1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Can You Come for a Visit? My ME/CFS Says No
My daughter and son-in-law just had a baby last week. We are thrilled. But we won't be able to see the baby or hold her any time soon. We won't be able to take over little gifts or help out with housework or babysitting.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

New David Tuller NYT on case definitions! Wow!

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by urbantravels, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. urbantravels

    urbantravels disjecta membra

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes:
    506
    Los Angeles, CA
  2. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes:
    2,744
    Couchland, USA
    Yay! UT, you're finding some goodies tonight! There is only one bit I have a problem with:

    I'm too cranky and herxy to do it myself, but could someone point Mr. Tuller to Satcy Stevens and the Pacific Fatigue Labs?
    He (and the public and doctors everywhere) need to know it is supported by WAY more than patient surveys!

    Still, Good on 'im for writing about me/cfs again, and on you UT for digging up all this good stuff :)
  3. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,169
    NYC (& RI)
    Does anyone have a link. I emailed Mr. Tuller with my thanks and will send that too.
  4. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes:
    2,744
    Couchland, USA
  5. urbantravels

    urbantravels disjecta membra

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes:
    506
    Los Angeles, CA
    I don't deserve any credit except for being near my computer when others start twittering and facebooking the good stuff.

    Leela, I was desperately looking for a place to comment on the NYT article to make that very comment and talk about the Pacific Fatigue Lab - but it doesn't seem to be set up for comments. So I intend to email Tuller, but can't do it properly right now owing to external circumstances.
  6. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes:
    2,744
    Couchland, USA
    Good! And more Yay! I am SO tired of this endless broken record of no biomarkers no biomarkers no biomarkers no biomarkers no biomarkers no biomarkers
    aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I'm so grateful for people like Mr Tuller; it's just appalling that this info is just not OUT there where people like him can easily see it.
    Little phrases like "patient surveys" or "patients claim" just irritate the frack out of me, when there is DATA that can be referred to, instead of continuing to make us appear to be whingeing hypochondriacs.
    (okay I'm dumping metal today so a lot of the irritation is amplified....) :eek:
  7. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    840
    UK
    Thanks urbantravels again - it's so good to see such articles coming in. (Pace = baloney).
  8. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,017
    Likes:
    10,794
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Hi leela, by my count we have over 800 biomarkers now and several patented tests that are potentially diagnostic. The hard part is in proving that any of them are diagnostic. They have to be provably unique to ME/CFS, extremely reliable to go from being a biomarker to a diagnostic test. This takes time and money to prove. That is even before we get to the politics.

    The problem is that journalists and even doctors are usually unaware of this. That is changing now, however slowly. We have to give David Tuller his due - he is working very hard to get this right, one topic at a time.

    Bye
    Alex
  9. anciendaze

    anciendaze Senior Member

    Messages:
    859
    Likes:
    882
    The article is a great improvement, but the truth is simply too unbelievable. That "well-defined cohort" specifically touted by the BMJ last year in an editorial originated in a study on psychosomatic medicine. The criteria first used excluded those with signs of recent viral infection. This cohort was then used in a study looking for viral etiology. To trace this, you must follow through two levels of references.

    The CDC criteria are both the Fukuda definition and the Reeves 2005 definition, which are somehow identical, so that it didn't matter that the Reeves definition was published long after studies which used it. Analysis of the questionnaires and instructional material used in Wichita shows post-exertional malaise has either been redefined or deemphasized. Published responses to questions about Reeves vs. CCC from the CDC show physical signs of infection again being primarily exclusionary. This is not how you test an hypothesis of viral etiology.

    As a journalist, Tuller should be instinctively suspicious of anyone who "operationalizes" a definition. What this apparently means is that the questionnaires form an operational definition which is somehow related to a declarative definition by Fukuda. The apparent discrepancies between several definitions are of little concern to Reeves, et al. They have specifically endorsed the Oxford definition as also based on Fukuda, and specifically criticized the CCC. A careful analysis of detailed definitions shows they just don't give a damn about most signs or about excluding primary depression.
  10. cigana

    cigana Senior Member

    Messages:
    577
    Likes:
    170
    UK
    Does anyone have Tuller's email address? I want to thank him...
  11. Sing

    Sing Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes:
    422
    New England
    I too want to email David Tuller. How do you get an address from the NYTimes?

    Thanks!

    Sing
  12. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    Likes:
    5,189
    Yes, I would have liked a space for comments e.g. to plug the petition on the CDC (so-called) "empiric" criteria (see my .sig).
  13. leela

    leela Slow But Hopeful

    Messages:
    2,374
    Likes:
    2,744
    Couchland, USA
  14. Hope123

    Hope123 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes:
    532
    Supposedly, you can click on his name (byline) and it will go to an e-mail form but this isn't working for me.

    I suggest people write his editor so both he/she and Mr. Tuller know the impact of this piece. I can't find the health section editor name but here's some info - perhaps write to "managing editor"?

    NEWS DEPARTMENT To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, e-mail nytnews@nytimes.com or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS. To contact a reporter, click on the byline of one of his or her articles to access the reader e-mail form. You can also find any reporter's archive here (alphabetized by last name; reporters' names are italicized): Times Topics: People

    The Editors
    executive-editor@nytimes.com
    managing-editor@nytimes.com
    The Newsroom
    news-tips@nytimes.com; thearts@nytimes.com; bizday@nytimes.com; foreign@nytimes.com; metro@nytimes.com; national@nytimes.com; sports@nytimes.com; washington@nytimes.com


    From this link under "News" -- http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/infoservdirectory.html

    There are a variety of feedback mechansims but it seems mostly geared at how well online NYT works, delivery issues, etc.
  15. gracenote

    gracenote All shall be well . . .

    Messages:
    1,508
    Likes:
    42
    Santa Rosa, CA
  16. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,177
    Likes:
    1,826
    I am always suspicious of any paper that overtly describes its patient group as "well defined", or similar. One would hope that modern medical research understands that patient selection must be well defined to give reliable results, and that it is a given, and only worth mentioning if it is not well defined, or is a newly improved definition of patient selection criteria.

    Methinks they doth protest too much, sort of thing.
  17. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,169
    NYC (& RI)
    Leela, I feel exactly the same way!

    Do you mind emailing Mr. Tuller your links on PEM? I don't know much about the studies, so maybe you want to give him some context. Others have put up the link to his Berkeley page with email.

    http://aboutmecfs.org/News/PRJan09Pacific.aspx
    http://web.pacific.edu/College-of-th...aboratory.html
    also, the Light study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19647494
    plus, this slide from a komaroff presentation, from the Light study
    found on page 15 from here: http://www.cfids.org/webinar/slides-091610.pdf
  18. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    264
    Long Beach, CA
    Oh, yeah, me, too! It's that old technique of "Tell a lie often enough and people will start to believe it." And it has worked.
  19. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    264
    Long Beach, CA
    My feelings exactly. I thought this was a great article. He did a good job of explaining the fairly arcane topic of case definitions and how it could affect the results of the PACE/GET study. I'm very happy to see it in the NYT.
  20. cigana

    cigana Senior Member

    Messages:
    577
    Likes:
    170
    UK
    I just emailed the editor and asked them to forward the email on to Tuller.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page