• 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.

'Yuppie flu' an inflammatory disease which blood test could easily diagnose, say scientists

E

ebethc

Senior Member
Messages
1,901
boolybooly said:
That was the Kerr study, it later failed to prove these subtypes in the statistical analysis following on from the study because they could not predict the subtype of an individual based on the data and the derived signatures.

My comment was really a rhetorical way of saying we cannot proceed until we have sorted this issue out. If Stanford have found a way to screen their subjects then this needs to be discussed in any write up so we can learn from any criteria they used to get consistency.

For the field as a whole we need a molecular standard for distinguishing subtypes and not get ahead of ourselves because all that will happen is team A will say we found a thing and team B will say we tested our CFS group and found diddley, especially if team B are looking for govt or insurance funding.
Click to expand...

I agree that CFS is more than one illness, and I think that's what the research and treatment will show eventually... However, I disagree that we "can't move forward" until we have a perfect understanding... It's like saying we can't move forward w a cancer treatment because we have to understand every type of cancer before we treat ppl... I think it's the opposite: the only way to move forward is to research, learn, create treatments....Some will be helped by treatment, and other won't, and gradually we'll understand why some are helped and some aren't, be it genetic differences or a different flavor of CFS.

BTW - I think that's why some ppl are helped by treating leaky gut... they've caught the illness at a different (earlier?) stage + have the genes to support a recovery by healing leaky gut; other ppl are helped by mold avoidance; etc.. At some point we'll understand why, but tell the ppl who have helped themselves via leaky gut protocols and mold avoidance that they should have done nothing and waited for perfect understanding.... doesn't make any sense.. there's interplay between research + clinical, and you can't have a perfect research hypothesis when you're addressing a broad, complex problem... The nature of testing is very, very iterative...
 
Last edited:
boolybooly

boolybooly

Senior Member
Messages
161
Location
Northants UK
Well I agree we need to keep trying and at an individual level there are grounds for hope that progress can be achieved with one's own therapy and that is a personal, subjective and iterative process.

If only we could save people the process of trial and error by diagnosing effectively and passing on what we have learnt about our own condition to people with the same condition for whom it will be helpful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.