*GG*
senior member
- Messages
- 6,397
- Location
- Concord, NH
You have to be a member to read the article. Can you give us the gist of it?
I think anyone can join for free!
GG
You have to be a member to read the article. Can you give us the gist of it?
Good point! Have you seen this: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/197...-any-viral-infection-mit-scientists-draco.htm ?
To really push these figures, you could allow for the fact that 4 ex 13 (with SF36 data) rituximab patients were non-responders. Assuming non-responders improved as placebo patients gives a score of 86.4 for responders, and 85 is probably an acceptable score for healthy (it's the PACE protocol recovery threshold).Traditional 0-100 scores
Rituximab: baseline 44.9, mean max score 76.5; gain = 31.6
Placebo: baseline 47.3, mean max score 56.5; gain = 9.2
Autoimmunity comes for a reason, and that reason can very well be infections...
Yup, that's the downside with it, they say ten years for it to be approved and get out on the marked but DAMN, give me this shit!
I'm wondering why more people haven't rated the PLoS one article yet? (1-5 stars)
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0026358
Hmm, interesting.. I also find it to be a coupal of years. Three in my book. So in 2014 we'll get it.
Could it be that they didn't make more of them because they are not familiar with the literature evaluating ME treatments (and how poor some of the outcomes are)?
Jenny
But what about the american scientists who came up with the same results where the patients were cured and who thought the rituximab will be out in about a year?