The Observer/Guardian article: Does the microbiome hold the key to chronic fatigue? About patient led 'research' group Remission Biome.

If health care providers are 'supervising' they legally require ethics committee approval.
Until there is a clear indication why not I think we can assume that this project is illegal. Or at least any health care provider supervising is likely to be disciplined or struck off.

It needs formal written consents, approval for data storage, overall ethical approval and so on.

I am very surprised that Nicola is not aware of this.
 
It's US based.
They are calling it self experiment, and passing medical supervision to whatever doctor each participant can persuade to prescribe the drugs.
RemissionBiome Self-Experiment Application
The next phase of RemissionBiome will include 50 people completing the protocol as a self-experiment, supervised by their healthcare providers.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's striking that both their remission stories are based on taking a whole lot of different things at the same time as well as dietary change, but both attribute the sudden change in their symptoms to the antibiotics for no good reason as far as I can see, especially as I think at least one of them said when they tried antibiotics again they didn't get the same rapid and dramatic change.
https://remissionbiome.org/our-story/

Reading their website is reminiscent of other people we've known over the years who are non clinicians with high level qualifications in unrelated areas who think a 'deep dive' into a few bits of ME and other research means they are qualified to lead others down their treatment protocol path.
The two involved in this case are an ecologist and an engineer.
 
I'm very conflicted about this project. I'm pretty sure further down the road it will become clear that there are a lot of problems with it. But the claim of being able to repeatedly induce a major improvement (in the same people) is hard to ignore. I suspect the cause for most reported major improvements in ME/CFS patients are fluctuations of the illness independent of any treatments. It seems difficult to use this explanation in these cases.

A better approach would be to seek independent study / testing of known responders in collaboration with qualified researchers. Establish that this is really happening in a reproducible manner in some people. Then figure out why.
 
s
ME/CFS Skeptic said:
Why did The Observer/Guardian publish this article?
Click to expand...

It seems that the Guardian adheres to a glorious conception of supporting the underdog, even when the underdogs are professors of psychiatry working for insurance companies or people running crowdfunding scams for 'self-experiments'. Frances Ryan tries to steer them towards the real underdogs but without much success sadly.
 
InitialConditions said:
The author is a freelance writer based in the US. He may have been asked to pitch by Remission Biome.
Click to expand...
But frustrating that the ME/CFS community has been trying to get accurate info in the newspapers about problems in ME/CFS healthcare or interesting research studies while being ignored by editors. But when there is a US group doing experiments without ethical approval, it is suddenly fine to publish about it.
 
There was a recent case in Norway with journalists that did some investigatory journalism on eating disorders in youth sports. they did not apply for ethical approval as it was "journalism" not "science". This journalism included questionnaires and medical personnel. This was reported, and they were told they should have applied for ethical approval, especially since they were working with youths that would be considered a vulnerable group.

Since journalists have their own ethical rules, there has now been a discussion about if journalists should be held to the same rules as scientists or if their own rules are "enough". There was also a talking point that journalists are not butting in when scientists go against journalism's ethical rules and sending reports to their own ethical board about scientist's bad behavior. I can't remember if there has been a conclusion to this after the journalism union complained about being reported (not sure if it was "the" union or some other people that complained).

Not completely the same as two individual starting self experimentation, but still interesting re the discussion about consent and ethical approval.
 
Last edited:
I don't expect much out of this, but I have no issues with the lack of ethical approval. Most of what happened in the early days of the AIDS crisis had no ethical approval, was even explicitly illegal. We have seen what gets ethical approval, and little of it is actually ethical. It's merely a bureaucratic step, means nothing. We are way past the point where this matters anymore, millions are being left to rot and die in completely immoral indifference.

If it pans it, it pans out. If it doesn't, it doesn't. But the entire system being paralyzed and refusing to do anything is what leads to experiments like this. I doubt it will give useful answers, but experiments like this will continue to happen as long as healthcare systems and medical institutions treat us with contempt and indifference. They are fully responsible for this, denial has consequences. Even if they don't want to help directly, they could have stopped blocking everything long ago. This is all on them.

I'm not condoning it, I just have no issues that it's happening. Better than this than a hundred more CBT BS like we have been subjected to for decades. Far, far better. It would be very easy to make this ethical. It's pervasive refusal at this point, and it's so far below unethical and straight into immoral territory.

Medical systems are leaving us to rot and die. They have no say in what is ethical or not, not anymore. They abandoned this long ago, made it official when public health officers and doctors were gloating that only vulnerable people were dying and that it made it OK to make them die in even greater number, all while disabling millions more who became vulnerable and thus expendable. Those systems may have authority, but they have waived their legitimacy.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the BPS club are, they cannot credibly be portrayed as the underdogs, let alone the victims and heroes of the story.

They have indisputably been the dominant establishment view for decades.

