Update: The video of Dr Nath’s talk is now available on youtube. Dr Avindra Nath, Chief of the Section of Infections of the Nervous System at NINDS, gave a presentation on February 16 at CDC Grand Rounds going which went into detail on NIH’s new intramural ME/CFS study. The recording should be up on February 18 at http://www.cdc.gov/cdcgrandrounds/, but
NINDS Director confirms PEM and CCC required for NIH post-infectious ME/CFS study.
ME/CFS is going to be the topic for CDC’s monthly Grand Rounds this Tuesday at 1 pm ET. The title of the session is “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Advancing Research and Clinical Education.” The presenters will be Anthony Komaroff (Harvard Medical Center), Elizabeth Unger (Chief of CDC’s Chronic Viral Diseases Branch), Charles Lapp (Hunter-Hopkins Center, P.A.), and Avindra
Editor’s note: This is a clarification on the NIH’s earlier, accidental release of the intramural study protocol, which listed the Reeves definition as the sole definition of the new study. Robert and Courtney’s summary of their conversation has been confirmed by multiple sources within the patient community, including #MEAction. Robert and I had a well-timed
Marcie Zinn, Mark Zinn, and Leonard Jason of DePaul University published a case study this week that details how qEEGs can clearly show the dysregulation that occurs in the brains of CFS patients. The case study is of a 43-year old man with CFS (diagnosed by his doctor using the DePaul Symptom Questionnaire and meeting the Canadian Clinical Case definition).
I am writing this piece to offer Dorothy Bishop & Stephan Lewandowsky some patient perspective on their joint piece in Nature : “Research integrity: Don’t let transparency damage science”. Specifically, I would like to add some context to this line in particular:- “When people object to science because it challenges their beliefs or jeopardizes their interests, they are rarely committed to informed debate.”
Professor James Coyne told a packed audience at Belfast Castle in Northern Ireland on Sunday that the PACE trial was “bad science” that was “being badly misrepresented by the investigators”, resulting in “clear harm to patients”. The PACE authors had, he said, changed their study endpoints after peeking at the data and had suppressed analyses
Thank you to Jennifer Spotila for giving us permission to reprint her article and for all of her great investigative work. The original post can be found on her blog at http://www.occupycfs.com/. NIH: Who Reviewed Grants in 2015 In order to get NIH funding, a researcher has to succeed in several levels of application review. A persistent controversy
Journalists Julie Rehmeyer and Dr. David Tuller have published an analysis concluding that the PACE trial failed to demonstrate the safety of graded exercise therapy, despite its authors claiming that it was a safe treatment for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). Their article, on Virology Blog, concludes that “the PACE researchers’ attempts to prove
Yesterday, Columbia University professor of statistics Andrew Gelman published a warning that The Lancet was risking its reputation by refusing to rectify errors in the main paper on the PACE trial that appeared in the journal in 2011. In his article on a popular statistics blog, Professor Gelman described the PACE authors’ refusal to share
