Long COVID: Exaggerated or Understated

December 22, 2022February 7, 2023
by Devin Russell

Long COVID: Exaggerated or Understated

This editorial is in response to “The Exaggeration of Long Covid” – by Marty Makary, MD, MPH which was in the Wall Street Journal recently. I’ve broken down his article because it’s an interesting opinion piece where people will go, yes I agree with that, and then one second later think, this guy is the Michael Jordan of medical gaslighting.

“Lingering symptoms after a respiratory infection are common. Most cases are too mild to worry about.”

And we’re off! I’ve had several respiratory infections in my life prior to COVID, which is by the way really a vascular disease Dr. Marty. Just FYI! You should know this after 3 years as a doctor who has Long COVID patients. I’ve never had any significant or long standing lingering symptoms the way I have with COVID after a respiratory infection. Even in the more mild cases of Long Haul COVID, which mine is not, there can be a lingering for months and months of one or several symptoms that lowers quality of life, at least for that time period (and maybe causes damage that will be a problem in the future). The bigger point being, something is wrong. We shouldn’t just say, “oh well it happens so let’s pretend there isn’t something wrong to fix.” It’s not good that it’s happening (for that long). Nobody wants to be half speed or worse for weeks, months, or years. He says lingering symptoms after a respiratory infection are common, any source for that? Does anyone who has had both really buying what he is trying to sell?

“Long Covid is real. I have reliable patients who describe lingering symptoms after Covid infection. But public-health officials have massively exaggerated long Covid to scare low-risk Americans as our government gives more than $1 billion to a long Covid medical-industrial complex.”

At least he admits it’s a real condition, for the sake of his patient. Saying, “after COVID infection” indicates he’s not considering the possibility it’s COVID persistence. When I saw this article originally I thought, I bet he doesn’t believe in Chronic Lyme, so maybe he’s one of those types, but I digress. There certainly is a medical industrial complex. The government is intimately tied in with large private medical organizations. Public health organizations will do whatever they can to get more funding. Perhaps they did exaggerate. What can we put past these people at this point? But sometimes even when you think you’re exaggerating something, you’re not actually doing it. What a paradox! That’s always a possibility because the COVID data is not perfect, to put it mildly. We will go into some more data later to see how much we want to be concerned with Long Haul COVID.

What’s a low risk American exactly? I get there are people at lower risk, but to pretend there isn’t a reasonable risk for anyone is naive. Plus, we have minimal concept of the long term damage COVID or Long COVID may cause. Not all is known yet, that’s for sure, so “experts” need to stop pretending it is in order to make some point they want to make.

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claims that 20% of Covid infections can result in long Covid. But a U.K. study found that only 3% of Covid patients had residual symptoms lasting 12 weeks. What explains the disparity? It’s often normal to experience mild fatigue or weakness for weeks after being sick and inactive and not eating well. Calling these cases long Covid is the medicalization of ordinary life.”

He wants to trust a government statistical agency to prove a government health agency wrong? Here’s the thing though. While a government might want to inflate Long COVID numbers, they also might want to minimize the number of COVID Long Haulers to save in the wallets. Let’s go through the studies he’s talking about because some corrections need to be made.

The UK study he is talking about can be found here.₁ Problem 1 in the first line! “Experimental estimates of the prevalence of symptoms that remain 12-weeks after coronavirus (COVID-19) infection (commonly referred to as “long COVID”) range from 3.0% based on tracking specific symptoms, to 11.7% based on self-classification of long COVID, using data to 1 August 2021.” He didn’t mention that the prevalence could be as high as 11.7% in this study. Tsk tsk.

Problem #2! Here are the results of the study “among study participants with COVID-19, 9.4% reported any of 12 symptoms four to eight weeks after infection (based on responses from 15,061 participants), while 5.0% reported symptoms at 12 to 16 weeks (out of 12,611 participants) (Figure 1). These percentages were statistically significantly higher than in the control group, suggesting that the prevalence of symptoms following COVID-19 infection is greater than the background prevalence of these symptoms in the population at any given time. The difference in prevalence remained statistically significant at 20 to 24 weeks.” Ut oh spaghettio!

Here it says the study is saying among those with COVID, 9.4% had 1 of 12 symptoms, even though there are 200+ Long COVID symptoms, 4 to 8 weeks after infection making at least 9.4% of COVID participants COVID Long Haulers. This is statistically significantly higher than the control group, which may be filled with, or at least have a spattering of, people who had COVID and don’t know it. 71% of those said their symptoms had a negative impact on their day-to-day activities. 20% saying their ability to undertake such activities had been “limited a lot.” Let’s say one agrees with this 3% figure. That’s still millions in the United States that have had or have Long COVID (even based on reported COVID cases, there are much more in reality than the reported cases), Not exactly a tiny number. At 9.4% we are going over 10 million and these are low estimates. When millions are affected the people in their lives are also affected compounding things, the economy is affected, their place of work is affected, their kids are affected, and the healthcare system is overburdened. It’s not just a problem for the individual with Long Haul COVID. It’s a problem on a much larger scale.

Is it often normal to experience residual symptoms for weeks after being sick and less active though? You don’t atrophy that much in a few weeks. There’s a big difference between atrophy and what Long Haul COVID does to you. I would know I had Chronic Lyme for years with limited activity because I had severe PEM due to Bartonella (a Lyme Coinfection). Even after all those years of limited activity I didn’t have even close to the muscle weakness, etc. that I did in just a few weeks into Long Haul COVID (after recovering from Lyme & Coinfections I was able to go right back to playing basketball, golf, and working out without noticing much atrophy even after 10 years). It’s not the same. It’s often used as a gaslighting excuse quite frankly. Just like, “oh you’re getting old” is used way too often instead of taking a problem seriously, finding the root, and solving the problem, but that would be hard work. It would also open one up to possible scrutiny so why not take the easy way out. Treat symptoms and say it’s normal. Nothing is ordinary about Long Haul COVID. Ignoring these cases to pretend it’s ho hum typical, is medical gaslighting. If you don’t have it, you probably don’t get it. And by the way, as COVID Long Haulers we will get sick if we eat poorly, so we don’t. What a strange thing to throw in there as an excuse for why we feel poorly.

“Two studies published this month put long Covid in perspective. The first, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a spectrum of wellness indicators in 1,000 people who recovered from symptomatic Covid or another respiratory infection. It found that 40% of patients who had tested positive for Covid “reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up.” For Covid-negative patients who had other upper-respiratory infections, the figure was 54%. Covid patients did better than non-Covid patients. While there are certainly unique hallmark conditions of Covid, such as loss of smell, any respiratory infection—flu, RSV, other cold viruses—can knock you down for a while.”

Let’s not pretend Long COVID is easy to put in to perspective, as most chronic illnesses are hard to put into perspective. Even ones that have already been around for decades. AGAIN, COVID is a vascular disease more than anything. It’s concerning when I have to correct a doctor on this, but he’s clearly trying very hard to minimize Long COVID. Respiratory disease sounds less concerning than vascular disease.

Where to even start with this first paper?₂ I feel like I could just post the entire thing in quotation marks as a referendum for the doc saying “The first, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at a spectrum of wellness indicators in 1,000 people who recovered from symptomatic Covid or another respiratory infection. It found that 40% of patients who had tested positive for Covid “reported persistently poor physical, mental, or social well-being at 3-month follow-up.” For Covid-negative patients who had other upper-respiratory infections, the figure was 54%. Covid patients did better than non-Covid patients.” This is not what it says! Dr. Malarky is off misstating things again. You’re an MD and MPH, you shouldn’t be reading studies this wrong. What the hell?!

The study is not comparing COVID vs “other respiratory” infections specifically. It’s comparing symptomatic subjects with similar symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 who have positive COVID tests vs. those that had negative COVID tests. This is from the Design, Setting, and Participants: “Participants were enrolled from December 11, 2020 to September 10, 2021, and comprised adults with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of receipt of a SARS-CoV-2 test approved by the US Food and Drug Administration.” Problems I can see right off the bat are issues with the timing of the test, if it’s administered properly, the location of the virus in the person, viral load, accuracy of test to begin with, possibly mutated variants, etc..

Also, in the study they say, “those with the most severe disease may have been unable or unwilling to participate; it is possible that those too ill to participate were at higher risk of experiencing long-term symptoms after COVID-19. It is also possible that those with cognitive impairment may have been less likely to enroll. Second, it is unclear what heterogeneous acute condition (eg, bacterial pneumonia, respiratory syncytial virus, or streptococcal pharyngitis) participants with symptomatic illness who tested negative may have been experiencing at the time of enrollment, making it difficult to hypothesize whether COVID-19-negative participants would be expected to have more or less severe patient-reported outcomes across time. … Fourth, COVID-19 tests may yield false-negative or false-positive results.”

So here’s what the study really says, of those with symptomatic COVID who had positive tests 40% had symptoms still at 3 months after initially falling ill and so did 54% of what seemed like symptomatic COVID patients with negative tests as well. Pretty easily explained by many things including (some already have been listed): those that actually tested positive for COVID would be more likely to receive or seek treatment than those that did not thus bringing down the percentage.

Another head scratcher, is the doc saying those “non-COVID” patients did worse than the COVID patients. Here’s another inconvenient portion of the study the doctor chose to ignore or didn’t read at all, “a higher proportion of participants in the COVID-19 positive group continued to report moderate to severe impairments in well-being at follow-up (at 3 months).” The 40% had a higher amount of severe impairments. Maybe they had higher viral load that the tests more easily picked up. Higher viral load worse disease? You can see all the variables and issues that arise when you really analyze a study and think things out.

I’m sitting here are my computer just dumbfounded at people that should know better. Can’t trust anything right now it seems. It’s embarrassing how this doctor is trying to distort things to fit his narrative. Something that is happening everywhere you look this day in age. Tribalism over reality at it’s finest. I hate it! It’s a poison! Always read the studies yourself because they’re easily distorted. Verify, verify, verify, as best you can anyways.

“The Brookings report determined that 2 million to 4 million people in the U.S. are working less or not at all because of their illness. … In lost wages, that could add up to at least $170 billion per year, the report suggests.”₃ This piece came out in August of 2022. The estimates seem on the lower end based on other estimates I have seen. On top of this estimate, there are probably millions more that a trying to tough it out just because their circumstances indicate they have to or they can’t feed their kids, don’t have money for treatment, or can’t keep their homes. Inflation is not exactly helping them to take the time off they might need. Saying the Flu, RSV, and other viruses can knock you down for a while is a tremendous minimization of the situation with Long Haul COVID. Do millions reduce their work or drop out of the workforce “permanently” after a typical seasonal flu? No. There aren’t enough sick days that you can take when you have Long Haul COVID, They’re not the same. They shouldn’t be compared as if they are. Plus, I don’t know if I mentioned this but those a respiratory viruses and COVID is more vascular. Get Long COVID yourself doc and then come talk to me and the millions other suffering about how it’s so similar.

One thing I would like studied, that I haven’t seen so much, is a severity of symptoms breakdown for COVID Long Haulers. What I’m envisioning is 5-10 different groups of COVID Long Haulers, so we can get an idea of what percentage of COVID Long Haulers fit into what severity level. Not all Long Haul COVID is created equal. Someone suffering mightly for 3 years straight is different than someone that had a little fatigue for a few months. This would be good to know.

“The second study, in Lancet Regional Health, looked for long Covid in 5,086 children 11 to 17 and found that symptoms present during infection rapidly declined over time. The researchers found that among children who tested positive and negative for Covid “prevalence patterns of poor well-being, fatigue and Long COVID”—defined by its symptoms without the need for a past diagnosis of the disease—“were broadly similar.” (The study also found that loneliness in children increased steadily in the year after Covid illness.)”

We can agree that children do handle COVID better in general (as one would expect): get less Long Haul COVID, get less serious complications with COVID, at least that’s how it seems now, but even with asymptomatic infections there can be damage, such as the 54% of cruise ship asymptomatic cases that had lung damage.₄ “The analysis of the positive cases from the cruise ship Diamond Princess revealed that 73% were asymptomatic, of whom 54% had lung opacities on CT, usually showing a prevalence of ground glass opacity (GGO) over consolidation. A comparable prevalence of abnormal chest x-ray in asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic patients was reported by a radiologic center in the first Italian COVID-19 epicenter.”

You can look at the study the doctor quotes yourself here to check if he is misstating things greatly again.₅ It might be a safe assumption at this point.

What will getting COVID over and over mean for the future of these kids? They’re in an environment at school where it’s unavoidable. Chalk it up to another thing we can’t really know until more time passes.

“The National Institutes for Health has been intensely focused on studying long Covid, spending nearly $1.2 billion on the condition. To date, the return on investment has been zero for the people suffering with it. But it’s been terrific for MRI centers, lab testing companies and hospitals that set up long Covid clinics. I’ve talked to the staff at some of these clinics and it’s unclear what they are actually offering to people beyond a myriad of tests.”

