Search results

I just spilt my coffee!

I have both asthma and ME. Are my thoughts somewhere between helpful and unhelpful?

I'll tell my fiance he's a therapeutic tool. I wonder how he'll take that!

Hasn't glutamate been suggested before?

I was thinking that too.

There's a really worrying comment here. This is not okay. He sounds like a sadist and there's a very real safeguarding issue here. It's beyond creepy.

Done.

I've just started using HRV again after seeing this thread. It does capture my crashes quite well, and even when I'm feeling better the LF and HF numbers are still off.

I'm not sure this is the best place for discussing experimental meds. In general, none of us can give medical advice anyway. Wikipedia lists the following side-effects: That's quite a list.

Easy enough mistake to make. That would make more sense, though, to stop people gaming the system like that.

Was he assessed and rejected before the start of the new financial year? If so, perhaps he can reapply this year? It would make sense to put everything in near the end of the year, so that when it's rejected, you can submit again within a few months because it'll be a new financial year.

So really, we should be expecting failure most of the time, with the assumption that researchers will try again until they get it right or come up with a better idea.

Yeah, normally you'd anticipate their objections and try to answer them in advance. It happens in the arts funding world, too. But usually if you get turned away, you ask for feedback, tweak, and resubmit. You don't give up. Then again, the Arts Council's Project Grants scheme has about a 38%...

Thanks for the helpful clarification.

One might be a married name?

That's one way of looking at it, but consider the other: if charities don't submit, then who will get the tender? Would that work out better or worse for the charities and the people they represent in the long run?

I'm just picturing mice being given interferon, and being quizzed on how depressed they are!

As you say, VO2 at VT is reduced in all but one of the studies, but not always by very large amounts. Only half look significant (the ones you've bolded). That raises questions of reliability. A measure that only produces a clear result half the time is worrying.

Maybe they mean that the CI and SVI contribute to disability in ME, but don't track with the different severity types. So they make the disease severe, but they don't vary if the disease is more severe. If so, it's very poor wording on their choice.

So it looks like the results are sort of all over the place on these CPET studies?