• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Article: Four Viruses! Alter Paper Confirms Retroviral Findings in CFS

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can understand questions but some of this is just out of the ballpark.
Explain to me why he chose to feature, and thus to propagate Trine Tsouderos's vitrolic attack on Mikovits through this site, if not to help Trine undermine her: Is he truly not aware of that woman's long, dubious history on autism coverage and anything that even remotely resembles validation of the claim by some parents that their kids got sick after vaccines?
Where have I featured and propogated Tsoudero's article on XMRV throughout this website? I mentioned the two articles on the XMRV Buzz briefly and probably engaged in some posts on the Forums but that's it. That's not featuring or propogating that's reporting. Have you checked out the Buzz lately? Those mentions are a drop in the ocean compared to everything else on the Buzz page. If you want to see what I've propagated then look at all the XMRV articles on the website.

I realize that I have had some trouble with some of Dr. Mikovits comments and that has upset some people but if that is all you are focused on - if that's ALL you can see then you're missing a great deal. If you can't handle anything that's not wholly positive about XMRV, the WPI or Dr. Mikovits then maybe you should participate elsewhere. The vast majority of the articles on the website are very positive about the WPI and their finding and I personally am very excited about the findings. My articles always try to be even-handed as well.

Dr. Mikovits is an excellent and very compassionate researcher with a fine background working with some of the top researchers at the NCI. People with poor research skills do not get into that position. Sure, she's said some things that she probably regretted but the important thing is her Science and that is what I have focused 95% of my attention on. If you choose to focus your attention on the other 5% then that's your choice but be clear that that is what you are choosing to do.

As I've stated repeatedly. There a number of areas I would like to see changes in the CAA. I'd like them to be more aggressive in their advocacy and quicker to take stands on some issues. The success of the ME/CFS Awareness campaign has pointed out some areas where they have been deficient. I think they should be more transparent in their thinking. They have not been particularly adept at communicating at times :))) There are a number of other things. What I object to are wild accusations.

If you have a ground of understanding that only allows negative things to show up then you're not going to contribute to the type of discussion this Forum is devoted to and you should participate elsewhere. So long as you can interact with them or any other subject in a constructive manner then dialogue is fine. If you're simply bent on pointing out again and again what's wrong with them or another group or me or someone else - if your vision is so drenched in 'darkness' then that's all you see - then you're really not contributing to the Forum - you're damaging it . That is not 'dialogue' - that is simply you using the Forums to try and hammer your strongly held opinion onto it.

IUnfortunately it takes an enormous amount of time to rebut someone who is positional and soley bent on being right. Those people in other instances are called Trolls - they are disruptive posters who frequently appear to take the 'high ground' and mark themselves as the purveyors of correctness. They are bent on proving their point - nothing else. I don't think we need purveyors of correctness here. I think we need people who will look at all sides of the issues in an evenhanded manner and try to figure out what's correct.
 
Dr. Mikovits is an excellent and very compassionate researcher with a fine background working with some of the top researchers at the NCI. People with poor research skills do not get into that position. Sure, she's said some things that she probably regretted but the important thing is her Science ....



I would like the CAA to be more aggressive in their advocacy and quicker to take stands on some issues. The success of the ME/CFS Awareness campaign has pointed out some areas where they have been deficient. I think they should be more transparent in their thinking - explain what they are doing. They have not been particularly adept at communicating at times :))) There are a number of other things. ....

So there you, once again, have some critiques of the CAA.

thank-you Cort, enormously for both of these points. I think it will make a very big difference to some of us to hear you say these things so clearly.


Would you be willing to write a careful article about what is and is not working in ME/CFS patient advocacy?


I really do not think you should have given Trine's article Buzz page space. Publishing the link equals propagating. I am sure posting it here is why enough people read it that an LA newspaper got it in their heads that it should be reprinted. It was far less accurate and more malicious than anything you have written that is for sure!

As for me insisting on my point of view, since I seem to be the only one here who acknowledges the reality that sexism is not a black and white issue, and it is not a case of you are a sexist or you are not, I will continue to insist. It is extremely important to be able to acknowledge how our own behaviour fits into certain patterns. I maintain that anyone here who tries will have a lot of difficulty finding an example of a male scientist whose work was ignored or discredited simply because of his geekiness or odd facial tick or whatever. Yet it happens all of the time with women in all professions, including, but not limited to science. We are ALL responsible for how this happens. It is not a name and shame thing to point it out, it is simply a statement of the reality of how the world works. That whole war on this thread was completely unnecessary, and would have been avoided if people had simply read more carefully.
 
Just heard that it has been confirmed that the Alter/Lo team found no MLV's in the CDC samples. That means these are very, very different populations.....I would have expected at least 10% or so but I don't think they found anything. This could be why they are talking about sample preparation as well....obviously they should have found at least the background rate of MLV infection there - 6% or whatever it was. THey didn't even find that.

Its amazing how tricky this is...since they didn't, it appears, find anything now they have to worry about sample preparation and other methodological issues. Still Alter did say that he thinks its all about the cohorts.

If that finding works out I think there will be a more severe split that we thought; will 80% of the people on this Forum have XMRV? I wonder....if it'll be lower.

The CFIDSLink this week should be good. I heard they are putting questions to a variety of experts including ALter/Lo...
 
Just heard that it has been confirmed that the Alter/Lo team found no MLV's in the CDC samples. That means these are very, very different populations.....I would have expected at least 10% or so but I don't think they found anything. This could be why they are talking about sample preparation as well....obviously they should have found at least the background rate of MLV infection there - 6% or whatever it was. THey didn't even find that.

You seem to be forgetting Vernon's criticism here. If she is correct, then nothing will ever be found in those samples because of the way they were collected and stored.

oups. You did say that. Never mind.
 
Patients in the PNAS paper:
25 were from an academic medical centre. 21 met Holmes and Fukuda. The remaining 4 were Holmes.
There is no information on the selection criteria for the final 12

quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Cort

Cort, where does she say this?

I emailed her asking her to look at the XMRV article I wrote and we talked and she told me that. That is based on their antibody results I believe. If I have this right the antibody results pick up all four strains but differentiate only two. My understanding is that antibodies respond to antigens on proteins. This suggests that two of the strains have synonymous amino acid substitutions; ie while their genome is slightly different they produce the same proteins and they have the same functionaility. The other two are different viruses or variants - I'm not sure the technical term - but my guess, based on all of this, is that they produce slightly different proteins - which different antibodies respond to. I'm just trying to piece this together - I hope its correct.

Cort, this is exactly where my concern comes from. If you want to write a blog covering the technical aspects of this research, you either have to get your facts straight the first time, or don't post. An alternative is to quote directly from those people who do know the subject. We cannot have misleading information coming from anywhere. If you want to put your own interpretation on events, there is nothing stopping you from conducting your own research, I am sure the WPI will happily lend you a lab coat. However, you admit, you are not sure about the technical details, so it's best not to. If you check your blogs through the WPI before posting there will not be a problem. I am sure they wont mind, and everyone will be happy. Scientific facts are our only hope, we must be accurate.
 
Awol is correct, we do not know if the samples were usable. Alter may have emphasised the cohort issues, but he also highlighted others, including method. And what if there is another retrovirus they are still not looking for?
 
....
Cort, this is exactly where my concern comes from. If you want to write a blog covering the technical aspects of this research, you either have to get your facts straight the first time, or don't post
....

With respect, this is an impossible standard to ask of anyone.

ETA: for example, see Dr. Mikovits's publication in Virulence.
 
Please see:

http://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/virulence/article/12486

Detection of an infectious retrovirus, XMRV, in blood cells of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome
Judy A. Mikovits, Vincent C. Lombardi, Max A. Pfost, Kathryn S. Hagen and Francis W. Ruscetti
Volume 1, Issue 5
September/October 2010

It is not always possible to know all of the facts, but in science, whenever something is speculation or is not fully understood, this fact is clearly stated, so that noone mixes up the facts with the speculative bits.
 
I'm wondering if Drs. Alter and Lo are downplaying certain things about the CDC samples because they're trying not to embarrass their buddies at the CDC, while still having their own work be as accurate as possible. I can't imagine what kind of politics must be going on behind the scenes in DC. And whoever gets the new CDC job, I hope they have really thick skin and a very strong backbone.
 
It is not always possible to know all of the facts, but in science, whenever something is speculation or is not fully understood, this fact is clearly stated, so that noone mixes up the facts with the speculative bits.

I don't understand what you're saying, Awol. The paper I referenced contains a number of errors that remain uncorrected and demonstrates that even professional scientists make mistakes.
 
I'm wondering if Drs. Alter and Lo are downplaying certain things about the CDC samples because they're trying not to embarrass their buddies at the CDC, while still having their own work be as accurate as possible. I can't imagine what kind of politics must be going on behind the scenes in DC. And whoever gets the new CDC job, I hope they have really thick skin and a very strong backbone.

Dr. Alter in particular is playing the politics of the situation brilliantly. This is certainly a factor.
 
I agree

Maybe y'all could take this argument off the public forum, e-mail privately back and forth or something? I'm looking for useful, hopefully uplifting information about my illness, and the interpersonal vitriol is stressing me and making me feel worse. Surely the crimes of simplification and misinterpretation committed in the press far outweigh what you are arguing about here?

Please? :worried:


I also find reading much of this stresses me and makes me worse. I avoid any posts I see where the posts are of a derogatory nature. As mentioined above, I think it is a good idea to pm back and forth or perhaps start a new thread under a heading that those of us wishing to avoid argumentatative posts can clearly see and not even open

glen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.