Ah the beloved NIH. Everyone’s favorite at the moment. Good time to probably leave suddenly if you’re one of the top dawgs at the organization. They have had quite the influx of cash, minus much help for COVID Long Haulers. I would say no one has been as helpful for Long Haul COVID as other actual long haulers. Speaking of MRIs, did you see this study Dr. Marty McFly?₆ Here’s a tidbit from it, “We identified significant longitudinal effects when comparing the two groups, including (1) a greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus; (2) greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions that are functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex; and (3) a greater reduction in global brain size in the SARS-CoV-2 cases.” Ehh, all respiratory diseases do this! Had this with the Flu! Fuhgeddaboudit! Never mind the gut biome dysbiosis being found, other organ damage, and vascular and neurological problems in COVID Long Haulers.

Should COVID Long Haul sufferers not be investigating what is going on in their bodies? These Long COVID clinics do offer some help to patients, depends what clinic you go to. The one I went to was just helpful for testing and finding specialists. The help is generally pretty minimal from what I’ve seen and heard. Testing is definitely a large part of it, and rightfully so. We agree, COVID Long Haulers aren’t getting sufficient help in terms of solutions. You downplaying the problem in a disingenuous ways is the opposite of helpful.

“An Annals of Internal Medicine study ran an exhaustive battery of tests on 48 people with long Covid and 50 people without. The researchers found no biochemical or physiologic abnormalities in people with long Covid. “Levels of plasma inflammatory markers, levels of biomarkers for cardiac and central nervous system injury, and presence of select autoantibodies were similar between groups,” they concluded. The only medical factor that predicted long Covid was pre-existing anxiety, associated with a 2.8 times increased risk of developing long Covid.”

All aboard the it’s all in your head train! Next stop, Dr. M&M’s vacant space in his skull. I kid. I’m sure there is something in there. We should do a brain scan to check. Wait, what did I say about brain scans earlier? Oh yeah, those with Long Haul COVID have some scary stuff occurring in their heads. Losing grey matter and shrinking brains, ahhh no big deal! Let’s focus on the pre-existing anxiety that very well could have existed due to a physical, chemical, or gut problem that was never solved by a gaslighting doctor and than got exacerbated by Long Haul COVID. Imagine that non-fiction story occuring! Hmm. Don’t worry though, your Bilirubin was within this wide range though, so you’re perfectly healthy. I guess doing a test for micro clotting would just be silly!

First things first, “Table 3. Selected Symptoms, Physical Findings, Questionnaires, and Cognitive Testing Results.”₇ I’ll post it below. There’s a stark contrast between the control group and the COVID-19 cohort group in symptomatology which matters much more than whatever the far from infallible and not exactly comprehensive testing might say. The lower the p-value, the greater the statistical significance.

Here is part of the study Dr. Makary cherry picked, “To address the possibility that persistent activation of the immune system might play a role in the pathogenesis of PASC, plasma samples from a subgroup of participants were selected for inflammatory biomarker analysis. Because recent vaccination could affect plasma levels of inflammatory biomarkers and confound the interpretation of results, we selected samples from a subgroup of 48 participants with PASC, 52 without PASC, and 50 control participants who had not received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine before blood sample collection. No significant differences were detected between groups in plasma levels of macrophage inflammatory protein-1β, interferon-γ, tumor necrosis factor-α, programmed cell death ligand-1, interferon γ–induced protein 10, interleukin-2 receptor α, interleukin-1β, interleukin-6, interleukin-8, RANTES (regulated on activation, normal T cell expressed and secreted), and CD40.”

From what I’ve been told by a few doctors is the typical testing for cytokines, autoantibodies, chronic pathogens, and other things is not good. On top of that, the majority of the time COVID Long Haulers who have done Dr. Bruce Patterson’s cytokine and chemokine panels have found levels that were off, myself included. Why is that directly going against what is said in this study? Maybe the sensitivity of the testing, maybe the timing of the test (about half the COVID-19 Cohort were enrolled before I was at my illest which is significant because my case is not uncommon amongst long haulers and I got sick originally in the initial wave in March 2020), maybe the severity of the illness in those seeking taking test (no one super sick wants to volunteer for a study that doesn’t offer solutions), perhaps they’re not looking at the right auto antibodies (like CellTrend is), etc. Things I’ve seen COVID Long Haulers complain were off in their tests at least eventually were cytokines, chemokines, electrolytes, iron, ferritin, cholesterol, blood glucose, various autoantibodies, blood micro clotting, table tilt test indicating POTS, lung abnormalities, brain scan abnormalities, mast cell activation syndrome, small fiber neuropathy (most LHers have this based on polls), etc. Many people have to get highly specialized or unusual testing performed to find their more significant issues if they can find them at all via tests.

