[surgeryres]

The problem the paper is addressing is fibrin micro clots, which occurs in long Covid. This also occurs in acute Covid. The treatment is similar - anti coagulation. We (doctors) knew this from the beginning (1). Chill out bubba.

(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7378457/

Attached article was written during initial outbreak

[dpark]

I find this to be such a bizarre statement. “What causes long COVID?” has been a common question for a year and a half now. Someone publishes results indicating it might be X and treatable with Y and we get a couple of people chiming in with “yeah, we knew that already”.

You knew the solution to long COVID and just kept it quiet? The NIH was publishing guidance to give anticoagulants to hospitalized acute COVID patients but just neglected to tell people the cure to long COVID?

I’ve got no dispute that you knew to give hospitalized patients anticoagulants early on. My statement is that this is a different thing than knowing to treat long COVID with a related protocol. This study hasn’t even been published yet, has it? This is a preprint we’re discussing. Have there been a bunch of other studies showing this is a viable treatment I’m unaware of (this is certainly possible)? Or is this new data?

[surgeryres]

All your question marks makes brain hurt.

This study is not establishing a new treatment protocol by any means. It’s also a tiny number of people.

This study raises the question maybe we should design bigger trials to investigate treating long COVID with blood thinners.

[dpark]

> This study is not establishing a new treatment protocol by any means.

So this was a known treatment protocol? That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard much about long COVID that wasn’t “we have no real idea”.