[ME/CFS Research Foundation] International ME/CFS Conference 2026 on 7–8 May - register for free now!

Reduction in aab hits from Huprot. Good linear fit.

Note 6 green line was a placebo responder aka nonresponder, her sf36 went up at the start but dropped later. Also her step count did not go up. This shows how FM measure response is very accurate. SF36 increasing with no step count increase means nothing.

Only debate is that 9 dropped same amount as 7, but I imagine its due to difference in types of aabs dropped and 7 hit the bad ones

@jnmaciuch
@Jonathan Edwards
you guys might find this interesting
 

Attachments

  • 1778234617628.png
    1778234617628.png
    137.8 KB · Views: 34
Last edited:
ryanc97 said:
Reduction in aab hits from Huprot. Good linear fit.

Note 6 green line was a placebo responder aka nonresponder, her sf36 went up at the start but dropped later. Also her step count did not go up. This shows how FM measure response is very accurate. SF36 increasing with no step count increase means nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes the infamous 6th ´´responder´´ shows why step count, or other meassures like going back to work, education, even if just part time is so important in non-placebo controlled studies, like in P1. SF just isnt enough in itself to avoid being fooled by randomness.

Think I was right in my tealeaf reading about this one at least not being a real responder at all
 
Last edited:
Immunoabsorption phase 2 RCT showed no significant difference between groups. Disappointing but not shocking, perhaps.

Although the two researchers presenting it kept talking about how happy they were to share the data which made me think it might go the other way!

Does immunoabsoption do much for traditional autoantibody mediated disease?
 
The controlled Immunoabsorption study shows no result on its primary endpoint. That is a bit of a shocker for the audience, they expected that to work but they measured IGG of controls and treated and the differences were there it just didn't impact Chalder Fatigue Score nor SF-36.
 
Is it me or are none of these studies controlling for subtype, symptoms, or test results?!

I keep seeing slides saying something worked or didn't work but they have no idea who it worked or didn't work for!
 
Liface said:
Is it me or are none of these studies controlling for subtype, symptoms, or test results?!

I keep seeing slides saying something worked or didn't work but they have no idea who it worked or didn't work for!
Click to expand...
The studies without controls don't seem to be setting themselves up to determine these sort of questions for some reason and they ought to. All the ones with control have failed to find an effect.
 
Rick Sanchez said:
Yes the infamous 6th responder shows why step count, or other meassures like going back to work, education, even if just part time is so important in non-placebo controlled studies, like in P1. SF just isnt enough in itself to avoid being fooled by randomness.

Think I was right in my tealeaf reading about this one at least not being a real responder at all
Click to expand...
Yes, sustained step count cannot lie, which is what I've been pushing over here. It can't lie.
 
BrightCandle said:
The controlled Immunoabsorption study shows no result on its primary endpoint. That is a bit of a shocker for the audience, they expected that to work but they measured IGG of controls and treated and the differences were there it just didn't impact Chalder Fatigue Score nor SF-36.
Click to expand...
The most interesting thing about that null finding might have been Scheibenbogen's response!

She sounded mad.

I am in no position to judge if she was right on the substance but it sounded like there may be bitter divisions in German research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom