Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

What is your personal theory or understanding of ME/CFS?

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS Discussion' started by Jesse2233, Dec 9, 2017.

  1. femtosecond99

    femtosecond99 Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes:
    72
    Ah, I think that may be the problem. Cartesian Dualism doesn't exist, and no sane scientist espouses it any more. I think the problem is many people still cling on to the belief that the mind and body are completely separate, even though that idea has been thoroughly debunked.
     
  2. cmt12

    cmt12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes:
    151
    A valid concern but..

    In my view, the anti psych materialist naively ignores or underestimates the difficulty of removing bias and distortion (subjectivity). They believe their judgments to be logical (objective) conclusions that follow empirical data when it reality they are using intuition and affected by confirmation bias as well.
     
    andyguitar likes this.
  3. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,947
    Likes:
    15,939
    The fact that the same non-cytolytic enterovirus infection is also found in the muscles of healthy people was known even in their earliest work. But the prevalence of these muscle infections was much higher in ME/CFS patients.

    That's normally what you demonstrate in pathogen studies: you show that the pathogen is much more prevalent in the disease patients than in the healthy controls. In that way, you prove an association. Of course proving whether or not the pathogen actually causes the disease requires more research.

    But there is nothing in the enterovirus muscle infection research that disproves the possibility that this virus may cause ME/CFS.

    There is also the enterovirus brain infection research, which so far shows complete 100% correlation between the presence of the infection and ME/CFS.



    You are right, it's just the Th1 response cortisol reduces, which results in a Th2 boost.



    The study's conclusion that responders were 7.4 times more likely to be in the Valcyte group was a statistically significant finding (p-value = 0.029).

    But the limitations of the Montoya study were the small amount of patients, and the very short treatment time of only 6 months. Lerner's study indicates that improvement is gradual, and takes 3 months for the benefits to begin to appear, and around 2 years for the full benefits to manifest, with not much further improvement being made after the 2 year point.

    You can see the gradual improvements in Table 3 of Lerner's study, which I copied into this post.



    That's a possibility, but if you look at studies which have examined the improvement and recovery rate of ME/CFS patients, in the general case they show that improvement and recovery is rare (see this study which found improvement in less than 6% of patients after 5 years).

    So the improvements in Lerner's patients seem unlikely to be due to natural improvement, because it seems there is rarely natural improvement in ME/CFS in general.

    However, for the post mononucleosis ME/CFS subset, recovery looks much more common: this study found that at first contact, 10% of patients were still working, but after 7 years, 55% were at work.

    So post-mono ME/CFS seems to have a far more optimistic prognosis than ME/CFS in the general case (ME/CFS linked to other viral or non-triggers).

    Maybe EBV-linked ME/CFS is just "ME/CFS lite" compared to the ME/CFS associated with other viruses?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    Sancar likes this.
  4. duncan

    duncan Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes:
    4,519
    I am speaking to objective evidence as defined and embraced by even the IDSA/CDC/NIH.

    There is plenty of data from plenty of patients that support active infections.

    Nothing naive involved, and no amount of psych consults can dispute the conformity to IDSA doctrine for these Bb patients who present with symptoms AND labs post-standard IDSA protocol..
     
  5. femtosecond99

    femtosecond99 Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes:
    72
    As far as I'm aware, it is just one post-mortem that found enterovirus DNA. And as you point out above, that is also found in healthy controls. I think if there was any possibility that it was causing CFS, OMF and others would be looking into it.
     
    andyguitar likes this.
  6. JES

    JES Senior Member

    Messages:
    537
    Likes:
    880
    Well it's perhaps too obvious to repeat, but drug trials already have a standard by which to remove bias. The most common way to do this by double blinded study, which has a placebo group and an active drug group, which are blinded both from the patients and the study conductors.

    Unfortunately, it seems to be that psychiatric trials rarely follow the same standard. The PACE trial for example, which was supposed to be the biggest and best, had no blinding, so patients knew exactly what therapy they were going to get in advance, and what's worse, the therapies that were preferred by the investigators (CBT/GET) were actively promoted by leaflets to be effective. The lack of blinding and relying on subjective improvement criteria only, as in the PACE trial, is a major problem and it seems to me that some kind of bias is almost inbuilt in this sort of trial, whereas drug trials at least follow the standard of blinding.
     
    Sancar and HowToEscape? like this.
  7. cmt12

    cmt12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    162
    Likes:
    151
    The issue is causation. There is a leap, a gap, from observation to a theory of causation. In that gap exists bias, even for the “rational” scientist.

    The question is who is more credible - someone who consistently warns to be aware of bias or someone who is insistent their theory is the right one but never brings up the possibility of bias, while assuming that anyone who disagrees with them is missing something.
     
    matt321 likes this.
  8. duncan

    duncan Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes:
    4,519
    Not for nothing, but your question lays the foundation for bias. :)

    Everyone needs to be wary about bias. But the issue was one of bias based on - your words - "intuition" vs objective testing whose metrics are accepted by the most conservative of agencies. I am only advocating for the latter.

    Moreover, I am suggesting that there are many diagnosed with ME/CFS who satisfy those metrics.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2018
    Sancar likes this.
  9. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,947
    Likes:
    15,939
    There are actually 3 post-mortem studies that found enterovirus RNA in the brain, Dr John Chia's being the latest one. They are detailed in this post.

