1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Treating patients suffering from myalgic encephalopathy/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) with sodium dichloroacetate, Comhaire 2018

Discussion in 'ME/CFS research' started by Indigophoton, Mar 10, 2018.

  1. Jaybee00

    Jaybee00 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,858
    @ME/CFS

    If you are continuing to track the response in your patients, are the responding patients continuing to respond or are you seeing signs of tachyphylaxis?

    Thank you for participating in this forum.
     
    benji and Inara like this.
  2. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    I have no idea what this means.

    I made a genuine attempt to understand what might be going on in your mysterious formulae. I found something that seemed interesting to me. I shared it here. If you would like to repeat the calculations I made and tell me where I went wrong, please do. I'd be happy to share the particular sets of figures I used to do the calculations.

    Once I found something that looked interesting to me, I speculated on what might be going on. I was also aware that in your initially published study of 10 patients, only 5 responded, and the other 5 turned out to have been misdiagnosed. I wondered whether that could be the case in your second study too. If that is not the case, that's fine - it was simply a hypothesis based on available evidence, namely the formula and the FSS questionnaire.

    When I said it was fun, I meant in the sense that I find doing science and maths fun, I didn't mean to imply that I find your patients funny. I am a severely affected patient and have had ME for 28 years. I would never make fun of other patients, whether they have ME or depression or anything else.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
    Woolie, Sbag, MarcNotMark and 13 others like this.
  3. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,529
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    I wrote this last night and then fell asleep before posting. So, it's slightly out of context.

    Yes. @ME/CFS, you also need to think a bit logically about what might make sense in terms of the parameters you use. It is highly unlikely that answers to 4 vague and highly correlated questions about fatigue are going to identify responders in any new group of patients. What you have there is just a statistical artefact. 'Area under the curve figures' don't make it more true.

    You might as well have asked the participants about the number of consonants in their first name, their surname, the name of their favourite pet, the name of the street that they live on, the name of their favourite aunt and so on. With seven parameters that can be negatively or positively correlated with response together with a few other parameters such as age and length of illness, it's extremely likely that you can make an equation that appears to be great at identifying the responders in a small group. But when you apply that equation to a new group of patients, it doesn't work.

    That is indeed what you found when you went from a sample size of 22 to 33 - the equation had to be significantly changed. And 33 is still a small group for making a predictive formula.

    But really, at the stage of investigation that you are at, identifying characteristics of the responders is a diversion from the main question.

    The first job is to show that there is a real response in at least some people. That is, a response over and above a placebo response and that that response is sustained over a much longer period than 30 days.

    Edit - For that you need better, and preferably objective, measures of success and a blinded control treatment.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2018
    Woolie, MarcNotMark, sea and 9 others like this.
  4. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    26,529
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Even assuming there is a low blood supply to the diencephalon of people with ME/CFS, which is far from adequately proven, this doesn't actually explain a psychosomatic mechanism. There is no credible evidence for an unusual prevalence of pre-illness inadequate stress management in people with ME/CFS. The Dubbo study which followed a large number of people after several infective illnesses did not find any distinguishing psychological characteristics in those who went on to develop post-viral fatigue/ ME/CFS.

    @ME/CFS, you have an unexplained leap from the ill-founded conjecture of 'inadequate stress management' to an (assumed on as-yet inadequate evidence) 'abnormal blood supply to a part of the brain'.

    In the case of, for example, abrupt onset ME/CFS, how does 'overly authoritarian education' actually cause people to be going about their adult lives quite happily and productively for years with no unusually inadequate stress management and then suddenly develop and sustain low blood supply to the diencephalon?
     
    Snow Leopard, Woolie, sea and 9 others like this.
  5. benji

    benji Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    167
    Thank you! now I finally get it right. Couldn’t understand that I got a number outside the interval from 0 to 1. This helps.

    And getting it from author, is even better.

    Quite complicated math/statistics, or perhaps a sign of that I have been away from math and physics for a long time. Maybe the latter. But I got it, and I got a good p value.

    I recently heard from a patient of Kenny DeMeirleir that he had prescribed a dose of 2g DCA in the morning, for one very sick patient. That surprised me, after reading this.
     
