The word "Neuroinflammation" has been used in about half the talks so far and will be used again extensively tomorrow. I know
@Jonathan Edwards has said there is no evidence of NI in CFS, only microglial activation. Should speakers be asked to define NI? If there is no NI, then it is bad that the speakers are claiming NI because it could be a waste of research effort.....
The problem is that there is no definition of NI. It is a slogan rather than a scientific term.
A sad fact about biomedical science now is that it is mostly shouting slogans. I am afraid that being a neuroscientist does not mean someone is not bullshitting.
I am not alone in this view someone found a review a year or two back where an eminent neurobiologist was bemoaning the meaninglessness of NI just like me.
Things seemed to change around 1985. Before that we talked about our data and about theories of mechanism in biomedocal science. By 1990 we had slogans like 'cytokine imbalance' or th1/2 imbalance, which mean nothing much.
There is an interesting difference with the story of rheumatoid ( ra) and multiple sclerosis ( ms). We could see inflammation in joints and brain with th naked eye. When we found cytokines we said maybe these are causing the inflammation we can see.
But in ME people find a whiff of cytokine and suggest it is causing inflammation that nobody had found so was not needing to explain. Its a bit like finding a loose tile and saying that will explain the water getting in when nobody had noticed any water getting in. It is back to front science.
It makes perfect sense to suggest the cytokines may be causing symptoms in ME but why say they are causing them via smething we do not see? Maybe they are causing the symptoms another way?
I fear that when you hear slogans in science you can be pretty sure people are clutching at straws of evidence. It is a bit like the slogan 'evidence-based therapy' - we know what that amounts to now.
A lot of the tine NI is used to mean microglial activation, but why not call that microglial activation. The reason is that it has not been found yet. Moreover the various measures Younger snd Bergquist talk about do not seem to indicate microglial activation particularly.