    The brains of 8 controls were also tested, and these were found to be enterovirus negative.


    The Ron Davis and the OMF are going to test for enteroviruses and herpesviruses in their ME/CFS Severely Ill-BIG DATA Study. I just hope they understand that in ME/CFS you will not find much enterovirus in the blood, only in the tissues.
     
    Sancar likes this.
  10. femtosecond99

    femtosecond99 Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes:
    72
    Kamaroff concluded:

    "Some studies have found that enterovirus infection may be involved in CFS (68–72), but others have reported negative (73–75) or equivocal (76) results. Although one report claimed the discovery of a novel retrovirus in CFS (77), subsequent work has strongly challenged that claim (78–80)."

    I think all we can do is await the results of further studies.
     
    andyguitar likes this.
  11. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,947
    Likes:
    15,939
    Would you have a link or the title to that paper, I cannot find it. I'd like to read those negative studies.

    I have not come across any negative enterovirus studies, apart from some work at the CDC, where they tried to detect enterovirus in ME/CFS using PCR on blood samples, and as you would expect, got negative results.
     
  12. femtosecond99

    femtosecond99 Senior Member

    Messages:
    105
    Likes:
    72
    It's this one:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9509246

    Full-text is on sci-hub. It's pretty old, but then again I think most of those enterovirus studies are from the 90s.
     
    Hip likes this.
  13. rockymountainmama

    rockymountainmama

    Messages:
    23
    Likes:
    50
    New Mexico
    Personal Theory:
    CFS/ME is really several different illnesses that have yet to be diagnose-able OR there are distinct phenotypes. My CFS neighbor is a "moldie", I have a viral cause and suspected MCAS. Our symptoms are very different too.
     
  14. Hip

    Hip Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,947
    Likes:
    15,939
    Thanks. The three negative papers mentioned in the above review you provide are give below. The second out of three used the wrong methods of detection, but it is not clear why the first and third failed to find enterovirus in ME/CFS patient muscles.

    Failure to demonstrate enterovirus in Swedish patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome — 1996
    (I could not find this exact title, but this paper I think refers to the same study results)

    This study failed to find any enterovirus by PCR in muscle biopsies of 29 ME/CFS patients.

    It's not clear why this study failed to find enterovirus, as muscle biopsies are exactly the right place to look for enterovirus in ME/CFS.

    One possible explanation is the PCR primers used: their primer targeted the 5' region of the enterovirus genome — well this is the viral genome region where there are genetic deletions in non-cytolytic enteroviruses, so this might explain why the authors could not detect these viruses. (In non-cytolytic enterovirus, small parts of the enterovirus genome in the 5' region gets deleted and are no longer present; thus non-cytolytics do not carry to full enterovirus genome).

    However, the other 7 studies that successfully found enterovirus in ME/CFS patients' muscles also used primers that target the 5' region, but perhaps it was a different part of that region?



    Enteroviruses and the chronic fatigue syndrome — 1994

    This study failed to find any difference between 76 ME/CFS patients and 76 healthy control in terms of detecting enterovirus, using:
    • Antibody blood tests by ELISA (now known to be unreliable for detecting chronic enterovirus)
    • Antibody blood tests by complement fixation testing (now known to be useless for detecting chronic enterovirus)
    • VP1 test of the blood (well you don't find much virus in the blood in ME/CFS, and I think this VP1 test developed by Prof Mowbray was shown ineffective)
    • Isolation of virus from stool specimens (this approach is not valid for finding non-cytolytic enteroviruses, to my knowledge anyway)
    • PCR on stool samples (this approach is not valid for finding non-cytolytic enteroviruses, to my knowledge anyway)
    I don't think they employed any detection method that was likely to find chronic non-cytolytic enterovirus infections. To successful detect chronic non-cytolytic infections in ME/CFS, Dr Chia found you need to use antibody blood tests by neutralization (the gold standard of antibody detection), whereas ELISA, IFA or CFT are not reliable. Or you need to detect infections in tissue samples (eg gut or muscle tissues) by PCR or VP1 protein staining.



    Investigation by polymerase chain reaction of enteroviral infection in patients with chronic fatigue syndrome — 1996

    This study examined 34 muscle biopsies from ME/CFS patients and 10 muscle biopsies from controls. They used the same PCR primers as Gow (who found enterovirus in his study), so it cannot be a primer issue.

    But commenting on the differences between their negative and Gow's positive results, the authors say:
    So the authors suggest that there may have been more non-viral patients in their cohort. And different unknown and unclassified enteroviruses might be involved.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
    Sancar likes this.
  15. halcyon

    halcyon Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,330
    Likes:
    5,457
    The Swedish enterovirus study seems highly suspect to me. Ignoring the fact that it uses bogus criteria, it seems impossible that they found absolutely zero virus in anyone. As other valid studies showed, you should find some evidence of virus even in healthy controls. The fact that they found not a single person with virus makes me think their was something very wrong with their methodology.
     
    Sancar and Hip like this.
  16. WoolPippi

    WoolPippi Senior Member

    Messages:
    514
    Likes:
    1,383
    Netherlands
    Lol@“moldie” :rofl::rofl:

    Does that make you and me a “buggie”?:sluggish:
     
    ljimbo423 likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page