Search results

Cummings acknowledged in her earlier work that her subjects were drawn from the milder end of the Long Covid spectrum and that her findings don't cover the needs of more severely affected people. I can't see a similar acknowledgement here, although I might have missed it.

Some of the chapter is about difficulties that might result from stroke, intubation in hospital, etc. Most of the 'post Covid condition' section looks largely the same as author's previous paper...

From the UCL link: More definition creep around PEM...

The AI "summary" is longer than the original text and its version of the 'Aims of the Event' includes things which aren't in the original. I do appreciate the effort and intention in posting it but these AI things often just introduce confusion (and we get enough confusion already).

https://mas.to/@brianvastag/115390872484611125 i.e. a group of patients who might be more likely to recover/improve anyway?

Brian Vastag is posting live comments from a "Clinician's Roundtable: Microdosing GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonists in MECFS and Long Covid", an event sponsored by Renegade Research. It's a long thread, sorry I can't copy and paste everything relevant. Cases of recovery, also various caveats and...

Still can't find the quote I'm looking for but did spot this one with Walitt saying "effort preference" plays "an important role in other disorders such as MS and Parkinsons". How's that idea working out, I wonder...

One of the other authors on the paper was quoted saying the 'effort preference' stuff wasn't an important finding and the interesting bit was the immunological results. (Sorry, can't remember if it was Nath or one of the others, or if the quote was on this thread or one of the others. I think it...

LLM-generated text probably for an auto-generated "news aggregator".

It's good to see that ME/CFS is listed as an exclusion, separated from FND which is an inclusion.

Mysterious indeed :emoji_thinking:

The word "likely", in a phrase that tries to sound authoritative but isn't, suggests it's LLM-generated.

I was about to say 'ooh, I applied to participate in this study but never heard back from them', but then I looked at the participant information sheet that was emailed to me and it says there was going to be a component of cognitive testing and 'measuring blood flow to the brain', which doesn't...

TRE's one of those solutions in search of a problem, isn't it. Like cold water immersion. Same sort of underlying philosophy.

Awful ignorance.

And though it's impossible to know this from what they've published, as usual I wonder whether these increases and decreases represent what actually happened for every patient or whether those averages are squashing out a lot of variation among individuals.

The figure in the PDF shows that while certain cells increased in the exercise group, they decreased in the 'usual care' group over the same time period - would that be a normal thing to see as part of normal fluctuations, or would that decrease have to be caused by something?