That being the case, how would you suggest that we encourage serious researchers to look into issues such as this when all we have is a series of anecdotes?
I had briefly suggested in a previous post something that might be the way forward:
there is the problem of 'credibilty of the reporter' (lone M.E/CFS patient = not credible in scientific bureacracy terms) and perhaps this is something PR could take on as an advocy project ? A simple report of "this is what contributors to the PR forums have said about incidental effect of treatment with mebendazole, we think that perhaps it raises some issues which may be of relevance to your research" - possible contacts would include the manafacturers of Vermox and the authors of the various papers quoted in this thread plus any M.E/CFS researchers who have an interest in metabalism.
I think the position can be deconstructed in the following way:
Process of effective communication
1. a entity (Individual, Institution or Business) who/which has access to attributable resources is to be encouraged to pursue a line of research of specific character.
2. the entity is not amenable to demand i.e no legal, political or moral obligation can be enforced.
3. given the condition at 2. the relevant party can only be encouraged to pursue research where it has an established interest ongoing related or adjunct research, or active profit motivation.
4. the conditions at 3. define parties which operate primarily in terms of contract such that a high degree of scepticism is applied to any external approach which is itself lacking in demonstration of either the availability of resources or the prior commitment of resources at a scale comparable to that expended by the entity which is being encouraged to undertake research of a specific character, allowing or requiring a contractual relationship between resourcing parties. (in simple terms either money or work product has to be on the table, work product has to be from a validated source)
5. the condition at 4. limits what is achieveable by a low resource, non expert communicant. Any contact that is made with a qualifying entity (Individual, Institution or Business) has therefore to made with awareness of the likely scepticism that any communication will arouse. The only likely effective strategy is a small target approach the more frugal the commucation, the less material there will be to feed scepticism. Which basically means an unalloyed, unqualified report of observed phenomona, absent of any claim, interpretation or request.
IVI