Search results

Measuring miRNAs is not the same as measuring SNPs, but I'd also caution that their miRNA research is subject to the same sort of statistical false positive risk.

There is a worldview difference between us and these people. The "illness" is that we're complaining about are considered to be the symptoms themselves (hence the name "CFS"). Whatever the cause of those symptoms is no matter to these people (psychiatrists and their friends) if we stop...

It sounds like classic narcissism to me - it's more about how she feels and the voices of the patient community are unimportant.

Medicine has always been guesswork. It is more science-influenced than it has been in the past, but we are still quite far from comprehensive science-based-medicine. I'd say the ICC and CCC are quite specific "positive" diagnoses, but NICE and Oxford are still quite nonspecific.

I think she is genuine, but she is rather gullible and doesn't make a very good scientist. Science is not about trying to confirm your preexisting beliefs, but that is all she seems to be doing with her poor quality study designs...

I'm sure it'd be ugly...

There isn't a division between psych vs nonpsych. People like Lenny Jason for example are well respected. The problem is a key loss of trust between patients and certain doctors and researchers. The loss of trust is due to decades of unwillingness of those people to listen to patient experience...

:rolleyes:

This is a good point and brings up the idea of legacy of an old man - it is not merely about any breakthroughs by Davis, but about all the people he can encourage to enter into the field, whether on his team or not.

It means they don't have meaningful results yet. It's all hype at this point.

Tails we win, heads you lose. You can't have two opposite hypotheses, you choose the one that makes the most sense. Everything else is HARKing...

Some otherwise courageous people have the blind spot of not being willing to damage the careers of their friends. Ben Goldacre is one of those people. As for the rest, it makes no sense to 'morph' a feasibility study into a 'full' study. The study remains a feasibility study even if it is...

Exactly.. That said, it looks like this article was written by the first three authors with less input from Crawley/Knoop...

Yes, the question is whether it predicts or lags. I think this sleep finding may be associated with the 'wired' feeling you mention though.

This is interesting, but I wonder if it is just an artefact of being a pilot study with recruitment biases, or whether it is a non-specific marker of fatigue.

Specific metals likely give you hives. Nickel is a common culprit. Or brass (copper/zinc alloy). That said, my Garmin (hand me down) heart rate monitor does not use metal on the chest strap.

Yes. To clarify my position: Animals can be useful for primary research (not that I like it), but "Animal models" of disease are often too far from the human diseases that the results don't translate. A lot of the animal models of autoimmune disease are like this. I mean genetically engineering...

This is the crux. Unless it affects you personally, very few people care about these sorts of problems. I wonder if there is some sort of guilt-relief (maybe that could be worded better), eg we celebrate people like this so we don't have to care and do the hard work ourselves?

Excluding women from trials or not testing different dosages (where relevant) in women vs men are certainly valid problems. Historically there have been such biases even if this has changed/is changing now (according to the claims made by Jonathan). But who really cares about lack of females in...

The problem with non-specific tests is findings with poor specificity...