Search results

I think that's going to take another fact sheet, though, and we have very limited capacity...

If a lot of the issue is our organisations backing this stuff - and other organisations not challenging it - then that's a big problem, because individual PwME are unlikely to take the word of another random PwME about this. If this is a major factor, then how do we get the organisations to act...

All our main UK charities have 'ME' in their name, not 'ME/CFS', so this comment applies to everything they put out (and that we put out, come to think of it - we're 'Science for ME', not 'Science for ME/CFS'). Do you think they/we should change names to 'ME/CFS' for this reason or would it be...

Wouldn't it be better if the DecodeME team could send them the press release (I'm assuming there must be one)?

Sorry, JemPD! That is indeed a very boring thing to have to do. I think it's one of the tougher aspects of this whole thing.

The time will pass quickly, and meanwhile, there's Netflix!

You can donate straight to Chris Ponting's Edinburgh lab. @Andy posted a link a while back but I can't find it.

One more sleep!

Can't believe it's only two more sleeps now!

Thanks @Andy - exciting!!! Will the results be on the TV etc. news earlier that day?

If there's little exposure, presumably there's not enough to have a therapeutic effect either...

I wonder if a group of doctors, and the charities, writing a joint open letter with a press release and getting someone like Carol Monaghan MP to push for it might help - but maybe that has already been tried. I'm hopelessly out of touch on this issue and what has already been attempted.

How can that be made to happen? What can be done to get the charities to know what to do or to get medical advisers (or medical advice) about what to do? Is some sort of mini-conference needed? Or just a long Zoom call?

I can see a good role for the use of the internet/apps for physio, because my unrelenting experience of physio has been to be given a bunch of exercises that I can't remember and can't make enough notes on, when a video would be spectacularly useful and the obvious way to impart the info. Also...

Isn't one of the problems going to be that genes are sometimes inherited in strings of genes rather than as individual units, so if you have a disease association with a particular SNP, it might not be the gene containing that SNP wot dunnit? But the gene next to it, or a bit further down the...

Thanks, @forestglip! I was wondering if I was already at the end of the road for a bear of little (well, zero) biological brain.

So from that lot, I'm randomly picking the gene SYNGAP1, which the GeneCards link tells me is 'Synaptic Ras GTPase Activating Protein 1'. The stuff at the top of the GeneCards page seems to be the guts of it and it says the stuff below. What do I do next (and how do I do it?)? (A slight...

Aha! @forestglip had to ask the study authors for the full list of genes, since they're not in the original paper. Gene | p_value | q_value | Attention_difference_case_vs_control DNMT3A | 9.827243889E-09 | 0.00002300778546 | 0.6657754794 ADCY10 | 0.0000004241863691 | 0.000496557788 |...

Also! Once I've got a gene, where do I look it up? Is it this GTEx database that @forestglip used, or GeneCards, that someone else used, are there others? Or is one enough?

That's interesting, and I wonder if it's a bit unusual to update a quote like that and shift its emphasis so much. I wonder if Dr Shepherd felt his overall view hadn't been correctly represented. But the risk of that happening when you say, 'There are some good things but a ton of bad things,'...