Gallup poll. Children, never at risk from the virus, in many places essentially lost a year of school. The economic and health consequences were felt most acutely among the less affluent in America and in the rest of the world, where the World Bank estimatesthat more than 100 million have been pushed into extreme poverty.

The leaders responsible for these disasters continue to pretend that their policies worked and assume that they can keep fooling the public. They’ve promised to deploy these strategies again in the future, and they might even succeed in doing so—unless we begin to understand what went wrong.

...

WIND: a few paragraphs into the article, the majority of people in this country will have their heads explode from cognitive dissonance.

We were never “in this together”. Well-paid public employees were parasitically kept on, professionals and high-tech workers got the bonus of work from home at full pay, and my wealthy neighbors were delighted to put up “we are all in this together posters” as virtue signalling proof of their own moral degeneracy. Everyone else suffered.

Prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the western world

How many people are aware of the risks?

Our prescription drugs kill us in large numbers

by Peter C. Gøtzsche, 30 October 2014. Emphasis added. See the PDF.

Our prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the United States and Europe. Around half of those who die have taken their drugs correctly; the other half die because of errors, such as too high a dose or use of a drug despite contraindications.

Our drug agencies are not particularly helpful, as they rely on fake fixes, which are a long list of warnings, precautions, and contraindications for each drug, although they know that no doctor can possibly master all of these.

Major reasons for the many drug deaths are impotent drug regulation, widespread crime that includes corruption of the scientific evidence about drugs and bribery of doctors, and lies in drug marketing, which is as harmful as tobacco marketing and, therefore, should be banned.

We should take far fewer drugs, and patients should carefully study the package inserts of the drugs their doctors prescribe for them and independent information sources about drugs such as Cochrane reviews, which will make it easier for them to say “no thanks”.

WIND: your doctor is part of a system that tries to fool him/her. Therefore, you cannot trust your doctor to have the right answers. Indeed, many doctors are tightly bound to follow only standard protocols, or be fired.

You have to look out for yourself, be your own advocate.

The smart move is to avoid prescription drugs unless there is an overwhelmingly evidence of safety and efficacy for people like you (e.g., the elderly if you are so).

Sebastian Rushworth MD: Do drug trials underestimate side effects?

re: Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”
re: The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
re: No Plans to Develop Database for Post-COVID-19 Experimental Vaccination Deaths: FDA
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Should not be a surprise to anyone who understands how the world works.

Do drug trials underestimate side effects?

by Sebastian Rushworth M.D., 19 July 2021. Emphasis added.

One commonly used trick in drug trials is to exclude any group that might make the drug look worse, such as those that are more likely to experience side effects. A good recent example of this is the COVID vaccine trials, which largely excluded people with auto-immune diseases (more likely to develop an auto-immune disease after vaccination), people with allergies (more likely to have an allergic reaction to the vaccine), and, of course, the elderly (less likely to develop immunity after getting the vaccine, and more likely to become seriously sick from it).

These three groups are all frequently excluded from trials, and the exclusion is particularly galling when it comes to the elderly, because they are a big segment of the population, and they are also usually the most likely to end up actually using the drugs being tested.

When drug companies have gotten a drug approved, and move on to market the drug, they will studiously avoid mentioning the fact that large segments of the population were excluded from the trials. When drug reps show their flashy powerpoints to gatherings of doctors, say for a new drug to lower blood pressure, they will always present impressive looking graphs of benefit, and they will of course point out how safe their drug was shown to be in the trials. Not once will they mention that the groups of patients the doctors will primarily be prescribing the drug to weren’t even included in the trials. 

The doctors will then happily go off and prescribe the drug to multi-morbid 90 year olds, which might explain why prescription drugs are now the third leading cause of death in the western world.

The manipulation of who is included in trials is probably one of the main reasons why findings of side effects always end up being much higher in reality than in clinical trials. It might explain, for example, why muscle pain is a massively common side effect of statins in the real world, while being vanishingly rare in the statin trials (as Dr. Malcolm Kendrick has written about in detail).

...

Drug trials do not accurately represent rates of adverse events. It is likely that the true rate of side effects is often many times higher than that seen in drug trials.

WIND: better health comes from two things: first, practices like nutrition and excercise that are the ONLY approach that can ever bring health—no drug can. Second, that most prescription drugs are fraudulent in terms of the claimed risks and benefits. Think statins and anti-depressants, just for starters.

The FDA, whose purpose is purportedly to protect the public, is in fact complicit in drug trial scams in myriad ways. It’s professional incompetence to not require testing of a new drug on its target population, and yet that is exactly what is done. Let alone drug interactions. Let alone the failure to track side effects.

Vaccine Safety: “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported”

The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”

No Plans to Develop Database for Post-COVID-19 Experimental Vaccination Deaths: FDA

Follow the money: Big Pharma, the FDA and doctors with financial interestes in drug trials all collude to persuade rank-and-file doctors to prescribe risky and ineffective “treatments”. Once a drug is approved, a massive full court press is put in motion to foist the new poison on millions. Which is why we have massively expensive public health disaster on our hands for decades now, for no demonstrable benefit. Along with overdiagnosis, it’s a massive problem.

As I have auto-immune issues, I am extremely reluctant to get the COVID vaccine. Just as stated, those with such issues were excluded from the trials, and the CDC has explicitly stated “no data”. Somewhere around 10 million Americans have auto-immune issues!

The smart move with ALL drugs is to use them only when absolutely necessary as a last resort when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor in risk/reward terms, which is absolutely not the case the vast majority of drugs consumed today.

* The efforts involved recommended treatment protocols (mandatory for many doctors), insurance companies, seminars, financial incentives, character assasination of doctors who disagree, etc.

Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Today in 2021, this 2005 paper seems more relevant than ever.

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis, August 30 2005.

...Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias...

It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.

...

Corollaries

Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true...

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true..

Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true...

...

Most Research Findings Are False for Most Research Designs and for Most Fields

Claimed Research Findings May Often Be Simply Accurate Measures of the Prevailing Bias

...

WIND: real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

Whether it is COVID or climate science or medicine, the only rational viewpoint is one of skepticism.

Today, the news popularizes scientific studies that support a political perspective while ignore all evidence to the contrary. And once established, scientifically fraudulent ideas like the cholesterol hypothesis become embedded and take on a life of their own even in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.

RetractionWatch.com: 128 retracted COVID-related studies

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

The amount of outright fraud in medical studies is at least 20%. But over and above that are other problems with studies, and it’s important to be aware of the numerous issues involved:

Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)

As for COVID, there are 128 retracted COVID-related studies and counting.

RetractionWatch.com: COVID-19 papers retracted

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?

re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: Does it make sense to vaccinate those who have had COVID?
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD: Is COVID a danger to children? (risk analysis of infection vs vaccination)

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

On the question of vaccination or not, it’s a mistake to consider only the outcome of death..

The risks of infection are twofold: immediate harms including death, and the risk of debilitating long-haul COVID—no fun, as I can attest.

Barring unknown latent side effects of vaccination (no one can rule that out), vaccination appear to be far lower risk than infection itself for high risk people and it does appear to protect most people extremely well against infection. So it’s a reasonable strategy for high-risk people to get vaccinated.

But for low-risk people (particularly children), the science has not yet been done to ascertain whether infection might be preferred for longer and better immunity. And it’s unethical to be vaccinating children at all.

The risks of vaccination are along similar lines: immediate harms for which very low incidence is claimed, and as yet unknown future side effects of unknown seriousness. But given that the FDA has disavowed tracking of side effects and the VAERS system sees only a tiny fraction of the issues reported it is hard to have confidence in safety claims, what with the overwhelming financial and political tidal forces backing vaccination.

Natural infection vs vaccination: Which gives more protection?

13 July 2021. Emphasis added.

Nearly 40% of new COVID patients were vaccinated - compared to just 1% who had been infected previously.

Coronavirus patients who recovered from the virus were far less likely to become infected during the latest wave of the pandemic than people who were vaccinated against COVID, according to numbers presented to the Israeli Health Ministry.

More than 7,700 new cases of the virus have been detected during the most recent wave starting in May, but just 72 of the confirmed cases were reported in people who were known to have been infected previously – that is, less than 1% of the new cases.

With a total of 835,792 Israelis known to have recovered from the virus, the 72 instances of reinfection amount to 0.0086% of people who were already infected with COVID. By contrast, Israelis who were vaccinated were 6.72 times more likely to get infected after the shot than after natural infection, with over 3,000 of the 5,193,499, or 0.0578%, of Israelis who were vaccinated getting infected in the latest wave.

...

WIND: the finding is interesting, but it compares the wrong things. It’s risky to take such statistics and come to unwarranted conclusions.

First, it ought to compare negative outcomes of vaccinated versus unvaccinated people, in particular the severity of the infections. The vaccine cannot be expected to eliminate infections. So the key question is whether the vaccine reduces severity when someone gets infected plus vaccine side effects, versus severity for an unvaccinated question.

Second, it ignores critical context: what types of people get infected? Those most at risk are likely to have the weakest immune systems and thus to mount a degraded immune system response to vaccination. Should it be a surprise that such people can still be infected? The key question is the effect of vaccination on severity. Furthermore, many high-risk people that were previously infected have died, thus removing them from the pool of potential future infections. In other words, a comparison between vaccinated high-risk people and people that survived infection (the strongest survivors). Hardly an objective comparison.

Third, the percentage quoted above is an overwhelming win for the vaccine—about 1/20 of 1% 'failure rate' is better than just anything else modern medicine has to offer.

It makes sense that natural immunity should be superior. But at what cost from being infected, including long-haul COVID that many people suffer? Perhaps for young low-risk people, it’s much superior, granting lifelong immunity (does it?). And perhaps for at-risk and older people, the vaccination and its side effects will prove to be a far superior course. No one knows these answers yet, because we need 2-3 years to pass to really see what damages the vaccine might have wrought, versus infection, across age groups and other cohorts.

No vaccination has ever been perfect. And vaccines are often ineffective and/or partially effective in the elderly or weak. That’s not an argument against vaccination. The only proper argument is benefits vs risks.

It should be interesting to see how this finding plays out in other countries. And how their respective propaganda orifices deal with it if the same inconvenient statistics pop up. But don’t expect the Big Tech oligarchy to allow it to be discussed, or our leaders to be forthcoming.

Sebastian Rushworth MD: Does it make sense to vaccinate those who have had COVID?

re: Vaccinating Children and Young Adults is a Gross Abuse of Human Rights, and a Chilling Failure of Medical Ethics
re: LinkedIn Deletes Account of mRNA Vaccine Pioneer Who Questioned Risks of COVID-19 Shots
re: Is COVID a danger to children?
re: Sebastian Rushworth MD

Expressing concerns like this is a thought crime on YouTube, FaceBook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.

Does it make sense to vaccinate those who have had COVID?

13 July 2021. Emphasis added.

One of the strangest things about the last few months on planet Earth has been the relentless drive to vaccinate everyone, regardless of what their individual risk from the virus is, and whether or not they’ve already had the disease. It was well known long before COVID came along that people who have had an infection are usually at least as well protected as those who get vaccinated. The whole point of vaccination is, after all, to mimic infection so as to stimulate immunity. If you’ve had measles, you don’t need to take the measles vaccine. If you’ve had hepatitis A, you don’t need to take the hepatitis A vaccine. If you’ve had chickenpox, you don’t need to take the chickenpox vaccine. Yet if you’ve had COVID, you should supposedly still take the COVID vaccine. Strange.

...

A few months back I wrote about a study, published in The Lancet in April, that showed a 93% decreased risk of re-infection in people who had already had COVID. That would make prior infection equivalent to the most effective vaccines, in terms of its ability to protect against COVID (which is as we would expect).

For those who remain unconvinced that prior infection is at least equivalent to vaccination, however, a very interesting study was recently posted on MedRxiv... Prior infection is highly effective at protecting against COVID. There is thus no need for people who have already had COVID to get vaccinated. When governments do vaccinate people who have already had COVID, they are wasting taxpayers money and putting people at risk of side effects for no good reason.

WIND: a voice of reason. But it’s pissing into the wind as far as coercive governments and anti-science-anti-debate Big Tech and the news propaganda outlets are concerned.

See also: MedRxiv: Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals:

Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

COVID Vaccines for Long Haul COVID?

There is speculation even among doctors that vaccinating those who have had COVID could help with Long Haul COVID. I consider it a reasonable hypothesis *if* the idea is that COVID can linger in nooks and crannies of the bodies and the vaccine would cause the body to kill it off (how?!), or that it can some how re-regulate a disfunctional immune system. We certainly cannot rule all those ideas out, so I’d like to see double-blind studies to look into whether there are benefits.

COVID Vaccines for Long Haul COVID?

Can Acupuncture Help With Long-Haul COVID?

re: Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms

See my previous coverage of Long Haul COVID.

I saw an acupuncturist last week, because so far conventional medicine has had nothing to offer for me, not even passing interest in addressing it.

I chose acupuncture because it has the potential to address nervous system disfunction, which I deem a key driver of my symptoms the past year. But while some symptoms have greatly improved (lung function perfect, brain fog gone), others have not (fatigue, excessive need for sleep).

I felt great for a few hours after acupuncture last week, and I did see several days of slightly improved energy allowing for slow short bike rides (400 calories or so at a ~180 watts, vs my longstanding baseline of 1050 calories at ~210 watts). Then I slid into an energy “hole” for two days, and then today I bounced up to my best effort level (15% below baseline effort, but the full baseline ride).

Did acupuncture help? Inconclusive as yet, but it was deeply relaxing. I have 3 more visits before I make a call on its usefulness.

Investigation of Long COVID Prevalence and Its Relationship to Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation

re: Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

See my previous coverage of Long Haul COVID. Article follows below.

For reference, my own Epstein Barr Virus tests shown here. Tests show that what hit me in mid-June 2020 was almost certainly EBV reactivation.

   

2020-08-31 and 2021-03-22 test results for Epstein Barr Virus

Investigation of Long COVID Prevalence and Its Relationship to Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation

17 June 2021. Emphasis added.

Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) is a human gamma herpesvirus. It is known to have infected and generally become latent in more than 90% of the global population [7], including more than 95% of healthy adults [8]. It is found at high rates in every region of the world. This is due to both its lifelong persistence in the latent state and because of its intermittent recrudescence in many latently infected individuals [9].

A variety of clinical manifestations have been associated with EBV reactivation. These include fatigue, psychoneurosis/brain fog, sleep disturbance, arthralgia, pharyngitis, myalgia, headaches, fever, gastrointestinal complaints, and various skin rashes [11]. We observed that many symptoms attributed to long COVID are the same as, or very similar to, those that have been associated with EBV reactivation.

...Results

An analysis of the 185 subjects who applied to our study, all of whom provided evidence of confirmed COVID-19 infections... We found that 66.7% (20/30) of long-term long COVID subjects versus 10% (2/20) of long-term control subjects were positive for EBV reactivation based on positive titers for EBV EA-D IgG or EBV VCA IgM. The difference in the fraction showing reactivation between the groups was found to be significant (p < 0.001, Fisher’s exact test)...
[WIND: p-value of 0.001 is highly signficant, 50 times better than the p=0.05 often used]

Two tests used to detect prior EBV infection in clinical practice, EBV VCA IgG and EBV nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA-1) IgG, return a positive result soon after primary EBV infection and typically remain positive for life. A positive result for both is typically indicative of past EBV infection. A positive result for EBV VCA IgG, but not for EBNA-1 IgG, may also indicate a past EBV infection in cases where patients were immunosuppressed or when individuals never produced EBNA-1 IgG at all [25]. EBV reactivation is typically identified by testing for the presence of EBV EA-D IgG or EBV VCA IgM [11,12,13].

...Subsequent to primary infection, EBV persists for a lifetime in the memory B lymphocytes of the infected host, albeit generally without pathological consequences on the individual. However, viral persistence can be associated with the development of cancer. More precisely, EBV is classified in group 1 of human carcinogens. It is the first human oncogenic virus to have been discovered and to this day, it remains the only human pathogen that can immortalize and transform cells in vitro...

WIND: I’m far more interested in an EBV vaccine than COVID vaccine, but none exists.

Main Targets of Interest for the Development of a Prophylactic or Therapeutic Epstein-Barr Virus Vaccine

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is one of the most widespread viruses in the world; more than 90% of the planet’s adult population is infected. Symptomatic primary infection by this Herpesviridae corresponds to infectious mononucleosis (IM), which is generally a benign disease.

