Thread by @PutrinoLab

I feel like the #LongCovid community has experienced a weekend of intense reflection and self-effacing conversation (because of *that* @NewYorker article) about what it means to be an ally and advocate. Phenomenal content from @itsbodypolitic and others on what it means to (1/n)

be a patient-led advocate and ally, so I wanted to start a thread on what it means to be a clinical and research ally for #LongCovid. @DhruvKhullar's @NewYorker article was bad. In the face of backlash, he tried to explain that the piece was intended as a call to action (2/n)

for #LongCovid. The LC community disagreed. Resoundingly. If we take @DhruvKhullar at his word - he was genuinely trying to help - how then, did his piece miss the mark so badly, and what lessons can us as clinicians learn about how to be an ally and advocate to patients? (3/n)

1. Do your research: "Patients and skeptics are squaring off. Can research heal the rift?" - that was the tagline of the article. Yet, claiming that skeptics have an equal voice to #LongCovid patients is a facile take and legitimizes the voices of bad clinicians who have (4/n)

been roundly criticized for gaslighting and ignoring LC patients. @DhruvKhullar did not cite a single legitimate #LongCovid clinician or researcher in the article. If we can't trust you to talk to the right people, how can we trust you to advocate for your patients? (5/n)

2. Don't be a phony: You don't have to be an advocate. You can just shut up and say nothing. You are permitted to have a dissenting opinion as well: @DhruvKhullar could have written a piece about how #LongCovid is a hoax - arguably, it would have done less damage than this (6/n)

piece. He didn't. He wrote a piece that looked like #LongCovid advocacy on the surface, but anyone with an iota of understanding of the last CENTURY of chronic disease literature could easily recognize as a dog-whistle. In addition, don't hide behind your patients - either (7/n)

you're an ally and advocate or you're not. Either you believe that the science supports a position or that it doesn't. Make the call. Be authentic. Welcome discourse.
3. Words matter, tone matters: If you haven't learned this by now, then I don't know how to help you as a (8/n)

clinician or a scientist. You cannot be an ally to patients if your non-verbal/unwritten cues are constantly triggering them. This article, whether intentional or not, was a masterclass in gaslighting #LongCovid patients. Microaggressions exist, and if you don't educate (9/n)

yourself on them (see point #1), then yes - you're a bad clinician and your patients deserve better.
4. Are you the right person for the job: You don't need to have a "public take" on everything, and before doing so, you should strongly examine your biases and conflicts of (10/n)

interest. Some things have come to light about @DhruvKhullar and his conflicts of interest that make it questionable about whether the @NewYorker should ever have permitted a #LongCovid piece to be written by him. Clinicians and researchers should also think about things (11/n)

through this lens when they are asked to advocate for their patients - am I the right professional? Do I have the level of knowledge that is necessary to authentically present a strong case for/against an issue? Do I have conflicts of interest that will eventually be found (12/n)

out and serve to discredit the cause I am serving? Ultimately, what could have been a thought-provoking, iconic and powerful @NewYorker piece about #LongCovid was instead a superficial puff-piece, focusing on characters over content. It did harm, and @DhruvKhullar's (13/n)

false claims of advocacy in the presence of actively harming the community will fall on deaf ears because the #LongCovid community is smarter than that.
Clinicians and researchers: we need to do *way* better than this. We are failing people who deserve much better.