24 ms·
Quantification of fibrinaloid clots in plasma from pediatric Long COVID patients
- Wintamute 11mo agoCan they disambiguate between spike protein microclots produced by natural infection vs. those generated by the vaccines.
- notrealyme123 11mo agoI am curious about the working hypothesis leading to this question.
- zacharachnia 11mo agoHypothesis: microclots are caused by the viral spike protein. The mRNA vaccine produces the viral spike protein. Therefore, a non-zero percentage of microclots are caused by spike protein originating from the vaccine.
- DaSHacka 11mo agoOne of the working theories on people suffering long COVID-like symptoms after receiving an mRNA COVID vaccine may apparently be related to spike proteins found in the patient's blood far longer than is typical/intended. This is apparently similar to long COVID patients. At least, that's my layman's understanding when I was following it some years ago. I'm not sure if there's been more recent studies that have found more concrete links since then, but I suspect GP is in the same boat, which is why they asked.
- tim333 11mo agoI've looked up quite a lot of research about vaccines doing damage and the usual result is yes they do but it's about 100x less bad than covid itself.
- base698 11mo agohttps://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccination-syndrome-indicate-future-research-directions https://news.yale.edu/2025/02/19/immune-markers-post-vaccina... They are looking into that.
- torben-friis 11mo agoCan 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.
- dmd 11mo agoIf only there were some sort of link here with that sort of information!
- torben-friis 11mo agoI did read the article. It only talks about detecting long covid in children, which is different to understanding its effect on adults and the long terms effect of COVID in general (vs long COVID, which if understand correctly it’s a different syndrome to just “ long term expected outcomes from having had COVID”).
- PaulKeeble 11mo agoThe WHO [1] has a clinical definition of the disease and some basic data on chance of Covid infections turning into Long Covid. Then the meta study by Eric Topol and Zayad Ali-al from last year is probably a good primer into what is known about the disease that is well established science [2]. Its not a big unknown anymore, its very prevalent, it has a lot of symptoms, it has a clinical definition but its problematic and there are many diagnostic tests that can detect parts of the condition but none has yet reached sufficient prominence to be adopted by healthcare. Healthcare is largely ignoring that Long Covid exists so you can't get diagnosed with it but its very much a real thing and a lot of people have it. [1]https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-19-condition-(long-covid) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-... [2] https://erictopol.substack.com/p/long-covid-at-3-years https://erictopol.substack.com/p/long-covid-at-3-years
- timr 11mo agoThe first link is not a clinical definition, the second link is not a "meta study" (it's a substack article with absolutely no rigor). Moreover, the first link cites prevalence numbers wildly in conflict with the second link: > Approximately 6 in every 100 people who have COVID-19 develop post COVID-19 condition vs., for example: > From one center in Wuhan, 1,359 survivors completed 3-year follow up and 54% had at least one persistent symptom of Long Covid This only underscores the lack of clinical definition. Both of these suffer from the same fundamental error, which, again, is that there's no precise definition of the syndrome. They include symptoms that are common amongst healthy people, mix them with less-common things that are associated with Covid (e.g. anosmia) and try to call this a disease state. See the WHO's grab-bag list of possible inclusion criteria: > Over 200 different symptoms have been reported by people with post COVID-19 condition. Common symptoms include: fatigue, aches and pains in muscles or joints, feeling breathless, headaches, difficulty in thinking or concentrating, alterations in taste. So literally having "headaches" or "aches and pains" is enough to claim Long Covid, according to the WHO. The Topol/Aly substack engages in the same logic, and you will see that the referenced charts and graphs cover everything from fatigue to heart attack. Aly, in particular, has based his entire long covid research on a single dataset of (largely elderly, unhealthy prior to infection) VA patients that he refuses to release, and routinely engages in statistical fishing expeditions for new "symptoms" within that dataset.
- diffeomorphism 11mo ago94% accuracy sounds extremely bad, no? https://www.ssph-journal.org/journals/public-health-reviews/articles/10.3389/phrs.2022.1604501/full 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.
- mouse_ 11mo agoSample 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?
- mapontosevenths 11mo agoIt's just an early study, not junk. The primary conclusion of this research was basically just "this looks like it would be worth doing more research on." Which is a fair conclusion for a study this small.
- resoluteteeth 11mo agoIf 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.
- diffeomorphism 11mo agoNo, that does not seem to be what they are saying. > We evaluated the diagnostic power of the device in a cohort of 45 LC patients and 14 healthy pediatric donors. We estimated a 94% accuracy for the microclot count using the devices, significantly higher than the traditional counting of microclots on slides (66% accuracy). They are comparing the predictive power and using accuracy (instead of sensitivity, recall, F1, etc.). For their method "using the devices", they compute an accuracy of the predictive power, not of the count, of 94%. For the previous method they say the accuracy is 66%. Basic questions: Is accuracy even a good metric for this? Is 94% a good value or just the difference between bad and very bad? It might very well be that their improvement is from bad to really good, but the point is that a raw stat of "94% accuracy" is useless without context and so is the headline.
