/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15460261
We do. It's the same as the treatment for fibromyalgia.

>>15460261
Why would pharma companies want to cure long covid? Sounds like they would appreciate having a lifelong loyal customer?

You have to turn off the phone signals first

>>15460261
we don't even have a covid, shill

>>15460534
based tripfag is right

>>15460534
i think i told you to stop replying to me

>>15460261
its not profitable

>>15460553
shills must suffer

>>15460261
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2796097
in your heeeee-ead

>>15460275
Lol

>>15460399
So all pharma companies have a secret agreement not to create cures or poach customers? Retardo logic, kid

>>15460261
>Why can't we just reverse brain damage?
>>15460782
>Brain damage makes prior problems worse
>Therefore long covid don't exist
Truly the top minds are on the job.

>>15461380
guess what! shill!

>>15460549
based newfag retard not knowing what a trip is

>>15460549
>>15461465
based on what?
>>15460261
also, you can't treat something that doesn't exist

>>15461546
there's a lot of people with long covid, try asking around you probably know some

>>15461549
> many
exactly zero

>>15461367
> So all pharma companies have a secret agreement not to create cures or poach customers?
Yeah this literally happened with the covid vaccine. Remember how the big four all withheld announcing their vaccines were ready until right after the 2020 election? How many lives would have been saved had there been an actual competition to push it out as soon as possible?

>>15461688
none. lives cannot be saved by jabs. actually lives cannot be saved at all, all people die. "salvation" is only a process to make money.

>>15461641
just don't wear a mask and hopefully you will be proven wrong

>>15461776
I see, I know, I am, I am beyond "right" and "wrong", beyond judgements, I am observer, behind "4th wall".

>>15461380
>there is a correlation between feeling stressed out about covid pre-infection and getting long covid post-infection
>does not indicate psychosomatic illness
here's another one
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2787741
consider: by fear-mongering that covid causes brain damage, you are literally spreading long covid

Well first we would want to see the rates of long covid by covid vaccination status. That would eliminate an obvious potential cause of long covid: synthetic mRNA creating spike protein for an unknown duration in the body.
Would also be cool to see cancer rates by vaccination status.
>inb4 back to /pol/
No, give arguments, don't let demagogy rule you.

>>15460261
>treatment for long covid
Stop taking "vaccines".

>>15463299
people have been getting long covid since before the vaccine was available

>>15463572
literally who cares what andrew tate has to say on any topic, the guy's a fucking idiot

let's post some covid and long covid /sci/ence here..
the overall prevalence of LC is 10% at 6 months!

post-exercise malaise, fatigue, brain fog are the most common symptoms

I have long covid ama

>>15463567
long schizophrenia

>>15463088
>there is a correlation between feeling stressed out about covid pre-infection and getting long covid post-infection
And? There's a correlation between drownings and nicholas cage films. So what?
>consider: by fear-mongering that covid causes brain damage, you are literally spreading long covid
And your citation supports that inference... where, exactly?
P(Infected|Attribute) = ~0.0169
P(Infected|NotAttribute) = ~0.0238
P(Not Infected|Attribute) = ~0.0172
P(Not Infected|NotAttribute) = ~0.9421
Where in there do you infer "believing covid did it is the cause"? Where's that data in what you linked? Go ahead tell me and I'll do the conditional probability.
>>15463245
>Well first we would want to see the rates of long covid by covid vaccination status.
How could the vaccine cause long covid when, for people who voluntarily get vaccinated, there's no temporal proximity to vaccination and any reported side effects? https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2784015
By cutting out the selection bias you can get a pretty clear answer as to so-called vaccine risk. That risk is virtually zero. But I'm sure you'll totally not pull spurious correlation after spurious correlation out your ass, and toootally won't discount temporal proximity designs for bogus reasons.
>That would eliminate an obvious potential cause of long covid: synthetic mRNA creating spike protein for an unknown duration in the body.
There is no mechanism for that and there's no temporal proximity indicating that. Why would you think it a potential cause?

>>15464127
are you being treated for it in any way?
how many times were you vaccinated and infected before you got it?
did you try getting the vaccine after exhibiting LC symptoms? it seems effective in reducing symptoms for some people

>>15464133
>are you being treated for it in any way?
im trying a lot of different treatments on my own because the doctors wont help, ivermectin is the best so far, started peptides, looking into stem cells.

>how many times were you vaccinated and infected before you got it?
0 vaccines at the time, 3rd covid infection was omicron, it was so incredibly bad and different compared to the first 2 times

>did you try getting the vaccine after exhibiting LC symptoms? it seems effective in reducing symptoms for some people
yes, did not help, probably because i gad already used ivermectin.

>>15464147
hope you get better, I have long covid too, zero vaccines as well

>>15464153
same to you, the long covid facebook group has helped me, feel free to join at some point.

>>15464153
>>15464155
samefag filling daily comments quota. end of working day huh?

>>15464166
good try shekelstein

viruses exist and are all man made.

>viruses don't exist
you know you can buy little vials of viruses for research purposes right?

>>15464172
> joos
> viruses
shill confirmed. both as defined functionality don't exist.

>>15464184
you can buy holy water for any purposes, too.

>>15464132
>And? There's a correlation between drownings and nicholas cage films. So what?
Oh yeah I forgot the first principle of science, correlation absolutely never equals causation. Now without invoking correlation please explain how we know long covid exists at all

>Where in there do you infer "believing covid did it is the cause"? Where's that data in what you linked? Go ahead tell me and I'll do the conditional probability.
The data is right here, I don't know how you can turn this into a conditional probability problem but they already did the hypothesis testing in regards to "belief in covid is more strongly linked to long covid than actual infection", which strongly suggests psychosomatic illness

>>15460261
remember how they said that cancer isnt contagious?
remember how they said that mental illness isnt contagious?
remember how they said aids can only be tranmitted through sexual contact , blood and semen?
remember how they said our antibiotics are getting more ineffective?
remember how many antidepressants they have you switch, or add as a "booster"
remember when we never had commercial for meds thats are hard to pronounce
remember when no one talked about MRSA?
remember when we all got worried about black mold?
remember when we cloned a sheep and gb jr. made it illegal to clone or use stem cells?
remember when yeasts were used in brewing and fermentation?
remember when everyone was getting yeast infections?
remember when craig venter used yeast to create artificial life?
remember when killer bees escaped from a lab?

Had anyone here managed to get a hydroxychloroquine prescription for long covid,

>covid
>real

>>15460261
what the fuck is that pic, are all of those symptoms of long covid? anything that happens to you is long covid if you had covid in the past?

>>15466549
Fuck of neerrrd

>>15466504
there's no covid of any length or width or diameter

>>15466472
>Oh yeah I forgot the first principle of science, correlation absolutely never equals causation.
You forgot merely asserting causation isn't evidence of causation.
>The data is right here, I don't know how you can turn this into a conditional probability problem
The post you just replied to did. Nowhere in there is data to establish correlation with belief and subsequent symptoms *due to* belief. That would require something longitudinal, which this is not.
>but they already did the hypothesis testing in regards to "belief in covid is more strongly linked to long covid than actual infection"
No, they did not. Point to exactly where in that table you think they did.

>>15466549
>anything that happens to you is long covid if you had covid in the past?
Yes this is how they justify what they did.

>>15466798
>Nowhere in there is data to establish correlation with belief
that entire table establishes this correlation, retard
>No, they did not. Point to exactly where in that table you think they did.
p-value calculations

>>15466823
>that entire table establishes this correlation, retard
It only establishes that people are bad at attributing the cause of their problems, as it is only a survey of belief as to their cause. Not surprisingly, it is nearly 50/50 whether someone is/is not infected and attributes their issue to covid >>15464132.

So, again, where on that table would you calculate the probability of that misattribution *causing* long covid?
>p-value calculations
Clearly not given it only shows data for attribution, not cause nor correlation. Your illiteracy is embarrassingly bad.

>>15467002
>It only establishes that people are bad at attributing the cause of their problems, as it is only a survey of belief as to their cause
Wrong, read the paper. Those are people who believe they have had covid, not people who believe covid caused whatever symptom. Cease having further opinions until you have actually read the article.
>So, again, where on that table would you calculate the probability of that misattribution *causing* long covid?
That's not a statistical analysis anybody would ever make.

>>15467010
>Wrong, read the paper.
Pity for you I did originally.
>Those are people who believe they have had covid, not people who believe covid caused whatever symptom.
By definition if they did not believe their symptoms indicated covid they wouldn't be answering the survey "I believe I had covid" in spite of negative serology. So either the paper has an inherent contradiction, and is nonsense, or you're just desperately swinging to get out of the hole you dug for yourself and trying to get out of it with nonsense.
>That's not a statistical analysis anybody would ever make.
You claimed the data was right there >>15466472. Now you're saying nobody would do that analysis. Which is it? Where do I make the analysis from this paper and with what data? I already told you it isn't there. You claim it is, but can't show it. How interesting.

>>15467036
>By definition if they did not believe their symptoms indicated covid they wouldn't be answering the survey "I believe I had covid" in spite of negative serology. So either the paper has an inherent contradiction, and is nonsense, or you're just desperately swinging to get out of the hole you dug for yourself and trying to get out of it with nonsense.
That's the entire idea. It's totally psychosomatic and those people are self-deluding into these fake chronic illnesses.

>>15467042
>That's the entire idea. It's totally psychosomatic and those people are self-deluding into these fake chronic illnesses.
The data only shows
1. People who believe they've had covid
2. Their actual serology
3. What symptoms they report having persistently that's new
4. Whether they attribute that to covid-19.
On what data in that study did you determine this evidences long covid as psychosomatic?

The question isn't going away just because you realize you fucked up and your narcissism stops you from admitting it.

>>15467062
>The question isn't going away just because you realize you fucked up and your narcissism stops you from admitting it.
Most ironic post in the thread, all things considered. Especially since you're arguing with several different people who all tried to explain your error.

>>15467065
Thought not. Get some help kid.

>>15467062
>On what data in that study did you determine this evidences long covid as psychosomatic?
The fact that belief in having had covid correlates more strongly with long covid than actual documented infection does. Are you claiming this is just a coincidence?

>>15460261
because time is money. go to work faggot.
there is no time to rest.

>>15467187
>The fact that belief in having had covid correlates more strongly with long covid than actual documented infection does
The citation given evidences no such thing. >>15467062 So I can only assume that "fact" came to you in your dreams.
>Are you claiming this is just a coincidence?
Given the alleged "fact" appears completely imaginary I'm claiming it appears imaginary.

>>15467219
>The citation given evidences no such thing. >>15467062 So I can only assume that "fact" came to you in your dreams.
the relative rates increase more across the belief/nonbelief divide than across the positive/negative divide

>>15460261
NO REFUNDS VAXXOID HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>15466510
yes
why does this board have so many anti-science retards? why don't you go post on /x/ and /pol/?

>>15466549
covid is a vascular disease, and it has been shown to be able to damage every single organ

https://scitechdaily.com/covid-19-is-a-vascular-disease-coronavirus-spike-protein-attacks-vascular-system-on-a-cellular-level/

>>15467192
find a cure for long covid first
millions of people worldwide are disabled as a consequence of covid

https://theconversation.com/thousands-of-people-in-the-uk-are-out-of-work-due-to-long-covid-200297

>>15466549
covid has been shown to be able to damage every bodily system and organ, and can cause cardiovascular, pulmonary, neurological, renal, endocrine, hematological and gastrointestinal problems for weeks or even years

>>15466549
why does everything that happens after the vaccine count as being caused by it but everything that happens after covid doesn't?

>>15467313
Because one has a proven mechanism of pathology and the other doesn't.

>>15467326
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-long-term-effects/art-20490351

https://scitechdaily.com/covid-19-is-a-vascular-disease-coronavirus-spike-protein-attacks-vascular-system-on-a-cellular-level/

https://www.businessinsider.in/science/health/news/covid-virus-can-have-lasting-effects-on-nearly-every-organ-for-years-cdc/articleshow/98442883.cms

>>15467329
Linking news media pieces isn't science.

>>15467295
shill.

>>15467329
I checked those links, no anime porn pics there, not real science

>>15467295
and scientists have no idea how

>>15467247
>the relative rates increase more across the belief/nonbelief divide than across the positive/negative divide
There are no relative rates. The citation given is not a wave study. It is not measuring increase or decrease over time. All it does is give whether the attribution to covid is factually true or not relative to serology, not "rate of long covid" or diagnosis of long covid.

Your scientific illiteracy is astoundingly bad

>>15468517
>There are no relative rates
look at this >>15466472 table. You see the number 10.4 in the first column? What does that number refer to?

>>15468524
^first row
also I misspoke, I meant relative risks, not relative rates

>>15468524
>look at this >>15466472 table. You see the number 10.4 in the first column? What does that number refer to?
I can't believe your reading skills are so poor.
>The citation given is not a wave study. It is not measuring increase or decrease over time.
Obviously I meant relative rates with respect to long covid, as there's NO DATA for long covid diagnosis in the study. Where are you getting "this refers to long covid"? Where are you getting long covid diagnostic rate? Where are you getting rate of attribution over time? Your study has none of this. Stop lying.

>>15468539
What do you think "symptom" and "events" are referring to here? Acute covid?

>>15468549
>What do you think "symptom" and "events" are referring to here?
Per study,
>>In the same questionnaire, symptoms were measured by the following question: “Since March 2020, have you had any of the following symptoms that you did not usually have before?”

They are not surveying diagonsis of long covid. They are surveying self reported symptoms.

>>15468559
As opposed to? You think there is a diagnosis to long covid beyond "hey doctor I had covid a while ago and I am feeling these symptoms"?

>>15468580
You think there is a diagnosis to long covid beyond "hey doctor I had covid a while ago and I am feeling these symptoms"?
Yes. I am frankly astonished you do not.

