Can'o'worms.
This paper is predicated on speculative computation based guesswork about the possibility that HPV vaccine proteins could mimic human intracellular proteins and trigger autoimmune disease including ME via an hypothetical mechanism involving Treg suppression of autoimmunity as mooted in the Nacul paper a while ago.
The speculation goes way beyond the actual work carried out and additional discussion of vaccine adjuvants and macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF) steps deeper into the medical-political-commercial minefield surrounding what the WHO currently regard as unproven suspicions about vaccination.
WHO Global Vaccine Safety : Macrophagic myofasciitis and aluminium-containing vaccines.
https://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/reports/october_1999/en/
Recommendations of the Committee
- From the data, opinions and discussion presented, the Committee found that there is no basis at present for recommending a change in vaccination practices (vaccine selection, schedule, delivery practices or information) with aluminium-containing vaccines.
- To further understand MMF, the Committee strongly recommends that research studies be undertaken to evaluate the clinical, epidemiological, immunological and basic science aspects of MMF.
I feel the consideration of adjuvants in relation to mimicry theory in this paper is a non sequitur in relation to the title. It seems to me this early draft of this paper is being used to advertise a grievance and its publication is perhaps an attempt to raise awareness of the adjuvant controversy, apparently based on Romain K Gharardi's decision to address ME CFS in his own paper as part of what appears to be a long running campaign against aluminium in vaccination adjuvants, which has its opponents. I would remind readers of the controversy over the autism/Thimerosal theory and the harmful consequences of these ideas which are now considered debunked. This paper does not consider epitopic mimicry at all.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ersistency_and_diffusion_in_the_immune_system
Gharardi equates ME/CFS due to EBV (a virus) and Coxiella burnetti (intracellular bacterium causing Q fever) and "Borelia burddorferi", (a blood born bacterium which causes Lyme disease), with each other and with ME/CFS due to aluminium particles in the muscles of vaccination recipients causing MMF without any empirical basis for doing so.
I have seen papers containing empirical evidence interpreted as meaning EBV produces TH2 shift and Lyme TH1 which suggests to me these have distinct etiologies and are likely to be different subtypes of CFS, or possibly different conditions entirely.
https://www.s4me.info/threads/comparison-of-diagnostic-criteria-discussion-thread.7508/#post-206312
The Gharardi paper offers no evidence that these conditions are related apart from subjective matching of loose CFS criteria e.g. to the best of my knowledge it is not known whether they are all marked by TGF-beta increase for example, which would at least indicate they were related subtypes which could all be candidates for testing the Treg / mimicry / Tcell suppression theory if it was the case, so I feel lumping them all together is not meticulous and is probably a class error and regard this as speculation which as yet provides no basis for linking alleged MMF induced CFS to the mimicry theory.
So the Sepúlveda paper is speculation about speculation, a shot in the dark and not empirical science.
While speculation is not a crime, I also feel that linking ME research to MMF and unsubstantiated claims against adjuvants is likely to harm the reputation of ME research in the medical establishment and so constitutes a risk without a valid justification. While I have felt for a while now that seeking funds for credible research couldn't get any more frustrating, now I am not so sure.
As an ME patient its always interesting to know what researchers are thinking, but I feel that through this paper, we, the vulnerable ME community, are being played and used for someone else's crusade and I don't like it, I dont think we deserve that. If they really want to publish this work in a useful way for ME and mimicry theory research, my feeling is they would do better to constrain the discussion to the discoveries of the computation, lay out the possibilities for lab testing the hypothetical topological predictions in vitro (since sequence homology does not an epitope make due to secondary, tertiary and quaternary structure, so this must be verified in vitro) and avoid theorising beyond the scope of the discoveries and mimicry the title addresses.
).