Persistent fatigue induced by interferon-alpha: A novel, inflammation-based, proxy model of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2018, Pariante et al

BBC coverage by Laurel Ives includes mention of Monaghan, so that's a bonus:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-46570494

Edit: I somehow missed the "Others defended the treatment" last night, but as @Sly Saint mentions later on:

"I don't remember any of the other MPs defending the treatment (not even the Minister who spoke at the end). There was a lot of anti-PACE discussion.
Where did the BBC get this from?"

 

The SMC does not seem to have put anything onto their website on this study so far:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/?s=Cfs&cat=

Perhaps King's has borrowed the SMC mailing list and the press are just grateful to have something that is not Brexit related, but superficially at least a positive story about the achievements of British science.

 

No, but sometimes they don't until the day after with a midnight embargo.

Also, I get the impression that they don't openly declare all of their involvement with CFS media management.

I could just be wrong about them being involved with this though.

 

It really is odd that these media outlets all covered it with that spin. it may or may not have anything to do with ME, for one reason given the vagueness of the resulting "fatigue" state the study seems to be discussing.

 

Looks like the Guardian's coverage includes comment from Sharpe, but it doesn't seem to be on their website yet:

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-guardian/20181217/281775630256669

"It may give us some clue down the line. If the thing is triggered by an abnormal or excessive immune response [and] if we could find a way to reduce that immune response, we might stop incident cases."

So if the thing is triggered by X, then if we found a way of stopping X we might stop the thing? Good to be able to have an expert explain that.

edit thanks to @RuthT: The Guardian article posted on-line is a bit different, with an extra bit of a quote from Sharpe (I think that the press reader version comes from the hard copy?):

https://www.theguardian.com/society...eractive-immune-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

It seems like these findings were foreshadowed by the results of the 2006 Dubbo study, which showed a connection between the apparent severity of the initial infection and the later development of ME.

So, the worse/more fatigued you initially feel from the "trigger"/initiation of interferon alpha treatment, the more likely you are to get ME/persistent fatigue.

 

Guardian coverage now up:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...eractive-immune-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

I posted a comment and called it just another paper, and its awaiting approval. I made note of similar and what seem to be better findings from Jared Younger. We do need to read the paper though ... there is an outside chance that its not too bad ... its gotta snow in Equatorial Africa sometime other than mountain peaks, right?

 

From https://www.theguardian.com/society...eractive-immune-system?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Sure you can. Its called a prospective study, but its expensive.

PS See the Dubbo studies for example.

 

Radio 4 Today coverage possibly at 8.45am:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1074417949342134272


Just made the 7am Radio 4 News headlines. Being reported by Catherine Burns: health correspondent, but interestingly was Newsbeat, which did get into deeper ME issues at MillionsMissing this year.

 

Twitter account suspended?!

 

A little bit of that with a little bit of - we are really clever and we have found out that in other diseases it causes this sort of thing (they leave this vague so they have wriggle room) so now our friends can go to NICE and say we have found new evidence of this thing (no description given so that they can all put what they want) and we need more money for research as we are the good guys now; pat us on the back and give us a lolly pop?

 

As others have expressed, I do not understand the hype here. However, my eye was drawn to this, which is probably the most interesting thing and not spoken about in the papers:

More support for the metabolic trap hypothesis?

 

Just read the Daily Mail posted by Daisy May. It is very much like watching Alice in Wonderland teaparty while they use chocolate teapots and call it wine, has nothing to do with science more to do with they think we are fools

 

They would not know it even if they fell into it? They will turn it their findings into what ever sticks so they can look better than they are

 

I think it my be relevant who funded the study. Does anybody know who?

 

Me too.

 

Given the level of hype that this study has been awarded, I think this reveals something useful, that Pariante is seen as part of the establishment and worthy of support, and to retain this then he will have to toe the establishment line. So I retain my suspicions that this study will be used to support the 'physical start but maintained by the patients thoughts' pipedream of the BPS crew.

OR it reveals that I have lost my natural tendency to trust and my default state now is suspicion. Though the two things aren't mutually exclusive I guess.

 

Acknowledgements:

Conflicts of interest: