Long COVID: Unanswered Questions, Uncomfortable Truths, and a Call for Critical Inquiry
- Gary Moller
- 7 hours ago
- 8 min read
Introduction
The global health crisis of COVID-19 has left a complex legacy, not least among them the persistent and debilitating condition known as Long COVID. While mainstream narratives focus on viral mechanisms and immune responses, a closer look at clinical realities, coupled with a healthy dose of scepticism and critical analysis, reveals a landscape ripe for deeper, more challenging questions.
As a health professional with over 50 years of experience in the field, I've watched this pandemic and its effects closely. What I see in my practice often differs greatly from what people think. This article aims to articulate some of these critical observations and concerns, inviting a much-needed robust debate.
The Scientific Search for Answers
Recent scientific endeavours have sought to unravel the mysteries of Long COVID. In previous articles, we've discussed studies pointing to viral persistence and immune dysregulation, microclots and immune traps.
Viral Persistence and Immune Dysregulation:
Research using advanced imaging techniques has shown persistent T-cell activation in various body regions (brain, spinal cord, gut, lungs) in individuals post-COVID-19, even those without ongoing symptoms.
This research also found SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the gut tissue up to almost two years after the first infection. This suggests the virus might stay and cause a strong immune response. It also explains why many sufferers of Long COVID report gut issues.
Microclots and Immune Traps:
Another study highlighted the presence of tiny, abnormal blood clots (microclots) intertwined with immune structures called Neutrophil Extracellular Traps (NETs) in Long COVID patients.
These findings suggest these complexes could contribute to ongoing inflammation and vascular issues.
These studies offer valuable insights into potential mechanisms of Long COVID. However, from a clinician's perspective, they often feel incomplete, overlooking crucial demographic data that could profoundly alter our understanding.
The Elephant in the Room:
Vaccination Status and Long COVID.
My most striking clinical observation, one that these studies conveniently omit or downplay, is this: In my practice, all cases of genuine Long COVID and its many complications appear to be only among patients who have received at least two doses of the mRNA vaccine and later contracted COVID-19.
I am still waiting for a single case of genuine Long COVID that involves an unvaccinated patient who caught COVID. This is not a simple observation — it's a common pattern among my patients, and it needs careful investigation instead of being ignored.
When we look at the data from the microclot study, we see that 45 out of 50 Long COVID patients were vaccinated. Only four were not vaccinated and one was not known. The study authors show this data, but they don't talk about how it could affect the strong link between being vaccinated and getting Long COVID.
The Misnomer of "Vaccine" When Infection Persists — And a Shifting Definition
This leads to a basic point of contention and scepticism: If a vaccine does not prevent infection, is it truly a "vaccine" in the traditional sense, or is the term itself a misnomer that has misled the public?
Historically, people have thought vaccines are things that make people immune. This means that they can't get the disease they are vaccinated against. The scientific community now defines vaccine effectiveness by its ability to prevent serious disease, hospitalisation, and death. But the public's expectations are often more general — a shield against infection itself.
My scepticism extends to the very definition of "vaccinated" itself. This definition appears to have been subtly massaged, after the fact, to conveniently accommodate a novel vaccine technology. This technology was given Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). I think this way, we didn't have to do the usual, long clinical trial requirements that usually show long-term safety and overall effectiveness. This raises profound questions about the transparency of the process and whether the public was truly given a complete picture of a technology that, despite its stated goals, does not prevent infection. This perceived adjustment in definition, coupled with the fact that these vaccines do not prevent all infections, contributes to my concern that the public's understanding of 'vaccination' has been fundamentally altered.
The Blurred Lines:
Vaccine Side Effects vs. Long COVID Symptoms – A Classification Conundrum.
This brings us to a deeply troubling aspect: the significant overlap between the reported adverse events following mRNA vaccination and the symptoms commonly associated with Long COVID. When one reviews the extensive list of side effects reported to regulatory bodies post-Pfizer vaccination, it's not just mild fatigue or aches. It encompasses a wide range of systemic issues affecting neurological, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and other systems.
This striking resemblance forces a critical question, especially when considering the official definitions of vaccination status:
Unvaccinated: Generally, a person who has received no doses of any COVID-19 vaccine.
Partially Vaccinated: Typically, a person who has received one dose of an mRNA vaccine. Protection is considered to begin roughly two weeks after this dose.
Fully Vaccinated (Primary Series): A person who has completed the initial recommended series – two doses of an mRNA vaccine or one dose of a single-shot vaccine. This status is generally achieved two weeks after the final dose of the primary series.
Up to Date (with Boosters): This means people who have taken all the booster doses recommended. The best protection is usually achieved two weeks after the booster.
Herein lies a critical problem: If a person experiences a severe, persistent adverse event shortly after vaccination — particularly within the initial two-week period following any dose (when they are officially classified as "unvaccinated" or "partially vaccinated" for assessing full protection) – and these symptoms are strikingly similar to Long COVID, how are these conditions truly differentiated?
