But Cort said that it had been looked at before...I would interpret his words to mean something that hasn't really been looked at before.
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.
But Cort said that it had been looked at before...I would interpret his words to mean something that hasn't really been looked at before.
From Cort's blog:
I tell you though one of the embargoed gut findings is simply fascinating. It’ s a very different look at ME/CFS and I think it ties in really well in a way that nobody else is really looking it. If the finding holds up be ready for a big surprise.
So, it's in the gut...?
What has been studied before but has not had significant attention? Dysbiosis has had a lot of attention.
Enteroviruses? This quote from Hornig suggests not:
He didn’t state anything about more pathogens. I heard Mady Hornig state that when she was in Incline.
So, lactic acidosis, fungi?
I've been in 2 of Montoya's studies, so am curious where you got this info.. This is why you sit up and take note, when you learn that 85% of Montoya's patients were positive for a politically censored retrovirus, we the public, aren't allowed to know what it is (HERV, Exogenous etc). So guess what, different subgroups of CFS.
It came from a CFS PCOCA on 10 September 2013:I've been in 2 of Montoya's studies, so am curious where you got this info.
Sorry but I've no idea where in the call Lipkin said that. I found the quotation on this blog:Ian Lipkin said:"We found retroviruses in 85% of the sample pools. Again, it is very difficult to know whether or not this is clinically significant or not. And given the previous experience with retroviruses in chronic fatigue, I am going to be very clear in telling you, although I am reporting them in Professor Montoya's samples, neither he, nor we, have concluded that there is a relationship to disease."
I've been in 2 of Montoya's studies, so am curious where you got this info.
unknown. They've never told me the results of either study. One of them was the study that disproved xmrv - I think Lipkin still has my blood from that study. I'll ask Montoya next time I see him. I'm on anti virals.Are you retrovirus positive or unknown pooled positive? On meds?
Thank you for the link - was able to listen to most of it. I wonder what % of the control group tested positive for retrovirus. I strongly disagree that not following up on the retrovirus angle so far, is any kind of "political censorship." Either Lipkin, Montoya et.al. think it's a dead end, or they're still working on it. Peterson has devoted his career to this illness, Montoya stuck his neck out at Stanford to get a CFS clinic, and finally we get a researcher like Lipkin on our side, I'm not going to question their integrity, and presume some kind of cover up about a secret retrovirus.It came from a CFS PCOCA on 10 September 2013:
http://www.cdc.gov/cfs/meetings/cfspcoca-09-2013.html
There's a recording of the call here - it's very quiet but the quality is good.
http://www.mediafire.com/listen/yfnc43nl34n7tzm/dr ian lipkin 10 sept 13.mp3
Sorry but I've no idea where in the call Lipkin said that. I found the quotation on this blog:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/plague-update-xmrv
Edit: The quotation is just after the 9 minute mark. Lipkin concluded by saying "if I were to place bets and speculate I would say that that they are not going to pan out".
I would interpret his words to mean something that hasn't really been looked at before.
That would rule out leaky gut and enterovirus infection related things, or d-lactate and other stuff by Maes and Meirleir. But perhaps Cort simply isn't aware of what Maes and Meirleir think about the gut. It would be a nice surprise if some of their ideas were confirmed by an independent team.
Hi, thinking out loud here in my reply...
I'd add in my thoughts that Dr Lipkin has no authority to rule out anything jn ME or CFS. (No doctor in the world does until patients are seen in clinic individually).
I was in one of his studies and had been screened by an expert , Dr Montoya.
No CFS criteria needs to have anything proven medically wrong with the patient. So what matters more, is if you personally have an abnormality detected, not someone who doesn't have it.
I have no idea what this means.
If we look at Dr Lipkin's CFS negative papers (pathogens) 'researching' X number of people with self reported symptoms (based on chronic fatigue), it's inevitable, logically, a negative paper will happen, even consistently.
To find anything in ME CFS, the patients needs to be properly diagnosed by an expert (such as Dr Peterson/De Meirleir/Kogelnik - researchers who do find consistent infections in patients I should add). Otherwise, if you just add people in your study from a blood draw collection with 'CFS' on a tick box form,
A "tick box" made me chuckle, if you had seen the number of forms I had to fill out for the studies I've been in (though the I will brag and say the person running the test said I was the fastest filler outer....). Plus the amount of blood that was drawn. And it's not like Montoya just takes any person off the street who says they are tired and takes them on as a CFS patient - wait lists, referrals, blood tests, neuro tests. I'm not a fan boy of anyone. I am desperate, which is why I volunteer for studies, but to suggest that I can walk into a Dr.s office, say I have CFS/ME and get into one of Lipkin's studies is absurd. I honestly don't know why you would think that..
.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental design
Study population. Cases and controls were derived from two large studies of ME/CFS in the United States: a study supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the NIH (cases, n = 147; controls, n = 146) and another supported by the CFI (cases, n = 203; controls, n = 202)
- - -NIH study case definition.
NIH cases were between the ages of 18 and 70 years and met both the 1994 CDC Fukuda criteria and the 2003 Canadian consensus criteria for ME/CFS, expanded in 2010. Additionally, all NIH study cases had a history of a viral-like prodrome before the onset of CFS and reduced functional status in two or more areas identified by the RAND36 survey.
CFI cohort study case definition.
CFI cohort cases were between the ages of 18 and 65 years and met either or both of the 1994 CDC Fukuda criteria and the 2003 Canadian consensus criteria for ME/CFS. Twenty-five percent of all CFI cohort study cases were re-recruited from the NIH study.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/1/e1400121
Thanks for that Forbin. Lipkin's cohorts were also drawn from some of the best and most respected ME/CFS physicians in the US (including Dr Peterson, who Research 1st mentioned above as a good physician to draw cohorts from). So characterising them as weak cohorts does seem a bit bizarre. Lipkin's also a really top and internationally-renowned researcher, and his team's methods in their studies go way beyond the quality of research were are used to in ME/CFS studies. The enthusiasm shown towards the work of Lipkin, Hornig and Co by members of our community with scientific backgrounds is simply a reflection of the quality of that work.Below is an abbreviated description of the cohort used in Columbia's plasma cytokine study.
Thanks for that Forbin. Lipkin's cohorts were also drawn from some of the best and most respected ME/CFS physicians in the US (including Dr Peterson, who Research 1st mentioned above as a good physician to draw cohorts from). So characterising them as weak cohorts does seem a bit bizarre. Lipkin's also a really top and internationally-renowned researcher, and his team's methods in their studies go way beyond the quality of research were are used to in ME/CFS studies. The enthusiasm shown towards the work of Lipkin, Hornig and Co by members of our community with scientific backgrounds is simply a reflection of the quality of that work.
Lipkin used spinalfluid from Peterson. This is a very specific subgroup Marco.