- Tarsul 11mo agoThis 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.htm 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)."
- spockz 11mo agoThe 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?
- mort96 11mo agoIf it's in the blood, doesn't it just leave the body together with the blood?
- aesh2Xa1 11mo agoYes, but the relative amount per volume blood should be the same. I think that's why he's asking. If so, the answer is that the body replenishes plasma in a day and red cells in six weeks (redcrossblood.org FAQ). The relative amount does change quickly.
- nradov 11mo agoThere is very little glucose in circulating blood at any given time. Unless you have severe uncontrolled diabetes (or a similar condition) your body regulates blood glucose level within a low, narrow range. Most glucose is stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 11mo agoThe 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 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?
- victorbjorklund 11mo agoCould it be that you can have different severity of long covid? Someone with very severe symptoms will notice it but someone with small symptoms might not realise it (and instead think they are just less fit)
- Thorrez 11mo ago>after an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Maybe not all infections are considered "acute".
- DrewADesign 11mo agoAcute, in this context, just means the infection had a finite (and usually relativity short) duration. The opposite is a chronic condition, which is what “long covid” would be in this case.
- cheschire 11mo agoA lot of symptoms of long covid mirror the symptoms of unhealthy living, which may make it so people either dismiss their own symptoms and don't seek diagnosis, or their complaints are dismissed by others for needing to simply improve externalities.
- MontyCarloHall 11mo ago
- ipsento606 11mo agoEdit - this comment is incorrect --- The title should be edited. It sounds as if the test is 94% accurate at detecting long covid, but in fact it's 94% accurate at counting microclots > We estimated a 94% accuracy for the microclot count using the devices, significantly higher than the traditional counting of microclots on slides (66% accuracy)
- diffeomorphism 11mo agoNo, you are parsing this wrong. > We evaluated the diagnostic power (...). We estimated a 94% accuracy for (our method), significantly higher than the (traditional method) (66% accuracy). Both methods have counting in their name, but they are comparing the diagnostic power.
- ipsento606 11mo agoafter reading more - you're right, I'm wrong
- pinkmuffinere 11mo agoI appreciate the frank acknowledgment of your mistakes. We need more people like you.
- jasonvorhe 11mo ago[flagged]
- catchcatchcatch 11mo ago[dead]
- catchcatchcatch 11mo ago[dead]
- analog8374 11mo agoIs it safe to assume that these children received the vaccine?
- clashncruz 11mo ago[flagged]
- dboreham 11mo agoThrowing out this random data point: I know several people who I believe have some sort of what could be called "long covid". Here's the weird thing though: all these people are some level of covid denier/vax skeptic type person. They themselves don't believe they have long covid (and in some cases don't even believe they had covid). But all of them conform to this pattern (as observed by me): 1. They had covid, 2. Immediately after they developed some weird long term symptoms that no doctor can explain. Obviously there's some probability this is all coincidence but it does seem strange, especially considering the predisposition for these people to not think their issues were triggered by covid infection.
- boxerab 11mo agoI don't see how we can differentiate between long covid and injury from mrna shots.
- clashncruz 11mo agoNot sure why someone flagged my post, here it is again: Excellent, a new way to test for the "fibrinaloid clots", a term that has only recently appeared in the literature since 2022, directly after the first experimental injections were administered worldwide and 2 years after the declared pandemic. It sounds like the authors are assuming "long Covid" comes from Covid rather than the experimental injections without ever having ruled out the latter, even though the onset correlates temporally with the experimental injections far more than the declared pandemic. Since this term never existed in the literature during the first 2 years of the declared pandemic, and only finally appeared in 2022 (and only in 1 article) before it started gaining traction, we must ask ourselves the following questions if we are truly interested in pursuing the scientific method: 1. Did the authors categorize the test subjects by those who had received the COVID-19 injection and those who had not? 2. If not, how do we rule out these effects being long-term effects from the experimental injections which cause people's bodies to continually produce the Spike protein the authors discuss in their paper as being the cause of the "fibrinaloid clots"? 3.Isn't this continual production of Spike induced by the injections something that should be controlled for to answer the question one way or another? Suggestions: Test for "fibrinaloid clots" in subjects who have had confirmed COVID-19 and categorize them by how many experimental injections they received; include patients who received none. Then plot the number of experimental injections per patient on the x axis and the detected microclot size on the y axis. Best regards to all.
- slater 11mo ago> Not sure why someone flagged my post Likely because you're attempting to spread some form of anti-vax nonsense.