This BMJ highlight on movement from "immunity debt" to COVID's direct role in immune harm is a welcome shift The evidence on T cell dysregulation driving secondary risks has been mounting and it's good to see mainstream outlets engaging it seriously 1/

In 2020 I argued against "debt", emphasizing Covid's lymphomanipulative pathways (T cell apoptosis, exhaustion, aging) causing immune harm This drew massive ire Labeled "crank"/"fraud," threats of op-eds pressuring labs, and a rescinded postdoc I sacrificed hugely for candor 2/

Detractors confidently pushed alternate explanations and villified me back then now, as data aligns with booming opportunistics, they're silent. no acknowledgment, no "perhaps we were harsh." 3/

I was interviewed for BMJ pieces on these themes but removed amid drama/controversy. The cost was mine; I received all the negative effects of the controversial ideas at the time, but now the ideas are quietly adopted. 4/

It's sad and disappointing I am grieving the expectation that evidence would bring redemption or fairness. Early truth-tellers pay the price (isolation, career hits), while the field absorbs the insights without looking back. 5/

I'm not asking for apologies, just hoping the historical ledger employs the same duty of candor that I had rather than convenience. end