Stanford Work Mentioned as Possible Test for ME

[Wishful]

From New Atlas: https://newatlas.com/chronic-fatigue-blood-test-biomarker-stress-stanford/59461/

It talks about the blood test from Ron Davis' work as a potential test for ME. Nothing really new, but I thought I'd post the link in case someone out there needs to convince someone that ME is considered a real physiological disorder. Maybe they'll accept a mention in a public 'new innovations' site even if they refuse to accept medical journal articles.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

if they refuse to accept medical journal articles

I find all these newspaper and online newsy articles to be unacceptable. I would not hand them to anyone.

I would HAND THEM: Page one (if nothing else) of Davis et al. 2019. Instead of articles that lead over and over to the statement psychological and a misstatement of the history of this illness swarm.. The abstract, Intro/Literature Review and References. To all those studies. Not psychological.

Its misreporting. Or: it should be reported as: tons of evidence ME/CFS is an illness, but the decades that it was ignored for convenience. It saved so much money to ignore it, didn't it.?

 

[Shoshana]

https://www.omf.ngo/2019/04/29/omf-funded-research-nanoelectronics-blood-based-diagnostic-biomarker/

Thanks for sharing that link that you gave ,above @Wishful

I think the best article and best info about this test, is at the link I am giving here, and it is a good direct site
(omf.ngo )
to gather all the info on what the researchers at Stanford are working on for us. And it includes the recent report from them, this week.

 

[Hip]

The published study about this nanoelectronics diagnostic biomarker is here. Full paper on Sci Hub.

 

[Wishful]

I find all these newspaper and online newsy articles to be unacceptable. I would not hand them to anyone.

I agree that it's not rational to trust mainstream news over professional journals, but humans frequently are not rational. I'm sure there are people who take news from the worst tabloids as truth, yet reject sources that really are more trustworthy. Some will accept news if they encounter it repeatedly in their favourite sources, even if those are bad tabloids or TV. I posted the link mainly for those who need to show ME news in a more mainstream source.

I think getting such stories in mainstream media will help with awareness of ME.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I agree that it's not rational to trust mainstream news over professional journals

I guess I was thinking: what to wave in front of a Medical Doctor.

Not what do wave in front of: all other outside interested parties (whomever they are, I am still wondering myself).

 

[Gemini]

The published study about this nanoelectronics diagnostic biomarker is here. Full paper on Sci Hub.

@Hip couldn't get thru on the Sci Hub link?

However, noticed on the PNAS website one can create an account and pay $10 for access to the paper.

 

[Hip]

@Hip couldn't get thru on the Sci Hub link?

The link works for me in the UK. Here is an alternative Sci Hub link for the same paper:

https://sci-hub.tw/10.1073/pnas.1901274116

 

[Mel9]

https://www.omf.ngo/2019/04/29/omf-funded-research-nanoelectronics-blood-based-diagnostic-biomarker/

Thanks for sharing that link that you gave ,above @Wishful[/ and best info about this test, is at the link I am giving here, and it is a good direct site
(omf.ngo )
to gather all the info on what the researchers at Stanford are working on for us. And it includes the recent report from them, this week.[/QUOTE]


thanks [USER=28930]@Shoshana

The Erin Allday report in the San Francisco Chronicle is great:

a really clear and concise explanation of something incredibly complicated.[/USER]

 

[Seven7]

Until the UK ME charities deal with the health media center, and the lobbying of
The psy, we will not move forward as fast, they will die trying to sell their model, and they are coordinated media center helping. So until we get same or better strategy will be back to 0

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I think the best article and best info about this test

We should: use links to press releases and articles which are balanced and accurately report the research. We should kill off or not use links to articles which are mis-representing the research outcome here and are pushing the ROW, the FIGHT, the DISAGREEMENT. Not the science outcome, and implications.