Long Hauler test results seem very dependent on the time you get the actual testing done (as Long Haul COVID is a roller coaster of up and down with shifting problems). For instance, I was positive for Anti-Cardiolipin as a COVID Long Hauler, then I wasn’t when I was going through a better period, and then I was again positive later on. I’ve heard this happening in similar occasions, such as long haulers with ANA. This is what partly makes testing very complicated for a COVID Long Hauler. Plus, many of us start out with mild symptoms that crescendo over time. For instance, my worst period was probably 8 months in when I had severe neurological problems. Test me a week before that and it probably wouldn’t show, and I wouldn’t have brought it up as a symptom to my doctor. Trying to simplify something that’s not possible to really simplify in order to fit your narrative is not a good look. You as a doctor should understand what I’m saying, whereas someone else outside of the chronic illness or medical realm might have an excuse. You’re either being dishonest on purpose or you don’t really understand what you should. Not great choices for you Dr. Mark Makary.

“The NIH hasn’t invested nearly as much in studying masks, natural immunity, vaccine complications, boosters in children or even vitamin D, which was found last month to lower Covid mortality—a study that tragically came two years too late. The most stunning absence of Covid research is in children. After imposing tremendous restrictions on tens of millions of healthy children for nearly two years, no government study or public-health official can tell us how many otherwise healthy children have died of Covid, or even if any have. Dedicating research dollars to magnify Covid complications while ignoring other pressing Covid research questions continues the politicization of the disease.”

The doc and I can agree some, some, not a lot. Maybe we don’t have order that brain scan for him. The NIH has not invested enough in certain things. Better than investing though would be accomplishments, answers, and solutions. Why invest a lot in studying masks when the CDC will just say don’t wear masks, wear masks, don’t wear masks, wear masks, over and over? Why invest much in natural immunity when they have a vaccine to push? Why invest in finding vaccine adverse events when they ain’t tryin’ to hear that? Alternative, low cost, and non-big pharma options don’t help make the right people a lot of cash. Crony capitalism at the expense of the majority’s health if I ever do say, and I do say so. It’s never been more evident. Ever facet with power is too intertwined and in bed with the other.

There are COVID death numbers for children/teenagers. For instance, there have been 1,378 reported 0-17 year olds that have lost their lives to COVID in the United States.₈ Children get Long Haul COVID too. About 5-10% of the time studies say.₉ Continuing reinfections sure may be a problem. This is not a one or the other situation. All of these things need to be studied, including and especially, Long Haul COVID.

“Last month Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Robert Califf tweeted that “preliminary epidemiological findings point to the distinct possibility of the bivalent vaccines and antivirals reducing risk of long Covid.” If Pfizer tweeted that, it could be fined for making a claim beyond an FDA-authorized indication. Mr. Califf’s Twitter thread included no data. The bivalent vaccine was authorized by the FDA without a vote of its scientific expert advisory committee.

White House Covid coordinator Ashish Jha declared last month that the science supporting the bivalent vaccine is “crystal clear.” In fact, it was authorized based on data from eight mice. To date, there has been no randomized trial data on the bivalent vaccine. Its authorization was reamed through by regulators over the objections of experts like Paul Offit, who argued that it should be evaluated as a new medication.”

Doctor is on a roll. New nickname is Dr. BLT. Until he strikes up the gaslighting, completely misstating studies band again. The FDA & Pfizer really have their game on point. It reminds me of Apple sitting down their corporate tax lawyer helping them find all the tax loopholes and then Apple and their execs donating money to political campaigns.

Crystal clear science here sounds like a crystal that is full of inclusions. “Trust the science” they proclaimed, even when there wasn’t really any. Should make you raise an eyebrow. If I wrote this stuff down for a book the publisher would say it’s too ridiculous of fiction to publish. Thank you Paul Offit for being the rational one in the room, at times.

