Update from Ron Davis April 2019 Interview with BenH

It may depend on what is meant by "remove". Best as I understand/recall it, they filtered the serum so that it was divided into two sections: serum with small stuff, and serum with big stuff. The particle in question was in the "big stuff" section, but with other big stuff.

They may have done other things since the last video I was able to watch.

This sounds like more tests that you know of.
But still might not isolate the exact particle? Else they might have been able to identify it or at least say what kind of particle it was.

 

I'm very interested in the nanoneedle, but my concern is the cellular dysfunction is further downstream. 2 people found no benefit with copaxone on PR, 1 or 2 found no benefit with suramin. So it might not be the drug screener we all hoped it would be.

Of course knowing what wacks the cells out may be helpful, if you could reverse engineer where it's coming from. But that seems a monumental task.

 

Re: Sweating

Among the symptoms listed in the CCC is:

I had night sweats early on, but then later I developed a sort of overreaction to changes in temperature. If I walked from a mildly cold outdoor environment to a warmer indoor location, I would start to sweat - a lot - for about half an hour. No one else around me seemed affected the way I was. It's not like I was jogging outdoors. I was just crossing a parking lot or something similar. The only other times I can remember experiencing this kind of sweating reaction prior to ME was when I was just returning to activity following a "flu."

 

I honestly felt disheartned by this update.

It looks like we went back in time : mold , Mercury, and “something in the blood”.... the same as two years ago

And we know NOTHING about dr. Naviaux validation study who has been swallowed up by the earth or dr Synder study.

I don’t think the tryp/ trap will lead to anything. dr. Phair doesn’t look very convinced (EDIT to change enthusiastic by convinced) about it either.

I feel worried about the contradictions about the T CELL study between both Davis: Ron and Mark, the only OMF project funded by the NIH so far.

And Finally I don’t see much collaboration with Nancy Klimas ( she never attended to Stanford Symposiums) and IMO she seems to be more focus on the problem.

 

Where did you get that impression from Robert Phair @Aroa I thought he was all enthusiastic. I did not see any video footage of him recently though..

 

I got that "impression" from the other forum. But it doesn´t mean that other Traps may pan out.

 

Thanks @Aroa... Glad he is going to keep going anyhow

 

Reading that message, I wouldn't conclude Dr phair isn't enthusiastic. I'd just say he is doing a good job about not being over enthusiastic.

 

Do we have permission to copy and paste messages from PR?

I'm just going to add this from HTester:

"To me, the evidence for dysfunctional energy production in CFS is just not compelling. There are many reports of small changes in Seahorse experiments, and a few reports of changes in mitochondrial morphology, but as a physiologist, I was more taken by the Vermuelen 2014 CPET paper (J Transl Med), which I still recommend to everyone as a classic in CFS research".

I'm a bit confused regarding this statement.

 

Robert Phair is a member here
@RDP

he discussed the metabolic trap on this thread
https://www.s4me.info/threads/stanf...traps-tryptophan-trap.6033/page-6#post-121063

 

I never understood why CFS researchers weren't interested in the mold clue.
This was no idle speculation or wild hypothesis cooked up by snake oil salesmen looking for a score.
It was the very clue that started the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"

Dr Scott McMahon at the January Mold Congress in Fort Lauderdale Florida

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zqiPNnqvOA

Moderator note: Discussion of mold has been moved to a new thread:
Mold as a possible cause of CFS Please continue the discussion there.

 

The slow pace of progress is also because they are very thorough and want to publish findings that are really true and relevant.

I like that they are listening to patients and testing unconvential ideas. One reason for the historical lack of progress could very well be that the illness is unconvential and that people have been looking at it wrong.