  6. benji

    benji Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    167
    What I also wonder, are there any adverse effects? I can’t remember any side effects reported in the articles.
     
    adambeyoncelowe and andypants like this.
  7. ME/CFS

    ME/CFS Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43


    As you know I have published an article on a hypothesis. I have also written a book in which about 70-80 pages are devoted to explaining the pathogenesis of ME/CFS which I find plausible. Regretfully, the book is in Dutch. So, it is not possible to summarise all in one paragraph. It has been proven that stress causes direct DNA changes (epigenetics) and that a number of external factors play a role in whether or not such DNA changes do occur. Among the external factors nutrition, life style and exposure to environmental pollution may play a role. Stress also occurs during infant life and may have introduced epigenic schanges making e.g. the immune system of a particular person react in a disordered way to, e.g. infection. The impairment of blood flow and technecium inclusion in the brain is mostly located at the prefrontal region and the diencephalon. Within the forthcoming months we hope to conduct further studies on the effect of DCA on the NeuroSpect findings, and of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), as well as of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HOT) on brain blood circulation. I am convinced of the organic changes occurring in ME/CFS patients, but the "first cause" of these remains speculative. Nonetheless several pieces of the puzzle are already fitting.
     
  8. ME/CFS

    ME/CFS Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43

    4 responding patients have been taking DCA treatment since 12 months, and continue to benefit.
     
  9. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    ...and don't forget that epigenetic changes experienced by a mother can also influence their offsprings epigentics, the most well known example being obesity risk factors increasing if the mother's diet was poor before conception/during gestation.

    So...maybe the unremembered stress/trauma is unremembered because it never happened, to the individual who has M.E., but instead I may have M.E. because my mother was stressed by being shouted at by a sargent when she was in the air force, which caused epigenetic changes which were passed on to me.

    Just how far back can these changes go? Maybe I have M.E. because 40,000 years ago one of my ancestors got a bit stressed that pot noodles had not been invented yet?
     
    TiredSam, Ryan31337, Trish and 6 others like this.
  10. Alvin

    Alvin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,309
    Thats great but does not prove you have figured out this disease. We like theories but we eye them all with a critical mind.

    So if it were in English you could summarize it in one paragraph?


    Almost any "plausible" theory contains some truth.

    If you design a theory based on pieces you already have then of course it will fit.

    So your saying only some have pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase inhibition caused by psychosomatic trauma and you can determine who by a questionnaire that doesn't pass the laugh test but is treatable by your patent protected product?
    So do the others not have pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase inhibition but somehow still registered as being so by Fluge/Mella?

    Your house of cards is making little sense. I think what your doing is cherry picking information you like and forming a sciencey theory around it, defending it from patient observations and getting mad we are not towing your line.
     
    Wonko and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  11. ME/CFS

    ME/CFS Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43


    It is Always nice if comments are based on knowledge , which is evidently not the case with this comment. It is not by rediculising that you can make a scientific argument.
     
  12. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    Could you post your numbers and working for me? I still can't wrap my head around it and keep getting numbers way off what they should be. It doesn't help that the explanations are all quite long and I'm in a major crash right now, post-NICE.
     
  13. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    I agree, it is nice when arguments are based on scientific reasoning. I further agree that it is nice when arguments are based on knowledge and not self serving speculation, whatever the reason behind such a position.

    Maybe you should apply these considerations, that we both agree on, to your reasoning and posts, as, from my position, you seems to be lacking in both understanding and scientific reasoning. Maybe after you have done so you might understand the points I was using reductio ad absurdum to illustrate the flaws in your argument(s) by.
     
    TiredSam, Mij, NelliePledge and 7 others like this.
  14. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    Here's the information you need to do the calculation:

    Rearranging that equation gives:
    p = e^logit (p) / ( 1 + e^logit (p) )
    This will always give an answer between 0 and 1.

    Here's a couple of examples of my calculations:
    FSS scores: 4,7,5,7,4,7,6,5,5
    Total 50, FSS = 50/9 = 5.556,
    Logit(p) = 7.09 + 2.27 x 5 + 3.39 x 7 - 2.57 x 6 -1.97 x 5 -2.52 x 50/9 = 2.9
    p = e^2.9 / ( 1 + e^2.9 ) = 0.95 rounded to 2 dp.

    FSS scores: 7,4,5,4,7,3,6,7,7
    Total 50, FSS = 50/9 = 5.556,
    logit(p)= 7.09 + 2.27 x 5 + 3.39 x 4 - 2.57 x 6 -1.97 x 7 -2.52 x 50/9 = -11.21
    p = e^-11.21 / ( 1 + e^-11.21 ) = 0.000013 = 0.00 to 2 dp.

    So my first example, which I filled in on the basis of someone whose symptoms were mainly physical ME type symptoms, has a 95% chance of recovery.
    My second example, which I filled in on the basis of someone whose symptoms had a more depressive pattern had a 0% chance of recovery.

    As I said in my earlier post, I may have misinterpreted the formula.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  15. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,674
    Location:
    UK
    BTW As someone who's suffered from M.E. for over 31 years, speaking to someone who seemingly hasn't, who also appears to have severely limited understanding about M.E. (based entirely upon your own statements about your "research" and your interpretation of your results), there exists the possibility that I may find your choice of user name insensitive and offensive.

    I can only assume this was your intention when choosing it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2018
  16. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    Oops! I wasn't dividing my total FSS number by 9! D'oh!

    I've done the equation and it looks like I have an almost 100% chance of recovery (I got 0.9998).

    That's interesting!
     
  17. wdb

    wdb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    320
    Location:
    UK
    I was looking for some data on how often drugs from promising pilot studies actually turn out to be tolerable effective treatments, it's pretty low, the the table below suggests a large majority fail a phases 2 or 3, and until phase 2 is complete the drug is not presumed to have any therapeutic effect whatsoever.


    phases.png
     
    inox, Indigophoton, Inara and 6 others like this.
  18. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    51,871
    Location:
    UK
    Until Dr Comhaire checks my version of the calculations, I wouldn't take my version as the correct one. The formula is confusing in specifying ''Total FSS''. If you put the total in the formula, rather than the average, it will always give a p value around zero, so I assumed he meant average across the 9 scores.

    But the more important health warnings are:

    1. This formula has only been applied on the data it was derived from. Dr. Comhaire has provided us with NO evidence that he has tested it on a completely new and separate cohort of patients. It is, therefore, not a predictive formula. It is a retrospective formula that only applies to his current cohort.

    His previous formula based on part of this cohort was completely different to this one, and gave wildly different probabilities, so proved to be a complete dud as a predictive formula.

    2. This trial is an open label trial using an inappropriate subjective outcome measure based on fatigue, which is not the defining symptom of ME/CFS. (Remind you of anything?)

    3. And, as @wdb has just wisely reminded us, stage 1 trials usually fail to result in successful stage 3 trials. (think Rituximab).
    This trial is, as Dr Comhaire himself has pointed out, a preliminary proof of concept trial.

    Personally I think it is irresponsible to publish so called 'predictive' formulae of likely success when they are, as his first formula demonstrated, nothing of the kind.

    Again, to quote Dr. Comhaire himself, nobody should experiment with this formulation unless they are part of a properly set up and ethically approved medical trial done under medical supervision.
     
    sea, Hutan, Indigophoton and 7 others like this.
  19. adambeyoncelowe

    adambeyoncelowe Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,731
    sodium dichloroacetate
    Absolutely. I would never dream of trying something like sodium dichloroacetate. It sounds like nasty stuff. Some of the side effects: 'dichloroacetate kills brain, breast and lung cancer cells'; and causes 'nerve damage resulting in weakness and numbness, liver damage and low blood sugar' (according to this article).

    Your way (of calculating the numbers) seems to work. I tried it about four times and got different numbers every time (all of which were massively out). Then I did it your way and got a number that was in range.

    When I say the result is 'interesting', I mean that I'm sceptical such a treatment (well, any treatment!) would have almost 100% likelihood of success. It seems exceedingly unlikely.
     
    Gecko, Hutan, Indigophoton and 7 others like this.
  20. ME/CFS

    ME/CFS Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    43

    The value coming out of the formula is lpgit(p) which should be converted to (p), being the statistical probability of being a "reponder".
     

Share This Page