>>15468580
>You think there is a diagnosis to long covid beyond "hey doctor I had covid a while ago and I am feeling these symptoms"?
Yes. I am frankly astonished you do not.

>>15468605
there's no covid

>>15468605
If I go into my doctor's office saying I've been fatigued for months after having been infected with covid, what do they do in order to diagnose me?

>>15468623
Whether your personal doctor is incompetent or not isn't the question nor is relevant to the fact your study has no such diagonstic data. Continuing to try and bring up irrelevancies to dodge the fact you've been wrong from the start doesn't make you less wrong.

>>15468655
What would a competent doctor do?

>>15463245
>give arguments
You're writing sci-fi.

>>15468623
not a joke, many doctors don't even know long covid is a thing

>>15468620
people like you are proof we don't have enough censorship on social media

>>15468690
These are all tests they would perform to rule out other explanations

>>15468691
> we
yep, you suck, shill. btw all your colleagues are faggots.

>>15468701
at least i'm not a psychopath like you

>>15468707
you deceive people for money, you make them fear and suffer, you are psychopath

>>15468682
not relevant to the fact your study has no such diagonstic data. Nor for that matter even longitudinal data with which one might infer belief could incur some kind of nocebo. All it does is show people suck at guessing attribution, it does NOT show an effect from people sucking at it.

The fact you infer "lol psychosomatic" from that is just you utterly sucking at basic inference and making shit up because you want to make shit up.

>>15468722
You still haven't explained what that diagnostic data would look like

>>15468727
>You still haven't explained what that diagnostic data would look like
For my point I do not have to. Notwithstanding it involves empirical health data as another anon noted >>15468690

If your notion was correct how exactly would neurological data show brain damage with diagnosed long covid? Pure coincidence somehow? Yet interpreting your study the way you do that is precluded as the prediction of attribution is nearly 50/50, so brain damage would be mostly random if it were based solely on patient symptom self reporting irrespective of serology.

>>15468751
Considering the number of people who got vaxed, you're more likely than 50% to find a person who has psychosomatic covid fears and brain damage.

>>15468763
>Considering the number of people who got vaxed, you're more likely than 50% to find a person who has psychosomatic covid fears and brain damage.
That isn't the sample space. The sample space is "diagnosed with long covid" -> "Also has brain damage. The fact that population is not near 50/50 as the belief attribution in your cited study would suggest refutes your hypothesis.

>>15468763
>>15468769
I forgot with antivaxxers I have to also explain the obvious. Those with the most long covid were not vaccinated. I forgot you morons switch between claiming it's made up to claiming vaccines did it when both claims are refuted by the data, because I don't live online in crazy land with you. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022
-02051-3

Point is, there's no way in which the data supports any angle you've advanced so far. You just keep bringing up more and more equally refuted claims instead of addressing the fact your earlier claims are refuted.

Always funny that a science board thinks nature articles are spam.

>>15468787
I'm not claiming vaccines did it, I'm just telling you that it's proven that they cause brain damage and vaxies are more likely to go to the doctor for a psychosomatic illness because of their hypochondria. The study bears out this hypothesis.

>>15468795
>The study bears out this hypothesis.
Lol as clearly shown thus far it doesn't. It's also precluded by studies like I just linked >>15468787 because if that were true the proportion of unvaccinated with long covid wouldn't be higher.

>>15468799
I'm not saying that doctors won't lie to unvaccinated hypochondriacs, only that in a particular population sample it's not surprising that they appear with higher rates of brain damage.

>>15468802
>No I can't be wrong
>Therefore evidence proving I'm wrong is a conspiracy
ok

>>15468806
Strawman arguments aren't science.

>>15468751
The data in that anon's post would be tests meant to detect some underlying health problem.

>>15460261
There's a treatment : not injecting yourself willingly with vaccines.
Sorry, failing IQ tests is mortal now.
It is how it is.

>>15468986
> iq
> "vaccines"
shill

>>15468990
what is the correct word to use in that sentence?

>>15468995
injections of something unknown

>>15460261
Because it doesn't exist. /thread

>>15468986
many people got long covid before the vaccines were even available
explain that

>>15469139
sure, the millions of people that have it are all just making it up

>>15469691
Their doctors are. There's a difference.

>>15469701
usually doctors are of no help, many don't know long covid exists, or are unaware of all the ways it can affect you
even things like this happen:
https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2023-03-29/teen-left-bedridden-from-long-covid-told-to-stop-making-it-up-by-doctors

if only it was this easy
https://babylonbee.com/news/doctor-cures-long-covid-by-telling-patients-to-quit-faking-it

>>15469690
stupid germ theorist

>>15469718
you are germist shill and environment denier