Exercise Pathophysiology in ME/CFS and Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2: More in Common Than Not? 2023, Joseph, Systrom et al.

ABSTRACT
Topic Importance
Post-Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is a long-term consequence of acute infection from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical overlap between PASC and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) has been observed, with shared symptoms including intractable fatigue, postexertional malaise, and orthostatic intolerance. The mechanistic underpinnings of such symptoms are poorly understood.
Review Findings
Early studies suggest deconditioning as the primary explanation for exertional intolerance in PASC. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) reveals perturbations related to systemic blood flow and ventilatory control associated with acute exercise intolerance in PASC, which are not typical of simple detraining. Hemodynamic and gas exchange derangements in PASC have substantial overlap with those observed with ME/CFS, suggestive of shared mechanisms.
Summary
This review aims to illustrate exercise pathophysiologic commonalities between PASC and ME/CFS that will help guide future diagnostics and treatment.

https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(23)00502-0/fulltext

 

The Long Covid - ME/CFS overlap relies on just a single systemic review from 2021. Discussion: https://www.s4me.info/threads/long-...nd-symptomatology-2021-wong-and-weizer.20310/

Long COVID and ME/CFS—A Systemic Review and Comparison of Clinical Presentation and Symptomatology, 2021, Wong and Weizer

 

Interesting. I wished they would've been clearer about CBT/GET after recommending graded exercise in their previous paper.

 

Nope. In fact most studies show the opposite. People have been saying this, without any basis, but that's a very different thing. It was an assumption, a bad one, and something experts shouldn't ever be doing.

Medicine has been recently challenging physical sciences, especially fluid dynamics, but with this they also challenge the linear passage of time. It was always absurd to have people wait for months to see if their symptoms go away, then when they don't, blame the interval for issues that were there from the start.

Because otherwise what this paper is doing here is privileging a lie, pretending it was ever valid. It never was, the linear passage of time is not some suggestion, and events that happen after cannot be the start of it. Even topologists don't twist themselves in as many knots.

At least they state it plainly:

But then it invalidates the idea that studies suggested this, especially as this was known for years. People asserted this, not studies, in fact despite studies falsifying a weak hypothesis. Otherwise this is as valid as saying "studies suggested the Moon is made of cheese" because some people said that. There cannot be studies showing that, because it's nonsense. It's people saying invalid things that is the issue here.

 

which paper was that?

 

Chestnet website https://journal.chestnet.org/ currently reporting "We're currently performing maintenance. Please return soon." 10.28 BST Friday.

 

Have just been able to download it. Noon, Friday

 

I had emailed with Systrom about this and he said it was only done whilst being on Mestinon, but they failed to mention that in the paper...

He did explain it later on in a talk but I felt it was rather problematic to publish the paper this way.

 

@dave30th, please also look at this thread.

Dysautonomia International 10th Annual Conference: 'Collaborating for Cures', July 14-17, 2022
https://www.s4me.info/threads/dysau...ollaborating-for-cures-july-14-17-2022.27750/