THREAD: Women and "Unexplained" Diseases
It's interesting that even a condition as common as #Migraine is still not well understood.
Significant overlap with many other conditions mostly impacting women that are also "not well understood" is present.
https://t.co/EhrnxfItsm https://t.co/R7QUKrZvhR
cc: @jenbrea @ahandvanish @AthenaAkrami @Dr2NisreenAlwan @MBVanElzakker
https://t.co/ITrLBkc3uE
If you work on #longCOVID and say \u201cI\u2019m not an #MECFS expert, I don\u2019t know anything about it, it\u2019s not my job to know about ME or \u2019fatigue\u2019\u201d then you really, REALLY need to learn about ME. This is what MANY infections can do, not just SARS2. pic.twitter.com/zke0MqwrEd
— Jennifer Brea\U0001f992 (@jenbrea) January 14, 2021
Example stats ME/CFS:
https://t.co/GKQqqtWTI7
In ME/CFS is about 80/20 female/male. Before puberty, gender ratio is 50/50. Many anecdotal reports of trans people who take hormones: F to M improve, M to F experience worsening symptoms. Female preponderance is found in both sporadic cases and historically, in outbreaks.
— Jennifer Brea\U0001f992 (@jenbrea) January 12, 2021
Majority of patients with PNES are women, outnumbering men by a ratio of 3:1. Female sex preponderance occurs after puberty & usually before the age of 55
Lack of data does not equal lack of EXISTENCE of a problem, it equals lack of UNDERSTANDING of the problem.
And this problem is immense.
https://t.co/TnF2j4dKs3
Like this tweet if:
— Dr. Jessica Taylor (@DrJessTaylor) January 13, 2021
- You are a woman
- You have ever been ignored, gaslit, accused of exaggerating or told its all in your head by a doctor when you sought help for a medical problem
I just wanna see something.
My optimistic hope is that the enormous amounts of funding for #COVID19 open doors to understanding pathophysiology of previously neglected diseases particularly in women.
But our scientific ignorance should not be wielded to blame & further abuse patients.
Our lack of understanding is not their failure but ours.
https://t.co/LwN8qc0Q4a
Well, it would be so much easier if we didn\u2019t continuously \u201ccarve diagnoses out of the psychosomatic wastebasket\u201d as Maya Dusenbury so eloquently wrote in her book Doing Harm. So I will continue to rant about it. Wont make the medical profession happy, but time to face reality... pic.twitter.com/iFJudV9BLX
— GinaMcGalliard \U0001f9dc\U0001f3fb\u200d\u2640\ufe0f\U0001f315\U0001f339 (@GinaMcGalliard) January 12, 2021
There are more specific, more scientific, and less offensive terminology we can use for women's bodies.
@VirusesImmunity @angie_rasmussen @DocElovitz
To read more of my Threads, please check out: https://t.co/UMdZvE2tDj
More from Health
1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?
And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?
For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.
2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.
Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine
But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?
https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg
3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).
In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.
DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.
https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc
5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.
When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.
[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]
https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh
No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.
👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em
The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)
Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)
Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)
In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.
👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em
The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)
Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)
Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)
In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)
You gotta think about this one carefully!
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
Imagine you go to the doctor and get tested for a rare disease (only 1 in 10,000 people get it.)
The test is 99% effective in detecting both sick and healthy people.
Your test comes back positive.
Are you really sick? Explain below 👇
The most complete answer from every reply so far is from Dr. Lena. Thanks for taking the time and going through
Really doesn\u2019t fit well in a tweet. pic.twitter.com/xN0pAyniFS
— Dr. Lena Sugar \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308\U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1ef\U0001f1f5 (@_jvs) February 18, 2021
You can get the answer using Bayes' theorem, but let's try to come up with it in a different —maybe more intuitive— way.
👇
Here is what we know:
- Out of 10,000 people, 1 is sick
- Out of 100 sick people, 99 test positive
- Out of 100 healthy people, 99 test negative
Assuming 1 million people take the test (including you):
- 100 of them are sick
- 999,900 of them are healthy
👇
Let's now test both groups, starting with the 100 people sick:
▫️ 99 of them will be diagnosed (correctly) as sick (99%)
▫️ 1 of them is going to be diagnosed (incorrectly) as healthy (1%)
👇
