Would like to note that I made a thread QTing a study that someone said showed 91% of people recovered from PAIS. The study did NOT say that, and I tweeted a misinformed thread that leaned into that incorrect reading. I deleted the tweets, but I will leave this tweet up with the thread I posted so people can see the mistake I made, as well as the original tweet that I QTed.
I appreciate people calling my attention to the mistake. I don't want my tweets up, because they were false and misleading about that study, but I would like people to be able to see the mistake I made, which is in the unrolled thread that I QT above.
The person who originally posted the study was suggesting that many recovery stories — with unproven pharmacological interventions *or* unproven mind-body interventions — are really due to high natural remission rates of PAIS (and long Covid) within the first year.
Lastly: This is on ME. It is irresponsible to QT an interpretation of a study and agree with it — much less write a whole thread about it — without actually reading the study to see what it says!!
All of that said, I encourage people to read the original thread. It's not really about the study, which does not say what I thought I did.
It's about how people tend to emphasize high rates of natural remission when they are trying to explain away a recovery story that is due to an intervention they dislike or disbelieve in. But they tend to emphasize low rates of natural remission in other contexts.
Not an excuse for the mistake I made. Just an important point to make nevertheless.
In case it somehow gets deleted, here's screenshots too.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.