Really disappointing to see SolveME being involved in research of two devices (a headset that shines infrared light on the scalp and in the nose, and a hand held device that claims to stimulate the vagus nerve). It's not so much the devices, although they both sound questionable, it's the idea that having people borrow the devices for 1 to 3 months and submit data about how well they worked is going to give useful information.

SolveME continues to be a mixed bag. I don't think this sort of thing helps their credibility at all. I wish they would be a bit more discriminating about what they support.

This project is built around a device lending library. Patients diagnosed with ME/CFS or Long COVID borrow promising therapeutic devices, shipped directly to their homes at no cost to them, for a 1-3 month lending period. While borrowing, participants contribute standardized longitudinal data through the Brain Inflammation Collaborative/Solve ME unhide® Solve Together platform. This allows each lending cycle to be a real-world research opportunity.

Discussed on the Renegade Research thread - here
 
Article from Solve ME:

"Solve-Funded Phase 2 Observational Study Yields More Support for Repurposing Rapamycin to Reduce a Broad Range of ME/CFS Symptoms"

 
Article from Solve ME:

"Solve-Funded Phase 2 Observational Study Yields More Support for Repurposing Rapamycin to Reduce a Broad Range of ME/CFS Symptoms"

It’s crystal clear that they lack an understanding of the fundamental scientific principles.

All we had was an open label study. Then they did another open label study. That’s not more evidence because it doesn’t give us any more info or any info with a higher degree of certainty.

More evidence would be to do a blinded study and get a positive result there as well.

Saying this is more evidence is exactly like the recent brain retraining paper where gathered more anecdotes. It’s still useless.
 
All we had was an open label study. Then they did another open label study. That’s not more evidence because it doesn’t give us any more info or any info with a higher degree of certainty.
Exactly. A pile of methodologically weak open label studies does not form a robust body of evidence for their claim.

It is evidence for something. But not for their claim.
 
Last edited:
All we had was an open label study. Then they did another open label study. That’s not more evidence because it doesn’t give us any more info or any info with a higher degree of certainty.

More evidence would be to do a blinded study and get a positive result there as well.
The fact they did this instead of a blinded study makes me strongly question the motives of the people invovled.

There is no world in which it makes any sense not to follow an open label study with a blinded one unless your motive is something other than proving the drug works.
 
"Research 1st Roundup: July 2026"

Solve ME said:
This quarter’s summaries highlight several studies examining the biological mechanisms of ME/CFS and Long Covid, including the roles of specific autoantibodies and persisting viral components in driving distinct symptoms. Several of the studies were led by Solve-funded researchers and collaborators, including Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, Dr. Amy Proal, Dr. Carmen Scheibenbogen, Dr. David Putrino, and Dr. Jonas Bergquist.
 
Back
Top Bottom