Physiological measures in participants with CFS, multiple sclerosis and healthy controls following repeated exercise, 2017, Hodges et al

Published back in August but I didn't notice it then.

Small pilot study.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/cpf.12460/abstract

 

The authors are all in New Zealand, so yes, it seems so.

 

So glad to see NZ associated with something other than Keith Petrie and Rona Moss Morris.

 

Well, certainly a very worthwhile approach but a pilot and only 7 mecfs and 7 MS patients makes the conclusion somewhat overblown

I’m willing to bet they didn’t correct statistics appropriately for all the many comparisons, which might do for the stat sig results.

Above all, we know that results from previous exercise studies on mecfs patients are all over the place, and until researchers can identify and achieve consistent results for mecfs patients (perhaps by sub groups), it’s likely to be impossible to have a meaningful comparison with other conditions.

 

Is the point not that ME patients, even if not all of them, do not have the same results on the second day? It is so taken for granted that everyone has the same results if this test is repeated that patients with heart disease or lung problems are only given the one test.

While it cannot be proved that no MS patient or heart patient will not have different results, a single ME patient who does deteriorate shows this is something that desperately needs to be studied.

 

It does state it's a pilot study, and suggests rather than claims. A bigger study would be good of course.

 

Whilst I can see the value in being able to demonstrate a marked dropoff in performance for pwME I worry, given the sort of linguistic trickery we have seen in the UK, that the use of word "repeated" may be misused.

That we will end up with what bears striking similarity to the old witchfinder trials.

Just keep testing them - if they get better they're okay, if they die they were clearly ill, oops - but at least we don't have to treat them, or put up with them in our nice cosy society. Win win, from one point of view.

Probably just me

 

@ Wonko Not something that had occured to me, but I wouldn't be surprised!

 

I don't see this as necesarily just about an in-service diagnostics strategy. Initially it is about paving the way for changing people's attitudes, helping them see there really are biological differentiators that distinguish ME from other conditions. Maybe then motivating further research to develop more viable in-service diagnostics. This line of research, especially if replicated on a larger scale, could be a big nail in the BPS coffin. Now where did I put that hammer.

 

Is this it?

pdf:
https://mro.massey.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10179/14653/02_whole.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y