To be clear: she claims the glucocorticocoid problem is in GWI, not necessarily ME. She doesn't yet have a mouse model for our illness, which appears distinct from GWI. I didn't read it as 'stress causes GWI', but even if she is saying that, it doesn't mean ME follows suit. GWI occurs in the...
So it could be good, but I too have some reservations at the moment. From what he's said, it sounds to me like he was maybe only involved in the FND paper in a minimal way (perhaps just to get more credits to his name?), but it's not exactly inspiring. I'm glad he's spoken out and said he...
It probably would be helpful. NICE has said it will include patient evidence because research is so poor in this area. A document created by patient consensus with a critical, scientific eye would be helpful to add into the mix.
That said, things like the 2014 IACFS primer will undoubtedly also...
'A thing of beauty' kinda gives the game away. They admire it for its supposed cleverness. Because it hoodwinks a bunch of people in what they thought was a well crafted way.
Why else would you call an honest, scientific study 'a thing of beauty'? You might call it 'an example of rigorous...
I had read somewhere that it was the cyclo and not the ritux that helped in the first place, and I remembered thinking it weird that they were going after the wrong drug.
I suspected he was one of the good ones (remember seeing his name lots of times before), but I don't think the paper is super clear on what's helping. Multimodal therapy sounds like the multidisciplinary teams of existing CFS clinics. My suspicion is that this could be used to 'prove' the...
From the minutes, the whole thing looks like it was manipulated. I don't trust that they acknowledged harms properly from the minutes. However, I've removed my comment anyway, given your objection.
But what is the multimodal therapy of which he speaks? Is he saying GET helps range of movement, or just that patients get better over time? It's really not clear to me from this paper.
None whatsoever. I rather liked going for walks in the park. But the dizziness during and sheer flu-like exhaustion afterwards was what finally convinced me I had to stop. Then I did more research and realised it was contraindicated.
This gives me exactly the same number as Trish's way.
55/63 = 0.8730.
0.8730 x 7 = 6.11111...
55/9 = 6.11111... too.
Feeding that number back into the formula gives me:
Logit(p) = 7.09 + [2.27 * 7] + [3.39 * 7] - [2.57 * 5] - [1.97 * 5] - [2.52 * 6.1] = 8.64.
p = e^8.64 / 1 + e^8.64 =...
I, too, started pushing myself a few years back because everywhere said GET was the answer. I'd had ME 15 years by that point without a proper diagnosis and just managed to deal with it. Then I pushed, and crashed, and it got worse. And it was only tiny amounts of exertion. The last three years...
Done. The trial minutes show they didn't deal with adverse events properly. They knew they were happening, but just told participants to ignore them or, according to patients who were in the trial, these patients were never followed up.
sodium dichloroacetate
Absolutely. I would never dream of trying something like sodium dichloroacetate. It sounds like nasty stuff. Some of the side effects: 'dichloroacetate kills brain, breast and lung cancer cells'; and causes 'nerve damage resulting in weakness and numbness, liver damage...
Oops! I wasn't dividing my total FSS number by 9! D'oh!
I've done the equation and it looks like I have an almost 100% chance of recovery (I got 0.9998).
That's interesting!
Could you post your numbers and working for me? I still can't wrap my head around it and keep getting numbers way off what they should be. It doesn't help that the explanations are all quite long and I'm in a major crash right now, post-NICE.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.