While virus persistence is often asymptomatic, it is responsible for 1.5% of cancers worldwide, mainly B cell lymphomas and carcinomas. EBV may also be associated with autoimmune and/or inflammatory diseases. However, no effective treatment or anti-EBV vaccine is currently available.

Knowledge of the proteins and mechanisms involved in the different steps of the viral cycle is essential to the development of effective vaccines. The present review describes the main actors in the entry of the virus into B cells and epithelial cells, which are targets of interest in the development of prophylactic vaccines aimed at preventing viral infection. This review also summarizes the first vaccinal approaches tested in humans, all of which are based on the gp350/220 glycoprotein; while they have reduced the risk of IM, they have yet to prevent EBV infection...

The oncogenic potential of EBV precludes its being used in vaccinal projects in an attenuated or inactivated form. That is one reason why development of an anti-EBV vaccine presupposes optimal knowledge of the different elements contributing to the virus’s life cycle, namely the viral and cellular proteins implicated in the entry of the virus into host cells (prophylactic vaccines), and the proteins involved in viral persistence (therapeutic vaccines)...

...

WIND: could mRNA technology as used in the COVID vaccines be used to create an EBV vaccine? It might get tricky as it would have to avoid the cancer-inducing aspects of the virus.

Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms

re: Are Latent Viruses Causing Long Covid-19 Symptoms? Patient Groups Push for Testing

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

See my previous coverage of Long Haul COVID, from which I am still suffering, with my physical ability fluctuating between 10% and 20% in comparison to my typical fitness this time of year.

PASC = Posty-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19
ME/CFS = myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome

Some PASC patients meet the diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) – a neuroinflammation-linked condition characterized by a range of debilitating chronic symptoms including severe fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and post-exertional malaise.

Yep, all three for me, and more.

See also: Investigation of Long COVID Prevalence and Its Relationship to Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation

Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms

23 June 2021. Emphasis added. See also the PDF version.

The novel virus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Across the globe, a subset of patients who sustain an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are developing a wide range of persistent symptoms that do not resolve over the course of many months.

These patients are being given the diagnosis Long COVID or Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC). It is likely that individual patients with a PASC diagnosis have different underlying biological factors driving their symptoms, none of which are mutually exclusive. This paper details mechanisms by which RNA viruses beyond just SARS-CoV-2 have be connected to long-term health consequences. It also reviews literature on acute COVID-19 and other virus-initiated chronic syndromes such as post-Ebola syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) to discuss different scenarios for PASC symptom development.

Most common symptoms remaining after 7 months in 966 respondents from a cohort of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases.
Results obtained via an international web-based survey. Image adapted with permission from Davis et al. (2020).

Potential contributors to PASC symptoms include consequences from acute SARS-CoV-2 injury to one or multiple organs, persistent reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 in certain tissues, re-activation of neurotrophic pathogens such as herpesviruses under conditions of COVID-19 immune dysregulation, SARS-CoV-2 interactions with host microbiome/virome communities, clotting/coagulation issues, dysfunctional brainstem/vagus nerve signaling, ongoing activity of primed immune cells, and autoimmunity due to molecular mimicry between pathogen and host proteins.

The individualized nature of PASC symptoms suggests that different therapeutic approaches may be required to best manage care for specific patients with the diagnosis.

...across the globe, a subset of patients who sustain an acute SARS CoV-2 infection are developing a wide range of persistent symptoms that do not resolve over the course of many months (Carfì et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2020; Huang C. et al., 2021) (Figure 1). One study of COVID-19 patients who were followed for up to 9 months after illness found that approximately 30% reported persistent symptoms (Logue et al., 2021). These patients are being given the diagnosis Long COVID, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS), or post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC).

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 is being diagnosed in patients who developed severe acute COVID-19, but also in patients who experienced only mild or asymptomatic cases...

... While the development of long-term symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection is sometimes framed as novel or mysterious, it is actually an expected phenomenon. Most well-studied viral or bacterial pathogens have been connected to the development of chronic symptoms in a subset of infected patients...

Some PASC patients meet the diagnostic criteria for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) – a neuroinflammation-linked condition characterized by a range of debilitating chronic symptoms including severe fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, and post-exertional malaise (worsening of symptoms following exertion) ...
[WIND: precisely, all of those things persist for me]

...Pathogens most commonly implicated in ME/CFS development include neurotrophic herpesviruses and enteroviruses...

It is likely that the different pathogens implicated in ME/CFS development are capable of dysregulating host gene expression, immunity, and metabolism via similar mechanisms, leading to similar sets of chronic symptoms in ME/CFS-diagnosed patients...
[WIND: yes: I gained 25 pounds in 25 weeks!]

...

It is also possible that, at least in some PASC patients, SARS-CoV-2 may drive chronic symptoms by persisting in certain body sites or tissue reservoirs after acute infection. A growing number of studies show that some patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not successfully clear the virus over long periods of time...

Another possible scenario for persistent symptom development in some PASC patients is that SARS-CoV-2 may fully clear from patient blood, tissue and nerves after acute infection. However, the virus may dysregulate the host immune response during acute COVID-19 in a manner that allows previously harbored pathogens to reactivate, infect new body sites, and drive new chronic symptoms.

It is well understood that humans accumulate persistent viruses over the course of a lifetime. These viruses generally persist in dormant, latent, or non-cytolytic forms, but may reactivate under conditions of stress or immunosuppression. Indeed, people regarded as healthy have been shown to harbor a wide range of persistent viruses in blood, saliva, or tissue that are capable of activation under such conditions...

Like viruses, many bacterial, fungal, and parasitic pathogens also change their activity and/or infect new tissue and the CNS under conditions of immune dysregulation or stress. These include tick-borne bacterial pathogens such as Borrelia burgdorferi, Rickettsia, and Bartonella henselae...Approximately one third of the world’s population harbors Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii), a parasite that can differentiate into a latent form that establishes persistent infection in muscle and brain tissue...

...Thus, any PASC patient with multiple ongoing inflammatory issues would be expected to suffer from increased mast cell and glia-related immunopathology. This “primed” state may also be an important part of symptoms like sensory sensitivity in some individuals who have survived an acute neuroinflammatory event such as encephalitis or concussion, or who may have low levels of persisting or latent neurotropic pathogens.

...Another mechanism by which SARS-CoV-2 may promote PASC symptoms is by activating the host immune response in a manner that leads to long-term autoantibody production. Several research teams have isolated a range of autoantibodies in acute COVID-19 patients... SARS-CoV-2 itself has been shown to drive cross-reactive antibody responses. For example, Kreye et al. (2020) identified high-affinity SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies that cross-reacted with gut, kidney, lung, heart, and brain mammalian self-antigens. Antibody binding in the brain occurred in the basal ganglia, hippocampal formation, olfactory bulb, and cerebral cortex...

...Many patients given a PASC diagnosis report a spectrum of symptoms that either meet the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, or are very similar in nature to those suffered by ME/CFS patients. These symptoms include dysautonomia, diffuse pain, sleep problems, flu-like symptoms, trouble concentrating, and nausea. The central role of the brainstem in the sickness behavior response, autonomic control, and arousal suggests that dysfunctional brainstem signaling may be an important driver of PASC symptoms that overlap with those of ME/CFS... including one study demonstrating brainstem glial activation positively correlated with cognitive impairment.

...

WIND: scary as shit. It all dovetails with my personal observations. I don’t want to live out my days with the way things stand, so I will continue to focus on nutrition and hope for some medical salvation.

A year ago I was already speculating on brainstem/vagus nerve disfunction (particularly lung function) as well as auto-immune issues (Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis and rheumatic symptoms), brain fog and headaches, 4 months of gastrointestinal problems (“interactions with host microbiome/virome communities”), weight gain of 25 pounds in 25 weeks, and Epstein Barr virus.

The “persistent reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 in certain tissues” is an interesting one. If it can be shown that the virus can be harbored longer-term, then I would be much more open to the idea that the vaccine could help, in the hope of killing it off.

The autoantibody effects are most concerning:

Under such conditions, “autoantibody” production would vary widely between different COVID-19 patients. That is because the composition and virulence of patient microbiome/virome communities capable of contributing to cross-reactive “autoantibody” production differs greatly among individuals. The same is true of persistent pathogens capable of reactivation in COVID-19 tissue. Moreover, SARS-CoV-2 infects different body sites and cell types in different patients.

This model fits with the Wang et al. (2021) COVID-19 “autoantibody” findings. The team was unable to identify COVID-19 “autoantibody” responses that could extensively partition patients into specific phenotypes or outcomes. Instead, they observed an extensive constellation of rare and uncommon “autoantibody” reactivities with large apparent effect sizes. This led to the conclusion that “relatively private reactivities are common in COVID-19, and the aggregate sum of these multifarious responses may explain a significant portion of the clinical variation in patients.” In some patients, this varied “autoantibody” production might continue after resolution of acute COVID-19 disease, leading to PASC symptoms.

But effects on the brain... I had that in spades for 7 months, and I still get mild headaches.

Many patients given a PASC diagnosis report a spectrum of symptoms that either meet the diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS, or are very similar in nature to those suffered by patients. These symptoms include dysautonomia, diffuse pain, sleep problems, flu-like symptoms, trouble concentrating, and nausea. The central role of the brainstem in the sickness behavior response, autonomic control, and arousal suggests that dysfunctional brainstem signaling may be an important driver of PASC symptoms....

Are Latent Viruses Causing Long Covid-19 Symptoms? Patient Groups Push for Testing

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

See my previous coverage of Long Haul COVID, from which I am still suffering, with my physical ability fluctuating between 10% and 20% in comparison to my typical fitness this time of year.

Are Latent Viruses Causing Long Covid-19 Symptoms? Patient Groups Push for Testing

13 July 2021. Emphasis added.

More long Covid-19 patients are pushing to investigate what they believe is fueling some of their debilitating long-term symptoms: dormant viruses that have been reactivated by the coronavirus.

An estimated 10% to 30% of all Covid-19 patients suffer from symptoms weeks and months after first getting the illness, including many young, previously healthy people whose initial Covid-19 cases were mild. Symptoms can include brain fog, fatigue, shortness of breath, racing heart beat and an inability to tolerate physical or mental exertion.

Public health officials around the world are trying to figure out exactly what is causing the symptoms; the National Institutes of Health earlier this year unveiled a major initiative to study long Covid-19, backed by $1.15 billion in funding. Yet scientists still know very little about the causes of the condition, and have even fewer treatments to offer.

Most people—whether they have had Covid-19 or not—have dormant, normally harmless viruses in their body that they contracted years earlier. Among the most common are the herpes family of viruses. That includes the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), which causes mononucleosis, as well as human herpes virus 6 (HHV-6), which causes the common childhood illness sixth disease, the herpes simplex viruses, and herpes zoster, a reactivation of the chickenpox virus that can cause shingles. Such viruses can be reactivated at times by stress, including infections.

