Search results

Looked at some of these studies like Li 2022 or Romanet 2023 and they focused on patients discharged from hospital with pulmonary problems so quite different from the ME/CFS subtype of Long Covid.

Don't quite understand what you mean by this? Isn't the problem simply that these trials did not include a non-exercise control group (and thus cannot estimate the effect of exercise)?

Could you give an example?

Cognitive symptoms are one of the required symptoms in many ME/CFS case definitions, so this seems like a circular argument.

There is a new comment by Lillebeth Larun, the primary author: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003200.pub9/detailed-comment/en?messageId=451624933

On Twitter Wigglethemouse also suggested this study as problematic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Kurup+RK%5BAuthor%5D+digoxin%5BTitle%5D And the Perez study using 23 and ME data: Genetic Predisposition for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Pilot Study 2019...

Ha, that's interesting. So post-exertional malaise became 'submit-exertional malaise'?

Yes it's quite helpful to see the distribution of fatigue scores. The mean was no different between groups: both around 13 which is rather low for the Chalder Fatigue Scale (0-33). In comparison participants of the PACE trial had a score near 28. But the Sars-Cov-2 positives seem to have...

Seems like a very high percentage in Long Covid patients.

Could you clarify what you mean, where there differences in GPCR AAb in this study?

Abstract Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating disorder characterized by serious physical and cognitive impairments. Recent research underscores the role of immune dysfunction, including the role of autoantibodies, in ME/CFS pathophysiology. Expanding on...

Seems to be the case for the proportion that report fatigue and headache, which did not increase much in the COVID-19[+]PS group as it was already high. For shortness of breath there is a strong increase.

Persistent symptoms following Sars-Cov-2 infection were defined as reporting "both shortness of breath and fatigue at least five times after their positive SARS-CoV-2 test." Based on these criteria you would expect that they exclude patients with fatigue and shortness of breath at the study...

Side-thought: it must be really frustrating to be a true scientist amongst this mess of fraud and incompetence. Imagine funding going to 'exciting' but totally untrustworthy or incredible studies over and over again, while valuable work gets overlooked. Promotions going to people with 50...

True, this is specified later in the blog and Twitter thread but was difficult to include in the title. Yes, good point. I remember people posting studies where the text included sentences of the prompting or an introduction such as: 'Certainly, here is a possible introduction for your topic'...

New blog post about fraud and research misconduct in scientific research. https://mecfsskeptic.com/how-many-scientific-papers-are-fake/ Twitter summary: 1) How many scientific papers are fake? A new review argues that fabrication and falsification of scientific results may be more common...

Was only able to briefly skim the protocol but I think it looks good and addresses most of the problems raised with the Larun et al. 2019 version. For example, it includes objective outcomes and reports of harm from non-randomized studies. A (minor) point of critique is that it overstates the...

The diagnoses of CFS and fibromyalgia were self-reported: At the start of the study, 1.4% of the 9132 participants reported chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia.

Abstract Background: Individuals living with chronic conditions (CC) typically have a higher risk of more severe outcomes when exposed to infection. Although many studies have investigated the relationship between CCs and COVID-19 severity, they are generally limited to clinical or hospitalized...

There are other (better) studies on health-related quality of life in ME/CFS but I suspect these were excluded because they used the Fukuda-definition. Perhaps this review is a good example of why excluding studies that did not require PEM is not always a good idea?