including the one from Connecticut
LOL
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.
including the one from Connecticut
I still think there might be a bias though, if only one that is a result of the available technology. It seems to me that they might be testing for antibodies against both bacteria and viruses, but only testing for physical proof of the viruses and not the bacteria. Perhaps this is because Lipkin doesn´t put much faith in culture techniques.
Anyway, I will shut up now and wait for the study to get funded, to be done, and then for the results to be published...and then I will either say I told you so or I will say nothing at all.
Why don´t they look at pathogenic bacteria as well as viruses? I´m not too bothered about this study not getting funded if they are only going to look at half the picture, especially as the other areas are already being covered by Davis, Hanson and KDM.
Your posts suggest that you haven't read much about what Lipkin is planning, and that you have a profound knowledge deficit about the nature of Lipkin's plans. I strongly urge you to read up on his research plans; plenty of good quality articles have been written about his plans. His plans are vast and comprehensive; too comprehensive for me to fully comprehend. As outlined in my previous post, your posts also suggest a lack of understanding of the science (e.g. why a blood test for bacteria would be of no value in the scenarios that you've mentioned). And, to be honest, I find the attitude unfathomable whereby you think that either your very narrow pet interests are investigated (based on an apparent poor grasp of science) or the rest of the community (and huge ME research projects) can be damned.Identifying potentially large flaws in a study is strange, short-sighted and negative?
...If most people gave just 1% of what they spent on (often speculative) treatments, this would add up to a huge amount of money.
Ironic, given you seem to have just described people who think Lyme may be involved as sporting "a garbage hypothesis." That's pretty personal, no?
Lyme proponents attack Lipkin all the time? I'm sorry, you've lost me. Btw, that is pretty much a blanket attack on Lyme proponents, i.e. you are impugning them to a degree..
Hence in the CF Dr Ian Lipkin study or any other Government grant study past, present or future on CFS, well... no Lyme, Retrovirus, or HERV is found is it or if it is, it's not going to be further discussed (as happened with Dr Montoya's 85% positive retrovirus patients) Generally speaking outside the USA too, by not ruffling feathers, globally, scientists get millions of dollars in research funding for other studies not involving CFS deemed very important (such as Ebola) you gain more power, and you retire a very happy bunny feeling highly respected and 'da man', because you did a lot of good work, and 'CFS' was just a bump in the road.
Let me clarify. I do not care about Lipkin per se. I care if there are holes in his research.
Your posts suggest that you haven't read much about what Lipkin is planning, and that you have a profound knowledge deficit about the nature of Lipkin's plans. I strongly urge you to read up on his research plans; plenty of good quality articles have been written about his plans. His plans are vast and comprehensive; too comprehensive for me to fully comprehend. As outlined in my previous post, your posts also suggest a lack of understanding of the science (e.g. why a blood test for bacteria would of no value in the scenarios that you've mentioned). And, to be honest, I find the attitude unfathomable whereby you think that either your very narrow pet interests are investigated (based on an apparent poor grasp of science) or the rest of the community (and huge ME research projects) can be damned.
Lipkin not explicitly investigating your personal hypothesis is not the same as there being holes in his research