An antiibody can change a cell to do something totally different than it usely does.
I think this is probably limited in what it can do, but changing a B cell to an NK cell? What are we trying to get rid of using Rituximab? The proximate target is B cells, though arguably the final target is plasma cells. What innate cell type do we have that does not work? NK cells. This approach is intriguing to say the least. I think a pilot study might be a good idea at some point, presuming that the research can stand up to scrutiny.
On psychobabble I am content with just academic suicide. The PACE trial is an Achilles heel - touted as miraculous but so flawed it should be investigated for retraction. The latest article, still being published in parts by David Tuller, highlights just some of the issues we have been talking about, presumably those he has currently been able to verify independently. The argument that actions in the trial might have been unethical has surfaced again. Consideration that it is so fatally flawed that it has no value have also been cited. This could get interesting. While its not clear we are talking scientific fraud, it is clear that much of the argument is deceptive and misleading. For the most part they say what they did (but not always, hence the need for FOI requests), but their argument relies heavily on nobody actually reading and understanding what they did, just reading the reviews, or abstract, or bits and pieces of the papers.
This might be academic suicide in progress:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...he-pace-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study.40664/