Some long Covid-19 patients and advocacy groups are urging doctors to test more regularly for reactivated viruses. With so few treatment options for long Covid-19, they say, it makes sense to see if a herpes antiviral drug might relieve symptoms. Some doctors say it is worth more testing and further study. Others say the tests are difficult to interpret—and that even if a latent virus does reactivate, it is unclear whether that is causing long Covid-19 symptoms.

...

WIND: I speculated about this likely possibility more than a year ago, with the medical establishment oblivious to it. At least there are a few doctors working on it now.

The proposition that public health officials will figure it out is laughable; these are the same people that have obliterated public confidence in their guidance. Highly politicized, lacking objectivity and while actively suppressing alternative viewpoints, they are the worst possible choice to find answers. Politically malleable anti-scientific parasites—the same jackasses who think everyone must be vaccinated, even those with prior COVID and/or other conditions that greatly raise potential risks.

COVID can cause short/medium term physical damage (neurological, tiny blood clots, gastrointestinal, etc) which usually resolve in a few months. Some unlucky people have more serious damage and/or for longer.

The main thing is that COVID screws the body up in many ways we don’t understand, especially (in my view) neurological issues.

My sense of my oscillating energy levels is that my body could be fighting against a viral enemy such as EBV or HHV-6. Proof positive that EBV was a factor are my positive antibody tests for EBV, which now show a resolved EBV infection. It feels like my body is still fighting something, perhaps HHV-6 (which almost everyone has in latent hiding places). Or maybe the EBV is still having a go at me, in spite of what the antibody test claims. Or maybe it is auto immune—or both, or yet some other virus, since medical science has yet to recognize so many things. OTOH, I don’t get sick with anything

TIP: if you get COVID and seemingly recovery, resume physical training with extreme caution. Nothing strenuous for a full 3 months after recovering from COVID, base training only and not too much.

Setting aside hospitalized patients, long-haul COVID might actually affect highly fit people more than most. Because people like me resumed sports training after recovering but while the body was still damaged and not right. That in turn seems to have triggered massive Epstein Barr Virus problems for me. For an MD friend of mine, our onset, recovery, resumption of training, then subsequent hammer blow to energy were nearly identical.

See also

Investigation of Long COVID Prevalence and Its Relationship to Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation

Long COVID or Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC): An Overview of Biological Factors That May Contribute to Persistent Symptoms

BMJ: Time to Assume That Health Research Is Fraudulent Until Proven Otherwise?

Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.

re: ‘Replication crisis’ spurs reforms in how science studies are done
re: ethics in medicine

Feeling confident about medical advice from your doctor for that new drug or procedure?

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

5 July 2021. Emphasis added. Author Richard Smith was the editor of The BMJ until 2004.

Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys “trusted information,” has now taken a step in that direction.

...We have long known that peer review is ineffective at detecting fraud, especially if the reviewers start, as most have until now, by assuming that the research is honestly reported...

...We have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence to the contrary. Some supporting evidence comes from the trial having been registered and having ethics committee approval. Andrew Grey, an associate professor of medicine at the University of Auckland, and others have developed a checklist with around 40 items that can be used as a screening tool for fraud (you can view the checklist here).

...Research fraud is often viewed as a problem of “bad apples,” but Barbara K Redman, who spoke at the webinar insists that it is not a problem of bad apples but bad barrels if not, she said, of rotten forests or orchards. In her book Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach @AMAZON she argues that research misconduct is a systems problem—the system provides incentives to publish fraudulent research and does not have adequate regulatory processes...

...

WIND: right off the bat 20% is outright fraud of some sort. Of the remaining 80%, how much is solid science free of conflicts of interest? How much is well done enough to trust? We may be seeing junk science as high as 90% of studies (see below).

Trust the science? Trust the data? Seriously?! That’s for the gullible and has been for a long time now, at least when it comes to medicine. But it surely affects most areas of science and any area where money or status or politics are involved. And money is always involved, if only research grants. Throw in Big Pharma and the corrupt FDA... good luck with that.

In the area of medicine, if there are not at least a bare minimum of two independent double-blind studies free of all conflicts of interest (rare), it should be considered junk science. IMO, with fewer than four independent double-blind studies, it’s not much more than speculation.

What does all this say about COVID vaccines, with their $100 billion financial incentive to not find problems?

Reason.com: How Much Scientific Research Is Actually Fraudulent?

RONALD BAILEY | 9 July 2021

Fraud may be rampant in biomedical research. My 2016 article "Broken Science" pointed to a variety of factors as explanations for why the results of a huge proportion of scientific studies were apparently generating false-positive results that could not be replicated by other researchers. A false positive in scientific research occurs when there is statistically significant evidence for something that isn't real (e.g., a drug cures an illness when it actually does not). The factors considered included issues like publication bias, and statistical chicanery associated with p-hacking, HARKing, and underpowered studies. My article did not address the possibility that the lack of reproducibility could be because a significant proportion of preclinical and clinical biomedical studies were actually fraudulent.

My subsequent article, "Most Scientific Findings Are False or Useless," which reported the conclusions of Arizona State University's School for the Future of Innovation in Society researcher Daniel Sarewitz's distressing essay, "Saving Science," also did not consider the possibility of extensive scientific dishonesty as an explanation for the massive proliferation of false positives. In his famous 2005 article, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," Stanford University biostatistician John Ioannidis cited conflicts of interest as one factor driving the generation of false positives but also did not suggest that actual research fraud was a big problem.

How bad is the false-positive problem in scientific research? As I earlier reported, a 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. In an email exchange with me, Ioannidis estimated that the nonreplication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent.

