Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#2Can someone knowledgeable explain the current understanding of Covid’s long time effects? I thought it was still a big unknown and long COVID was still debated as to even having a clear definition.
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#3Can someone knowledgeable explain the current understanding of Covid’s long time effects? I thought it was still a big unknown and long COVID was still debated as to even having a clear definition.
If only there were some sort of link here with that sort of information!
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#494% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no?
https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/...
> Prevalence estimated (...) 2%–3.5% in primarily non-hospitalized children.
So a fake test always saying "No" would be more accurate at 96.5% accuracy.
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#5Can they disambiguate between spike protein microclots produced by natural infection vs. those generated by the vaccines.
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#6This is (probably) not a Long Covid story but I found that bloodletting (for which I even received money!) gave me back the energy that I was missing for the last few years (e.g. it was impossible to build stamina). I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for some of us), why isn't this discussed or studied more broadly?
[1]https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529211645.h...
"the patients who gave blood had a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (from 148 mmHg to 130 mmHg) as well as reduction in blood glucose levels and heart rate, and an improvement in cholesterol levels (LDL/HDL ratio)."
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#794% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no? https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/... > Prevalence estimated (...) 2%–3.5% in primarily non-hospitalized children. So a fake test always saying "No" would be more accurate at 96.5% accuracy.
Sample size of 59 also seems worse than useless; I'm no researcher so maybe there's something I'm missing here but, doesn't seem very good.
Junk science?
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#8This is (probably) not a Long Covid story but I found that bloodletting (for which I even received money!) gave me back the energy that I was missing for the last few years (e.g. it was impossible to build stamina). I also read about a study about the positive effects of bloodletting[1] that somehow is not all the rage in mainstream news, which I find perplexing. If it might be so easy to improve your health (for som…
The lower blood pressure I can explain by having a lower volume of blood. But the glucose and cholesterol have to go somewhere. Where do they go? Are they filtered in the process after blood letting?
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#994% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no? https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/... > Prevalence estimated (...) 2%–3.5% in primarily non-hospitalized children. So a fake test always saying "No" would be more accurate at 96.5% accuracy.
If you read the actual link I don't think they're saying that using it as a covid test with some specific threshold of microclots has a 94% accuracy but just that the raw microclot count has a 94% accuracy.
The title on hn which implies that seems to be inaccurate and it's not the original title of the article.
Re: Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
#10The paper claims that 1/5 of people experience Long COVID after an infection. Given that approximately everyone has caught COVID by now, this does not track with how rarely I've heard of people with it.
Wikipedia lists much lower numbers on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_COVID (6–7% in adults, ~1% in children, less after vaccination.) and seems to use a more liberal definition than this paper, as it mentions "Most people with symptoms at 4 weeks recover by 12 weeks" (while the paper only considers it "long COIVD" if symptoms last past 3 months).
I've found studies (peer reviewed, as far as I can tell) claiming anything from well under 10% to well over 30%.
What's going on here?