Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
But YES, I'm jazzed about Kerr's upcoming work, and the repeat exercise studies too! And about getting my formatting back - I'm going into formatohological withdrawal!I am really jazzed about a few research topics; I think the repeat exercise studies are fantastic...and, Kerr's continuiing work.
Wonderful article Cort. Makes great sense, and added, as always, another level of understanding for me. Except for one tiny paragraph! (OK, sorry, I gotta take you to task on this). Here goes.... I do however disagree (OK, vehemently!) with your assessment of Different Patient Groups. You had said, "This is a methodological problem rooted in the complexities of PCR analysis not a patient cohort problem." There are myriad definitions of "quite ill" patients - many of which may have nothing to do with RNase-L deficiencies, vasculitis and myocarditis, orthostatic intolerance, and of course PEM (to name only a few) - which of course the Canadian and Fukuda definitions allow. Their patient criteria selection was NOT clear. But what WAS clear was that they did not use Canadian/Fukuda criteria - which the Science researchers explicitly did use. Even if you factor out all the discrepant lab work - which is huge in its own right, on the basis of manipulative patient selection alone - which is Wesseley's raison d'etre - it's not a replication study. Eliminating patients with any abnormal physical findings stacks the deck lamentably in favor of finding nothing. Which perhaps not coincidentally, is exactly what happened @ Imperial College. C'mon Cort! LOL But YES, I'm jazzed about Kerr's upcoming work, and the repeat exercise studies too! And about getting my formatting back - I'm going into formatohological withdrawal!
Thanks Parvo - yes, it may be that I'm underestimating Dr. Wessely's ability to parse out patients that don't fit his theory. My understanding was that they followed the standard Fukuda protocol on eliminating patients - which the WPI must have done as well. (Fukuda doesn't say anything about RNase L, immunological tests, orthostatic intolerance - all those are allowed. Fukuda. to my understanding catches only people with some other diagnosed disorders and people who score abnormalities on basic lab work - which CFS patients generally do not. )
In any case we'll see pretty soon as other studies come out. I hope you're right.
I think that the main issue is what shape the pool of patients was in before he applied Fukuda.
Hi Katie,
For a fleeting moment I thought I understood what you were saying... but the moment passed, and I lost it. Can you help?
I'd also like to add that I think cohort choice, although vital for all these studies, is not the weakest aspect of the IC study. For me it is methodology i.e 0%.
As I'm wounded (stupidly) I won't be writing much for a day or two.
K
hurt my ribs, hence one finger typing and abandonment of capital letters and any punctuation requiring shift key, exclamation mark. feels better today but on pain killers. will be fit as a fiddle, well kinda, tomorrow, muscles in chest worse off. huzzah for one finger typing, exclamation mark.