Search results

Haven't read these studies but noticed that most found substantially higher estimates than 18% for Long Covid. It's mainly the Xie 2024 Veterans Affairs study that is dragging the estimate down because it had almost half a million participants.

What kind of antibody theory are you thinking of then for this distinction to matter, the FcγRI hypothesis by Jo? In the later section we also focus on CD20, CD38 and immunoadsorption trials, so these would affect all antibodies.

Autoantibodies are just antibodies that target one of your own proteins, rather than a pathogen. So think it's also correct to just say 'antibody theory'. Yes but with negative results there will never be 100% certainty that a hypothesis is refuted so suspect that some group will not give up on...

Thanks everyone. I've corrected the spelling errors.

We just published our review of the most interesting ME/CFS studies of 2025 and shared it in this thread: 2025: looking back on a year of ME/CFS research | Science for ME

We've published our review of the most interesting ME/CFS studies in 2025. Feels like it was a fruitful year where we made some modest progress, mostly because of DecodeME. interested in hearing what others think and if perhaps we missed an important paper. Here's the link to the full blog...

Good point. This recent PNAS paper argues that the cells likely still exist but have been reprogrammed epigenetically. Epigenetic silencing of selected hypothalamic neuropeptides in narcolepsy with cataplexy | PNAS So if that's the case, the question would be: what could be doing something...

Just making sure @Simon M sees this thread as well.

Also think this has the potential to be an important finding. Was anyone besides Cort able to watch the presentation? Suppose there is this major depletion of CRH neurons: wouldn't this be visible on brain scans or is the region too small to be picked up by the tiny brain scan studies that we...

For the other mutations listed in the table, the patients were heterozygous so they had only this mutation only once. Suspect that most diseases that they associate with these mutations are recessive: they only manifest if people have two of these mutations without normal back up copy. So not...

Am confused because if these identified mutations are truly pathogenic, they would be a major finding and tell us something important about common misdiagnosis of ME/CFS pathology. But looking up mutations for the first gene, KCNJ18, shows that are "seldom pathogenic" as this paper concludes...

I was thinking that next year(s) might give some clearer answers about the antibody-hypothesis. - We already had negative results for Rituximab (which targets CD20), - The Norwegians and possibly also Scheibenbogen will test treatments that target CD38 - DecodeME will re-analyze the HLA region...

No, still re-reading some studies from this year. Thanks. Agree with the 'year of the gene'. Think this has allowed us to make a significant step forward in understanding ME/CFS, although it may still be a long road ahead. Feels a bit like laying the edge pieces of a big puzzle. Perhaps not a...

Some comments about the study here:

The paper writes:

EDIT: this is not a new study, the preprint came out in may 2025. There is an interesting new study with normative data for the 10-min lean test in adults without orthostatic intolerance. The data came from 112 participants of the LOCOMOTION study. The average heart rate change was an increase...

Background: Orthostatic intolerance syndromes such as Orthostatic Hypotension (OH) and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS) are common symptoms seen in post-infection conditions and other neurological conditions with autonomic dysfunction. The 10-min Lean Test (LT) is an objective...

Did the same exercise again for 2025, and it looks like NIH funding for ME/CFS research keeps falling. There's some ambiguity about which projects to include (is it sufficiently about ME/CFS or not?), and we may have missed one, but the overall trend seems clear...

Thanks. Yeah in the r/aliens community, he made this comment:

Only 50 patients from a problematic cohort (which found a prevalence of 2.5%, about 5-10 times as high as similar studies). We have better sources now with DecodeME, so not sure it is worth digging into this.