What we are really seeing is how the powerful behave when legitimately challenged for their false beliefs.
 
rvallee said:
I don't expect much out of this, but I have no issues with the lack of ethical approval. Most of what happened in the early days of the AIDS crisis had no ethical approval, was even explicitly illegal. We have seen what gets ethical approval, and little of it is actually ethical. It's merely a bureaucratic step, means nothing. We are way past the point where this matters anymore, millions are being left to rot and die in completely immoral indifference.

If it pans it, it pans out. If it doesn't, it doesn't...
Click to expand...

Patients pursuing treatments that may leave them worse off doesn't bother me, in and of itself, and I think generally that there is value to the idea of citizen science, that patients can advance knowledge through careful experimentation, but I do think it matters that patients are given as rounded an assessment of a potential treatment as possible before they jump in. I'm also not sure that the only outcomes of patient organized trials like this are success or not success. We all know with PACE that a badly organized trial can reshape perceptions and realign research directions in ways that cause harm. It's also very easy as a patient, with the variability of the illness and the quite often small impacts we're being asked to quantify, to feel initially that a treatment has helped, making follow-up important.

My wife and I have been testing out nicotine patches, as part of the loose LC patient self-experiment. The harms seemed minimal enough -- and indeed have been, with, for me, worsened sleep, general slight worsening of symptoms globally akin to consuming caffeine daily, and development of an unusual, off-putting body odor -- so I decided to give it a go. As part of that, I filled out the survey that organizers of the Nicotine Test created (which includes, at least some of the organizers of Remission Biome). I found the survey to be confusing in parts, conflicting in others, and with questions that are weighted in problematic ways. I was also alarmed that the survey asks respondents whether they had "remission events" -- terms developed by the Remission Biome group -- but does not define those terms with any degree of clarity.

If this survey is a window into how the Remission Biome group will study patient responses in the 50 person antibiotic and probiotic regimen they're trying to organize, it's a worrying one. Particularly as the group continues to make strong pronouncements about the benefits of their regimen. One recent tweet claimed "Cessation of sickness behavior does not mean 'no damage'. The #Renegade50 WILL experience reductions or complete cessation of sickness behavior. If they act like they are suddenly not sick they will crash and potentially undo progress." Others are similarly biasing.
 

Attachments

Mfairma said:
Patients pursuing treatments that may leave them worse off doesn't bother me, in and of itself, and I think generally that there is value to the idea of citizen science, that patients can advance knowledge through careful experimentation, but I do think it matters that patients are given as rounded an assessment of a potential treatment as possible before they jump in.
Click to expand...
I fully agree. This is what the Long Covid patient community has been demanding on day 1. And us for literally decades.

And it is always rejected. This is the only reason this kind of experimentation is happening. The medical profession is entirely to blame for it, they leave desperate people to rot in plain sight, oftentimes mocking our suffering, there is no other possible outcome to this criminal negligence.

We're still seeing the same thing with the microclots hypothesis and the HELP apheresis treatment, which in my opinion should be evaluated separately. Apheresis as a treatment had some early hype, but that hype has died down as it became evident that it wasn't effective. Microclots are still talked about plenty, but I only remember of a single mention of apheresis in the last year. The patient community does not hold on to failed treatments, only failing charlatans do.

A recently published Cochrane systematic review was published the purpose of dismissing it whole, even though this specific treatment means little about the hypothesis. It was written by a prominent Long Covid denier who rejects any and all research on LC. The same cycle of "you need to this properly, we need to approve any research", "do you approve of any more research?", "no, we reject the very need for researching this, only mind-body BS" is continuing. This is excessively cruel, and entirely the result of medicine's failure.

Desperate people do desperate things. In our case, our despair is simply reattributed as its own cause. Hence disastrous failure. Can't blame patients for this. Even though I see little value in this specific biome hacking research, there is nothing wrong with it, the people responsible for this are the ones derelict in their responsibilities.
 
rvallee said:
Can't blame patients for this. Even though I see little value in this specific biome hacking research, there is nothing wrong with it, the people responsible for this are the ones derelict in their responsibilities.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, it’s a product of larger forces, and maybe we need this kind of thing as a general kind of statement, maybe the value is more political than scientific, but I tend to think this kind of work probably would have even more impact if approached a bit more carefully.

In regard to the antibiotic theory, my onset followed Giardia, and many rounds of antibiotics, used both for the parasite and more recklessly months before when I had stomach illnesses traveling because I didn’t know better. But I also had a lasting partial remission once from antibiotics. I’m definitely willing to believe something might be there, but I also know you can lose a lot tinkering with antibiotics and the microbiome. If patients are taking those risks, I’d really want both for them to go in eyes wide and for any results to accurately reflect their experience. I think that can be said without putting ultimate weight for any harm on patients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom