I'm sorry, but I strongly, firmly, believe with evidence based research to back my concerns that this is a large amount of alarmist research which at best is to

I'm sorry, but I strongly, firmly, believe with evidence based research to back my concerns that this is a large amount of alarmist research which at best is to cash in on readily available covid money. I unfortunately believe this to be shortsighted and ultimately unethical. This is a virus from the covid family. What reasonable assumption should lead us to suspect it behaves so strongly asymptomatically as to cause severe hitherto unheard of side effects compared to say "bird-flu"? I am very much up for caution and as I say I very much welcome a renewed effort to say compare long term flu effects and things like cronif fatigue. But I think writing about evidence being inconclusive vs "there is no evidence to suggest" are strongly different lines for a journal which knows has the attention of a major global news source. This is the difference between publishing this in nature and saying "more research needed" rather than "cautiously there is no strong evidence for". In not invoking ad-abusurdism I'm highlighting mixing 2 statistically unlikely events can reveal unfortunate data points which incorrectly leads to the wrong result. If I caught the lottery after being diagnosed I could say I've strong evidence for when I don't. This is no different to getting cancer after being diagnosed and blaming cancer on covid from 1 case. We are in vaccine autism territory again with long term covid studies and I just hope that the research community (not an individual researcher) and the media tred carefully. So far they have both been rather like a bull in a china shop with their subtleties.