Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45557267

Points: 137

# Comments: 136

there’s some great new research out of the university of virginia looking into this https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq2509

mis-c and the adult versions are rare but real, and there’s early promise with a treatment called larazotide https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.adu4284

the nih recover autopsy studies are also finding viral persistence in multiple organs, with more results coming soon https://recovercovid.org/pathobiology

i work on multiple NIH RECOVER efforts on this topic and post long covid research on x, and honestly the picture is both fascinating and pretty grim https://x.com/atranscendedman

This is specifically about COVID-19 and flu. Which after 5 years we have better science supporting how to combat them long term.

I think a lot of people miss that nuance because of who the message is coming from.

That shift is happening regardless of what RFK Jr. says or doesn’t say. Let’s separate the messenger from the actual science for a moment.

So not true. There are numerous candidates for pan-flu and pan-coronavirus vaccines. mRNA and other vehicles.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/clinical-trial...

Oral vaccines, nasal sprays, multi-antigen, multi-receptor approaches, these aren’t just buzzwords. They aim at mucosal immunity, they aim at T-cells, they aim at the places our current tools often miss. And when you learn that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body long after the sniffles are gone(i.e. Long COVID/MIS-C), you realize we need more than just antibodies.

Project Next-Gen is highly data-driven, and the most promising candidates are rising to the top as some are already near Phase 3.

Redirecting funding toward these options isn’t as drastic as it may seem. In fact, it makes sense if we want the best outcomes.

https://medicalcountermeasures.gov/nextgen

https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/79/1/115/7607231

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43477102

Points: 32

# Comments: 23

the study is done and just needs to be formally published. then recommendations can "officially" change although the science has been clear about this for quite some time now with this specific drug.

other antivirals dont have this problem because they are actually effective for 10+ days even if you take it for 5 days (Ensitrelvir).

there's countless candidates in the pipeline as well for vaccines, antivirals, and monoclonal antibodies. as they keep getting better, the guidelines will shift slowly but surely.

i personally wish we did this with more urgency.

1. Science magazine's association with his recurring "editorially independent blog". I've been a subscriber for many years and have never enjoyed it personally.

2. His opinion on this topic in general. The drug lived up to the hype even beating some international antivirals on efficacy terms.

Today's science is a bit further ahead still. For example, Pfizer will publish acute 10d data soon? which already has preliminary data showing faster symptom resolution and less rebound.

NIH/Yale/Karolinska will publish their 25d/15d/15d Long COVID Paxlovid studies to see what phenotypes may benefit from extended durations.

And next gen Paxlovid is already on an accelerated approval path and showed great results at IDWeek. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06679140#study-plan

It is odd to me because he even wrote a piece about the next gen Paxlovid? Why didn't he reference it! It's in phase 3... https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/next-paxlovid

Pfizer did a preliminary study(the FDA asked them) and quietly published their results on the topic. their data implies a second treatment might shorten the overall duration of the infection consistent with the studies i allude to above. but you probably haven't heard about this news!

https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05567952?tab=results

my general thoughts on this article and science "journalism" lately: https://x.com/atranscendedman/status/1856467031157289327

background: 4 years of long covid, work on nih efforts to cure it, and i don’t want anyone to suffer like millions of us do. so i share reliable info with the world.

note: paxlovid is a first-generation drug. in 2025, derek should follow more science rather than zeroing in on one study or griping about the taste when it can prevent your life from flipping upside down with long covid. he has literally written on the next version of it as well.

many elderly patients who are only vaccinated still develop long covid and are often dismissed due to their age. nobody deserves that when an antiviral is available until next-gen vaccine 2b trials finish soon and more treatment options hit the usa market later this year.

A responsible science reporter should present the full body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from a single study.

Currently, a 900-person study is exploring Paxlovid’s potential for three clusters of Long COVID patients using a novel ultra-sensitive single-molecule assay. While many question its effectiveness in short treatment durations, there is reason to believe it could have extended benefits, similar to treatments for hepatitis C or feline coronavirus infections.

Having read and shared thousands of studies on SARS-CoV-2 and Long COVID, I find it irresponsible to dismiss a drug based on a single study, especially when broader research suggests that access to antivirals may reduce the risk of developing Long COVID, even among vaccinated individuals.

New antivirals are awaiting FDA approval, and an updated version of Paxlovid is in development. Derek’s analysis is not only misleading but also incorrect, and it would be best if he reconsidered the reach of his words.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00456-x

Did this happen after a known infection of some sort? Does it run in your family? These questions may be important to know the answers to until science gets more tests over the counter as they are fairly close already.

Many viruses are linked to cancers, MS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, T1D and so on. Research is finding that some of these viruses may actually be low grade infections or left over viral proteins causing constant immune dysfunction.

People who claimed they never got SARS-CoV-2 for example were tested with a novel ultra sensitive single molecule assay and found that 99.9% of individuals samples were indeed asymptomatically infected.

Here’s an earlier version of this claim showing 95%.

https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/230/3/e601/7639429

Some of these individuals later went on to develop Long COVID. They are using this assay in an antiviral trial to see if it reduces the amount of SCV2 proteins this assay can detect.

https://youtu.be/B1sFSW94JZg?si=7mvHAJGjrJiOLaW7

Here’s yet another study suggesting persistent symptoms in kids.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

More than willing to provide a list of studies demonstrating viral persistence as well.