health

WHO says it is deeply concerned by Long COVID

26 Comments
By Robin MILLARD

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

26 Comments
Login to comment

No worries. World-renowned Covid expert Steven Wrongbanner insists that even if long Covid exists, it is no threat to anyone except the old and the obese, neither of which society needs. All young people should immediately remove their masks and go drinking until the bars close.

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

Post-viral syndrome isn't new, it's just been rebranded

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Post-viral syndrome isn't new, it's just been rebranded

That is meaningless, that is like saying COVID, SARS, HIV are nothing new, just viral infections "rebranded".

For people with common sense it is clear that a NEW problem that will affect a significant portion of the infected for weeks, months or even permanently means a huge extra burden to public health, that has to be addressed as soon as posible to avoid unnecessary problems later on. This is something the scientific community recognizes as important (unless you can bring some sources of institutions, organizations, universities, etc. that say the same thing you do)

Anti-scientific people desperately try to minimize the myriad of problems that results from COVID in order to justify their disdain for the measures taken against it, but this is obviously nothing that brings benefit, if a problem is clearly present the best course of action is to fully characterize it and find solutions, not just pretend it is not happening and deal with the consequences later.

3 ( +11 / -8 )

What greatly reduces the incidence and severity of long covid is treating infected people early, whether it's ivermectin, HCQ+azithromycin, or other safe and effective treatments. Telling people to stay home until they have trouble breathing is causing unnecessary death and long covid.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

What greatly reduces the incidence and severity of long covid is treating infected people early, whether it's ivermectin, HCQ+azithromycin, or other safe and effective treatments. 

Completely false, the scientific consensus from the world's scientifica and medical community is that this is not supported by evidence.

Of course you could prove it is not false by providing a communication from ANY recognized institution of the world that shares this opinion with you, because if you can't that would mean it is just your own personal opinion that runs against the advice of the best experts of the world.

I mean, it would be insane to think every single institution of the whole world to be in some kind of conspiracy to hide this if it was true, right? nobody rational would even believe that.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Yes, they really woke up and bring a new little slice of the truth… Imagine I would have written about long term damages, sicker workforce, rehabilitation costs, reduced life expectancy and rising body damages leading to other, LongCovid following diseases or that we in general just cannot live with the virus and this is even easy to calculate and foresee, it would have been censored and deleted within five minutes. Let’s stopwatch how long it takes today.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Surely all diseases will have some aftereffect? It just seems that the coronavirus has a harsh impact on your body (and combined with the toll of lockdowns the mind as well) and leaves a lot of battle scars. There will surely be a methodological way of figuring it out.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The long haul symptoms are real. It is taking a terrible toll on a lot of people, even those who are typically athletes.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

WHO says it is deeply concerned by Long COVID

Long Covid maybe a problem or maybe not. But what the WHO says about this or any other topic, should be taken for what it is: a statement by the mouthpiece of the CCP. That Big Tech and corporate media continue to defer to the WHO is disappointing.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

virusrex

Completely false, the scientific consensus from the world's scientifica and medical community is that this is not supported by evidence.

Your media talking points do not equal the "world's scientifica and medical community". Which, by definition, includes different opinions and needs open discussion.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

More than one million people are suffering from long covid, many for more than one year. Needs to be called an official disability.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Your media talking points do not equal the "world's scientifica and medical community". Which, by definition, includes different opinions and needs open discussion.

You want your crackpot Youtubers' opinions to carry the same weight do you? What is it about misinformation that so attracts you?

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Some Long Covid sufferers have been in hospital for more than one year. Others have developed black organ fungus.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Your media talking points do not equal the "world's scientifica and medical community". Which, by definition, includes different opinions and needs open discussion.

Then how come when asked to provide one of those "different opinions" held by any of the recognized institutions of science or medicine of the whole world you are never capable of doing it?

The answer is that of course they are uniformly against using drugs without proof of efficacy, and specially so against drugs that have already proved above all doubts to be worthless against COVID.

