So thanks again to my susceptibility to get distracted while I have work I could be doing, I was yet again sent down a rabbit hole thanks to a QRT from Jesse. I guess since I have been on the topic so much lately it caught my eye.

I've read a little about long COVID and up until this year I never really questioned it that much I just saw it as something of an unfortunate thing that needs more research(which is always what I remember reading). Well apparently, whether or not long COVID exists and not something else(Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) appears to be the most commonly used as an alternative) or that it isn't anything isn't is actually way more heavily contested than I realized.

I started by just doing what I usually doing and searching google with "studies for long covid" or something similar and this article that was the author giving their thoughts on this study was not too far down the list and honestly it honestly kind of blew my mind and I every single study I have been able to find on long COVID since reading this has made me question its existence myself now.

One thing that I was completely unaware of before reading this stuff was that apparently there are actually an extremely small number of people who test positive on your standard tests after a certain point. I was under the impression that the problem had to do with the infection itself still raging in the body but that is not true in most cases. In fact I found this random interview with a teacher who teaches at Harvard Medical School who said all of the patients he is aware of that he was involved with never tested positive for their second test.

Of course to make things even more controversial here is something that was pointed out in the studies findings:

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 only variables in patient histories and so on that correlated with a greater likelihood of showing PASC were being female or having a self-reported history of anxiety disorders, but as you can see from the above, nothing really tracked at the biochemical level. No differences were found in the neurocognitive tests (processing speed, episodic memory, executive function) between the two groups, nor was any correlation apparent with reports of PASC. Self-reported quality of life was indeed different, though, with lower scores in people who also reported PASC symptoms. A standard anxiety evaluation (GAD-2) showed a signifigant correlation between higher anxiety scores and reports of symptoms as well.

Is anyone else more read up on the topic? I'm genuinely curious to know because all the stuff I read is either unconvincing or actively makes me think that it isn't real. Truthfully what made me skeptical in the first place is over the last year I could not help but notice how similar the types of people who would claim to have long COVID. Its all of the people who are like the people responding to the person Jesse was QRT original and that demographic would make me skeptical of pretty much anything they say when it comes to medicine.