Lucibee
LightNews LightNews
banner
lucibee.bsky.social
Lucibee
@lucibee.bsky.social
1.5K followers 720 following 3.3K posts
Science defender and eco-worrier.
(she/her)
Posts Replies Media Videos
lucibee.bsky.social
also... look at the byline...
November 28, 2025 at 11:54 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
It's also highly likely that it's not just reporting "persistent" fatigue, but *worsening* fatigue.

Look at the questionnaire. Look at what it is DOING.

Each timepoint - I am worse than usual. I am getting worse.
A copy of the chalder fatigue scale.
November 28, 2025 at 11:46 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
Just another day, shouting into the void. 😩

#ChalderFatigueSyndrome
Tweet from Prof Anthony Costello about CLoCk's latest fatigue study in kids with long covid. My reply: You can't use CFQ as a repeated measures instrument!!!
November 28, 2025 at 11:15 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
I'll just leave this here... (an interaction over at the other place)

#Camelford
Twitter convo in mid January 2020: Lucibee: "the most likely explanation of the Camelford findings is that the perception of normal and benign somatic symptoms (physical or mental) by both subjects and health professionals was heightened and subsequently attributed to an external, physical cause, such as poisoning." SW (Simon Wessely)/AD (Anthony David) From "The Legend of Camelford: medical consequences of a water pollution accident." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7760298/ That's what paywalls are for. Hiding unfortunate opinions that lead to government inaction. Simon Wessley then replies: Am afriad you are mistaken. The paper wasn't "hidden" - it's here for free on my website - and it didn't lead to "government inaction". There were a series of inquiries, the last published in 2013 and found no delayed or long term effects. https://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/Publications/Other_p/camelford.pdf Lucibee replies (sarcastically): *phew* That's OK then!
November 27, 2025 at 2:31 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
8. But it turned out that NIH had made similar funding calls in 2003 and 2006, using a nearly identical copy of the original funding application call. (2003 uses "medically", 2006 uses "clinically").

That ref then sent me off to find out more about Bill Costerton: journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/...
Screenshot of my tweets: ...although to be fair the same quote does appear in the 2006 NIH grant application call. ...which I found in this paper, a tribute to J.W. Costerton, which correctly references the NIH grant calls (2003 and 2006, this time). Highlighted text reads: "Full validation that research on biofilms must be done was when the U.S. National Institutes of Health publicly announced: "Biofilms are medically important, accounting for over 80% of microbial infections in the body."
November 27, 2025 at 11:58 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
7. As an addendum, I also noticed that even 8+ years after the original NIH call, papers were still saying NIH had made this statement "recently"...
Screenshot of my tweet: And here's another paper that uses the correct quote, but still doesn't acknowledge that this comes from NIH's 1998 funding application call. [shows front page of paper from 2006]
November 27, 2025 at 11:52 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
5. After a bit of digging, I managed to identify what seemed to be the source of the zombie stat.

...via this press release: www.newswise.com/articles/nee...

...I zeroed in on this grant application call: grants.nih.gov/grants/guide...
Screenshot of my tweets: I think I'm getting closer. I found another reference to the NIH announcement in 1999: a Science article (by Greenberg et al.) "comes in the wake of the NIH announcement to make biofilm research a priority." [link to newswise press release] ...which leads to this document: [NIH grant application call] ...which makes this (unreferenced statement): "Biofilms are medically important, accounting for over 80 percent of microbial infections in the body."
November 27, 2025 at 11:38 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
4. So. Yesterday's was courtesy of Dr Evonne Curran @evonnetcurran.bsky.social
[full X thread here: x.com/EvonneTCurra... ]

It starts with the statement (ZS) that "65-80% of all bacteria and chronic infections arise from biofilms".
Screenshot of tweet from Dr Evonnne Curran: See when you are writing a book - you need the original citations, ie who did the work. A they-said-it paper is not good enough. Biofilm - let's begin... Maillard says that "it has been estimated... 65-80% of all bacteria and chronic infections arise from biofilms." They cite Jamal... ...But Jamal cites Lewis, which is a What-they-said paper and not the primary source... So let's look Lewis... Lewis says that the US Institutes of Health say it, but does not give a reference. [they also say "more than 60% of all microbial infections are caused by biofilms."]
November 27, 2025 at 11:30 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
He presents some stats from the ONS survey on Long Covid