So, how about this time? any institution? CDC, Pasteur institute, Tokyo University?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

One of my neighbours developed long covid after a seemingly mild infection last year. He is still in rehab, lung function less than 50%, neurological symptoms like numbness in feet and hands and short-term memory loss.

Quite bad for a healthy 35-year-old half-marathon runner with no known previous health issues.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

So, how about this time? any institution? CDC, Pasteur institute, Tokyo University?

For starters, the FLCCC, the IHU in Marseilles, and many other doctors who actually treat patients, not bureaucrats. They all say exactly what Raw Beer wrote.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

WHO isn't concerned? WHO, WHO? WHO, WHO? I really wanna know!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Even Fauci says that if treated early, instead of waiting at home until you have trouble breathing covid can be like a common cold:

"We’re looking at an orally administered maybe seven to 10 days, given to person who is early on in the course of their infection before you get to the cascade of events that lead to the aberrant activation, inflammatory response that kills people, because we know now from a lot of experience with the care of these individuals that if you can keep that virus from going to the upper airway, from going down into the lung and other organ systems, you can change what can be a devastating disease and make it an upper airway common cold type approach, which is really what we need to do. "

Fauci is saying that now because Pfizer is about to complete trials of a new drug.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

In the interview, Fauci never said anything about the drugs Raw Beer, mentioned not working:

"We’ve seen false starts and politicized options – hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma. Ivermectin is the latest case of controversy. And we’ve seen systemic problems in the American health system, which has difficulties enrolling infected patients in the clinical trials and getting promising therapies to those who need them. And we’ve had problems with the research infrastructure that needs more coordination and prioritization."

If they made an honest effort to test them and to honestly look at the current data, they would drastically reduced deaths and long covid. Seems only pharmaceutical companies can afford to do the large studies, but they wil never test these drugs.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Seems only pharmaceutical companies can afford to do the large studies, but they wil never test these drugs.

Ivermectin's maker, Merck, publicly and officially stated their drug should not be used against Covid.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Seems only pharmaceutical companies can afford to do the large studies, but they wil never test these drugs.

Ivermectin's maker, Merck, publicly and officially stated their drug should not be used against Covid.

Yeah, the last thing they want to sell is a cheap repurposed drug whose patent protection ran out; they would rather sell new expensive drugs.

you can change what can be a devastating disease and make it an upper airway common cold

Yes! If governments and regulators just got out of the way and stop blocking the use of these drugs, then for the vast majority Covid-19 would just be like the common cold.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

For starters, the FLCCC, the IHU in Marseilles, and many other doctors who actually treat patients, not bureaucrats. They all say exactly what Raw Beer wrote.

So, in the whole world those are the examples you could find, not a single well recognized institution but one characterized by making false unsubstantiated claims repeatedly even after proved wrong, one involved in huge scandals because it is managed by a discredited researcher being investigated by scientific malpractice and fraud extending for decades, and single people that think their personal opinions are enough to contradict the scientific consensus?

This should be enough to make anybody think "wow, only shady people support this, maybe its a scam", but for antiscientific people having this kind of "support" is the norm so they don't see nothing wrong with it, rational people would know exactly who is more likely to be right, people without evidence or the scientific community in general.

In the interview, Fauci never said anything about the drugs Raw Beer, mentioned not working:

There should not be any need, the scientific consensus is clear in the case of HCQ, it is worthless, and in the case of ivermectin it reaching the same point thanks to the latests efforts in examining its efficacy in big, well designed studies. The silverlining of the HCQ scam was that scientists and regulating institutions around the world became much more careful and no longer recommend things with flimsy evidence of working. This may have saved a lot of people that were spared from risk of using noneffective drugs against COVID.

Yeah, the last thing they want to sell is a cheap repurposed drug whose patent protection ran out; they would rather sell new expensive drugs.

The problem with that conspiracy theory is that it has been completely contradicted by doctors doing exactly that every single day with dirt cheap drugs like dexamethasone that it is used without problem instead of hugely more expensive drugs. If the conspiracy were actually true this would not be possible in the first place.

