Search results

Is it significant that the abstract makes no mention of GET or CBT being effective? Maybe there are no trials for children to show this. It would be weird if the evidence in children was considered to favour Lightning Process but not CBT or GET just because someone has done one trial.

I cannot get this on my college access yet. Does anyone know how to get the paper? It looks disappointing.

That to me is not an unreasonable summary. Most people agree there is heterogeneity and probably a range of causal factors, at least in initiation. In terms of neuropsychiatric features I think it is worth remembering that Angela Vincent is an authority on autoimmune encephalopathies and these...

The underlying disconnect is illustrated by the sentence: Diagnosis may depend on exclusion of a medical explanation of the symptoms, and require a high level of clinical expertise and judgement. Yet the recommendation is not to bother even with a neurology referral. The only rational...

This is the problem with the term neuroinflammation. Nobody knows quite what they mean by it so nobody knows what statements like this mean.

Yes, that is what Jo Cambridge suggested.

The problem for me and Jo Cambridge is that much as we would love to do these things we cannot work out what was done in the first place.

It doesn't seem to me that they `re actually hiding anything. It is just that the description is impossible to follow.

Some of it yes, but some of the things I do not understand are just how they actually did the experiment. The methods account seems more opaque every time I try to read it. I spent this afternoon trying to figure it out with Jo Cambridge and neither of us was much the wiser.

Just cells dying. It does not really matter whether it is programmed or just lysis - in reality the situation is usually a mixture of the two.

But if nobody can replicate the work the science does not move forward and the patients remain at square one. I thought that Davis was motivated by trying to get his son better. The way to do that would be to publish stuff that other scientists can understand.

For me yes - the actual positional relation of electrodes to cells - how many electrodes, how many cells, how often in contact. PBMC tend to move about and to have ruffled cell membranes. I cannot get a clear idea how they would stick to the electrodes or what the measurement would actually tell...

Being careful about making claims is a different issue from not telling other scientists how the experiments were actually done.

It may be fairly typical of biomedical commercial development but it is not good science. And from my point of view if people are not prepared to publish clear good quality science I am inclined to ignore the stuff completely. I never concealed anything from anyone during my scientific career...

Yes I still remember that stuff from school but they do not seem to tell us about this. And I am still puzzled as to why the pairs of electrodes are so close together.

The use of the HRA report is perhaps not unexpected by these people. I was, however, interested, when Jerome Burne initially assumed it was authoritative on PACE quality. I explained to him that it was just an ethical review. I don't think declarations like this from BPS people in Norway will...

I think that paper just shows that you can find meaningless reviews on any idea you like these days. It seems to bear no relation to the reality of inflammatory disease whatever.

I certainly don't. Cells are not disk shaped. The other thing I do not understand is why the electrodes are a few microns apart. Are they positive and negative, with current between, or is current transmitted to another electrode somewhere else? Cells are about 10 microns across so I would...

But for 4000 wells that would be 0.0125 μL per well with an average of 2.5 cells. The smallest amount that a graduated pipette can discharge is about a micro litre. And that has to be discharged into a larger fluid volume otherwise it will just stick to one place by surface tension.

The more I read these papers the more I get confused. I am now confused about 'microfluidic flow'. Where does the new paper talk about flow? The link you give is for solutions it seems. When cells do stick to things they tend to do so in an active way a bit like slugs crawling up tiles. The...