This is a brilliant paper that highlights some major downfalls of empirical research today. Building on the discussion of this paper what is also needed is wider discourse of the meaning of the findings of studies. For example, how can peer-view happen in a more transparent way? How can various stakeholder groups, researchers and the public etc. discuss research findings more objectively?

Right, the scientific method is a tool used to examine truth in a way that can be replicated. Findings may or may not be generalizable to a particular group or individual. It’s an approximation of truth where probabilities weight in certain direction of association but there are often many contextual and confounding variables that need to be considered when interpreting the outcomes of a scientific study.

True. There are inherent limitations and job functions that would dissuade certain providers to accept Bitcoin payments over others. The fact that this topic is being researched is interesting for those who are keen on understanding adoption trends.

@El Guirri your point is well made. Doing a quick search of the literature, it is evident that numerous studies that appear publicly look at vaccine safety/efficacy and vaccine hesitancy among persons with Multiple Sclerosis with less evidence exploring the direct link between MS and vaccines.

Furthermore, from the quick search using Google Scholar from 2020-present, one review, Principi and Esposito (2020) state “some vaccines may induce an autoimmune neurological disease, no definitive demonstration of a potential role of vaccines in causing autoimmune neurological syndromes is presently available.” Additionally, Stefanou et al. (2023) systematic review and meta-analysis on COVID-19 vaccines and patients with MS, shows “no risk of relapse or serious adverse events” among the data analyzed in the study.

To your point about the need for cohort studies over time and the gap in the literature, Sefanou et al’s study does not focus on previous vaccination and onset of MS overtime. Rather Stefanou et al, makes the conclusion, “these safety data provide compelling pro-vaccination arguments for MS patients.”

The underlying thesis to Stefanou et al, possibly comes from a germ theory premise. Instead of asking could there be a way to prevent risk of the infectious disease by strengthening the terrain, a persons condition, before advising a vaccine?

This type of thinking is not weighted enough in medical and public health science. Also, this might be why the true causes of many disease are not identified in the scientific literature lending to an endless hamster wheel of ongoing research calling for more study. When we could be advancing the science more from a root cause perspective.

Note: These thoughts come from a preliminary search. Maybe there is more robust data out there on these topics?


Principi and Esposito (2020)
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00361

Stefanou et al. (2023)
https://doi.org/10.1177/13524585221150881

@El Guirri possibly similar to what you have found, here is a meta-analysis showing no association across 140+ studies. Like you mention there are a number of shortcomings. For example, the review doesn’t examine experimental or genetic vaccines. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9080821

Totally. It’s great to have Nostr as a place where multiple ideas and evidence can flow so individuals can grasp information, knowledge, and truth to inform their health journeys.

Looking at Humes work plublished in 1923, we can see that there might be more to terrain theory and Bechamp’s work than we have historically made to believe. @Jake Woodhouse has been discussing this.

Terrain theory points to the importance of keeping the internal body healthy to prevent disease. This means that lifestyle factors and environment are very important. Health like our money should be something that we each individually own and work with healthcare and wellness professionals when needed.


https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31175004177021&seq=11