My concern is that the current classification system, combined with the symptom overlap, creates a diagnostic dilemma that risks misattributing the cause of persistent illness. If a patient develops debilitating, Long COVID-like symptoms shortly after a vaccine dose, but before the official "fully vaccinated" status is achieved, they might be categorised in a way that hides a potential vaccine-related aetiology. This ambiguity lets us guess that vaccine-induced harm could be mistakenly classified as a post-viral illness, or just ignored as unrelated. This would hide the true number and nature of vaccine adverse events. This lack of clear distinction, in my view, undermines the integrity of data collection and analysis.
Ethical Imperatives:
"First, Do No Harm" and the Erosion of Informed Consent.
These observations and questions lead us directly to the bedrock principles of medical ethics: the Hippocratic Oath and the Nuremberg Code.
The principle of "Primum Non Nocere" – first, do no harm — demands that we rigorously assess the risks and benefits of any medical intervention. When patients present with debilitating, persistent symptoms following vaccination, and these symptoms bear a striking resemblance to a condition attributed to the virus, the medical community has an ethical obligation to:
Investigate thoroughly: Not dismiss, but deeply investigate the potential for vaccine-induced persistent conditions, especially given the symptom overlap.
Make sure the public has all the information they need about all possible risks, not just the most common or mild ones. Also, understand the problems with classification.
Care for the injured: Offer kind and helpful care to those who get hurt, even if it's not clear what caused it, while still trying to find the cause. The ACC and Medsafe need to take note of this one!
The Nuremberg Code stresses informed consent. It requires people to make their own decisions based on knowing all possible risks. This is not a mere formality; it is a fundamental human right and a legal obligation. Informed consent requires:
Disclosure: Providing all material information about the proposed intervention, including its nature, purpose, potential benefits, and all foreseeable risks and side effects, as well as other options.
Understanding: Ensuring the patient comprehends the information provided.
Voluntariness: The decision must be made freely, without coercion.
Capacity: The patient must be capable of making decisions.
From my clinical experience, the administration of these vaccines fell far short of these stringent requirements. I observed that not a single patient received anything bordering on real informed consent. Instead, the process was often reduced to verbal reassurance that the vaccine was "safe and effective." This reassurance directly contradicted data that was either known or emerging, including Pfizer's own reported adverse events, which paint a far more complex picture than simple safety. Importantly, patients did not receive any written information about the many possible side effects. They also did not sign a complete consent form that recognised these risks.
This raises profound questions about legal obligations. If patients were not fully apprised of the large list of potential adverse events, and if the process lacked documented, explicit consent for a product under Emergency Use Authorization, then the very foundation of ethical medical practice and legal accountability is, in my view, severely compromised.
A Call for Open Debate – Against a Backdrop of Suppression and Skewed Data
The current climate often stifles open discussion on these sensitive topics, labelling scepticism as misinformation. However, true scientific progress and ethical medical practice thrive on critical inquiry and robust debate. My clinical experience compels me to challenge the prevailing narrative and ask uncomfortable questions.
This suppression of critical inquiry is not just theoretical. In New Zealand, for example, the Medical Council is still actively pursuing and fining doctors who question the safety and effectiveness of this vaccine, and the ethics of doing so. A retired doctor, still registered, was fined more than $50,000 for expressing such views.
In such a climate, where professional bodies actively penalise dissenting voices, how can there be open and honest debate? How can clinicians feel safe reporting observations that challenge the established narrative, or advocating for patients experiencing adverse events that fall outside the officially sanctioned explanations? Just asking.
Furthermore, this coercion not to even consider the possibility of a vaccine adverse effect, let alone express this to a patient or report it to regulatory bodies like Medsafe, seriously risks the skewing of vaccine safety data. If doctors are coerced not to record possible bad reactions, the true number and type of these events will stay hidden. This will lead to a false and misleading picture of vaccine safety.
Ultimately, without properly identifying the real root causes of ill health — whether it be the virus, a vaccine's adverse effect, or a complex interaction — we condemn treatment largely into the baskets of just treating symptoms, offering little or no effective remedy. This is bad for patients with long-lasting and painful conditions. It shows a big failure of medical research and medical practice.
My questions remain:
Are we adequately distinguishing between post-vaccination syndromes and Long COVID, especially given the significant symptom overlap and the nuances of vaccination status definitions?
What role does vaccination status play in the development and severity of Long COVID? Why does my clinical experience suggest that vaccinated people are more likely to get Long COVID?
If a vaccine does not prevent infection, should it truly be called a "vaccine," or does this terminology create misleading public expectations and undermine trust, especially given the perceived post-facto adjustment of its definition to accommodate novel technology under EUA?
Were the basic rules for informed consent really met during the mass vaccination campaign, especially about fully explaining the risks and recording patient acceptance? How does any perceived shortcoming match legal and ethical obligations?
How can real scientific and ethical debate flourish when medical professionals face punishment for raising real clinical observations and concerns? What are the consequences for correct safety data and effective patient care?
It is time for the medical and scientific communities to be honest, open, and brave about these issues. They should focus on patient well-being first. The health and trust of our communities depend on it.
Comments