Search results

If Mr Javid and Co are serious about shaking things up this looks like the place to start! It seems to date from just after the NICE announcement?

No, but I would be receptive to an invitation. I agree that a range of views would be useful. I worry that those who over-egg the biomedical evidence will drag the process off. in the wrong direction - like allowing off-label drug usage etc. I doubt that would help. Nobody else thinks that...

I think it is a continuation of her only real interest - marketing the need for GP superheroes. She might do better working for RNLI.

Apheresis covers a lot of different things - it just means cleaning plasma of something by filtration or absorption. Carmen Scheibenbogen has suggested Apheresis to remove antibodies, which is a different technique from clot removal. I don't think we have much reason to think that either would...

Is that quite right, Andy? Or at least perhaps misleading. My understanding is that GWAS is called genome wide because the mutation sites looked for cover the whole genome. They do not deal with every mutation in every gene but the technique relies on polymorphisms carrying association with...

There is a difference between contradicting current theory - which is the name of the game - and contradicting empirical findings replicated tens of thousands of times in routine laboratories throughout the world. Science is not about showing that what was found to be the case empirically...

Isn't there something a bit surreal about suggesting that the whole of science is to be suppressed because of a very small group of nutter patients? I mean, how could a tiny group of deranged ill people persuade the eminent professionals on the NICE committee that good science should be...

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, the GWAS looks for links to polymorphic sites along the chromosomes that should show correlations with gene polymorphisms in the local area if they confer disease risk. So it can pull out effects of genes not so far known to be associated with disease. It...

I think the arguments being made are more nuanced than that to be honest @ems223. To be in DSM-5 I guess that a movement disorder has to be more than just having some abnormal movements. Parkinson's also has cognitive changes but that is a different issue. For FND to be in DSM there has to be...

Is that true? I am not up on the technology but I thought it worked on the basis of markers all along the genome that may not include every gene but are likely to pick up haplotypes with weighted genes through linkage disequilibrium. I am not sure there is such a thing as a 'common gene' is there?

From what I can see on the net Kell is a retired basic scientist who has wandered into a clinical area that he may not have any practical knowledge of.

In case people are interested: C57BL/6 mice have a dark brown, nearly black coat. They are more sensitive to noise and odours and are more likely to bite than the more docile laboratory strains such as BALB/c.[3] They are good breeders.[1] Group-housed B6 male mice display barbering behavior...

The first hit on Google for these mice is: Blog Post June 22, 2016 THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A C57BL/6 MOUSE! Peter Kelmenson LEARN MORE It is critical that you know which specific C57BL/6 substrain you are using so that you use the appropriate controls for your experiments and interpret your...

Perhaps the bot shuts things down when Nazis are mentioned. But it was her that mentioned them.

Like Ms Fox, for instance?

0.85 seems very 'partial'. My own n=1 indicates that despite three jabs and having Covid already another bout of Covid can leave you feeling garbage for six weeks. But I am not complaining. At seven weeks I am not too bad.

My understanding was that the genetic risk in MS was largely known and located on MHC and explained the 1 in 4 concordance in monozygotic twins (as compared to a roughly 1/750 concordance for randomly selected controls). I think the first association was with traditional DR2 nomenclature but...

Not that I am aware of. I don't see the point of trying to explain something that we do not yet know is there and may well not be.

it may well be that the BBC and less perceptive copywriters do, in contrast to the journalists I talk to, who tend to see sense at least some of the time.

I was interested to note today at UCL Grand Rounds that colleagues had little or no awareness of the SMC. I don't think in medical circles anybody sees it as relevant. Which raises the question of whether anyone actually takes any notice of Fiona Fox and her colleagues.