Search results

Thanks, the two studies these refer to are I believe: 2020 Lipkin study: Plasma proteomic profiling suggests an association between antigen driven clonal B cell expansion and ME/CFS | PLOS ONE 2021 Sato study: Skewing of the B cell receptor repertoire in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic...

Looks interesting. The first author is Audrey Ryback who is also trying to replicate the 'something in the blood' theory, as explained by Simon Mcgrath here: Remarkable researchers hunting for ‘something in the blood’ of people with ME | Science for ME

More than a month later and there is still no peer review or reply from the authors to the comments made.

Thanks for the suggestions. It seems that misuse of the term skeptic has become so common (i.e. as in climate skeptics) that a correct use of the term has become confusing to most people. We still plan on changing the name but needed some more time to consider the best options. Will probably...

Later in the text they write: So that suggests that one ME/CFS symptom is enough to meet the ME/CFS-like definition. What they call ME/CFS should have been named ME/CFS-like to be consistent with the literature. And what they named ME/CFS-like shouldn't have been named anything.

Bit sad that they got more than 1 billion in funding and this is the best they could do...

Made a Twitter summary with comments here: https://bsky.app/profile/mecfsskeptic.bsky.social/post/3lfnfst3mev2u 1) The RECOVER study found that adults who got a SARS-CoV-2 infection were approximately 5 times as likely to develop ME/CFS. But there are some important caveats… 2) The main one...

What the paper doesn't really discuss is that the rate of ME/CFS in the acute-infected - 73 of 4,515 (1.6%) - was much lower than in the post-acute infected - 458 of 7,270 (6.3%). The former was enrolled within 30 days of infection.

I think the main reasons are: 1) Many ME/CFS patients are not diagnosed yet. Other have received other diagnoses such as chronic Lyme, POTS, MCAS, CCI, etc that cause confusion and break up the patient community into smaller parts. 2) A lot of ME/CFS patients are disconnected from family and...

Ok thanks, that's useful to know.

I would argue that the causal path is valuable for researchers, and an indication of what treatment to use is useful for doctors, but for patients it can simply be enough to have a description of what you're going through. Even if the pathology or treatment for many us turns out to be very...

Thanks a lot @forestglip and @Nightsong Will send a message to the authors asking for a clarification. Let's hope it just some minor error that they uploaded the wrong Excel sheet or used the wrong SNP identifiers or something like that. Everything else in the paper seems plausible: they cite...

Trying to understand where they extracted the data from. The paper refers to reference 8, a meta-analysis by Howard et al. 2019 of the three biggest GWAS studies on depression. The supplementary material of this study shows the 102 SNPs that reached statistical significance (P < 5 × 10-8)...

This seems like quite an important study. Hopefully, it will get some more discussion and analysis. @Jonathan Edwards @Simon M @Chris Ponting @chillier The major limitation is the risk of misdiagnosis but the results look so strong that they might be immune to even large rates of...

Important update from the European ME Coalition: The results of the Horizon Europe call on high-burden, under-researched conditions have been made public. 3 (out of 4?) projects from the call have already been announced, receiving approximately 7 million each. They focus on endometriosis...

Yes, hard to see how misdiagnosis would bias the results towards no association, I would expect rather the opposite. It also seems that the authors did not exclude many SNPs because they were associated with ME/CFS confounders, so that probably also isn't an explanation for the lack of...

I suspect it refers to lifetime diagnosis, not prevalence. EDIT: the study it refers to writes: The Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R) | Depressive Disorders | JAMA | JAMA Network

Thanks for sharing. Doesn't seem to be much consideration that all three interventions may be losers rather than winners.

Thanks, had a look at and it mostly argues that because common and specific effects are correlated, it is incorrect to say how much % of the treatment is due to one over the other. Even if that is true, it doesn't refute the dodo bird effect or why it has been so difficult to demonstrate that...

Anyone know recent publications on this: does the conclusion still hold? Most papers discussing seem to be more than 10 years old. I found this one, but did not find it that good: The Dodo Bird Verdict--controversial, inevitable and important: a commentary on 30 years of meta-analyses - PubMed