Thanks for the corrections. Some examples of the processes followed by the authors - there's some terms in there I don't understand, but perhaps they aren't co

Thanks for the corrections. Some examples of the processes followed by the authors - there's some terms in there I don't understand, but perhaps they aren't complicated to everyone else. "Structured data on diagnoses, symptoms and referrals are recorded using SNOMED CT coding terminology. Selection of SNOMED CT codes for data extraction was conducted by a team of clinical researchers using an inhouse developed software platform called Code Builder, with systematic searching of existing code lists, reference to the SNOMED CT terminology browser and through clinical knowledge and discussion. Data extraction was performed using the data extraction for epidemiological research (DExTER) tool for automated clinical epidemiological studies. "To control for confounding, each patient infected with SARS-CoV-2 was propensity score-matched with up to four patients with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection using a logistic regression model including the covariates listed in the covariates section below and a caliper width of 0.2. The SMD between patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 and patients with no recorded evidence of infection was reported for each variable before and after matching, and a variable with SMD > 0.1 after matching was considered to indicate imbalance in baseline characteristics. Kernel density plots were drawn for the two groups before and after matching to check the distribution of propensity scores." Compare against dismissive comments proposing this is all coincidental, or the data set / study is is useless because the 2-page summary article mentions 'self-reporting' (it feels this phrase has been grossly misunderstood in this thread), and some casual claims that all long COVID is psychosomatic, etc. EDIT: I don't think it's an 'appeal to authority' when you defer to expertise of the authors who've detailed their data & processes -- that's more a logical fallacy when you claim an opinion is valid because of who the author(s) is/are.