#UKCovidInquiry
At March 2023, across the UK, for just the 381,000 [people with] Long Covid whose daily activities are "limited a lot": - 16.7% were no longer in paid work and had no work income. - 11.5% were no longer in paid work but were receiving work income such as sick pay or permanent health insurance. - 23.5% had reduced paid work hours. - £5.7 billion lost income from infection to Feb 2023 - cumulative total. - £4.8 billion cost of informal caregiving from infection to Feb 2023 - cumulative total.
November 26, 2025 at 3:04 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
At least Stimulate-ICP actually states that it ended in August 2025 - www.stimulate-icp.org

#LongCovidResearch
Screenshot of the Stimulate-ICP website.
November 24, 2025 at 6:57 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
Although the Commons Briefing document I posted a few days ago mentions several impressive-looking studies, I'm not sure whether any of them are still running.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CB...
Commons Library Research Briefing document, 30 October 2024. Major research studies [Long Covid] In the UK, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) have funded a range of studies to improve understanding of the condition.[36] Major studies include: • REACT Long COVID: this study is gathering data using surveys and interviews to help researchers understand experiences of long covid and why some people are affected by longer-term symptoms.[37] In October 2023, these researchers reported that persistent symptoms were associated with female sex, higher deprivation, pre-existing health conditions, more severe acute Covid-19 symptoms and being infected with the original “Wild-type” SARS-Cov-2 variant. The study also found that mental health and quality of life were worse among patients with ongoing symptoms.[38] • The TLC Study: this research is using a digital app and tracking devices to collect information on patients’ symptoms and activity. The researchers aim to work with patients to develop effective support for... (continues on next page) References 35 PQ 9967 [on: Long Covid: Medical Treatments] 18 November 2024 36 NIHR, Researching long COVID: addressing a new global health challenge, 12 May 2022 37 Imperial College London, REACT Long COVID, no date, accessed 29 November 2023 38 Christina J Atchison and others, Long-term health impacts of COVID-19 among 242,712 adults in England, Nature Communications, Vol 14, 24 October 2023 Coronavirus: Long covid - Commons Library Research Briefing, 31 October 2024. ...particular groups of symptoms that can be delivered via an app or nurses.[39] • Convalescence: this study is using a variety of research methods to explore definitions of long covid, risk factors and consequences of the condition and how changes to GP patient records could improve diagnosis and management.[40] In 2022, the researchers reported that prolonged symptoms after Covid-19 were associated with female sex, white ethnicity, poor pre-pandemic health, obesity and asthma.[41] • STIMULATE-ICP: this study is using a range of research methods to assess integrated care pathways for patients with long covid and to test common medicines to see if they are effective in treating long covid.[42] In 2024, the researchers reported that long covid was associated with female sex, non-white ethnicity, obesity and pre-existing medical conditions, including anxiety and type 2 diabetes.[43] They have also proposed a model for integrated, multidisciplinary care for patients with long covid and similar conditions.[44] • LOCOMOTION: this study used a range of research methods to examine existing models of care for patients with long covid to develop a ‘gold standard’ for care in different settings. This will include developing and implementing guidelines and assessing the impact of long covid services.[45] In 2024, the researchers published their key findings, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary care and involving people with lived experience in the design and evaluation of long covid services.[46] The NIHR have published an article providing more details of ongoing and completed studies on long covid.[47] In addition, it has published two summaries of research evidence on long covid: living with Covid19 and living with Covid19 – Second review.[48]
November 24, 2025 at 6:46 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
[with alt text]
The Daily Politik Unpaid carers not in paid work and not seeking employment are typically classifed as economically inactive. According to the most recent data from Carers UK, there are 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK as of December 2024 with 2.6 million of these having given up paid work to care. This represents about 9% of the adult population providing regular unpaid support to family members, friends, or others with illnesses, disabilities, or age-related needs. Unpaid carers play a vital role in our society, contributing an estimated £184 billion in economic vlaue annually. Social Care services would collapse overnight without them. They deserve support and recognition, yet over 1.2 million live in poverty (50% higher rate than non-carers), with 1 in 10 in "deep poverty" unable to afford food or heating.
November 23, 2025 at 2:08 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
Statement from CATA (COVID Airborne Transmission Alliance) in response to #UKCovidInquiry report into module 2:

"Lady Hallett Shouldn’t Hold Her Breath" while waiting for the UK Government to implement the Inquiry's recommendations

www.bohs.org/media-resour...
Lady Hallett Shouldn’t Hold Her Breath, says Health Campaign Group November 21, 2025 The leaders of the COVID Airborne Transmission Alliance (CATA) are advising Baroness Hallett not to hold her breath while waiting for implementation of recommendations in the long-awaited Module 2 report of the long-running COVID-19 Inquiry. The group, formed to represent tens of thousands of healthcare professional and employee bodies, was a core participant for Module 3. It continues to highlight the UK’s failure to protect healthcare workers from life-changing respiratory diseases. BOHS - British Occupational Hygience Society - The Chartered Society for Worker Health Protection
November 23, 2025 at 11:54 AM
lucibee.bsky.social
Module 2 of the Inquiry also mentioned in this Commons Briefing document.

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CB...
Commons Library Research Briefing, 31 October 2024 (p29) The UK Covid-19 Inquiry The UK Covid-19 Inquiry is the independent public inquiry that is examining the UK’s response to and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.98 Groups representing patients affected by long covid, including the charities Long Covid SOS, Long Covid Support and Long Covid Kids have contributed evidence to the inquiry. In September 2023, the three charities submitted a joint opening statement to module 2 of the inquiry. This module is focused on UK decision-making and political governance.99 The statement highlighted concerns about delayed... ...recognition of the longer-term effects of Covid-19 and raised six key questions about long covid: 1. What decision-makers’ understanding of long-term sequelae and Long Covid was; 2. What was the role of patient advocacy in the recognition and response to Long Covid; 3. Was there data collection and modelling of Long Covid 4. Was the prevalence and the risk of Long Covid taken into account when decisions, like the imposition and then easing of non-pharmaceutical interventions, were adopted; 5. How - and to what extent - did decision makers warn the public about the risk of developing Long Covid and take the disease into account in public health communications; and 6. Whether nearly 2 million people suffering from Long Covid today was avoidable?
November 22, 2025 at 10:08 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
Brightling and Evans directly contradicted Whitty, Horby, and Harries:
7.3. Following a respiratory viral infection, the proportion of people that would have chronic symptoms is uncertain and is variable in those infected with the same virus and moreover is different between viral infections. Insights from SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV were limited as follow-up studies were small. However, the available evidence suggested that the post-viral sequelae following these infections were common and ranged from mild-to-severe. Lessons from research of survivors of ARDS and intensive care also provided evidence of substantial persistent symptoms in many for at least five years [Herridge M 2011]. 7.4. Thus, it was foreseeable that there were going to be long-term sequelae from COVID-19 extrapolated from previous coronavirus pandemics and previous knowledge of post-viral syndromes. Even though the scale of these consequences was unknown if long-term sequelae followed a similar trajectory to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV it was likely that post-infection sequelae would be common and could in some cases be severe. Unlike SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV the rapid transmission of SARS-CoV2 identified early in the pandemic predicted the incidence of infection would be very high and consequently the incidence of the Long Covid was also likely to be high. 7.5. Prior to a pandemic, estimates of the incidence and severity of post-viral sequelae would have an enormous uncertainty as the likelihood of long-term sequelae, their severity and the transmission rate would be all unknown and would need to be considered and modelled for different possible pathogens. However, early identification of SARS-CoV2, the severity of the infection and rate of transmission gave valuable information that could have been used to predict the likely incidence and severity of Long Covid.
November 22, 2025 at 4:43 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
This paragraph from Brightling and Evans' report is very concerning.

The government stopped the long-term follow-up of cohort studies in 2021. 🤦
5.10. It is our opinion, shared with many of the participants of the National Long Covid research group, that there has been a lack of progression in research funding from mid-2021. Further discussion of current and future research, along with potential gaps are described in M3. Overall, there is no ongoing funding for longer term follow-up of the existing cohort studies [Routen A 2022], the CIS [Covid Infection Survey] through ONS was stopped in March 2023, and no precision medicine studies were funded including no funding for mechanistic studies as part of Stimulate-lCP. The latter means that Stimulate-I GP may not be able to identify any variability in response to treatments that would inform next steps. There remains a substantial number of people suffering from Long Covid and there remain unanswered questions about causes, diagnostic tests and any specific treatments. In contrast, the UK's early response to Long Covid during the pandemic in terms of research was better than compared with other countries for example the National Institute of Health Recover initiative started in February 2021 (albeit a sizeable investment of over $1 billion) with awards being made in summer 2021 and 2022 [recovercovid.org] The crisis we faced due to acute Covid has subsided and correctly health priorities have been reset to address other acute and long-term conditions. However, Long Covid is now amongst these important long-term conditions and requires support commensurate to the scale of the problem i.e., research funding should be similar to other long-term conditions with a similar burden of symptoms and impact on quality of life.
November 22, 2025 at 4:37 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
If there's anything to take away from that quote, it's that there is a wide range of possibilities and you literally cannot predict on the basis of severity.

But that does not mean you shouldn't prepare.
As Professor Whitty told the Inquiry: “Some very severe diseases rarely have post infection syndromes whilst other relatively trivial infections can have quite common and prolonged ones.”70 While the potential for long-term illnesses to occur is predictable, the scale and characteristics of those illnesses vary from virus to virus and cannot be predicted.71
November 22, 2025 at 4:15 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
3. Then we have Whitty's quote from his 4th witness statement (para 12.2).

How can it possibly be *unhelpful* to prepare for a post-infectious syndrome?

covid19.public-inquiry.uk/documents/in...
Extract from Chris Whitty's fourth witness statement reads: 12.2. The fact that post viral syndromes occur, and indeed postinfectious syndromes more widely, does not however mean that Long COVID as it manifested was predictable. Different infections and different situations leading to different syndromes are common. Some very severe diseases rarely have post infection syndromes whilst other relatively trivial infections can have quite common and prolonged ones. It is therefore both true, but also largely unhelpful, to say there might be a postinfectious syndrome'. In itself this would not obviously have helped us respond in the initial period.
November 22, 2025 at 4:01 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
I know I was not the only one to be concerned about that possibility in early 2020.

So where were the actual professionals???
Screenshot of tweet from Lucibee on X on 13 March 2020: "Saw this paper the other day. If SARS had long-term sequelae, what havoc could COVID-19 potentially wreak?" [with link to study on pubmed]
November 22, 2025 at 3:55 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
2. Peter Horby is then cited as saying that, in his personal experience, SARS and MERS don't lead to long-term sequelae.

It's a shame he seemed unaware of the literature on SARS survivors that very much shows this is not true: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20008700/
November 22, 2025 at 3:50 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
Back to part 1 of the Module 2 report, and this section of chapter 1, which covers Long Covid.

There are a few things here that are just incorrect. Although if these are the presumptions of those involved, it explains why we are where we are.

covid19.public-inquiry.uk/reports/modu...
Complications or resulting conditions 1.51. Viral infections can cause long-term illnesses – known as ‘long-term sequelae’ – after the initial acute infection. While these may appear rare for most viruses, large numbers of cases can occur at the same time when the virus is at the scale of a pandemic.68Not all viruses will cause significant long-term illnesses, and this was not a “major common problem” for viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), which causes SARS and is closely related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, which causes Covid-19) and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), which causes MERS.69 As Professor Whitty told the Inquiry: “Some very severe diseases rarely have post infection syndromes whilst other relatively trivial infections can have quite common and prolonged ones.”70 1.52. While the potential for long-term illnesses to occur is predictable, the scale and characteristics of those illnesses vary from virus to virus and cannot be predicted.71 The long-term illnesses arising from Covid-19 are commonly described as Long Covid. Over 200 symptoms of Long Covid have been reported, though it often involves fatigue, breathlessness and ‘brain fog’, impacting on both mental and physical function and leading to disability and impaired health.72 Much remains unknown about the mechanisms causing Long Covid.73 The percentage of those who go on to develop it following infection with Covid-19 also remains unknown – the World Health Organization has estimated that between 10% and 20% of infected people will develop Long Covid.74 Chapter 1 footnotes - annotated to say where they have come from - mainly Chris Whitty and Jenny Harries' Fourth witness statements, and Chris Brighling and Rachael Evans' Report on Long Covid.
November 22, 2025 at 3:40 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
So I was hoping the report would expand on Prof Cath Noakes's evidence on ventilation.

But, surprisingly, the only time they mention her, is in reference to "unmanageable workloads" and "impossible timescales" and "lack of adequate funding". 🤔

What happened to her actual advice???
This confusion was compounded by the tendency of government departments to directly approach SAGE sub-groups for advice rather than routing their requests in the appropriate manner.177 The use of direct commissions subjected participants to intense and unmanageable workloads. Professor Catherine Noakes, Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Leeds and Chair of the Environmental Modelling Group, a sub-group of SAGE, recalled that these commissions often came from the Cabinet Office with “almost impossible timescales”.178 The Inquiry agrees with Professor Whitty’s reflection: “[A]n early central clearinghouse for policy requests to SAGE and its subgroups with senior scientists and policymakers triaging the requests would have improved prioritisation.”179 Limited funding led to severe staff shortages in the later phases of the pandemic, which put an “intolerable burden” on those involved in the response.357 Members relied on their colleagues to take on extra duties and on their employers to allow them time away from their academic research.358 Professor Noakes said that, although universities were provided with funding to “buy out” time for SAGE participants, this was “nowhere close to the financial value of the time that experts put in”.359 It also led to a lack of clarity about the extent of participants’ responsibilities. Professor Noakes stated: “At times the lines between external participants on SAGE and what would be expected if I was a civil servant felt like they were blurred, in terms of the time input and number of requests … it felt like some in government forgot that external participants of SAGE had day jobs in a university alongside the advice they were giving around the pandemic response.”360
November 21, 2025 at 6:59 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
First, this extract from the report, on ventilation.

As I remember, Wales were fairly hopeless on ventilation and face masks (particularly in my interactions at vaccination centres) - but this paints a somewhat different picture.

covid19.public-inquiry.uk/reports/modu...
Text extract: 12.34. Later, on 5 November 2021, an explanatory film, ‘Stop COVID-19 Hanging Around’, was launched to demonstrate the effect of ventilation on reducing Covid-19 levels.65 12.35. The Welsh Government’s Coronavirus Control Plan for Wales, published in August 2020, alerted the public to the importance of ventilation: “to support prevention efforts and to support the management of new cases and clusters: … Ensure indoor spaces are well ventilated, with good passage of air.”66 12.36. Likewise, the Coronavirus Control Plan: Alert Levels in Wales – A Guide to Restrictions, published in December 2020, referred to behaviours that the Welsh Government was asking the public to adopt, which included “keeping your home well ventilated”.67 While this was a helpful step in alerting the public to the importance of ventilation, the Inquiry has not seen evidence of any specific campaigns referring to the importance of ventilation in Wales until both the Hands, Face, Space, Air and Stop COVID-19 Hanging Around campaigns were launched in Wales in March 2021 and November 2021 respectively.68
November 21, 2025 at 6:53 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
I've just suggested this to your third party, and this is their reply:
Email from KidsWebServices reads: Hello, Thanks for contacting KWS. We manage verification for BlueSky. I am sorry to hear that you’re unhappy with our verification methods. Unfortunately, the only methods we currently have available in your region are the ones shown during the age verification process. KWS will continue to explore new verification methods that will be both reliable and accessible to as many as possible. However, at this time, we’re unable to offer any alternatives. I am sorry about that. If you have any feedback, please do not hesitate to let us know. I will ensure that this is recorded and delivered to the most relevant people. Kind Regards,
November 21, 2025 at 3:14 PM
lucibee.bsky.social
This was useful. So I now know I at least can’t overdose by using blobs of this size, so next, I measured the average (~7mm) and drew a circle of that diameter on my gel applicator (top of an oestrogel pump).
November 21, 2025 at 12:41 PM