Top Tweets for #Pasc

I have recently received several emails from people concerned about high VOC levels in their homes. The truth is, activated carbon is not an economical or highly effective solution for removing VOCs. Activated carbon itself has relatively low adsorption efficiency and a very limited capacity. So if you have high VOC concentrations indoors, you would need a large number of air purifiers and would have to replace the filters frequently. Some activated carbons are chemically modified to improve VOC adsorption, but unfortunately, they tend to release their own chemical odors as well. So this is not a cost‑effective solution. In fact, an HVAC system with fresh air intake is the best way to reduce VOCs in a home – but this approach only works when the source of VOCs is internal, such as building materials, furniture, or insulation that are off‑gassing indoors. By bringing in clean outdoor air and exhausting indoor air, you dilute the internally generated VOCs effectively. An added benefit is that this same exchange process also lowers indoor CO₂ levels – something that closed‑loop air purifiers (which only recirculate indoor air) simply cannot achieve. However, if the high VOC levels come from external sources – for example, wildfire smoke, nearby industrial emissions, or heavy traffic pollution – then introducing outdoor air will only make the problem worse. In such cases, you should keep windows and doors closed and rely on high‑efficiency air purifiers with activated carbon or other sorbent media (despite their limitations) to recirculate and clean the indoor air. If you don't have an HVAC system and the issue is internal, even a simple setup without heat recovery (like placing a fan and filter to bring outdoor air inward) is far more effective than relying on activated carbon alone – provided the outdoor air is clean.

🔴 Long COVID did not appear out of nowhere. For more than a century, medicine has described people who did not fully recover after infections. Different names. Different pathogens. Different eras. But often the same pattern: infection → partial recovery → persistent fatigue, pain, cognitive symptoms, sleep disruption, dysautonomia, gut symptoms or inflammatory disease Long COVID is new in scale. But post-infectious illness is not new. (1/62) 🧵

Want to know how medicine came to accept that a virus could destroy the human brain? Look at the history of herpes simplex encephalitis. It did NOT begin with 10 meta-analyses. It did not begin with thousands of longitudinal MRIs. It did not require decades of population-level epidemiology. 1941: Researchers reported a patient with acute encephalitis. They demonstrated characteristic intranuclear inclusions in the brain AND isolated herpes simplex virus from the brain. That is direct pathology + direct virology. 1944: Another fatal case, this time in a 25-year-old adult. Destructive brain pathology was found at autopsy, including hemorrhagic lesions and inflammation, and HSV was again isolated from the brain. Now the finding had been independently corroborated. 1950: The American Neurological Association published a paper simply titled: “Herpes simplex encephalitis.” Nine years after the original virologic/pathologic demonstration, it was being discussed as a named neurological disease. 1964: The Lancet published: “Early diagnosis of herpes-simplex encephalitis by brain biopsy.” Think about what that means. Doctors weren’t still asking whether HSV might damage the brain. They were putting needles into living patients’ brains to diagnose it early enough to do something about it. 1966: Annals of Internal Medicine published a 20-case series. That same year, JAMA described herpes simplex encephalitis as a specific diagnostic category that had already been “defined some years ago.” 1977: The NIH/NIAID Collaborative Antiviral Study conducted a controlled treatment trial in biopsy-proven herpes simplex encephalitis. Only 28 proven cases were needed to show that vidarabine reduced mortality from 70% to 28%. 1986: A randomized multicenter trial established acyclovir as the treatment of choice. So what was the timeline? Evidence that HSV could cause destructive encephalitis: 1941. A named neurological disease in the literature: within 9 years. Clinical protocols designed specifically to diagnose it: within ~23 years. Large clinical case series and explicit recognition as an established diagnostic category: ~25 years. Government-supported therapeutic trial: 36 years. Modern effective treatment established: 45 years. And notice what DIDN’T happen. Medicine did not wait until researchers understood every molecular mechanism. It did not demand proof that every HSV infection injured the brain. It did not demand 50 cohorts, 10 meta-analyses, thousands of MRIs and decades of follow-up before acknowledging that the phenomenon was real. The evidence accumulated. Pathology. Virus isolation. Replication. Clinical phenotype. More cases. Diagnostic criteria. Treatment trials. That is how science works. Evidence accumulates. Conclusions strengthen. Medicine responds. So maybe the question isn’t why the evidentiary bar suddenly requires a ladder to the moon. Maybe the question is this: With vastly more evidence, vastly better technology, and 40+ years of advances in imaging, molecular biology, pathology, epidemiology and computational science, why are we acting as though we need to move more slowly? We already have evidence that SARS-CoV-2 can cause neurological injury. We already have pathology. Imaging. Biomarkers. Cognitive testing. Longitudinal studies. Population-level epidemiology. Mechanistic studies. Replication across countries, laboratories and research groups. And the neurological consequences associated with SARS-CoV-2 are nowhere near as rare as herpes simplex encephalitis. So why are we still behaving as though acknowledging the phenomenon requires another generation of evidence? Think about the historical comparison. The first compelling virologic and pathological evidence for herpes simplex encephalitis appeared in 1941. By 1964, just 23 years later, clinicians were publishing protocols for diagnosing HSE by brain biopsy, and infectious diseases had become important enough in… 👇