Search results

Is it 6? Looking at the 6 "responders" in Supplementary Table 1, these are the changes in step count over a year: And the non-responders: Also, are the criteria for being classified as a responder and the time period for step count measurement the same when you talk about 1000 step count...

Ok, but this doesn't change the issue outlined in the scenario above. If a study puts the people who have a small increase in step count due to a (very minor) benefit from Rituximab, along with naturally recovered individuals, into a responder group, while it doesn't put anyone taking Dara...

Ah, sorry. I didn't realize you were comparing to responders in the Rituximab study. I think there might be some statistical issues with comparing averages of responders only. One way to think of it is, imagine both studies have a small number of individuals with a huge step count increase of...

If we're talking about averages, it has to be about the whole group. Otherwise, it would be cherrypicking - the same as if we found one person in the Rituximab study with a 5000 step count increase, called them a responder, and were comparing to that. From Dara trial: So average increase of...

It was a claim by Lawrence Afrin in one of his books. See this post: https://www.s4me.info/threads/mast-cell-activation-syndrome-mcas-discussion-thread.16483/post-666242

If you're wondering about the AlphaGenome scores for this variant, it's pretty much the same as other indels in the area, in terms of high scores (though with some sign flips). Edit: This is from the excel file in this post...

I think Nath is following a T cell exhaustion-type idea, where there is some sort of antigen that the immune system can't clear. It seems that inhibiting PD-1 increases immune response.

Phase I Open-Label Safety Trial of Pembrolizumab for Neurological Post- Acute Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PD1-PASC I) Brief Summary Background: SARS-CoV-2 is the virus that causes COVID-19.Some people who recover from an acute COVID-19 infection may continue to have symptoms that persist for...

For people who have access to the full original article, is the Expression of Concern actually mentioned on that page? I can only view the abstract, but I would think the Expression of Concern should show up for everyone. I don't see any mention of a 2008 Letter to the Editor about the case...

Looks like the New Yorker article led to some action. Retraction Watch: Lancet flags long-scrutinized report of infant poisoned by opioids in breast milk The Lancet: Expression of Concern: Pharmacogenetics of morphine poisoning in a breastfed neonate of a codeine-prescribed mother Edit...

The paper says enrollment requires ME/CFS criteria, though I don't see that in the ClinicalTrials.gov registration yet. From Wikipedia:

Protocol Paper: Effectiveness of metabolic modulation in treating post-vaccination syndrome: study protocol for a prospective and randomized controlled trial Halma, Matthew; Varon, Joseph Background Post-acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PACVS) emerged as a rare complication of the...

Effect of Metabolic Modulation on a Post-acute COVID-19 Vaccination Syndrome (PACVS) Cohort (ViTAL-SCAN19) Brief Summary The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether metabolic modulation with a combined nutraceutical product can improve symptoms and metabolic health in adults...

Yeah, I'm not sure if this is only based on his own word. NIH, at least, denied it:

Thanks, very interesting.

Maybe I should have put "bad science" in quotes to indicate that it was McSweegan's claim. I have no knowledge of the Lyme Disease Foundation or what kind of science they do. I just thought the story of how he stopped getting work so he started writing books on NIH time was interesting.

Just the story is interesting. That he called out the Lyme Disease Foundation for bad science, and the NIH appeared to make him stop doing any important work because of that.

Can you give a simpler explanation for what you're doing? No idea what I'm looking at on the linked pages.

Yeah, it is odd. They seem to mostly be consistent within the same tissues, but I did find a few that flip within the same tissue. Some examples below. Again based on chr20:48935095:C>CTCTTTTTT and ZNFX1. I see that at least for cerebellum and frontal cortex, there's a difference in signs but...

The scores I posted are all for predicted brain expression, but looking at the scores across all tissues for the same variant-gene pair of chr20:48935095:C>CTCTTTTTT and ZNFX1, it's similarly high for pretty much all tissues. I attached all the predicted scores for RNAseq that include that...