Good stuff. Solid.
I can't not notice this anymore, it's everywhere and excessive:
Shure positioned her argument around the idea that some of the symptoms observed in Long Covid might be FND
There is no denying that the illness begins as immunological, resulting from the infection. The psychological model asserts that, at some point, there is a change moving the symptoms away from immunology and onto psychology. This is a grand claim, it requires evidence. There is no such evidence, it's merely asserted without evidence, speculation at best, a mere belief in most cases.
In many cases there is no gap between the acute illness and the chronic illness. In some cases there is, but the continuity matters, instead it's brushed aside with the same contempt for facts as the deconditioning trope always being asserted on the basis of extended bed rest, whether it even happened or not. It's merely an excuse, not an actual fact of evidence.
Meanwhile the minimizers have one argument and one only: those symptoms
can be psychological. Can be, the lowest imaginable form of certainty and not only it isn't evidence in itself, the entire basis for this argument is circular: people have been saying this for decades, therefore people are saying it today.
That's the whole argument, on which millions of lives are neglected just in case it's real: it can be, in that it's not proven that it isn't, one of the most famous logical fallacies, Russel's teapot. Nothing real can also be justified by a logical fallacy, the very idea is absurd.
The same people saying it "can be" psychological would never accept that it "can be" immunological, that requires proof, even though since the illness begins as immunological, it should be assumed that it continues to be, unless there is compelling evidence otherwise.
You can even see the same argument from the same people when they disagree with the conclusion: you can't just say it "can be", they'll actually say the very thing they dismiss at other times. They all know it's not a valid argument, and this is the only exception of its kind. There is no other idea or concept used by professionals today that simply rests on there flimsy basis of "you can't prove it's not this long-held traditional belief we have no evidence for but believe anyway", it's the only exception of its kind, everyone understands it's not a valid argument, but the medical profession, and the public as a consequence, is OK with BSing about what they think is BS illness, even relying on BS evidence to justify it, which frankly the whole thing criminal negligence.
That really will be the horrible takeaway when the lights turn on and people see the full extent of what was done: it was ridiculously invalid and everyone had the ability to understand it, they just exempted us from any of the rules, rights and principles that make medicine work.