NIH design: "This is like a map for proving psychosomatic causation of CFS"

[ScottTriGuy]

Saw this on facebook...

"NIH had said the purpose of the study was to gain as much data and biomedical evidence of disease for ME/CFS, but that is not what the design of the study reveals. Why include other disease cohorts when you are just wanting to find everything out about one disease? Only comparison one would need is to a healthy population. Save your resources to expand the ME/CFS sample size so that the results can be considered statistically significant.

No matter what they say now or how they try to explain the protocol, the purpose is still evident."

https://www.facebook.com/notes/trac...the-study-implies-a-purpose/10154007977591995

 

[anciendaze]

I think you are imputing malice where there may not even be any specific intent. This organizational response doesn't make sense from the standpoint of biology, but it becomes a lot more intelligible when you realize all these patient cohorts are controversial. The common factor is that they represent controversies which the organization is accused of ignoring, and this study is aimed at showing a definite organizational response to controversy, a political objective.

 

[ScottTriGuy]

I think you are imputing malice where there may not even be any specific intent. This organizational response doesn't make sense from the standpoint of biology, but it becomes a lot more intelligible when you realize all these patient cohorts are controversial. The common factor is that they represent controversies which the organization is accused of ignoring, and this study is aimed at showing a definite organizational response to controversy, a political objective.

I should have been clear - this is not my blog post, I'm merely sharing the link.

 

[BurnA]

Nothing new here, just one person's rant.

 

[Forbin]

What is concerning about the recent "advances" in fmd research, is that fMRIs are used often to confirm the mind's ability to cause physical change to the brain.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/trac...the-study-implies-a-purpose/10154007977591995

I wonder how this could possibly be confirmed. You'd need to find someone with a "normal" brain, which only became physically different after the onset of psychological disease. Even then, proving cause and effect might be difficult. A physical process that produced psychological symptoms at the cellular level might well be able to do so before it manifested physical changes that were detectable. In other words, a physical disease could be the precursor to both the psychological symptoms and the structural changes.

 

[Nielk]

Nothing new here, just one person's rant.

This is not a rant. It is a very astute analysis.

 

[Nielk]

http://www.meaction.net/2016/02/11/further-analysis-of-nih-clinical-cfs-study/

 

[Justin30]

Maybe Collins and Nath and every fricken person with ME/CFS wants a study that Highlights ME and the dysfunction.

Here is where I wonder ME/CFS the master of all diseases affecting every bodily system would cost a heck of a lot to fix and ton to study. Yes there is big opportunity but also for huge loss.

I am not a fan of the NIHs control group and would prefer normal controls or those with MS. I think they are wasting money having these other odd ill defined illness in the control group.

This is supposed to be an ME/CFS STUDY and should compare healthy controls or those with a disease similar to ours. It would make more sense to have more ME/CFS controls with the same length of illness 2 yrs after onset maybe?

Insurance companies control a lot of what goes on down in the US and to think that some of these big wigs dont have some sort of a say.

I sure hope that Mr Nath has good explanation for the control group.