I think rats are useful if we know what PFS is- which we don’t
And that study is certainly not going to answer that question either
It’s assuming what PFS is, not looking for it
2 Likes
I disagree with that
We have limited resources, including focus. We don’t have the luxury to diversify. Concentration is our best strategy
1 Like
this is a very dangerous idea and potentially risks wasting a lot of time. important under nearly any circumstance to have multiple irons in the fire. the first PFS Network study was fully funded within a few months. i’m not sure where the money came from but having such a scarcity mindset when it is unwarranted can be self sabotaging to the whole community.
we have some understanding of what pfs is at this point but it may be a long time before we have a very clear ideas. rat studies are not just useful if you can very precisely specify the nature of a disease, they can be used to stress test subjects to better understand disease processes and dynamics.
there are valid criticisms to both an epigenetic study and a study using an animal model of PFS. I am not familiar with the details of the Melcangi study, the notification unfortunately was too vague, but if i were forced to choose one study i might prefer the human epigenetic study but I am not totally sure with the limited information i have.
i do think its extremely important to fairly weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all approaches and not self sabotage the community by devolving into backbiting and infighting. this epigenetic study is impt but similarly has unrecognized limitations and weaknesses. to fail to acknowledge that is to misguide a significant segment of the community.
3 Likes