Long COVID Risks Have Been Exaggerated by Misleading Data: New Analysis
Existing epidemiological research has distorted data, creating a widespread misunderstanding about long COVID with exaggerated risks.
New research suggests epidemiologic research has distorted data on long COVID, raising undue concern over symptoms and conditions researchers say are common to other respiratory viruses.
The epidemiologic research on long COVID “has been misleading” and has “created widespread misunderstanding,” according to the paper. Poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses that overstate the risks of long COVID are “being fed to the public” by the media and on social media.
Related Stories
According to the authors, unintended consequences of distorted data about long COVID may contribute to increased societal anxiety and health care spending, a failure to diagnose treatable conditions misdiagnosed as long COVID, and directs funds and awareness away from those actually experiencing chronic conditions brought on by COVID-19.
“Høeg et al. confirm what has been apparent since late 2020, and certainly by early to mid-2021: Other than transient anosmia (loss of sense of smell) that may have persisted in some persons with non-hospitalized mild to moderate SARS-CoV-2, for months, so-called ‘long-covid’ in such individuals is more aptly described as ‘long pandemic syndrome,’” epidemiologist Dr. Andrew Bostom told The Epoch Times in an email.
“This psychosomatic affliction—NOT to be dismissed, let alone ridiculed—appears to have been engendered by the sadly hysterical pandemic response, not SARS-CoV-2 infection,” he added.
Dr. Bostom says the lingering respiratory tract involvement in severe COVID-19 infection that results in hospitalization cases mirrors what happens with other severe lower respiratory infectious and other viruses, bacteria, fungi, or parasites and is not unique to SARS-CoV-2.
There Is No Clear Definition for ‘Long COVID’
One of the issues plaguing long COVID studies is that there’s no clear or consistent definition for the condition among international health organizations and none require a causal link between COVID-19 infection and new symptoms, according to the paper.
Organizations with inconsistent definitions for long COVID include the CDC, the World Health Organization, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the Royal College of General Practitioners.
The CDC defines long COVID as “new, recurring, or ongoing health problems that occur four or more weeks after infection with SARS-CoV-2,” but researchers say this definition could create a “misclassification bias” increasing the likelihood that a temporally unrelated symptom or condition after COVID-19 infection is improperly labeled “long COVID.”
For purposes of their paper, the authors define long COVID as a “syndrome or individual symptoms which are direct sequelae of the virus, SARS-CoV-2, and last at least 12 weeks.” The authors say the definition should include persistent or contiguous symptoms confirmed after COVID-19 infection and include the individual attributes of the patient that may contribute to a person’s post-COVID experience.
Most Studies Lack Proper Control Groups
According to the paper, proper studies on long COVID require, at a minimum, a comparison between individuals reporting symptoms attributed to long COVID and a control group with similar characteristics.
“Not only did they not compare cases with controls, but they also included studies with a short median follow-up of only one month, studies that did not specify the length of follow-up, and studies that included abnormal laboratory results as ‘symptoms,’” the BMJ researchers wrote.
The study also didn’t provide information on the underlying health status of participants, link the timing of symptoms with infection, or disclose the previous history of infection in the control group.
“Inappropriate definitions and flawed methods do not serve those whom medicine seeks to help,” the authors concluded. “Improving standards of evidence generation is the ideal method to take long COVID seriously, improve outcomes, and avoid the risks of misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment.”
This article has been archived for your research. The original version from Epoch Times can be found here.
