A minute? I could only make it about 15 seconds.

Good find, Abby. I found this statement to be utterly hysterical.

1) Older people can lose acetylcholine and have some fatigue of muscles.

2) I have heard more than one neurologists say things like "It's mainly ocular MG" or "Ptosis doesn't prove anything" or "You have to have a positive SFEMG too." This kind of "test" sets MG patients up for a roller coaster diagnostic ride.

3) What age would demonstrate this fatigue effect? Babies?

4) What about someone "unhealthy" who doesn't have MG?

And if someone doesn't react "exactly" how they say, will they dismiss the idea of MG? Some people fatigue more quickly than others. Why are they always looking for the cookie cutter algorithm for everyone?

Sorry, I'm being a little cynical. There are many "clinical" exams a doctor can do to "see" fatigable weakness. What I'm concerned about every time a new "test" is found is that, since they are often looking for that one "magic bullet" test, what tests will they exclude in favor of the new one?

It's like with celiac disease when they "declared" that the reticulin antibody didn't have to be done anymore because the "majority" of patients with CD had the endomysial or tissue transglutaminase antibodies. Tell that to me and all of the other patients around the world with a positive reticulin antibody.

I'm glad doctors out there are thinking and finding new ways to "quickly" identify MG. But I can almost feel the opposition to this test by other neurologists. Probably because they didn't think of it first. It would be a good thing to do if a patient presented in the ER with breathing problems, etc.

Kind of ticks me off too since my "ocular MG" was missed for 40 years.

I do really appreciate you finding this, though. Every little bit of evidence can help those of us with MG, diagnosed or not!

Annie