The problem I have is that the sample size means the there are reasonably good odds that their a significant genetic difference between the two groups.
I am making no claim as to whether it’s real - I’ve known people who say they have it, and to me seems plausible, but I’ve also known people who are just not 20 any more, and have children, who also claim to have it - it seems plausible in the latter case that people have been sold on a message of “eat healthy and you won’t feel age”.
The problem with weak sample sizes is that it has a significant negative impact whether CFS exists or not:
* if it’s a real disease it could be an incorrect marker - for example let’s say the CFS positive group were all Bostonians living in California. It’s highly likely that a random sample of California natives will have at least some uniform marker. Now people who have the disease, but aren’t from Boston may not have the marker, so are told they’re not sick.
* the disease doesn’t exist, but you’ve got a marker now. People who happen to have the bogus marker are now diagnosed with something that they don’t have. Now they have a diagnosis that prevents an actual diagnosis of real issues.
So I don’t believe it is justifiable to publish a press release on something that effects millions of people, based on a sample that is so small.
The initial small sample size might justify a larger sized sample looking at specifically that marker. Then you also have better science (you have a “this marker indicates cfs” hypothesis), and more statistical robustness.
The problem I have is that the sample size means the there are reasonably good odds that their a significant genetic difference between the two groups.
I am making no claim as to whether it’s real - I’ve known people who say they have it, and to me seems plausible, but I’ve also known people who are just not 20 any more, and have children, who also claim to have it - it seems plausible in the latter case that people have been sold on a message of “eat healthy and you won’t feel age”.
The problem with weak sample sizes is that it has a significant negative impact whether CFS exists or not:
So I don’t believe it is justifiable to publish a press release on something that effects millions of people, based on a sample that is so small.The initial small sample size might justify a larger sized sample looking at specifically that marker. Then you also have better science (you have a “this marker indicates cfs” hypothesis), and more statistical robustness.