I get most of those crappy things on occasion because I'm old.Strontium Dog wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:01 pmI suspect a lot of it is confirmation bias. I've had a number of those symptoms without ever having had covid.

I get most of those crappy things on occasion because I'm old.Strontium Dog wrote: ↑Fri May 26, 2023 12:01 pmI suspect a lot of it is confirmation bias. I've had a number of those symptoms without ever having had covid.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7421000932
Early studies reported widely varying estimates of post-covid-19 condition prevalence and symptom trajectories, mainly due to differences in sample representativeness and survey designs. As commented on by previous work, research has been limited by: data sources not representative of the general infected population because much covid data are based on patients admitted to hospital; scarcity of information on symptom trajectory because population level studies rarely survey a comprehensive set of symptoms or the change in their severity; absence of a comparable covid-free control group because some symptoms might result from existing conditions or seasonal illness; and recall bias because the experience that respondents are asked to recollect can easily date back to months, or even years, ago.
The linked article in The BMJ by Tala Ballouz and colleagues makes an important contribution to the study of post-covid-19 condition by addressing many of these limitations. The analyses are based on a population based, prospective, longitudinal cohort of unvaccinated individuals who contracted a SARS-CoV-2 infection between 6 August 2020 and 19 January 2021 and who were compared with individuals who had not had the virus, all from canton of Zurich, Switzerland. The survey collected information on 23 potential symptoms of post-covid-19 condition, their severity, and their perceived relevance to covid-19, which were assessed over 24 months. For symptoms that were hard to measure, such as fatigue, dyspnea [shortness of breath], depression, and stress, a scale based assessment was adopted.
Ballouz and colleagues found that recovery after infection did not occur in 23% of individuals at six months, in 19% at 12 months, and in 17% at 24 months. The proportions of people still experiencing symptoms perceived to be related to covid-19 at the three timepoints were similar but slightly higher, decreasing from 29% at six months, to 20% at 12 months, and to 18% at 24 months. These findings are consistent with previous studies with similar time frames,36 and extend our knowledge of post-covid-19 condition to two years after infection. Importantly, compared with people who did not have an infection, those with covid-19 had excess risks for both physical problems (eg, altered taste or smell, malaise after exertion, fatigue, and dyspnea) and mental health issues (eg, reduced concentration and anxiety) at month six.
...
An important limitation of Ballouz and colleagues’ study was its focus on only wild type SARS-CoV-2 in an unvaccinated population. Empirical evidence accounting for vaccination status and later virus strains is emerging. For example, another study found that vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections had a significantly lower risk of persistent dyspnea and hair loss 30-90 days after infection when compared with unvaccinated individuals. Additionally, the risks of developing post-covid-19 condition were not significantly different among people who had an infection with wild type, alpha, or delta variants.
Not surprising, really......long COVID appears to be less prevalent in vaccinated people...
The raw garlic makes sense, in a way. No one will come anywhere near you, so you avoid getting infected!L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:17 pmRead a few items about this, beyond the ABC story. In that story, Dr McAuley appears to be talking out of her arse.
The cold water comes from a couple of places, but I'll link to Scimex, where it is pointed out that this was an in vitro study, and in reality it is unknown whether that special garlic will have any significant effect in the human body. By the way, cooking it apparently destroys its effect, so better get chomping on raw garlic. Arguably worse tasting than apple flavored horse deworming paste.![]()
I have personally debunked several of his videos.In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable", he later became a "total COVID-19 crank"
There's no French kiss like a garlicky kissJimC wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:35 pmThe raw garlic makes sense, in a way. No one will come anywhere near you, so you avoid getting infected!L'Emmerdeur wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 1:17 pmRead a few items about this, beyond the ABC story. In that story, Dr McAuley appears to be talking out of her arse.
The cold water comes from a couple of places, but I'll link to Scimex, where it is pointed out that this was an in vitro study, and in reality it is unknown whether that special garlic will have any significant effect in the human body. By the way, cooking it apparently destroys its effect, so better get chomping on raw garlic. Arguably worse tasting than apple flavored horse deworming paste.![]()
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/11/health/c ... index.html“My initial hypothesis was that SARS-CoV-2 was likely an engineered virus,” Andersen told the committee. “This was based on limited data and preliminary analyses where I had observed features that appeared to be unique.”
He shared those early concerns with Fauci, who advised him to draft a scientific paper outlining his theory. But Andersen said he changed his mind after learning more about these kinds of viruses.
“We soon discovered that those features are readily found in related coronaviruses, and the virus itself looks to be a clear product of natural selection and not actual engineering,” he said.
He said scientists often adjust their thinking in the face of evidence. It’s not a flip-flop but how the scientific process works.
Andersen, who said he found his name on online “kill lists” because of allegations that he was part of a coverup, also disputed allegations that he and his co-authors were bribed to change their public statements with promises of grant money.
Has targeting these researchers and probing the publication of this paper meaningfully advanced our efforts to prevent and prepare for future pandemics?” he asked.
“Or has it been about fishing for evidence to prove their confirmation bias, their theories with a goal of advancing a predetermined partisan narrative targeting Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins and our nation’s scientists and public health officials.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell, a Democrat from Michigan, chided her Republican colleagues for feeding public hatred of scientists and public servants.
Aye. Just wanted to flag up this looney-right talking point for future reference.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests