Chronic fatigue is not in your head, it's in your blood
The research showed the results were mostly unaffected by activity levels.The university team said the volume and consistency of the blood differences support their long-term goal of developing a diagnostic blood test.Researcher Dr Sjoerd Beentjes told BBC Radio's Good Morning Scotland: "One thing that our evidence points at is that ME is very much a condition in the blood."Perhaps previously held perspectives are not quite the case."It is really not due to inactivity and we hope that this helps with problems where individuals are disbelieved of their symptoms."
What are the symptoms of ME?
The largest ever biological study of ME/CFS - which is estimated to affect 50,000 people in Scotland - identified consistent blood differences associated with chronic inflammation, insulin resistance, and liver disease.The main feature of the condition is post-exertional malaise (PEM) - a delayed and dramatic worsening of fatigue that comes after minor physical effort.Other symptoms include pain, brain fog and tiredness that does not improve with rest. Causes are unknown and there is currently no diagnostic test or cure.Dr Beentjes also said ME was a "female bias" condition with the ratio of patients estimated to be 3:1.
The Edinburgh researchers examined more than 3,000 blood-based biomarkers and accounted for differences in age, sex, and activity levels.The results were replicated afterwards using data from the US Prof Chris Ponting, of the university's MRC human genetics unit, said: "For so long people with ME/CFS have been told it's all in their head. "It's not. We see people's ME/CFS in their blood.He said the evidence should "dispel any lingering perception that ME/CFS is caused by deconditioning and exercise intolerance".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is it true that … cracking your knuckles causes arthritis?
'This is a common question I get asked over the dinner table,' says Kimme Hyrich, a rheumatologist and professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester. And it's no wonder – as many as 54% of us are habitual knuckle crackers, regularly making those distinctive popping noises as we manipulate the joints. 'The knuckle joint is a very tight space and there's a little bit of fluid in it. When people crack their knuckles, they very temporarily enlarge the space,' says Hyrich. 'The pressure drops and gas that's dissolved in that fluid forms bubbles – and it's the bursting of those bubbles that causes the sound.' The type of arthritis people tend to worry about is osteoarthritis – the most common form. It's a painful condition that causes swelling and stiffness in the joints, and becomes more common as we age. 'We don't fully understand the cause,' Hyrich says, 'but genetics play a large role. Joint trauma is also a risk factor.' It's probably this association with injury that fuels concerns about knuckle-cracking. 'People are likely worried they're damaging the joint,' she says. But is there any actual harm? According to Hyrich, the evidence says no. 'Researchers have looked at people with and without arthritis and asked whether they cracked their knuckles – there's been no difference. Others have compared people who do and don't crack their knuckles using X-rays – again, no difference.' Perhaps the most famous example is a US physician who, in an effort to prove his mother wrong, cracked the knuckles on just one hand every day for over 60 years. When he finally had both hands assessed, there were no signs of arthritis in either. So what kinds of trauma do increase your risk of osteoarthritis? 'Sporting injuries,' Hyrich says, 'such as breaking a bone near your joint, or tearing ligaments.' People who already have another kind of arthritis, such as the autoimmune condition rheumatoid arthritis, are also more prone to osteoarthritis. Her best advice for avoiding it? 'Maintain a healthy lifestyle, stay active, and keep to a healthy weight.'
The Guardian
8 minutes ago
- The Guardian
London council let me live in a soaking, mouldy flat for a year
I am a 91-year-old leaseholder in a block of flats owned by Wandsworth council. I'm living with saturated walls, dripping water and falling plaster because the council has failed to address a leak that began elsewhere in the block a year ago. When I first reported it, contractors made a large opening in my kitchen wall to inspect a service duct that contains plumbing for 10 flats. The hole has never been made good and is now crawling with insects. The council's plumbers have, over time, identified the possible source in various flats, stuck cards through the door asking the resident to get in touch, stuck more cards through when they got no response, and then decided the leak was coming from a different floor. I've been diagnosed with bladder cancer, and given the deteriorating condition of my home and the impact on my mental and physical health, I asked for the leak to be redesignated as an emergency, but this was refused. CA, London The photo you sent of your kitchen is horrifying. A substantial section of wall around the inspection hole made by the contractors is soaked, discoloured and crumbling. Mouldy debris is scattered along its base. These are hazardous conditions for anyone to endure, let alone a 91-year-old recovering from cancer treatment. It was January when you first contacted me. I first asked Giles Peaker, a partner at Anthony Gold Solicitors, to clarify where a council's responsibilities to leaseholders begin and end. He confirmed that Wandsworth council should be responsible for communal areas and structures, including plumbing, and for all tenanted flats, and that it should have a right of access to tenanted and leasehold flats to carry out repairs to these parts. If the leak were in a leasehold flat, the council would most likely have powers to oblige the occupier to repair it, or else revoke the lease. Repairs should be carried out within a reasonable time. Despite this, the council blamed the delay on 'access difficulties' when I questioned its inertia. It told me it had since discovered the leak in a leasehold flat but had to await an asbestos test before it could be tackled. Yet it had told you, seven weeks previously, that an asbestos test had been completed. It ignored my questions about the discrepancy but told you its earlier assertion about the test being carried out was mistaken. Three weeks after my contact, you were then told the leak was not where it was supposed to be after all, and so the waiting game continued. The council declined to explain why an exploratory camera could not be inserted into the communal duct through the opening in your kitchen, which has already been declared asbestos free. For the next three months, you and I repeatedly chased the council for updates. By May the leak had finally been identified in a tenanted flat and repaired. At this point Wandsworth offered to repair the damage to your flat and installed a dehumidifier but you, understandably suspicious of its timescales, decided to do the repairs through your insurer. You are still waiting for the area to dry out before repairs can begin. The council says: 'We have spoken to the resident to apologise for the delay and he has accepted an offer of £400 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. We will be reviewing our processes to ensure this does not happen again.' You say: 'I think that the council employees with whom I have dealt have tried to help under a system that simply doesn't work, having no built-in imperative to get anything done.' We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at or write to Consumer Champions, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number. Submission and publication of all letters is subject to our terms and conditions.
Telegraph
8 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Britain must stop subsidising pensioners to save the NHS
The Government recently produced a paper on the NHS entitled 'Fit for the Future – The 10 Year Health Plan for England'. It included many radical ideas and didn't pull its punches in regard to the need for reform. It said: 'The choice is stark: reform or die'. And, if nothing is done, it said, the NHS could become 'a poor service for poor people'. Despite its radical tone and many good ideas, this report did not go far enough. In particular, it accepted the continuation of the current system of funding whereby just about the whole cost of the Service is borne by the taxpayer. In a report published last week by Policy Exchange entitled 'The NHS – a Suitable Case for Treatment?', I and two co-authors went much further and called for an end to the system of predominantly taxpayer funding which has been the model since the NHS was founded in 1948. In the mid-1950s the government spent about 3pc of its GDP on healthcare. Today the figure is 9pc (excluding the private sector), amounting to almost a fifth of all government spending. If nothing is done, by 2070 we could end up spending more than a fifth of our GDP on the NHS. This is unacceptable. If we allowed this to happen, other sorts of public spending would have to be squeezed and/or taxes would have to be raised to eye-watering levels. This would have a devastating effect on incentives and therefore a materially depressing effect on the economy. The funding system is the first of the NHS's major problems. The second is inadequate quality. Many British people think that the NHS delivers a first-class service. Yet, it is clear that the NHS offers neither the best nor the worst healthcare in the world. Admittedly, at its best, it is superb, but the standard is hit and miss, and at its worst, it is pretty bad. Among a group of countries of comparable economic development (Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the US), on both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy the UK comes in second to last. Only the US scores worse. On preventable and treatable mortality, the UK again comes in second to last, ahead of only the US. On the proportion of patients waiting over a year to see a specialist, the UK is the highest in the group. We also perform badly on the ease of securing an appointment with a GP and access to GPs out of hours. What is to be done? Whenever someone criticises the NHS and suggests that we need to move to a different model, a chorus of voices loudly proclaims that we must not become like America. Indeed not. The US health system pulls off a remarkable double whammy. Although some of the best healthcare in the world is to be found in the United States, average health outcomes for the population as a whole are simply dire. Meanwhile, the system is about the most expensive in the world. However bad the NHS may seem, it is infinitely preferable to the American system. Under no circumstances should we consider copying the US. But we don't have to. There are many countries in the world which operate a different system for funding healthcare and enjoy better average health outcomes than the UK. The essence of their approach is to combine charging and co-payments with a system of social insurance. That is to say, compulsory purchasing of medical insurance, covering everyone in the population, with concessionary rates or even full reimbursement available for poor people. The state remains involved as both a partial funder, co-ordinator and regulator of the system. But governments spend much less on healthcare in these countries than we do, and thereby place a much smaller burden on their taxpayers. Countries that run such a system include Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Singapore and Switzerland. The most outstandingly successful of these is Singapore. It spends only about 5pc of its GDP on healthcare and of that, not much more than a half comes from government. Meanwhile, Singapore achieves just about the best health outcomes in our comparator group. Yet Singapore is a very special case, with a particular political and social model. For an example that would serve the UK well, we should probably look closer to home. The obvious place to look is the Netherlands, not least because it underwent a radical reform of its health system in 2006. It delivers high standards of healthcare yet the government spends only 1pc of GDP on health. Some people will argue that we already have a system of insurance to pay for healthcare, namely National Insurance. Despite its name, however, this is not really a system of insurance. It is rather another form of tax. The amount of money the state pays for healthcare is not restricted by the amount of National Insurance contributions coming into the Treasury. Moreover, unlike pensions, where eligibility is connected with National Insurance contributions, a person's ability to access the NHS is not circumscribed by their NI contribution record. Moving from a system of funding through taxation to one based largely on social insurance is going to be a tough ask. It cannot be completed overnight. The place to start a programme to reform the financing of the NHS is with the introduction of a small charge for GP appointments and an end to the automatic entitlement to free prescriptions for pensioners, regardless of their financial circumstances. Doubtless many people will say that these proposals destroy the essence of the NHS as it was established in 1948. But the provision of healthcare in this country cannot be treated as a sort of museum exhibit. We can adhere to the spirit of the NHS in creating a system that delivers excellent healthcare for all within a funding framework that is right for the 21 st century.
