The Real ME: A Stock Photography Resource for the Media
We’ve all seen them in the news stories about ME/CFS: the guy in a suit at the office, yawning; the beautiful woman sitting at her desk with her immaculate make-up and elegantly coiffed hair, hand to her head and looking slightly pained.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Discussion of the IOM report in relation to timing of the Lipkin cytokine study

Discussion in 'Institute of Medicine (IOM) Government Contract' started by Bob, Feb 28, 2015.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    Quoted from another thread...
     
  2. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion, Rusty? I believe that the opposite is the case. i.e. the IOM report clearly spells out the physical evidence for ME, in great detail, and perhaps in unprecedented detail.
     
    mango, beaker, Cheshire and 1 other person like this.
  3. RustyJ

    RustyJ Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'

    Messages:
    1,191
    Likes:
    891
    Mackay, Aust
    You are right Bob. I have been mixing up P2P with IOM. I still stand by my thoughts on whether or not the IOM should have included Lipkins study.
     
    oceiv likes this.
  4. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,946
    England (south coast)
    Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying, Rusty.
     
    oceiv likes this.
  5. Denise

    Denise Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,095
    Likes:
    3,447
    We have been hearing (in public) bits and pieces about the study results for close to a year.

    The IOM committee included two of the Hornig/Lipkin study authors (Klimas and Bateman). Given that unpublished results from the CDC multi-site study were made available to the IOM committee (meaning that unpublished material was allowed, I assume that Klimas and Bateman would have discussed the results of the Hornig/Lipkin study during their meetings.
    Why that material was not included in the IOM review I do not know.

    For the AHRQ evidence review for P2P there was the opportunity to submit unpublished material for the review. Public notice was given and advocates and others submitted material in July 2014.
    I do not know if material from this study was submitted for the evidence review.

    For P2P Hornig gave a presentation at the P2P meeting and discussed some of these findings.
     
    oceiv likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page