1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for 'CFS'.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 13th January 2025 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! Read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum.
    Dismiss Notice

USA: NIH National Institutes of Health news - latest ME/CFS webinar 14 Jan 2025

Discussion in 'News from organisations' started by Andy, Jan 16, 2018.

Tags:
Page 33 of 33
  1. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,880
    Part of the quote thread


    Worth saying my impressions at the end:

    There is still a STRONG push for behavioral studies from high w/in NIH. Eye-rolling from a scientific stance; gut-roiling from an ethical one. And no, it doesn't matter how their language shifts, it's quite clear.
     
    Amw66, Jan 15, 2025
    #641
    Peter Trewhitt, ahimsa, duncan and 2 others like this.
  2. Yann04

    Yann04 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,248
    Location:
    Switzerland (Romandie)
    Since I misunderstood when I initially read your post, I want to clarify that you are quoting Jamie Selzer.
     
    Yann04, Jan 15, 2025
    #642
    Peter Trewhitt and ahimsa like this.
  3. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,880
    Yes it's a quote- I'm not up on how to copy and paste from Bluesky fully ( yet)
     
    Amw66, Jan 15, 2025
    #643
    Peter Trewhitt and alktipping like this.
  4. Dakota15

    Dakota15 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    899
    University of Tennessee: 'Research Team Receives $1.5 Million to Study Neurological Disorders Linked to Long COVID'

    'The National Institute of Mental Health has awarded a significant grant of $1.5M to Jianyang Du, PhD, of the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, for a research study aimed at uncovering the cellular and molecular mechanisms that lead to neurological disorders caused by long COVID-19.'

    'Dr. Du’s team has developed a mouse model that mimics SARS-CoV-2 infection, allowing researchers to observe changes in behavior two weeks after infection. Remarkably, they found the virus’s genetic material in the brain just four days after infection, indicating direct effects on brain function. They also detected viral components specifically in neurons, alongside signs of immune system activation in the brain.'

    'By shedding light on these complex interactions, this research could lead to effective therapeutic strategies to combat the neurological challenges posed by COVID.'

    Write-up from Bioengineer.org on the grant here.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2025 at 10:49 PM
    Dakota15, Jan 16, 2025 at 6:15 PM
    #644
    Peter Trewhitt, Hutan and Binkie4 like this.
  5. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    14,007
    Location:
    Canada
    Unless I missed something, the NIH ME/CFS one was performed one time only, and it was barely significant. Most like it's random so you'd expect to see some regression to the norm. This is why repeating the same experiment is important, but they went ahead and invented a whole-ass concept out of nothing. In science people do that, calibrate their experiments. But this type of test isn't meant to test for something, it's just a gotcha used to argue a prior conclusion.

    This just makes the decision to make this the defining finding of the study, of the whole program really, so much worse and incompetent.
     
    rvallee, Jan 16, 2025 at 9:26 PM
    #645
    Peter Trewhitt, Hutan, Amw66 and 1 other person like this.
  6. Dakota15

    Dakota15 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    899
    https://twitter.com/user/status/1880349664974635512


    NIH X post: "NIH News Week of January 13th: https://bit.ly/40CwGoH

    #MECFS #COVID #pregnancy #fetus #ContactLenses #vision
    #ScienceNews #research #news #science #NewScience
    #ScienceAdvancements #NIH"

    From NIH YouTube Link:

    News from the week of January 13:

    1. NIH-funded study finds cases of ME/CFS increase following SARS-CoV-2. https://bit.ly/40sxR9g

    2. Excess weight gain in first trimester associated with fetal fat accumulation. https://bit.ly/4g1Sj6C

    3. Contact lenses used to slow nearsightedness in youth have a lasting effect. https://bit.ly/4ak27rl
     
    Dakota15, Jan 17, 2025 at 8:33 PM
    #646
    Peter Trewhitt and Hutan like this.
  7. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,405
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Thanks @forestglip for that very useful summary of the webinar.

    Regarding that Long Covid study of risk taking in a contrived setting, there are a number of explanations that make more sense than people with Long Covid having some inherent personality flaw.

    It could be that the people with Long Covid needed to take breaks from the button pushing, or whatever they were required to do. So, that would increase the tendency to take options that have a chance of a low energy input.

    It could be that the Long Covid people who made the effort to participate in the research study are special in some way, not reflective of Long Covid population in general. For example, they may well be willing to take action and risk deterioration in order to help find out what is wrong with them.

    It could be that the behaviour of the Long Covid people was influenced by being in a study more than the controls. Maybe they cared more about the study and were trying to do well, whereas the controls were more 'meh, whatever'.

    It could have just been chance.

    That's before we consider possible intended or unintended bias, perhaps differences in the demographics of the two cohorts, priming the participants in different ways, or making decisions to exclude an outlier or two that moves averages in unhelpful ways. ​

    I'm not clear on this, and to be honest, not that motivated to find out, but it feels a though the result here was sort of opposite to what Walitt found in the ME/CFS study? As in, the ME/CFS people were reported as tending to take the low risk option more often, whereas the LC people were reported as tending to take the high risk option more often. I wonder what negative personality spin would have been applied if the reported outcomes in this study had been reversed? 'LC people too frightened to take risks to achieve good outcomes?'

    From what has been reported here, it seems a very unproductive use of research dollars. Interesting about the comment of aligning research with the Roadmap research priorities. I can't imagine effort preference research was on the list; I can't imagine Vicky being thrilled about that effort research.
     
    Hutan, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:49 AM
    #647
    alktipping, Peter Trewhitt, Eleanor and 3 others like this.
  8. forestglip

    forestglip Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,300
    And the Research Roadmap webinar from a year ago had about 30 hours of presentations from dozens(?) of researchers. There must have been some more fleshed out research from some of these groups since then that could have been included. It felt really out of place to include, in what otherwise was a high level overview of NIH ME/CFS, just one group that basically presented two preliminary unreplicated findings.
     
    forestglip, Jan 18, 2025 at 12:26 PM
    #648
    alktipping, Hutan, Trish and 2 others like this.
Page 33 of 33

Share This Page