Search results

Papers show that GPCR receptor autoantibodies occur in similar concentrations in ME/CFS patients and healthy controls, with a very large overlap in distributions. Therefore, they are not causing the disease. This was explained on another thread very recently.

That paper analysed baseline data as far as I can tell.

Trial protocol here: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/36/NCT01650636/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

If this is a secondary analysis, is there a paper describing the analysis of primary endpoint? The way they’re slicing and dicing the sample in an arbitrary way and looking at interactions makes me think the primary endpoint was negative.

My hopes for this are very low, especially given the six month delay.

I've also had various experiences of abrupt major improvement which make me rule out various hypotheses involving muscle pathology etc. On the rare occasion when I get a cold, my energy levels improve noticeably in the first day or two, then crash back to Usual Shitty Baseline combined with...

Those POTS exercise trials are of the same methodological quality as PACE and they also have huge dropout rates.

Every quack says the same thing about his quack therapies.

New CAR-T case report from China, this time in a patient with Sjögren's and lymphoma. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2023.1298815/full

That’s quite a leap. Anyway, the metabolic changes observed here are very similar to those reported in obesity studies. What they inadvertently looked at here is the effect of a hypercaloric diet.

Not sure why the poster on Twitter is saying the participants didn’t develop ME/CFS. I skimmed through the paper and I don’t see where they assessed if participants developed clinical symptoms of PEM, fatigue, cog dysfunction etc.

Funny how they have no problem dishing it out and ruining our lives with their writings but a little bit of heat comes their way on Twitter and they run away from confrontation.

Nah. Some trial protocols are flawed and need to be changed during a trial. There is nothing unethical per se about a protocol amendment. The issue here is that they knew what treatment everyone was on, they saw that the treatments weren’t working and they made protocol changes to rescue their...

He's also defending the protocol changes because they were done prior to statistical analysis. Of course, in a double-blind trial that would be fine, but in an open-label study you know what way the results are heading so it's indefensible.

FND physiotherapist shares his thoughts on the PACE trial. Lower down in the thread he mentions that 50% of his FND patients have PEM. https://x.com/zacharygrindpt/status/1747017130673938641

What treatment did he prescribe?

Was this ever followed up on to find out if anyone other than CS has the same abnormality?

I'm not sure what the forum rules are regarding posting people's contact details but the two corresponding authors' email addresses are listed at the bottom of the first page of the Nature Comms article.

To you the injustice is obvious since we have the lived experience of inhabiting in a body that crashes when it tries to move. Hard to prove to others without that lived experience that injustice has taken place when we have no understanding of biological mechanism or proof that exercise is...

Very surprising to see these statements exhibiting humility from Stone. Encouraging development.