Still a valid flag imo; Content-reduced versions of papers don’t add value. Better to submit a link to the actual paper. The link to the study is there, yes –

Still a valid flag imo; Content-reduced versions of papers don’t add value. Better to submit a link to the actual paper. The link to the study is there, yes – I see it now – but it’s practically invisible. There really is no need for this kind of content. In context of the subject, I believe it’s not uncommon that patients don’t actually produce detectable antibodies after an infection so I doubt any conclusions in the paper until I see that addressed. update: Dr. Nisreen Alwan addresses this directly: https://twitter.com/dr2nisreenalwan/status/1457817711048859650?s=21 https://twitter.com/dr2nisreenalwan/status/14578177110488596... This study asked the question:"Are the belief in having had COVID-19 infection and actually having had the infection as verified by SARS-CoV-2 serology testing associated with persistent physical symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic?" Stop right there!1/5 Serology is not a sensitive way to assess the presence or absence of past infection. There's plenty of evidence that antibodies wane & may be undetectable in those infected. Also-wait for it- having Long Covid is in itself associated with weaker antibody response to infection.2/5“