I missed what he said about suramin.. Does anyone recall?Drug status: copaxone, SS-31 and suramin identified as potential candidates, but no news about trials starting.
I missed what he said about suramin.. Does anyone recall?Drug status: copaxone, SS-31 and suramin identified as potential candidates, but no news about trials starting.
The big news is that SS31 is the most effective drug tested so far. It completely normalizes patient results on the nanoneedle. It also has no toxicity at the doses used so there shouldn't be a problem taking it for life, if that was necessary.
The other big news is that blood cell deformability is again abnormal. The tests were it was normal were done in a different medium than patient plasma. In patient plasma, it is abnormal.
Again it is something in the blood.
Pray tell, why is it so hard to crack this? Is it that the thinking really is that this is a whole slew of diseases?Did anyone else listen in? I'm feeling frustrated after it! I don't even sense any urgency from Dr. Davis. The something in the blood is on the go since 2016. I'd have thought that would be more worthwhile investigating than still looking for infections and pathogens. It seems obvious that it's a hit and run on the immune system.
Please remember that this was a talk to psychologists and psychiatrists that were present with some science folks at two other locations. It was mostly stuff we had heard before. What I hadn't heard before was the introduction to Ron Davis where the presenter described some of his achievements to basic science throughtout his career - very impressive. And also two new possibly diagnostic tests have been added to the suite of tests he would like to add to patient sample testing.Pray tell, why is it so hard to crack this? Is it that the thinking really is that this is a whole slew of diseases?
And can someone just make a short little list of the main takeaways from the talk? Thanks.
I'm so discouraged, so heartbroken, by reading the bits in the thread, I am feeling nauseous.
Please remember that this was a talk to psychologists and psychiatrists that were present with some science folks at two other locations. It was mostly stuff we had heard before. What I hadn't heard before was the introduction to Ron Davis where the presenter described some of his achievements to basic science throughtout his career - very impressive. And also two new possibly diagnostic tests have been added to the suite of tests he would like to add to patient sample testing.
We had a full day Symposium 2 months ago dedicated for ME folks.
Without significant NIH funding to build the team further we will have to make do with what we get. Dr Davis described in the talk how difficult it is to decide where to spend the precious money donated by patients. The team is trying hard to submit proposals to NIH......
Please remember that this was a talk to psychologists and psychiatrists that were present with some science folks at two other locations. It was mostly stuff we had heard before. What I hadn't heard before was the introduction to Ron Davis where the presenter described some of his achievements to basic science throughtout his career - very impressive. And also two new possibly diagnostic tests have been added to the suite of tests he would like to add to patient sample testing.
We had a full day Symposium 2 months ago dedicated for ME folks.
Without significant NIH funding to build the team further we will have to make do with what we get. Dr Davis described in the talk how difficult it is to decide where to spend the precious money donated by patients. The team is trying hard to submit proposals to NIH......
Without significant NIH funding to build the team further we will have to make do with what we get. Dr Davis described in the talk how difficult it is to decide where to spend the precious money donated by patients. The team is trying hard to submit proposals to NIH......
Why
Pray tell, why is it so hard to crack this? Is it that the thinking really is that this is a whole slew of diseases?
And can someone just make a short little list of the main takeaways from the talk? Thanks.
I'm so discouraged, so heartbroken, by reading the bits in the thread....
Our knowledge of physiology is still very superficial. I'd be curious to know what % of all there is to know most physicians think we have achieved? 40%? 50%? I doubt many would estimate it at above 50%. We still have a whole order of magnitude to go by until we can comprehend the many active processes in the body. A blood draw is such a crude measure, like taking a photo and trying to decipher movement without any references but most diagnoses still depend on this crude measure.Why
Pray tell, why is it so hard to crack this? Is it that the thinking really is that this is a whole slew of diseases?
And can someone just make a short little list of the main takeaways from the talk? Thanks.
I'm so discouraged, so heartbroken, by reading the bits in the thread....
I think $200 was the target. However, until we're sure it is diagnostic (at least of a problem - even if the same problem occurs in other diseases) then I'm not sure why you would adapt it for general release.that seems very cheap(?) are you missing a few 00s?
that seems very cheap(?) are you missing a few 00s?
Our knowledge of physiology is still very superficial. I'd be curious to know what % of all there is to know most physicians think we have achieved? 40%? 50%? I doubt many would estimate it at above 50%. We still have a whole order of magnitude to go by until we can comprehend the many active processes in the body. A blood draw is such a crude measure, like taking a photo and trying to decipher movement without any references but most diagnoses still depend on this crude measure.
However because of long-standing myths both those propositions are true: there are many, many things we don't know about health and disease but it is laughable that problem X is among those. Somehow, even though that's literally always been the case. Literally the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
And now we have this stupid BPS thing that takes the completely backwards approach of assuming those things we don't know about 100% mean psychology and anyone suggesting otherwise is insane, in effect creating a paper-thin caricature of human behavior as a crutch to this ignorance. So it's not so much as the limits of our ignorance but a toxic mix of ignorance with human failure. It doesn't have to be this way, most of the resulting problems are choices made by people, but here we are. The same mistake, just happening at a different scale.
Feels like a Stephen King novel, where even though there are monsters out there it's usually the behavior of stupid people that ends up being the worst threat out there. I used to dislike his novels because of that but damn does he understand human nature well.