Search results

Not that I am aware of, as I pointed out at the relevant meeting.

Chris is clearly aware of the option. There may be major practical or statistical difficulties in setting up a good quality study of multi-case families. I would be interested to know what everyone's thoughts on that might be.

My information when first re-joining the process recently was that there was no point in asking for severe services because they were not going to happen. I am hoping that position has changed.

That is up to Chris to decide. He is well aware of the options I think. Paying for one family set of WGS might not be that hard but someone has to plan how the data are to be analysed in the most efficient way.

Indeed. A full sequencing of the whole family would to my mind be very useful. Families with two cases and unaffected siblings might be even more useful.

My reading of the email was that this is a name change for the same group, whose real name is 'Dumping ground for those who have nothing much wrong for ages and need a "special service" to keep them at arms length Team'. Neither name makes any real sense but the new one sounds more sympathetic...

@Utsikt. post #98 @dave30th

Sounds sensible. I am fairly sure that there are quite a few sensible neuroscientists around like this. The problem these days is that popular perception of science is governed by the Twitterati.

That is quite an austere position. It is reminiscent of Leibniz in that for him space was the order of things that co-exist and time the order of things that do not co-exist. But even then he allowed that things will exist and have existed - which is how most people use the word. Interestingly...

You can add a third reader @dave30th, here. My understanding of CBT is that it is designed to manipulate. Helping with coping is called counselling. And we have no evidence for CBT being more good than harm in any circumstances as far as I know.

It is more that we not only affect but generate the future but we can never generate it a way that 'it wasn't going to be'. And of course there is the issue of what 'we' are in these statements.

He pointed out, 300 years ago, that the current debate about 'determinism' is based on false logic. And since we now use his updated version of Aristotle's logic, he was entitled to be listened to, but nobody has much. If everything is predictable without any leeway then that would be...

No. I think there are too many unknowns at present.

Yes, in theory one could establish the risks. For rheumatoid we have a pretty good idea. On average someone who gets rheumatoid has a one in four lifetime chance of getting it so if we reset their immune system to normal they would go back to (a bit less than) a 1/4 lifetime chance of getting it...

You are essentially suggesting that ME/CFS is set up genetically and that whatever the environment those due to get it will get it. One can test that by looking at identical twins who have got ME/CFS. They should be 100% matched. The data are limited but what we have does not show that if I...

It was cut as the nerve enters the abdomen. The vagus only connects to internal viscera as far as I know. So the connections to heart and lungs would remain. But what inflammation or damage are we talking about? We have not found any. Maybe signals still come from heart or lung, but what signals...

But is that study any good? The abstract gives us no usable data and the combination approach looks distinctly disingenuous to me.

Yes but the author starts off with this example of what they think needs to change: For years, I stood at the front of classrooms, extolling the virtues of the “objective” over the “subjective,” teaching students to prize “hard” data when examining causal relationships in epidemiology because...

It says it is though.

Presumably if you ask a Chatbot to write the books you can do it while playing golf.