|
|
|
|
|
|
by fn-mote
480 days ago
|
|
|
Your comment does not cite any scientific evidence that contradicts the assertions in the article. The study you mention is ongoing and small. For comparison, one of the articles cited involves 280k patients with 35k treated. If you're going to call an analysis incorrect, you should should say what's wrong with it. With a comment this strong, I think you should disclose a little more of your own background / stance on the subject. Have you written a self-published book on Long Covid? (It looks like yes, but tl;dr.) My sympathies if you have suffered it. |
|
|
my general thoughts on this article and science "journalism" lately: https://x.com/atranscendedman/status/1856467031157289327
background: 4 years of long covid, work on nih efforts to cure it, and i don’t want anyone to suffer like millions of us do. so i share reliable info with the world.
note: paxlovid is a first-generation drug. in 2025, derek should follow more science rather than zeroing in on one study or griping about the taste when it can prevent your life from flipping upside down with long covid. he has literally written on the next version of it as well.
many elderly patients who are only vaccinated still develop long covid and are often dismissed due to their age. nobody deserves that when an antiviral is available until next-gen vaccine 2b trials finish soon and more treatment options hit the usa market later this year.