It's a nice story, and hopefully this leads to some useful therapy, but it's a sample size of _one_ person. There is no proof that the covid infection triggered remission, although it's a valid _hypothesis_.
Its a “we encountered X anomaly, which is very i interesting and hopeful, and we arent taking money to get lambos. Plz give funding”
Just the scientific method,
Case 0 (we are effed, ppl die. God will be done)
Case 1 (ooooh) - case study
Case E(mperical, study funding yay - larger chunk of department funding allotted)
Case E+1 Peer review, fellow/sister studies adding proof. Sometimes skipped for major which bring experience or reputation, often natural sciences due the existence of logical verification methods.
* For social sciences, we have tests such as ANOVA, Eta^2 and Omega^2 (McDonald’s reliability) - there is an absence of logical verifications here due to systemic constraints, ie: its impossible to do studies with (Inf) participants.
Case E+1 -> N+1 (proof or generialized applicability, or enough confidence to yolo a vaccine or medicine or new tech onto the population)
Edited: actually E comes before N and N+1 by expanding the case study to studies with control groups and more participants.
I have MS (brain damage, makes me forgetful and erratic/eccentric) and suck at self promotion. I wouldnt know where to start.
In my editing bonanza, i cut an important step:
Case N(umerical hypothesis, doctoral work and more funding for the PhD: hypothesis getting formulated in more rigorous ways, maybe finding roots and improving on older methods, comparing with older methods, or disproving older methods)
I cant seem to edit the comment anymore, i will come back to it later today and see! For now, i posted it as a new submission and hope it finds audience