Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

drpvn t1_j3titz5 wrote

Read the article I posted to get a sense of the problem

1

fradleybox t1_j3u06y1 wrote

ME/CFS patients not displaying any obvious biomechanical differences from controls is not a new phenomenon. there's a reason why it is a diagnosis of exclusion rather than a diagnosis by biomechanical test. this doesn't mean the disease does not exist, it means you are testing the wrong biomechanical factors. your exercise test demonstrates that the disease exists.

3

drpvn t1_j3u0g3m wrote

Not following that last sentence.

2

fradleybox t1_j3u2bhz wrote

from the study

​

>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 study draws the wrong conclusion, but the walking test does show the expected reduced exercise performance found in ME/CFS patients. The reason why PASC symptom intensity does not correspond with this reduction is because onset of malaise in ME/CFS is Post-Exertional, called Post-Exertional Malaise or PEM. If the symptom intensity had been measured again a day or two after the exercise test, the expected increase in symptom intensity would have been observed.

The majority of Long Covid patients are ME/CFS patients. learn about ME/CFS and you will understand why the study is incorrectly designed to test for ME/CFS.

The author's smugness about his "controversial" results are palpable and revolting. He's just deeply uninformed about the topic he is studying.

3