Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 18,153
Maybe a lack of finding indeed!!
Hmm, perhaps my automatic spellchecker, which substituted finding for funding, knows more about this research than I do!
Maybe a lack of finding indeed!!
According to the CAA, 75.6% of patients developed ME after an infection. If we trust that statistic, and if we trust Dr. Edwards' assertion that infections don't trigger autoimmune disease, then the majority of patients likely have more in common with the epidemic patients than not. This would put the insidious onset patients in the minority.I believe this is a small and completely different subset from the vast majority of people with ME/CFS, somewhat like what @Marco stated I believe that the root cause of ME/CFS in this subset is different than the root cause in the vast majority of others.
I don't think there is a bias in diagnosis either and I agree that males with this disease will go to the doctor just as often as females. As I mentioned above, I worry more about the supposed large majority of patients that are undiagnosed. I also worry about misdiagnosis. As you mentioned, autoimmune disease is more prevalent in women. How many women included in your statistic have a CFS diagnosis but actually have an undiagnosed autoimmune disease as the true cause of their illness? Without a biomarker I will never be 100% confident in the reported prevalence.Also I really don't believe there is any significant selection bias or gender bias in diagnosis. This is not the kind of disease in my mind that can result in this. If you really have ME/CFS it is so life altering that you are forced to have to do something about it even in its mild forms it's really debilitating, so I disagree that a man will not go to doctor after doctor trying to get answers after being hit with this.
Jonathan Edwarunderstand 04458 said:This has become a jargon term amongst some Nk cell people. I think it is CD56 bright but not sure. They seem to be functionally different.
Right, but the point is that healthy people that clear the infection don't end up with non-cytolytic virus left behind producing these proteases.And note that this 2A-induced reduced STAT-1 response would be present in everyone who catches an enterovirus infection, including healthy people who have no difficulty in clearing such infections, so this 2A protease I don't think can specifically explain why ME/CFS patients do not seem able to clear non-cytolytic intracellular enterovirus infections.
I still believe that it's the infections themselves that are possibly causing the immune dysfunction. Recall that a number of the suspected ME triggering pathogens infect immune cells themselves. What happens when an enterovirus in a lymphocyte interferes with STAT1 signalling? Will that lymphocyte be able to operate properly? Obviously they only infect a small percentage of cells but it seems possible that this could cause some sort of dysfunction.To explain that, we would have look at immune weaknesses or dysfunctions that are prevalent in ME/CFS patients, but not prevalent in healthy people. That is the sort of immune dysfunction we are looking for, in terms of explaining the immune weakness in ME/CFS.
That last part is what Cheney was talking about I imagine.The LMW RNase
L hydrolyses RNA three times faster than the native RNase
L (13). Moreover the higher affinity of LMW RNase L for
its activator 2-5A suggests that LMW RNase L is activated
preferentially over HMW RNase L and thus contributes
more than the latter to the upregulated RNase L activity (8)
observed in CFS (6, 7). Consequently, the LMW RNase L
fragments are responsible for the uncontrolled degradation
of ribosomal and mitochondrial RNA, leading to apoptosis.
I still believe that it's the infections themselves that are possibly causing the immune dysfunction.
I don't believe there is going to be a consistent immune dysfunction present in all ME patients before onset. I think some may have acquired or inborn immune deficiencies that are present both before and after ME onset, and others had temporary immune deficiency due to some other factor at time of ME onset, but the deficiency in these patients might go away after onset as it only reflected a temporary situation.However, if we are going try to identify the possible immune dysfunctions or weaknesses that might help explain why ME/CFS patients cannot clear non-cytolytic enterovirus infections, I would think we need to look at dysfunctions or weaknesses which are specific to ME/CFS patients.
You're right, I don't believe that the immune evasion tactics have anything to do with development of ME. There is no difference between the enterovirus that infects a healthy person and someone that goes on to develop ME. The difference is in the host response to the virus. Those that develop ME likely had a deficient immune response that allowed the virus to escape immune containment in the GI tract and seeded the muscles and CNS with persisting virus.So it is not clear how the built-in immune evasion techniques of a virus can explain the difference between clearing the virus and succumbing to a chronic infection.
According to the CAA, 75.6% of patients developed ME after an infection. If we trust that statistic, and if we trust Dr. Edwards' assertion that infections don't trigger autoimmune disease, then the majority of patients likely have more in common with the epidemic patients than not. This would put the insidious onset patients in the minority.
That's what is implied. I don't think it's contentious that a large majority of patients develop ME after a flu-like illness, I thought this was pretty well established.They didn't name it post-viral fatigue syndrome for nothing. Of course there's no easy way to prove it, but I think it's a strong correlation and is the obvious place to start.Sorry if I didn't understand this statement correctly, but you are deducing then that 75.6% people have ME/CFS due to infection as the root cause?
Sure it's possible, but why would the autoimmune condition be present with no symptoms until the infection came along? If the infection hadn't come along, would symptoms of ME still develop? If not, doesn't this imply that the infection caused the disease?It is possible that the infection just might be something that happens as a side effect of the underlying autoimmunity that looks to be causal because it happens at the time as the ME/CFS onset, but in actuality the infection might not have anything to do with bring on the disease.
That's what is implied. I don't think it's contentious that a large majority of patients develop ME after a flu-like illness, I thought this was pretty well established.They didn't name it post-viral fatigue syndrome for nothing. Of course there's no easy way to prove it, but I think it's a strong correlation and is the obvious place to start.
Sure it's possible, but why would the autoimmune condition be present with no symptoms until the infection came along? If the infection hadn't come along, would symptoms of ME still develop? If not, doesn't this imply that the infection caused the disease?
According to the CAA, 75.6% of patients developed ME after an infection. If we trust that statistic, and if we trust Dr. Edwards' assertion that infections don't trigger autoimmune disease, then the majority of patients likely have more in common with the epidemic patients than not. This would put the insidious onset patients in the minority.
It is possible that the infection just might be something that happens as a side effect of the underlying autoimmunity that looks to be causal because it happens at the time as the ME/CFS onset, but in actuality the infection might not have anything to do with bring on the disease.
perhaps even you would have to look at your wife a bit suspiciously?.
Those that develop ME likely had a deficient immune response that allowed the virus to escape immune containment in the GI tract and seeded the muscles and CNS with persisting virus.