A nanoelectronics-blood-based diagnostic biomarker for ME/CFS (2019) Esfandyarpour, Davis et al

 
Who has commented in the Telegraph? Is that also SW

Is the comment coming from him ie their top “eminence” an indication that they
1 recognise the scientific credibility Ron D/Stanford brings to the work
2 are worried he may be on to something
 
Last edited:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

To avoid giving them traffic
http://web.archive.org/save/http://...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

Science Media Centre: Expert Reaction

Prof Chris Ponting, Chair of Medical Bioinformatics and Principal Investigator at the MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, said:

“Esfandyarpour and colleagues show that people with ME/CFS are different from healthy controls with regards to their blood samples’ electrical properties. Excitingly, they appear to have discovered a distinguishing feature of ME/CFS, and one that can be measured simply and cheaply. Before this approach is tested clinically, however, three things will be needed. First, results should be replicated in a second cohort of individuals. Second, the device should be tested whether it sets apart ME/CFS not just from general health but also from other disorders. Finally, early indications that the device can distinguish severely- from moderately-affected people with ME/CFS need to be tested thoroughly. These results also now narrow down the possible molecular and cellular causes of this devastating set of conditions.”


Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, The Open University, said:

“This research is interesting, and if it can be the start of developing a blood-based diagnostic marker for ME/CFS, that would be great. But it’s important to understand that this is only a pilot study. There’s a long way to go, with many possible pitfalls that could still derail the development, before it gets to something that’s useful in practice.



Prof Sir Simon Wessely, Regius Chair of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN), and President, Royal Society of Medicine, said:

“There have been many previous attempts to find a specific biomarker for CFS. The problem is not differentiating patients with CFS from healthy controls. The issue is can any biomarker distinguish CFS patients from those with other fatiguing illnesses? And second, is it measuring the cause, and not the consequence, of illness? This study does not provide any evidence that either has finally been achieved. It is also regrettable that it is claimed that such a test would give “scientific proof” of the existence of the condition, and prove it is “not imaginary”. You don’t need a blood test to prove that an illness exists, and nor does the absence of such a test mean that it is “all in the mind”. Any sub who runs a headline that says ‘new test proves CFS is real and not psychiatric’ should be ashamed of themselves.”
 
John Mac said:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

Expert Reaction

Prof Chris Ponting, Chair of Medical Bioinformatics and Principal Investigator at the MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, said:

“Esfandyarpour and colleagues show that people with ME/CFS are different from healthy controls with regards to their blood samples’ electrical properties. Excitingly, they appear to have discovered a distinguishing feature of ME/CFS, and one that can be measured simply and cheaply. Before this approach is tested clinically, however, three things will be needed. First, results should be replicated in a second cohort of individuals. Second, the device should be tested whether it sets apart ME/CFS not just from general health but also from other disorders. Finally, early indications that the device can distinguish severely- from moderately-affected people with ME/CFS need to be tested thoroughly. These results also now narrow down the possible molecular and cellular causes of this devastating set of conditions.”


Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, The Open University, said:

“This research is interesting, and if it can be the start of developing a blood-based diagnostic marker for ME/CFS, that would be great. But it’s important to understand that this is only a pilot study. There’s a long way to go, with many possible pitfalls that could still derail the development, before it gets to something that’s useful in practice.



Prof Sir Simon Wessely, Regius Chair of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN), and President, Royal Society of Medicine, said:

“There have been many previous attempts to find a specific biomarker for CFS. The problem is not differentiating patients with CFS from healthy controls. The issue is can any biomarker distinguish CFS patients from those with other fatiguing illnesses? And second, is it measuring the cause, and not the consequence, of illness? This study does not provide any evidence that either has finally been achieved. It is also regrettable that it is claimed that such a test would give “scientific proof” of the existence of the condition, and prove it is “not imaginary”. You don’t need a blood test to prove that an illness exists, and nor does the absence of such a test mean that it is “all in the mind”. Any sub who runs a headline that says ‘new test proves CFS is real and not psychiatric’ should be ashamed of themselves.”
Click to expand...
Try this link instead (if you don't want to give them the hits): http://web.archive.org/web/http://w...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/
 
Last edited:
John Mac said:
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...al-biomarker-for-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me/

Expert Reaction

Prof Chris Ponting, Chair of Medical Bioinformatics and Principal Investigator at the MRC Human Genetics Unit, University of Edinburgh, said:

“Esfandyarpour and colleagues show that people with ME/CFS are different from healthy controls with regards to their blood samples’ electrical properties. Excitingly, they appear to have discovered a distinguishing feature of ME/CFS, and one that can be measured simply and cheaply. Before this approach is tested clinically, however, three things will be needed. First, results should be replicated in a second cohort of individuals. Second, the device should be tested whether it sets apart ME/CFS not just from general health but also from other disorders. Finally, early indications that the device can distinguish severely- from moderately-affected people with ME/CFS need to be tested thoroughly. These results also now narrow down the possible molecular and cellular causes of this devastating set of conditions.”


Prof Kevin McConway, Emeritus Professor of Applied Statistics, The Open University, said:

“This research is interesting, and if it can be the start of developing a blood-based diagnostic marker for ME/CFS, that would be great. But it’s important to understand that this is only a pilot study. There’s a long way to go, with many possible pitfalls that could still derail the development, before it gets to something that’s useful in practice.



Prof Sir Simon Wessely, Regius Chair of Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (IoPPN), and President, Royal Society of Medicine, said:

“There have been many previous attempts to find a specific biomarker for CFS. The problem is not differentiating patients with CFS from healthy controls. The issue is can any biomarker distinguish CFS patients from those with other fatiguing illnesses? And second, is it measuring the cause, and not the consequence, of illness? This study does not provide any evidence that either has finally been achieved. It is also regrettable that it is claimed that such a test would give “scientific proof” of the existence of the condition, and prove it is “not imaginary”. You don’t need a blood test to prove that an illness exists, and nor does the absence of such a test mean that it is “all in the mind”. Any sub who runs a headline that says ‘new test proves CFS is real and not psychiatric’ should be ashamed of themselves.”
Click to expand...
Interestingly, some papers have still run the headline SW warns against.
 
strategist said:
Wessely seems a little sour and a little too eager to distance himself from the "all in the mind" position (in the SMC expert reaction).
Click to expand...
Agreed.
InitialConditions said:
Eugh. I can see this spiraling out of control.... we just can't do nuance in 2019 can we? The Stanford press release is short on those key 'qualifiers' that frame the results in the wider context.
Click to expand...
Also agreed.
 
Does anyone know how to access the paper itself? I am surprised to find that mY UCL account does not seem to access it - presumably because it is still 'e-hot'. Normally I can get access to all routine journals.

The abstract is disappointing - not what I would hope of a scientific paper, but I think that may be the journal spin these days. No actual data, just interpretation. If that is the way science is done these days goodness help us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom