Search results

I don't think those points are actually well founded. The people that did the adjucation for the NIH study are all people that are generally viewed as well regarded: Lucinda Bateman, Andy Kogelnik, Anthony Komaroff, Benjamin Natelson, Daniel Peterson. They did not apply any overly rigorous...

Yes, but the main problem was that most people didn't meet the criteria of the study because the criteria were pretty rigorous. The criteria for the F&M study appear to also be somewhat strict as well. For example the NK condition could already cut a third of your pie away. No doubt they'll do...

My limited own experience with ME/CFS clinics would tell me that you pretty much want Fluge and Mella alongside pretty much most of the recruitment/assessment processes in some capacity. There's no point in hiring people that are supposed to examine people when they have no idea what ME/CFS is...

I don't think we currently know. The NIH also had 500 people banging on the door for their study but only 20 ended up being eligible. Possibly Fluge and Mella also have other stuff to do. I think we're just gonna have to wait and see how quickly things can be done. The most important thing is...

I recall there being a pretty sizable study by Luis Nacul. I think there was a recent meta-analysis on NK cell findings discussed here on S4ME.

Why should it matter? If the box has no eggs inside it doesn't matter whether the imaginary eggs are green or yellow? The response was higher to placebo than to Rituximab across the different centers and in most of the individual centers. Fluge and Mella had a higher response to the placebo...

Surely they aren't telling the people what they'll be receiving ;)

The story of this young persons fate is absolutely horrible, the plan to avoid such stories seems nothing but dismissive of the actual cause of problems to me. Nothing of what is being suggested here as the solution even makes any sense to me in the context of her case. The GP could have just...

Now published in Cell as "KLK15 alters connective tissues in hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome" https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(25)01604-9. If this is the published version then its a published version where there appear to be significant changes to the preprint version, even...

Looking at the authors I saw that they just published a WES study for hEDS thats already been discussed on S4ME https://www.s4me.info/threads/variants-in-the-kallikrein-gene-family-and-hypermobile-ehlers-danlos-syndrome-2024-gensemer-et-al.38900/#post-537710.

Yes, it looks like the approach to controls seems to be quite different here to that of DecodeME? I was under the impression that DecodeME just wanted to get the largest set of possible controls, with the priority being to reduce false positives and not minding the possibility of increasing...

I think those are very fair points. The results could easily be related to bendiness without being related to anything else. In that case think point 1. would be more accurately be reflected by something along the lines of "1- it seems unplausible that self-reported hEDS would stand for a...

I think it's pretty hard to have meaningful arguments about reproduction rates when there isn't data for anything. I think anybody could just hypothesise whatever they want, but maybe I'm wrong about that. But if your suggestion is that people with hEDS have worsened bio-mechnical processes and...

I struggle to make sense of such an argument in the context of hEDS. Maybe it never affected reproduction rate much and it was partially advantageous to be bendy to shoot an arrow? The fact that this loci had an OR of 1.8 in "MUSC1" and 1.4 in the "All of us" could suggest that maybe you can...

That's a very fair point. But I still think it's very curious that they here use 3 seemingly quite different cohorts (in terms of recruitment) and in all 3 of them the OR for the 2 risk loci is much higher than any of the risk loci identified in DecodeME (the lowest OR for any of the 2 loci in...

In this study 3 cohorts were used. The authors seem to suggest that their results are somewhat consistent amongst these cohorts. One of these cohorts is the "All of US" cohort, which is a cohort that is not specific to one illness and I thought illness status is confirmed view EHR records (I'll...

But people in "All of US" are not answering specific hEDS online questionnaires (at least from what I've understood) and from what I've seen the authors seem to suggest that their results seem to be quite homogeneous amongst the different cohorts.

Quite possibly, but the authors seem to suggest that heterogeneity of their different cohorts seems to not have driven the results here but rather the opposite. Maybe they picked the studies for their meta-analysis in such a way that would make things work or maybe its sufficient for a low...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because doesn't the same seem to apply to DecodeME (https://www.s4me.info/threads/initial-findings-from-the-decodeme-genome-wide-association-study-of-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-2025-decodeme-collaboration.45490/post-637039 )?

Is what exactly the case? The factsheet does not provide an exact argument for how this statement was made, so how do you want to analyse whether it is the case here? The lead variants picked out here seem to not have identified as significant in previous GWAS (at least according to a quick...