...Summarizing their results, an article in Science notes, "More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature. And one in 12 [8 percent] admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results." Daniele Fanelli, a research ethicist at the London School of Economics, tells Science that 51 percent of researchers admitting to questionable research practices "could still be an underestimate."

...

In an editorial, Ioannidis observes that the zombie anesthesia trials added up to "100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan." Taking the number of clinical trials from these countries listed with the World Health Organization's registry and extrapolating from the false trial rates identified by Carlisle, Ioannidis estimates that there are "almost 90,000 registered false trials from these countries, including some 50,000 zombies." Consequently, he concludes that "hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us." Since randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for clinical research, Ioannidis adds, "One dreads to think of other study designs, for example, observational research, that are even less likely to be regulated and more likely to be sloppy than randomised trials."

...

WIND: it’s not just the study, it’s who is doing it.

Follow the science? Follow the data? Great mantra for manipulating the masses, so that the government and media can easily impose their will on all matters of policy..

“Publication bias” refers to studies never published because a desired outcome was not seen. It is a huge problem, particularly in medical studies.

Many things could be done to address the problem, here are just a few:

• No drug or device should be legally sold until and unless the entire data set has been made feely available freely to anyone for at least 6 months.
• Publication bias should be rooted out by requiring publication of all studies.
• Research fraud in medical trials should be a felony.

Of crouse, none of this applies to climate science, since it’s a rigorous marketplace of ideas. That’s why the science there is settled (see quote at top of article).

See also: Check for publication integrity before misconduct.

Excitotoxins Such as MSG (Monosodium Glutamate) Are Neurotoxic, but Labeling is Dishonest, Hidden and the FDA is Complicit

Excitotoxins are neurotransmitters than “excite” neurons and by doing so continually, kill the neurons that use those transmitters. Examples include monosodium glutamate (glutamic acid) and aspartame (aspartic acid).

Low blood sugar and magnesium deficiency are good ways to ensure neuron death. Both are critical to the cellular mechanisms that produce energy in cells, including pumping out calcium. You cannot eat enough from the modern food supply to get adequate magnesium, so supplement with magnesium, which will have many beneficial effects.

The blood-brain barrier is effective for only short periods of time to exclude excitotoxins. Problem is, excitotoxins can linger for many hours, exposing certain types of critical neurons to constant firing, killing them.

But when you have a concussion, or low blood sugar, or high body temperature and various other situations, that barrier is greatly degraded and so consumption of excitotoxins like MSG and aspartame is a surefire way to kill brain cells that might not matter right away, but might ruin your older years.

Over time and past a critical threshold, all sorts of neurodegenerative diseases can develop from loss of these neurons, once the remarkably adaptable human brain has lost more than 40% or so of them.

Is it be any surprise that neurodegenerative diseases are now rampant with middle-age onwards? Ignore at your own peril, but it’s one of those things that can bite you in the ass 20 years down the line.

The FDA is complicit in hiding sources of MSG. The FDA’s de facto mission is to protect industry, not your health! Hence “food” and drug manufacturers can get away with poisoning you, and have for many years.

Where is MSG Hidden?

• Low fat and no fat milk products often contain milk solids that contain MSG. Other dairy products often contain guar gum and/or locust bean gum. Low fat and no fat versions of ice-cream and cheese may not be as obvious as yogurt, milk, cream, cream cheese, cottage cheese, etc., but they are not exceptions.
• Protein powders and protein drinks contain glutamic acid, and the glutamic acid in the protein powders and drinks will always be processed (manufactured), i.e., will always contain processed free glutamic acid (MSG). Individual amino acids are not always listed on labels of protein powders and drinks.

Examples are hydrolyzed soy protein, hydrolyzed wheat protein, hydrolyzed pea protein, hydrolyzed whey protein, hydrolyzed, corn protein. If a tomato, for example, were whole, it would be identified as a tomato. Naming an ingredient “tomato protein” indicates that the tomato has been hydrolyzed, at least in part, and that processed free glutamic acid (MSG) is present.

...

WIND: many more sources, see the whole list.

Dr. Satchin Panda on Circadian Insights into Exercise Timing, Melatonin Biology, and Peak Cognition

Lots more studies needed, but there is good material here for personal exploration—no need to wait for the clueless allopathic medical establishment to catch up.

YouTube: Dr. Satchin Panda on Circadian Insights into Exercise Timing, Melatonin Biology, and Peak Cognition

I wish there were a transcript—I hate having to sit and look at a video—too tediously slow and difficult to review/reference.

YouTube: Dr. Satchin Panda on Circadian Insights into Exercise Timing, Melatonin Biology, and Peak Cognition

Stress can turn hair gray -- and it's reversible, researchers find

Explains a lot vis-a-vis my premature gray hair after the crash of 2008.

Stress can turn hair gray -- and it's reversible, researchers find

01 July 2021. Emphasis added.

A new study from researchers at Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons is the first to offer quantitative evidence linking psychological stress to graying hair in people.

And while it may seem intuitive that stress can accelerate graying, the researchers were surprised to discover that hair color can be restored when stress is eliminated, a finding that contrasts with a recent study in mice that suggested that stressed-induced gray hairs are permanent.

...

WIND: now if only I could grow hair at all.

Study ties milder COVID-19 symptoms to prior run-ins with other coronaviruses

Maybe the “novel” coranavirus is less novel than we think, other than having been engineered to kill people better by the Chinese Communist Party?

Study ties milder COVID-19 symptoms to prior run-ins with other coronaviruses

01 July 2021. Emphasis added.

A study by Stanford University School of Medicine investigators hints that people with COVID-19 may experience milder symptoms if certain cells of their immune systems "remember" previous encounters with seasonal coronaviruses -- the ones that cause about a quarter of the common colds kids get.

