Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Nov 29, 2019.
Free full text:
No control group, significany number of drop-outs were left out of the analysis, published in predatory journal ... this doesn't look good.
The only good thing about it is it looks as though they showed curcumin is pretty useless anyway as an ME treatment.
As a matter of curiosity, how can we tell it's a predatory journal? I did notice it's fairly new, uses long words in the title, and the paper was published within a couple of weeks of receipt - suggesting lack of peer review. That all suggested to me it's not a serious journal.
Didn't Jarred Younger complete a study looking into various botanicals that could target 'brain inflammation'? Curcumin was listed as one of them. I think they are going to publish it soon.
Curcumin is not useless as a treatment. Some people, such as myself, it makes a huge difference to. Others, it makes no difference. I guess there are differences in the things that are happening inside our bodies.
I should have said the trial showed very little effect, and nothing significant for the moderate and severe sufferers.
Our bodies are indeed very puzzling. I'm glad it helps you, Sarah.
I used to drink organic matcha green tea because 'they' claimed it was a powerful antioxidant and had anti-inflammatory properties. Then I read a study that said we would have to drink 1/3 cup (of powder) daily in order to get any benefits.
That's a lot of tea!
A friend of mine whose adult son is autistic had seizures from drinking matcha green tea.
So it kind of looks like the CDC inventory for assessment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a lousy assessment. Who knew that a crude tool of limited reliability could be, well, unreliable?
The worst thing about this obsession over lousy questionnaires is that modern science was essentially made on the need for precision in measurement. When science really got its wings is when it started to be possible to measure temperatures, masses and other properties of matter with high precision and accuracy. Before then "science" was pretty much like this right here: crude measurements, speculation and opinion anchoring.
Stop wasting time with whole number measurements when you need 8 digits precision. Speculation is entirely wasted trying to make sense of measurements that do not even give the same outcomes out of the same initial conditions.
Though I do appreciate the language use, of an open label trial. This is language trials like PACE should have used had they been honest. Except it would obviously not have had the influence needed for the con game.
Separate names with a comma.