• 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 (FM), 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.

Hornig/Lipkin cytokine study out now - press release

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
It seems like a potentially significant result to me.
Its statistically significant. That does not mean there are not false positives. However some have very low p values, so low they should make the PACE researchers cringe because they can't do that well.

Also think that one chance in a googolplex (a very big number) is still a chance. Maybe White is betting on the outside chance.
 

Ecoclimber

Senior Member
Messages
1,011
Anyone find it ironic that this study would never have happened if it weren't for XMRV. Or the further irony that it took private funding.

Since these findings were known then, why has it taken so long for this to get published?

Perhaps they were waiting for the conclusion of IOM study which for the first time designated ME/CFS as a disease clearly communicating the fact that ME/CFS is not a psychiatric, psychosomatic or psychogenic disorder. Furthermore, that the patient community throughout the years were marginalized, mistreated, ignored, abused and mistreated by those medical professionals whose duty was to protect and to treat them. Powerful special interests groups from the disability, medical and health insurance industries played an important part in keeping this under wraps throughout the years through their public relations efforts at media spin.

Speculating that Lipkin’s research was delayed to piggyback off the IOM report giving credence to the report by maximizing and supporting the conclusions of the IOM by stating that the cause for ME/CFS is clearly, biological.

Hopefully, this will give impetus for the NIH to finally fund research to investigate and find the cause in this incredibly debilitating disease. PaceTrial be damned.
 
Last edited:

RustyJ

Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
Messages
1,200
Location
Mackay, Aust
Perhaps they were waiting for the conclusion of IOM study which for the first time designated ME/CFS as a disease clearly communicating the fact that ME/CFS is not a psychiatric, psychosomatic or psychogenic disorder. Furthermore, that the patient community throughout the years were marginalized, mistreated, ignored, abused and mistreated by those medical professionals whose duty was to protect and to treat them. Powerful special interests groups from the disability, medical and health insurance industries played an important part in keeping this under wraps throughout the years through their public relations efforts at media spin.

Speculating that Lipkin’s research was delayed to piggyback off the IOM report giving credence to the report by maximizing and supporting the conclusions of the IOM by stating that the cause for ME/CFS is clearly, biological.

Hopefully, this will give impetus for the NIH to finally fund research to investigate and find the cause in this incredibly debilitating disease. PaceTrial be damned.

I have an alternative view. The authors of the IOM report would certainly have known about this study and could easily have waited till it was published rather than push forward their own schedule. As far as I know they were briefed. It is pretty hard to ignore a study of 600 plus and it would have passed all their requirements (some might say that was the problem).

The IOM report spelled out clearly there was no physical evidence (this apparently was a major goal of the P2P, to establish that there was no evidence) yet chose to make the statement that the disease was real. This was a contradiction. Most professionals would see past the upbeat language and take note of the admission there was no evidence. And this was borne out in the criticisms by professionals. The clarion call that the disease was real had an obvious hollow tone.

No, my earlier comment was that, leaving aside the obvious discontent with the XMRV outcomes of the study from some quarters, including one of the principals of the study, why was this data ignored for so long. It was not why was it published now. Your explanation may be true for why it was published now, though I doubt it. In fact I would have thought they would have got more mileage by getting it into the report.
 

RustyJ

Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
Messages
1,200
Location
Mackay, Aust
Discussions re the IOM report are off-topic.

Please can we not derail this thread with IOM discussions? (Let's have well-needed break from IOM in this thread?)

Please take IOM discussions to an appropriate thread:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?forums/institute-of-medicine-iom-government-contract.114/

The responses re IOM are clearly talking about the impact of the timing of the release of this study. I see your comment as trying to filter out unwanted discussion. Lipkin himself has mentioned political obstruction in his me/cfs work.

It's important to gauge the government's response to this study, particularly for future funding. If it is that they are reluctant to accept this study then there will be no government funding for future or validating work.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
The responses re IOM are clearly talking about the impact of the timing of the release of this study. I see your comment as trying to filter out unwanted discussion.
Yes, I'm trying to filter out unwanted discussion, from this thread only. I'm not a moderator, so it's just a request. Please could you start a new thread if you wish to continue to discuss the IOM? Otherwise, it will quickly spiral into a heated off-topic discussion.
 

RustyJ

Contaminated Cell Line 'RustyJ'
Messages
1,200
Location
Mackay, Aust
Yes, I'm trying to filter out unwanted discussion. I'm not a moderator, so it's just a request. Please could you start a new thread if you wish to continue to discuss the IOM? Otherwise, it will quickly spiral into a heated off-topic discussion.

My response it then that posters limit their comments to those that are non inflammatory.
 
Last edited:

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
My mum just phoned me to tell me that her newspaper included an article about the research. I hadn't prompted her about the research, so she wasn't looking out for it. She's not familiar with all the scientific details re ME. But she told me that she is thrilled to see that they've finally demonstrated that ME isn't just "yuppie flu" or psychological in nature. Unfortunately Michael Sharpe was quoted in her newspaper, but she didn't take much notice of his comments. Anyway, my point is that the news seems to be cutting through into the general population.
 

msf

Senior Member
Messages
3,650
The only sense I can make of White and Co.s comments, apart from it just being a case of clutching at straws, is that using subsets (early vs late) increases the chance of statistical error purely because the study populations are smaller. Yet the sample sizes are still quite large, at least compared with almost any other ME CFS study, so it still seems like clutching at straws to me. It's not like they've produced massive of evidence to the contrary.
 

Simon

Senior Member
Messages
3,789
Location
Monmouth, UK
For cytokines that differed between short- and long-duration groups, levels were correlated with duration of illness, and in the expected direction: inverse correlations with duration of illness for cytokines that were increased in the short-duration group, and positive correlations for the two cytokines with reduced levels in the short-duration group (CD40L and PDGFBB) (table S7).

But I wasn't sure if that meant correlation by duration within each of the groups or whether it was across the groups.
Within all cases (see table S7 in supplement).

To translate the original statement into English they found that
  • For those cytokines that were higher in the short duration group, the correlation mean that, on average, the longer someone is ill, the lower the level of the cytokine
  • For cytokines that were lower in the short duration group, on average the longer someone is ill, the higher the level of cytokine
@user9876 I'm sure you realise this but I translated for my benefit, and others'
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
The only sense I can make of White and Co.s comments, apart from it just being a case of clutching at straws, is that using subsets (early vs late) increases the chance of statistical error purely because the study populations are smaller. Yet the sample sizes are still quite large, at least compared with almost any other ME CFS study, so it still seems like clutching at straws to me. It's not like they've produced massive of evidence to the contrary.

This brand of psychobabble is all about appearance. It never made much sense. So we get statements like "the PACE trial paved the way for the IOM report" or comments about chance findings when the interferon-gamma abnormality is highly statistically significant, with a high odds ratio. It's about dominating the discussion with sheer quantity of bullshit that might look sensible on first glance.
 

Antares in NYC

Senior Member
Messages
582
Location
USA
Just wanted to point a minor detail about this study that caught my attention. The authors claimed there may be up to 4 million Americans suffering from this disease. That number is higher than the 2.5 million range mentioned by the IOM report.
I wonder what criteria they used to come up with the number, but I do believe it to be true. It does make me think there's an infectious trigger to this thing.

As a personal anecdote, just within my extended circle of friends I know of five people that have been diagnosed in recent years. I know more people that have been diagnosed with CFS or CFS/fibro than I know folks with MS or lupus.
 
Last edited:

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
As a personal anecdote, just within my extended circle of friend I know of five people that have been diagnosed in recent years. I know more people that have been diagnosed with CFS or CFS/fibro than I know folks with MS or lupus.
It always surprises me that almost everyone, who I speak to, seems to know someone else with ME.
 

msf

Senior Member
Messages
3,650
The statistical trend Simon mentioned seems to make White and co's remarks seem even more desperate. I don't see how this could reflect anything other than what the rearchers suggest, assuming that the age factor has been weeded out.