The true nature of an autoimmune disease, Leisk and Nocon 2021

joshua leisk said:
> If herpesviruses are at the root of ME/CFS, then how come we are currently amidst a long-covid (which is almost certainly CFS) epidemic caused by a coronavirus?

Hypoxia from COVID-19 triggers reactivation of EBV
Click to expand...

Exactly, how do we even know if much of Long COVID is actually caused by herpesviruses and only triggered by the COVID infection (since herpesvirus infections are fairly ubiquitous by adulthood). Is anyone looking into that?
 
I read the last part of the paper which includes a protocol with, as far as I can see, no clinical evidence to support it, and wild claims of being the cure for practically everything.

It is extreme and the authors say it is potentially dangerous, even life threatening. So I can only assume they will not be testing this on anyone outside a hospital based clinical trial, which I can't imagine them getting ethics approval for on the basis of this paper.
 
JohnTheJack said:
I think it is rather stretching it to refer to this as a 'paper'. It has not been peer-reviewed and in its current form, I doubt very much it could be published.

I note also that it refers to another unpublished 'paper' by the same author, one which presumably has also not been peer-reviewed.

In other words, it has no more standing than a blog post.
Click to expand...
I think that's called "well if an editor and 3 peers liked it, it must be correct" fallacy.

The main issue with my previous work has been the length of the papers. First one was 43 pages. This one is 39. It's too large for most journals, so the format doesn't work.

I wrote this one for a general audience, as it seemed the most relevant way to reach one.

On the basis that the amount of information being presented is unwieldy, I'll likely go down the route of finding a scientific editor, converting the three papers into a book, while having that peer-reviewed and published.
 
joshua leisk said:
I think that's called "well if an editor and 3 peers liked it, it must be correct" fallacy.

The main issue with my previous work has been the length of the papers. First one was 43 pages. This one is 39. It's too large for most journals, so the format doesn't work.

I wrote this one for a general audience, as it seemed the most relevant way to reach one.

On the basis that the amount of information being presented is unwieldy, I'll likely go down the route of finding a scientific editor, converting the three papers into a book, while having that peer-reviewed and published.
Click to expand...

Did you try submitting to any journals
? Did they say it was were too large during review? You should try if you haven't. I've published ME/CFS papers much longer than that without any length-related problems. I didn't think that would be a concern, especially given how many journals are online now instead of constrained by physical limitations.
 
Yes, for the first paper, it was bounced by two journals for reasons such as “insufficient space for other articles”.

If you have any suggestions on a suitable journal, I would enjoy having these peer reviewed. Thanks!
 
joshua leisk said:
Yes, for the first paper, it was bounced by two journals for reasons such as “insufficient space for other articles”.

If you have any suggestions on a suitable journal, I would enjoy having these peer reviewed. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Probably not my place to direct manuscripts towards specific journals but might be a good idea to check if a journal is online-only. Space would be less important when that's the case, is my guess.
 
joshua leisk said:
I think that's called "well if an editor and 3 peers liked it, it must be correct" fallacy.
Click to expand...

I make no such claims.

You present your work in the form of an academic paper. You upload it to a repository for papers prior to publication. You refer to your previous work on which this is based as if it had the authority of a paper. You refer to it as your 'latest' paper. And you have attempted and failed to get your work published.

Whether the system of peer-review and publication has any merit or not, I merely point out that your work has not passed judgment in that way and to refer to your work as 'papers' could be seen as misleading.

As I say, it has no more standing than a blog post.
 
JohnTheJack said:
I make no such claims.

You present your work in the form of an academic paper. You upload it to a repository for papers prior to publication. You refer to your previous work on which this is based as if it had the authority of a paper. You refer to it as your 'latest' paper. And you have attempted and failed to get your work published.

Whether the system of peer-review and publication has any merit or not, I merely point out that your work has not passed judgment in that way and to refer to your work as 'papers' could be seen as misleading.

As I say, it has no more standing than a blog post.
Click to expand...

I see your point - thank you - however my understanding, unless I’m mistaken, is that a preprint written with the intent of being peer-reviewed and published is still a “paper that hasn’t been peer-reviewed”?

I’m open to correction and learning nomenclature.
 
joshua leisk said:
I see your point - thank you - however my understanding, unless I’m mistaken, is that a preprint written with the intent of being peer-reviewed and published is still a “paper that hasn’t been peer-reviewed”?

I’m open to correction and learning nomenclature.
Click to expand...

By all means you may, at least as far as I am concerned. I was merely pointing out that your 'paper' had not passed peer-review and had not been published and was based on and refers to another such 'paper', and unless and until they do and are, then they have no standing as academic research.

You then appear to claim I was committing a 'fallacy' in giving this system weight. In response, I point out that I have made no such claims. Though since you have tried to get your work published and say now that you intend to have your work peer-reviewed and published, you would seem to think there is merit in the system, despite your remark about the fallacy.

We are in any case, it seems, agreed on the substantive point: none of your work has been peer-reviewed and none of it has been published and, as I say, unless and until it does and is, then it has no more standing than a blog post.
 
I noticed a few key words,a-KG pyruvate dehydrogenase and ammonia.
I think I maybe have high a-KG in urine and low pyruvate dehydrogenase.
I wondered why I would be getting rid of a-KG or making extra
 
Consider this from the recent APA AHA ME/CFS study by De Bellis and Montoya:

"..., a viral aggression toward the CNS causing injury of brain structures was already observed some years ago in patients infected by SARS-CoV, a coronavirus responsible for severe acute respiratory syndrome, leading to autoimmune central hypocortisolism and other pituitary deficiencies (34). A similar viral aggression toward the CNS has also recently been demonstrated in patients affected by SARS-CoV-2 (35).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom