Search results

That's a fair point!

Another thing that your model will have to explain, @Jonathan Edwards! The weirdnesses are piling up.

That happened to me, in the first year or so of my ME/CFS. I caught a cold and I felt EPIC. And then it was gone.

Thanks! Wow, these things cost a bit. But I suppose that if they're getting a quarter of a million visits a year, it's worth a one-off investment to fix it up.

That's a lot of money! Do you mind if I ask where you saw that figure?

Important to know that a lot of people are advising anyone with 23andme data to log in and get it deleted, for fear of where it might end up. The BBC reported that some users were having problems (possibly due to high traffic on the site), so I went onto the site at 7am when I thought it would...

What about 'Can switch slowly'? Or 'Can also switch slowly?' Some people gradually go into remission, or even appear to recover, but it's gradual. Doesn't the theory therefore have to be able to explain both a rapid switch and a slow one?

I find that really surprising.

I wonder if it's based on three people! I can't see the data.

We talked about 'Rosetta stone' people a while back, whose ME/CFS switches on and off sometime, and whose biology could tell us a lot if we caught them at the switching point. I guess that's what we're talking about now and I don't know why I seem to have suddenly become resistant to the idea!

I agree, but with misdiagnosis so common, and this 'switching off' phenomenon so rare, can we be sure that the people showing it really have the symptom pattern that we would call ME/CFS? And if they did, what if, out of (imaginary number) 10 million PwME worldwide, only one showed this...

It might not look like such a good point in the morning!

But does it have to explain features that are so rare that it raises the question of whether that person is so unusual that it may be something else very rare about them that allows their ME/CFS to behave in that way, rather than it being a feature of the ME/CFS itself? (I'm trying to think of...

But is that a reasonable test? I'd have thought that that experience was extremely rare among PwME, but we have heard a few examples.

I think this 2023 preprint maybe tells you but I don't understand it. But look at that DNA go, in this video! As a 'naked' half of the strand goes through the nanopore, which has an electrical charge, each DNA letter (A, T, C or G) gives a different electrical signal of disruption of the field...

The abstract says (broken up for readability): Standard genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and rare variant burden tests are essential tools for identifying trait-relevant genes. Although these methods are conceptually similar, we show by analyzing association studies of 209 quantitative...

No, that's not true, fortunately. Please see the DWP guidance, or the ME Association advice booklet. They're both clear that being able to do something once isn't 'reliably'.

You get points for each level of a particular activity. So for walking, you'd get maybe two points if you can't walk 200m, four points if you can't walk 50m, eight points if you can't walk 20m, etc. (I've made these numbers up, but that's the principle). So the new requirement insanely means...

Yes, it is. In a randomised trial, patients are being assigned at random to one group or another. The patients are being 'randomised' - that is, randomness is being done to them.

I'm now wondering whether, as per @Jonathan Edwards, getting booted out of a clinical trial before it starts doesn't mean that you don't have ME/CFS but means that the research criteria used in trials are tighter than is appropriate in real life.