There is data I came across saying the the vaccine, prior to the bivalent shot, could reduce Long Haul COVID by 15%.₁₀ Of course, the vaccine could cause a very similar Long Haul COVID like syndrome, for lack of a better word, so is that 15% really 15% in the grand scheme of things? I suppose that only about 33% taking at least 3 COVID Vaccine Shots and about 12% taking the COVID Bivalent Boosters in the USA represents how many people are taking note of the nonsense they are told and the injuries. (about 80% of the USA have had 1 shot, about 39 million have had 1 shot and not 2, hmm).₁₁&₁₂ Whatever the reason, the vast majority are not getting COVID Boosters suggesting something is majorly wrong.

“The NIH’s fear-mongering around long Covid has also been used to argue for keeping Covid restrictions in place. In November, the Biden administration issued a report on long Covid stating that mask mandates and vaccination “protect people from infection or reinfection and possible Long COVID,” despite no scientific evidence to support the claim.”

Yes, it does seem the NIH, which I felt a while ago, are trying to “influence” people into getting the vaccine. The public health organizations didn’t catch on to Long Haul COVID until later in 2020. Then they seemingly used it as a football even later than that. The harshest of the restrictions had mainly passed by the time they were really speaking up about the condition in a concerning way. Where exactly are there mask mandates at this point? Heck even medical facilities are dropping vaccine mandates as they won’t have enough workers otherwise. The COVID Vaccines, as they exist now, are dead. Numbers will only to go down more by shot 4 or 5. Restrictions don’t seem like the reasoning as restrictions have dwindled. Vaccine uptake seems like the only thing left they might try to pump up by talking about Long Haul COVID. That doesn’t mean though that Long Haul COVID isn’t a massive problem.

I’m of the mind that people should be wearing masks (good ones and properly). It’s wishful thinking to think we will go back to mask wearing at this point. The CDC and NIH are largely to blame for that. Here is a study showing a reduction in testing positive based on type of mask worn.₁₃ 83% reduction for those that wear a N/95 or KN95 properly. If Biden doesn’t like the messaging on masks, he should probably fire the CDC Director he appointed. Just an idea.

“Given the broad reach of population immunity to Covid today and the less severe nature of the illness, long Covid is less common and less severe than it was in 2020 or 2021. In my experience treating thousands of patients over two decades, people are forgiving if you are honest with them. If public-health officials want to regain the public trust, they should show more humility when it comes to Covid, including long Covid.”

This is far more complex than what he’s saying. What a shocker, I know! Yes, there is more immunity now amongst the population, but at the same time we have variant after variant that’s mutating to evade immunity. The sickest and oldest probably perished or got severely ill in 2020, which would skew COVID severity numbers in upcoming years. COVID does seem to be less severe, so I’ll give him that, but it’s a big problem still. It’s still mutating, it’s way more infectious now, most aren’t taking precuastions, and there are a parade of variants in 2022, unlike in 2020. There are more approved and unapproved treatment options, which potentially help with a reduction in severity and Long Haul COVID, unlike in 2020. Just stating some of the variables and complexities in analyzing this stuff that Doctor Ms doesn’t delve into.

It’s great to be honest, but doc you’re not honest. Let’s get real. You just hoped nobody would look deeper into the studies you quoted to make your point. You were wrong. What you were stating that the studies said was way off base. You’re overcorrecting. A common problem in 2022. Minimizing Long Haul COVID because you see it being misused by health officials to manipulate people into doing something they want them to do (get the vaccine) is wrong. They may be trying to scare people, but that doesn’t mean Long Haul COVID should unfairly diminished by you at the same time. It’s not an either or situation always. I don’t understand why people don’t get that! It’s not COVID bad, COVID Vaccines automatically good or vice versa. It’s not always the government grabbing on to something to influence people thus therefore whatever they’re talking about must really be a minor problem or completely fake. Dr. Makary seems to be falling into the typical my side vs your side battle in these discussions. It’s not that simple.

We have a problem. We have “two” sides (in reality there are many many many more than two sides, but for sake of argument let’s go with two). Neither of which care about anything other than proving what they already believe, instead of caring more about trying to analyze reality fairly, obtain better/good data, and the people suffering partially because of everyone’s thin skinned pridefully protecting your opinion at all cost dishonest arguments. This is a pandemic with various serious health concerns, yet the BS has never been more pronounced! All of you disengous people on both sides, not just Dr. Makary, should be ashamed.

“Dr. Makary is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and author of “The Price We Pay.”

Devin Russell is not a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine nor an author, but will gladly review any studies for any professors or MDs at Johns Hopkins that struggle at interpreting them.

CITATIONS: