Hi.
At the Invest in ME conference, Fluge and Mella said clearly that they felt the most probable reason for the non-response of a third of their trial subjects was the short period of the trial which only allowed one or two infusions of rituximab.
They felt that the rituximab was bringing "something" down and the reason that some did not respond within the time frame was that further infusions and more time were required to allow the blood levels of this "something" to lower, enough for a visible and measureable reaction to become apparent.
They already had extended the time period of the trial once, as it became apparent in its course that patients were responding, but after a longer delay than initially anticipated when the trial was designed.
I disagree absolutely with all statements of the disparate nature of ME. ME is no more disparate or difficult to diagnose than any other disease, as anyone with any experience of patients with this disease can verify.
The myth that ME is unusually disparate is a political statement designed to frustrate research into a medical condition which presents, and can be diagnosed, according to the rules that apply equally to all medical conditions.
(This stupid remark claiming heterogeneity always infuriates me.)
As Mark says, if ME is disparate, lets identify the sub-groups, and get on with researching them as we would any set of diseases.
But no, disparate is only used to obscure definition and prevent any analysis of this disease.
At the Invest in ME conference, Fluge and Mella said clearly that they felt the most probable reason for the non-response of a third of their trial subjects was the short period of the trial which only allowed one or two infusions of rituximab.
They felt that the rituximab was bringing "something" down and the reason that some did not respond within the time frame was that further infusions and more time were required to allow the blood levels of this "something" to lower, enough for a visible and measureable reaction to become apparent.
They already had extended the time period of the trial once, as it became apparent in its course that patients were responding, but after a longer delay than initially anticipated when the trial was designed.
I disagree absolutely with all statements of the disparate nature of ME. ME is no more disparate or difficult to diagnose than any other disease, as anyone with any experience of patients with this disease can verify.
The myth that ME is unusually disparate is a political statement designed to frustrate research into a medical condition which presents, and can be diagnosed, according to the rules that apply equally to all medical conditions.
(This stupid remark claiming heterogeneity always infuriates me.)
As Mark says, if ME is disparate, lets identify the sub-groups, and get on with researching them as we would any set of diseases.
But no, disparate is only used to obscure definition and prevent any analysis of this disease.