Yes! If governments and regulators just got out of the way and stop blocking the use of these drugs, then for the vast majority Covid-19 would just be like the common cold.

Imaginary situations not supported by science are terribly bad solutions, the scientific consensus is that drugs that have failed to prove an effect but increase the risk for patients should not be used. Thinking doctors and scientists from all the best hospitals and institutes of science and medicine around the world would be complicit in hiding those drugs from their own family members and friends just for money is impossible to believe, except maybe for people that would do this kind of horrible thing, those people may be thinking everybody else was interested only on themselves (as they do) but for normal people it makes no sense.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

If governments and regulators just got out of the way and stop blocking the use of these drugs, then for the vast majority Covid-19 would just be like the common cold.

That's a big claim.

Until (and unless) convincing evidence is provided, and it hasn't been, that isn't going to happen. Evidence accumulates, if it's good. There's more to medicine than the Raoult method of establishing a cult and then attempting to bully people when he doesn't get his way. Acquiring credulous followers is the easy part. Good evidence has been the trick he can't pull off. After all this time, too.

Your one attempt to show us some evidence yourself was a link to a Peter McCullough video. It was dire: for Ivermectin, an in vitro study (do I need to explain that that isn't concerned with clinical treatment and therefore shows nothing about patient outcomes) and a study entitled "Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19". This he presented in his graphic as published by Frontiers. In fact Frontiers had publicly rejected the study two months earlier. It is very much not available on their website. Their decision to reject is, though.

https://blog.frontiersin.org/2021/03/02/2-march-2021-media-statement/

So your link (let's have it again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU02mdnoNws) was about an in vitro study and a rejected paper (6'00") that the presenter - great for his credibility, this - knew was rejected but pretended otherwise. Do you reckon you can improve on that sleazy standard of evidence, or do you feel safer holding onto unproven generalities?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There should not be any need, the scientific consensus is clear in the case of HCQ, it is worthless, and in the case of ivermectin it reaching the same point thanks to the latests efforts in examining its efficacy in big, well designed studies.

No, if there was any truth in your usual comment of a scientific consensus, Fauci would have said so. But instead Fauci said HCQ was political and ivermectin could not be tested.

Raoult submitted several proposals to evaluate in larger trials the effectiveness of HCQ, all refused!

The powers that be do not want them to be tested.

In fact Frontiers had publicly rejected the study two months earlier.

Robert Malone does a good job illustrating the level of censorship, and he brings up Frontiers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHSe-fcA6r0

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No, if there was any truth in your usual comment of a scientific consensus, Fauci would have said so.

That makes no sense, why would you expect anybody to endlessly repeat everything that have a scientific consensus? he did not say that antibiotics are effective against bacteria, so according to you that means they aren't?

It may surprise you but on the scientific community when a researcher is found to have falsified ethical approval for decades, fabricated and manipulated data for their studies and submitted false images for dozens and dozens of papers the ethical committees in charge to protect human subjects of clinical trials tend to reject their applications because of obvious ethical problems with that. "the powerd that be" are actually protecting vulnerable people from the predations of an unethical researcher that plays with their lives to gain fame.

Censoring bad research is actually something good, trying to defend deficient and false reports is what people that reject the value of science do.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Robert Malone does a good job illustrating the level of censorship, and he brings up Frontiers.

Don't be ridiculous, I ain't watching that. The issue is not that Frontiers is "censoring" Ivermectin content, but that McCullough is blithely pretending the paper he is displaying in his presentation had not been rejected. And he displays the Frontiers logo as part of that deception.

The paper was rejected by Frontiers 5 months ago, McCullough's video has sat on Youtube for 3 months. It's your link, pal. You can explain what you imagine the Frontiers slide is doing in there, if you like - good luck with that - but opening a new topic about Frontiers supposed censorship is to underline that you aren't standing by your own evidence. Remember when you put that link up and grumbled that people asking for your evidence wouldn't watch it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites