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

The Lever et al (1988) reference is this letter to The Lancet (if anyone has access).

The text in the book goes on to summarise this study account:
They decided to study children with PVFS as they felt that it would be easier to distinguish genuine cases in this group. They investigated the in vitro interferon response of a sample of children from a school in Aberystwyth where an outbreak of PVFS among both children and some immediate family members was associated with positive neutralising antibody responses against Coxackie B4 in all cases. Affected children produced significantly more alpha-interferon in vitro than controls. It is not clear whether these individuals have an excessive interferon response to viral stimulation either as a result of persistent infection or as a genetic characteristic.

30 years have gone by, and we seem to be going backwards, not forwards. If researchers really were serious about catching this in the early stages, they should be actively looking for Coxackie B4 outbreaks. Where is Public Health in all this?
 
I have just re-read Nick Brown's very good analysis of the problems with the research paper, reproduced in David Tuller's piece.

I wonder if this is a case where asking for the raw data would be valuable.

The fact, as Nick points out, that the authors appear to have cherry picked the 4 week data rather than the 8 or 12 week data to base their analysis on suggests the latter may not support their hypothesis. I think the data should be published in full so others can do the analyses they have chosen not to publish.
.......................

I note also that there seems to be some link between depression and cytokine levels, so maybe that is muddying the fatigue measuring, since CFQ doesn't distinguish depression related fatigue from other fatigue.

Finally, we examined levels of depressive symptoms at week 4, at the same time as the increases in fatigue, and week 12, determined by previous research to be the time at which depressive symptoms induced by IFN-α reach peak levels. Levels at week 4 were no different between groups (RF vs. PF, mean ± SEM; 18.9 ± 2.0 vs. 19.9 ± 3.1, t(51) = -0.31, p = 0.76), and levels at week 12 were numerically higher in the PF group but with trend-statistical significance (20.09 ± 2.53 vs. 28.00 ± 17.51, t (49) = -1.73, p = 0.09). Taken together, this suggests that fatigue and depression are at least partially distinct
............................................

Table 1
Biological Measure HCV RF HCV PF Test and statistic
Mean ± SEM
IFN-γ
7.85 ± 1.45 9.68 ± 2.67 U = 66, z = -0.77, p = 0.44
IL-2 0.22 ± 0.05 0.24 ± 0.07 U = 110, z = -0.39, p = 0.70
IL-6 0.68 ± 0.08 1.1 ± 0.2 U= 74, z= -1.79, p= 0.073
IL-7 16.65 ± 2.34 14.58 ± 1.89 U = 153, z = -0.03, p = 0.97
IL-8^ 13.56 ± 1.88 15.09 ± 2.31 U = 108, z = -1.01, p = 0.31
IL-10 0.61 ± 0.14 0.79 ± 0.15 U = 58, z = -2.12, p = 0.034
IL-12p70
0.09 ± 0.02 0.23 ± 0.07 U = 32, z = -1.34, p = 0.18
IL-13 0.33 ± 0.08 0.23 ± 0.08 U = 94, z = -1.15, p = 0.25
IL-17A 1.82 ± 0.51 1.61 ± 0.32 U = 91, z = -1.31, p = 0.19
TNF-α 4.17 ± 0.43 4.9 ± 0.65 U = 108, z = -1.01, p = 0.31
VEGF 200.19 ± 36.31 217.17 ± 52.81 U = 94, z = -0.05, p = 0.96
This table shows IL-10 is the only one that drops below the magic p = 0.05 significance level. Doesn't there have to be some adjustment for multiple comparisons? I would expect a random set of data like this to throw up one or more values like this by chance.
.......................

It all seems to me to be a big muddle based on a tiny inconclusive study from which the 20 authors have done their best to cherry pick something 'significant' to publish and hype madly.

Bah humbug.
 
I've just done a transcript (getting to be a habit this) of Pariantes interview on Radio 4; quite different from the one with @JohnTheJack .

The cause of ME or CFS remains a mystery but for a quarter of a million people who suffer not just from debilitating tiredness but chronic pain as well the condition itself is all too real.

Researchers at Kings College London have found what they think may be a link between ME and an overactive immune system.

The professor of Biological Psychiatry at Kings College London is Carmine Pariante and he joins us now along with 22 year old Ellie Bunce who has suffered with ME for the past few years.

Morning to you both.

Good morning.

Int: Professor Pariante, this is not yet the key fact that we need but it’s a line of enquiry that you’ve found. Tell us more.

CP: So what we have been able to do is to examine people early on in their trajectory to develop chronic fatigue syndromes. The problem with research in this area, is that patients come to the attention of the physician and researchers when they have been ill for literally years and years. And at that time it is very difficult to understand what were the cause of the disorders that developed early on. So we use a clinical models of people who develop chronic fatigue syndromes in response to an immune therapy and we found that only people who had a hyper-active immune system, even before the immune therapy, so the hyperactive immune system was part of the biological signature, these are the people who go on to develop chronic fatigue syndrome.


Int: Key to your research is that you actually look at people before they get the condition.


CP: absolutely.

Int: Before to look who does and who doesn’t

CP: absolutely.

Int: Erm Ellie Bunce tell us a little about this condition because you know and it must infuriate you there are people who because the cause is not known are a little suspicious it’s not real. How real is it to you?

EB: Ha ha, yeah, it’s certainly very real for me. Erm it is more than just tiredness as well, which is worth noting. Erm , so it’s all to do with your erm, your senses as well so I can like really struggle with light sensitivity and sound sensitivity, as well as severe pain episodes and poor cognitive function also.

Int: So this is entirely debilitating for you presumably?

EB: Yes, definitely. I mean I have to spend around 20 hours in bed every day just to be normal for four hours.

Int: 20 hours in bed. And before that? Were you an active person?

EB: Er yeah before that I was actually a full-time rowing athlete, erm and I was at University as well studying primary education. So I was very busy, I was doing that and working on top of it so my life was very hectic but I loved it.

Int: and this is something that has been going on for some years now?

EB: yes, so its been two and a half years so far.

Int: so listening to what Professor Pariante is saying does it give you some hope? It’s at least a line of research.

EB: yes, definitely , cause I think research in ME has been lacking for so long so, just the fact that something’s come of it is a massive step forward for the ME community.

Int: Professor Pariante, what next then? Having found the possibility that this immune system is crucial, what could you do next?

CP: So the next question is trying to understand what does the immune system do to the rest of the body which creates the fatigue that then goes on for years and years, even when the immune system no longer is abnormal. And we suspect that there are alteration every where in the body it could be in the muscles, it could be the brain it could be the liver, and we know, we have some kind of preliminary evidence of this but we don’t know exactly what is this downstream mechanism. Once we know this then we will be able to develop targeted treatment for these people who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome today.

Int: I mentioned to Ellie that it is infuriating to ME sufferers to sometimes hear people either say its not real or to say it’s all in the mind. You are a professor of , interestingly, biological psychiatry, what do you say to those people.

CP: So I really think there is no dichotomy between the mind and the body or the brain and the body. All disorders are medical disorders, they’re disorders of the whole body. If you take the most medical disorders like cancer or er rheumatoid arthritis they are influenced by psychological and psychosocial factors like stress and nutrition, and the same time depression which it a classic psychiatric disorder has abnormalities that you can measure in the blood. So there is not distinction. This is just health. All disorders are just medical disorders of the whole body.


Int: Ellie is it good for you to hear that and say look this is a very real and rather appalling thing to suffer from?

EB: yes definitely. I think for a long time ME was dismissed really. And people don’t understand it and normally you cant really see it in a person either so I think its quite easy for people to dismiss it and say its not true so its very good to hear that its believed in.

Int; and you are one of many thousands of sufferers?

EB: yeah there are so many people suffering from it. Erm, I think the numbers of people suffering are actually higher than they might be because of lack diagnosis as well.

Int: 250,000 is the official figure at the moment. Well Ellie thank you for telling us about it and good luck with your battle with it and good luck your research Professor Pariante of Kings College London.
 
I've just done a transcript (getting to be a habit this) of Pariantes interview on Radio 4; quite different from the one with @JohnTheJack .
That’s just inaccurate from the start because whilst not yet explained it’s not a mystery. Mystery in peoples minds equates to nothing known , nothing can be found, not serious like real disease, PS factors important
 
I've just done a transcript (getting to be a habit this) of Pariantes interview on Radio 4; quite different from the one with @JohnTheJack .

MH category and cLassification is there for a reason. Someone turns up in A & E, knowing they have serious mental health issues, or serious physical illness is useful to determining appropriate care. I am reluctant to go onto the Leeds inpatient service in a mental health ward because I’m aware of this difference and don’t feel confident the nurses will have appropriate understanding and approach to my illness, debilitation and physical sensitivities.

He says now we need to look at....
Basically he’s saying what we need to do is look at the physical changes that post infection are perpetuating the illness, well isn’t that what biomedical research advocates have said necessary for decades whilst his college put main emphasis on PS perpetuators. Did it Take this study to actually get to this level.
 
I've just read the interview with Nick Brown that was included in the article. It seems like "the data thugs" might be able to help us debunk some of the BPS work. Are they aware of the political reasons this piece of research is being hyped beyond all recognition? I am certainly interested in using the mathematical tools they developed to look for mistakes in papers. Particularly this one:



Edit: Because I pressed post accidentally before finishing writing!

Yes, @sTeamTraen AKA data thug Nick Brown is well aware of the background.
 
One thing I think is strange AFME haven’t covered this on Facebook, they usually publish media coverage for discussion. I looked on twitter and they started a thread there but hardly anyone replied. I’m not sure why They didn’t share this wider since the CMRC is there big thing.

Their CEO is off, having surgery, so I suspect some of their other activities may be reduced for a while.
Hopefully they are concentrating on removing BPS info from their website.
 
The Lever et al (1988) reference is this letter to The Lancet (if anyone has access).

The text in the book goes on to summarise this study account:

30 years have gone by, and we seem to be going backwards, not forwards. If researchers really were serious about catching this in the early stages, they should be actively looking for Coxackie B4 outbreaks. Where is Public Health in all this?

Good point. But that doesn't fit the narrative of how Wessely rescued the illness and was the only one who took it seriously.

It is 30 wasted years.
 
So in the Radio 4 interview Pariante said:
we found that only people who had a hyper-active immune system, even before the immune therapy, so the hyperactive immune system was part of the biological signature, these are the people who go on to develop chronic fatigue syndrome.

And in the BBC Wales interview he claimed:
What our research shows is that people who go on to develop chronic fatigue syndrome later on have a hyperactive immune system already even before encountering these immune challenges.

So he is actively promoting the confusion. I don't think this qualifies as a mistake. I think this demonstrates he is deliberately lying to gain personal benefit from it.

The fact that the paper only reported the measurements at 4 weeks and not at other timepoints also seems highly questionable.

Perhaps one of the ME organisations should write a critique of these questionable practices by the Pariante team?
 
Is @Keithgeraghty on here?

Pariante made a statement in 2012 that ME was caused by excessive rest in predisposed individuals. I think I have seen this here ( not sure) and cannot find it, but Keith has I believe tweeted about it with full context. I don’t tweet so can’t investigate further.

I would like to hear Pariante questioned about whether this is still his belief, which I think is reasonable in the light of the huge publicity given to his small piece of research.

ETA:’ and cannot find it ‘ added in para 2
 
Their CEO is off, having surgery, so I suspect some of their other activities may be reduced for a while.
Hopefully they are concentrating on removing BPS info from their website.
Not to mention contacting GPs who have done their CPD webinars and letting them know that the info is not pukka.
 
Is @Keithgeraghty on here?

Pariante made a statement in 2012 that ME was caused by excessive rest in predisposed individuals. I think I have seen this here ( not sure) and cannot find it, but Keith has I believe tweeted about it with full context. I don’t tweet so can’t investigate further.

I would like to hear Pariante questioned about whether this is still his belief, which I think is reasonable in the light of the huge publicity given to his small piece of research.

ETA:’ and cannot find it ‘ added in para 2

He wrote it in a review comment a while ago...

Here's Keith aluding to it here...


[I'll edit this post when I find the relevant statement]

Got it!
 
Last edited:
Is @Keithgeraghty on here?

Pariante made a statement in 2012 that ME was caused by excessive rest in predisposed individuals. I think I have seen this here ( not sure) and cannot find it, but Keith has I believe tweeted about it with full context. I don’t tweet so can’t investigate further.

I would like to hear Pariante questioned about whether this is still his belief, which I think is reasonable in the light of the huge publicity given to his small piece of research.

ETA:’ and cannot find it ‘ added in para 2

Here you go.
https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186/1741-7015-11-64/12916_2012_824_ReviewerReport_V2_R2.pdf

ETA: That's from a link here:
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-64/open-peer-review
 
Back
Top Bottom