Search results

My two pence worth is that people come up with these convoluted theories because as complex as they may appear to be, it is always much easier to come up with something like this which doesn't require any good evidence (you literately just make something up that sounds plausible,and likely...

Not sure I explained myself well. It is not an uncommon experience for those submitting papers to occasionally receive some nasty criticisms, and more commonly some polite but disingenuous criticisms. Some people are just dicks, and some have personal or professional dislike for you or your...

A test of the adaptive network explanation of functional disorders using a machine learning analysis of symptoms Author Information: Melidis C, Denham SL, Hyland ME. University of Plymouth Abstract The classification and etiology of functional disorders is controversial. Evidence supports both...

I agree with Dr Davis in part and disagree in part. Can anonymous reviewers be nasty (or I would personally think of it more as having a negative motive)? Yes. But sometimes they are just right to criticise. Can anonymous ppl on the net be nasty (Or have a motive)? Yes. But sometimes they are...

It's so dumb I sort of think, do we even need to tackle this kind of "research"? I can't comprehend how anyone could be stupid enough to see any value in this sort of tripe. But, I've seen before, to my astonishment, that people really do. Astonishingly dumb this paper.

I've seen people make critical reviews of their research methodology in the past, I haven't looked closely at their work lately but their earlier stuff certainly had significant problems. It's possible that no one has torn them apart because it hasn't been significant enough work to bother. If...

Interesting because of calcium's importance in cell-signalling. I wouldn't be surprised if we do have a calcium problem in the cells, but I also wouldn't be surprised if a number of other diseases have similar problems. As others point out this group tend to be a bit sensationalist about their...

Interesting area to look at, I'd like to see more research but it needs to be much larger, deeper. It'll be expensive.

Same question here. On first glance these figures look quite concerning to me but it could easily be consistent with other comparable diseases (in which case it's just PIP as a whole that's the problem).

I missed it due to other commitments but having just read through the whole thread it looks like it went very good and I found it very interesting. I think anyone who reads this thread over the coming weeks and months will find it interesting. Off the back of this thread I'm actually going to...

Three other family members I share genes with have other illnesses/conditions, and all happen to be linked to dopamine. I only noticed this after I started to wonder if dopamine was a problem in ME. I'd like to see proper research around dopamine in ME.

I'd like to know if the biobank requires - or encourages - certain standards or research methodology and/or openness from researchers who want to use the samples?

the idea was, and is, completely mad. It would be challenged in the courts if they tried to introduce it.

Do we know it's down to egos or is this just speculation? I don't know anything about it but it might be for all kinds of reasons I'd have thought: different ideas, focus, funding restrictions, goals etc. I personally don't mind having a few different groups working on different things, to me...

My understanding which may be out of date is that Montoya though at Stanford runs separate ME\CFS research to the ME/CFS center set up by Ron Davis. But there is some collaboration too. Not sure if the T cell stuff is led by Mark Davis or someone else/something different but I'd imagine he's...

Got this email from OMF: Ron Davis remains one of the smartest researchers involved in ME/CFS in my view and he's assembled a lot of other top researchers at the ME/CFS center at Stanford.

Really? So individuals such as regular patients?

We don't know the intent, but even if we assume the best intent, it was, as you say, ill advised and insensitive. I think what David Tuller emailed Crawley on this subject was fair in this light:

:emoji_laughing:

This pretty much sums it up for me. Anyone can say that they are about research integrity, high standards, transparency etc. but words are cheap and when you look at what people actually do in terms of actions and in-actions, in some cases you see a contrasting picture. Good to see a committee...