A Response to New Yorker Article on Long COVID

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

A person with ME (who wishes to remain anonymous online) sent this letter to the author of The New Yorker article, “The Struggle to Define Long COVID,” and to the magazine’s editor.

#MEAction was also concerned to see The New Yorker publish such a disparaging and flawed article about the Long COVID community, which cherry-picked examples of patient involvement while ignoring the incredible patient-led research the community has done to accelerate and strengthen research into Long COVID.

10/2/21

Dr. Khullar:

I am writing to you directly about your recent article on Long Covid with the hope you will take my comments to heart. I will copy The New Yorker as well.

It is clear that you are a compassionate person, struggling to understand a true conundrum. That said, I think your article was facile in many ways and reflects a dated and ill-informed understanding of post-infectious disease.

1. To start, before I comment on your treatment of Berrent, let me say that I do not know Berrent and did not hear of her before your article. My first complaint is that you treat Diana Berrent and her most fervent supporters/followers as the spokesperson/people for all those suffering from Long Covid. I think that is presumptuous and speculative. Further, some of your criticisms of her…and the conclusions you draw – seem unwarranted and exaggerated. Assuming for the sake of argument (and I actually agree with you here) that some of the ailments she views as symptomatic of Long Covid are far-fetched, you use that as a reason to dismiss commonly accepted Long Covid symptoms and imply primarily psychogenic causation. You also ignore that some of her critiques, like CDC’s decision not to investigate non-severe Long Covid cases, were also voiced by many medical/public health professionals. Similarly, you criticize her for her view of “mild” Covid cases. Yes, she is wrong to say that there are no mild cases. But it’s also true that the public –  having no reason to know better – interpreted “mild” in the dictionary sense – whereas the medical establishment considers “mild” anything that is not severe, i.e, resulting in hospitalization or death. Medical “mild” can still make one quite ill. Further, even asymptomatic and layperson’s “mild” cases cause Long Covid.

2. You seem dismissive of the validity of a “syndrome” or illness until research has established the cause or found a diagnostic test. Surely you know that serious illnesses such as MS and ulcers were once considered to be psychogenic in origin. And that post-infection sequelae have followed many past viral outbreaks. Instead, you choose to highlight Jeremy Devine’s view that Long Covid “is largely an invention of vocal patient activist groups” rather than talking to Long Covid experts/researchers. This is reminiscent of those who dismissed ME/CFS* as psychogenic. You don’t seem prepared to acknowledge that people can have diseases such as chronic fatigue syndrome, merely referring to “people who say they suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome….. Have you read the 2015 National Institute of Medicine Report on chronic fatigue syndrome or looked at the CDC/NIH websites on the disease? You characterize such diseases by saying “some researchers consider [them] ill-defined,” in a way that dismisses them rather than reflecting years of research neglect. Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress recently. Here’s just one article that was recently published in PNAS, both about ME/CFS and Long Covid. https://www.pnas.org/content/118/34/e2024358118 

3. Try talking to Avindra Nath, M.D, the Clinical Director of NINDS, the Director of the Translational Neuroscience Center, and Chief of the Section of Infections of the Nervous System, who is leading research on ME/CFS and Long Covid. Or Cornell’s own Mauren Hanson,  Director for the Center for Enervating Neuroimmune Disease. Or Ian Lipkin at Columbia. I doubt any of them would say Long Covid “lives for the moment in the realm of theory and anecdote.”  Your choice of interviewees was unbalanced.

4. You might have deduced that I am writing with some connection to Long Covid. Luckily, I have not had Covid. But I have had ME/CFS for 21 years. Consequently, I am all too aware of the medical establishment not having taken ME/CFS seriously. The ME/CFS community is, in fact, very distrusting of the medical community because patients often have not been treated with respect or understanding, and research into diagnosis, causation and treatment was at a standstill for decades. Thankfully, there has been a major turnaround in scientific understanding in recent years. But, based on the ME/CFS experience,  I fear the views that you stated or implied about Long Covid, and the leaps you took in reaching conclusions, pose a  greater problem than what some Long Covid advocates may have gotten wrong. I feel that you knew what you wanted to say and cherry-picked to support your conclusions. Please do your homework next time.

Respectfully,

* Please also note that federal agencies, numerous clinical guidance providers, and people afflicted by the disease now use the term myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) instead of chronic fatigue syndrome.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email

1 thought on “A Response to New Yorker Article on Long COVID”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

Press Jungle Featured Image

#MEAction Swinging Through The Press Jungle

Welcome to the jungle, the press jungle! It’s hot and noisy here, with news fresh off the press. Trying to get the attention of the media is not as impossible as legend had it! This is Adriane, and as your Press Scribe, I’m here to write our way through this next adventure and make sure

Read More »
Research Lagoon

#MEAction Swimming Through the Research Lagoon

Hi, everyone! It’s Jaime, the Director of Scientific & Medical Outreach at #MEAction. During this week’s #MEAction Giving Adventure we swam through the Research Lagoon as we surpassed our second fundraising level of US $20,000/UK£14,820. While our fundraising format this year is fun and lighthearted, the work #MEAction is doing to advance research and clinical

Read More »

Join over 1,000 people and vote for your ME/CFS research priorities

Over 1,000 people have now voted for their ME/CFS research priorities. People with ME/CFS, carers and clinicians in the UK are all asked to take part. The ME/CFS Priority Setting Partnership is particularly looking for more people from ethnic minorities, carers and health care professionals to take part. So far: Just 4% of respondents are

Read More »

Help keep our work going

We rely on donations from people like you to keep fighting for equality for people with ME.

Donate

Get actions alerts and news direct to your inbox

You can choose what you want to be kept up to date on.

Subscribe
Scroll to Top