These immune cells are better equipped to mobilize quickly against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, if they've already met its gentler cousins, the scientists concluded.

The findings may help explain why some people, particularly children, seem much more resilient than others to infection by SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19. They also might make it possible to predict which people are likely to develop the most severe symptoms of COVID-19.

...

WIND: maybe the “novel” coranavirus is less novel than we think, other than having been engineered to kill people better by the Chinese Communist Party?

COVID-19 symptoms linger for months in majority of hospitalized patients, Stanford study finds

re: SARS CoV2 aka COVID-19: Am I Infected?
re: Long Haul COVID

The Stanford article follows below.

Preface

As someone still suffering from fatigue (I’m at best at 15% of my former physical ability) from Long Haul COVID, I can attest that you do NOT have to have been hospitalized to see these issues.

The key ones for me were:

• Anxiety was minimal and lasted for only a few weeks after infection.
• Small airway impairment was substantial during the infection (2+ weeks). Following the infection, reactive lung issues were dealt with using magnesium with outstanding success (prescription inhalers were ineffective) and a wonderful outcome from that is that I have since cured my asthma.
• Gastroenterological problems for first 4 months (severe diarrhea while infected, then months of loose).
• Outbreak of Epstein Barr Virus 8 weeks after infection. One day I summited White Mountain Peak and the next I could barely walk—presumably the onset of the EBV infection and the onset of all the subsequent problems. An MD friend had exactly the same timeline (infection, recovery , resumption, then EBV).
• Gained a pound of body fat per week for 25 weeks. Weight stable now.
• Auto-immune issue with thyroid peroxidase test showing antibody level of 233 for thyroid (cutoff is 60 or so). Six months later the test had declined to 180.
• Body aches with some rheumatic symptoms.
• Major sleep disruption: up to 14 hours and even one 30 hour period last fall, now settled down to 1-3 hours extra needed, plus a nap on many days.
• Brain fog for 7 months after infection. I have the sense that the infection affected my brain in a variety of ways and caused neurological issues.
• Cognitive hits for several months (last summer): diffculty concentrating, motivational problems, memory problems. Fortunately this has mostly gone away, and now it’s more about fatigue ranging from extreme to moderate to mild often going in 4 to 7 day runs. I do what I can when I can.

The potential for post-COVID health challenges like this is a powerful argument in favor of the vaccine. A decision to be vaccinated or not should factor in the risk of lingering issues.

At present, ~15 months after the initial infection

The term Long Haul COVID is not only misleading (it’s not COVID, it’s the damage), but fairly useless. Because the damage and “software reprogramming” of the bodies systems is the problem and no drug is going to fix all the issues or even a single issue. Prescription drugs are bandaids that do not create health, and many are poisons in some way.

Only high quality nutrition and the body’s own healing mechanisms can do bring someone back to health. Nothing else will do.However, there may be assistive factors such as sleep, sunlight, possibly acupuncture that can encourage the body to revert to a happier state.

• Variable sleep needs of up to 10 hours a day. Way better than last year!
• Body aches, stiff back, and some rheumatic symptoms, like finger joints that swell up in hours, then go back to normal in 2 days.
• Impaired work schedule: 2 to 6 hours a day (zero on bad days). An 8 or 10 hour workday is out of the question (fatigue builds up, concentration falters, etc).
• Formerly able to do double centuries for the prior decade and/or hike vigorously all day, a 20 mile ride at 30% lower wattage is now all I can handle on my best day. I rate my physical ability at 10% to 15% in terms of endurance (2% some days) but also at a 30% lower power output.
• When I feel better and try to resume biking at a very low pace, I get slammed after 2-3 days of that. So I am working on a more gradual resumption now.

But with the CDC lacking scientific data on the safety of the vaccine for people with auto-immune issues, I won’t be getting vaccinated, especially since it is all signs point to COVID having been what infected me last April. Only an anti-scientific jackass can argue a vaccine is safe for everyone regardless of health status.

Below, keep in mind that these are observational findings, the weakest kind of science.

COVID-19 symptoms linger for months in majority of hospitalized patients, Stanford study finds

26 May 2021. Emphasis added.

Among the most common lingering symptoms were shortness of breath, fatigue and sleep disorders. In all, 84 different symptoms and clinical signs were reported, including loss of taste and smell, cognitive disorders such as loss of memory and difficulty concentrating, depression, anxiety, chest pain and fevers.

The findings raise concern about an immense public health burden if even a portion of these patients need continuing care, said Steven Goodman, MD, PhD, senior author of the study and a professor of epidemiology and population health and of medicine.

“It’s astonishing how many symptoms are part of what’s now being referred to as long COVID,” Goodman said. He added that the review found wide discrepancies in design and quality of the studies, making it difficult to compare results, but it remained evident that the problem of persistent symptoms is substantial. A recent initiative to study long COVID was launched by the National Institutes of Health, which will be allocating $1.15 billion toward research on the subject.

...

“Early on, we completely ignored the long-term consequences of getting sick with this virus,” Goodman said. “People were being told this was all in their heads. The question now isn’t is this real, but how big is the problem.”

WIND: where is the discussion of how to address the issues, particularly nutrition? The medical community is asleep at the wheel.

You can be sure that the $1.15 billion dollars will do a lot of good to fatten researchers pockets and reputations, but how much it will contribute to helping people... that’s a stretch since the people studying it will be clueless as to how to improve health and will almost certainly be focused on bandaid approaches with expensive single-lever drugs.

See also: Stanford researchers find signs of inflammation in brains of people who died of COVID-19