Page 3 of 3

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 20:18
by Henry
I understand perfectly well what is happening. From my vantage point, the best possible outcome would be for the Aucott and Johnson groups to get together and discuss how they might be able to achieve some sort of common ground and derive useful information from the cohorts of patients that they have. I believe some progress can be made, especially in determining who has CLD and who does not, as long as they keep people like you and Lorima "out of the loop". You are not problem solvers. Your only raison d'etre is keeping the controversy brewing. Neither of you have anything of a positive nature to offer -- nothing.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 20:37
by duncan
Henry, you dear boy, you needn't get your knickers in a bunch.

Please go on with what you think about the merits of the grants to Aucott etc, and the direction of their respective research efforts.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 21:00
by Henry
What makes you think that I wouldn't, Duncan?

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 21:04
by duncan
Because it might not be covered in the IDSA handbook?

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 22:35
by Henry
Duncan, Duncan, Duncan. You really disappoint me . I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that perhaps you're having a bad day.

It's like this: If during the course of detailed and thorough discussions between Aucott et al. and Johnson it becomes apparent that the Big Data Project is not likely to yield useful information about CLD, it is better by far for Aucott et al. to tell that to Johnson than for me to do so, even if I had much more information about the project than I now possess. What better way to discover the limits of how much we can learn from self-diagnosed patients about Lyme disease? However, all would not be lost. I assume the patients enrolled by Aucott et al. in their studies would be much better characterized than Johnson's 6,000 patients; if that is the case, than the latter might provide an excellent contrast -- perhaps as controls-- to ascertain what markers are relevant and which are not. Then, the $10 million would be money well spent. Do you get my drift? My role is that of an interested observer -- not the judge--of the outcome determined by Aucott et al. and Johnson. I hope they will keep all of us abreast of developments as they occur.

I rest my case.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Wed 16 Nov 2016 23:08
by duncan
Henry, which is better in diagnosing NB: The C6 or the 2T or an MRI or a patient's symptoms?

Let me answer that for you: They are pretty much equally important as they all represent different metrics used in the diagnostic process. But they are inherently different.

Johnson's Big Data and Aucott's endeavor look to be inherently different approaches. At best, they can be complementary. But ultimately, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Besides, you lost your case with your assumptive opening, i.e., "If during the course, etc., etc.", as the Big Data project has already yielded useful insights, and your implied qualification of participants in Big Data as all being self-diagnosed is far from accurate.

I suggest you forget about the Big Data project and focus on the merits of the studies proposed by the recipients of these grants - which after all is the subject of this thread.

Re: Johns Hopkins Awarded $10 Million Cohen Foundation Grant

Posted: Thu 1 Dec 2016 23:43
by migs
Well I find it heartening that research is being funded and good work is being done.

Clearly there is a benefit to not amalgamating two parties when one is considered to be somehow influenced or biased on the matter...I am sure all can appreciate that.

Perhaps there is no skeletons involved, no peer pressure, and no baggage whatsoever...all work is being approached with scientific purity. That said, if you have a group that is respected as doing good research with no ego to protect and no axe to grind, they should most definitely protect their purity in the partisan world of Lyme.