Article: The Singh XMRV Study Strikes Out

You can view the page at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?418-Singh-XMRV-CFS-Study-Strikes-Out

 

Sorry but that shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how science operates. Science makes a hypothesis and sets out to disprove it. There is no emotional element to it, it's not as if the researchers are going in with the "wrong attitude" and this is somehow clouding the results, a good hypothesis will stand up to every attempt at disproof.

After assessing the replication studies and given the almost unanimous consensus amongst scientists it shows a fantastic bias on the part of anyone declaring XMRV to still be the key player in this illness, the evidence doesn't support it simple as that. The idea that the original study had some exceptional quality that allowed it to make accurate detections and the following 23 or so studies missed that vital aspect is safely disposed of by Occam's Razor. The desperation people are showing in clinging to this hypothesis is unscientific, but I cannot blame people who have been ill for decades.

The only positive from this is at least the condition now has more significance in the scientific community, but I think this will turn out to be a tragedy for the patient community in terms of shattered hopes.

That is your opinion. No one has yet proved the Science study to be faulty. No contamination has been found. Other studies are finding xmrv in tissues. Politics, not science is not about unanimous consensus. New ideas in science are not easily accepted, but rather belittled. If politics and egos could stay out of science, things would proceed a lot faster, but we all know that is not the case.

I think that everyone should be allowed to have hope in whatever they choose. Patients do not need to be protected from the outworking of the scientific process. They do need to be protected from the politics and egos that do not have the patients' best interests at hand.

We have different opinions, but ultimately the same goal, real treatment for those suffering. The science must go on because retroviruses have the potential to cause many chronic illnesses. This could be a real watershed moment for science and humanity.

 

I need a lesson on editing on this board. I meant to say politics, not science is about unanimous consensus. too many nots put in that sentence.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Vitalic
Sorry but that shows a fundamental misunderstanding about how science operates. Science makes a hypothesis and sets out to disprove it. There is no emotional element to it, it's not as if the researchers are going in with the "wrong attitude" and this is somehow clouding the results, a good hypothesis will stand up to every attempt at disproof.

After assessing the replication studies and given the almost unanimous consensus amongst scientists it shows a fantastic bias on the part of anyone declaring XMRV to still be the key player in this illness, the evidence doesn't support it simple as that. The idea that the original study had some exceptional quality that allowed it to make accurate detections and the following 23 or so studies missed that vital aspect is safely disposed of by Occam's Razor. The desperation people are showing in clinging to this hypothesis is unscientific, but I cannot blame people who have been ill for decades.

The only positive from this is at least the condition now has more significance in the scientific community, but I think this will turn out to be a tragedy for the patient community in terms of shattered hopes.

Vitalic, perhaps you would do better to study history, than to pretend to understand 'how science operates'. History is littered with fallen monoliths, giants in science who have been crucified by lesser intellects and pilloried by a public following along like sheep. Gallileo, Darwin, Pasteur, Tesla, Ohm, the list is as long as your arm, even the guy who was forced to infect himself with helicobacter, had ideas which did not represent the ruling hegemony, whether it be one of religion, politics, wealth or just plain being a little different.

It might be correct to suggest that a roomful of idiots is a consensus, but it certainly isn't science. How blithely you stepped round the issue of whether or not anyone has actually disproven or even bothered to replicate the original science by suggesting we look to Occam's Razor (actually from a latin phrase which can be interpreted as 'law of economy'). Why is the religious zeal and vehemence against WPI and CFS patients warranted if it is a simple case of contamination, or a matter of correcting the science? Why has there been a planned, structured campaign to discredit the science? This point alone should ring alarm bells. Why, indeed has so much money been spent on studies which set out deliberately to avoid following the science, yet no money for replication?

I would suggest there is a more simpler, more economic way to explain the situation. Follow the money trail. It certainly is a more logical explanation of the behavior of the contamination lobby. (Why do we even have a contamination lobby - these people have stepped so far outside the science that it is general parlance to refer to them as a lobby).

I suggest you also do a little reading on which researchers and doctors, even CFS advocates have been linked to large pharmaceutical companies like Wyeth and Pfizer. It is not scientists who determine the course of science, never has been.

Then you could check the patent registers to see which competing interests are more concerned about generating funds for their own assays, even if they are poor. The race isn't about replication, it's about finding a different assay, so they don't have to use WPI's.

 

I need a lesson on editing on this board. I meant to say politics, not science is about unanimous consensus. too many nots put in that sentence.

You are doing alright in my book, LS.

Just click on the Edit Post field at the bottom of your post.

 

Vitalic, perhaps you would do better to study history, than to pretend to understand 'how science operates'. History is littered with fallen monoliths, giants in science who have been crucified by lesser intellects and pilloried by a public following along like sheep. Gallileo, Darwin, Pasteur, Tesla, Ohm, the list is as long as your arm, even the guy who was forced to infect himself with helicobacter, had ideas which did not represent the ruling hegemony, whether it be one of religion, politics, wealth or just plain being a little different.

It might be correct to suggest that a roomful of idiots is a consensus, but it certainly isn't science. How blithely you stepped round the issue of whether or not anyone has actually disproven or even bothered to replicate the original science by suggesting we look to Occam's Razor (actually from a latin phrase which can be interpreted as 'law of economy'). Why is the religious zeal and vehemence against WPI and CFS patients warranted if it is a simple case of contamination, or a matter of correcting the science? Why has there been a planned, structured campaign to discredit the science? This point alone should ring alarm bells. Why, indeed has so much money been spent on studies which set out deliberately to avoid following the science, yet no money for replication?

I would suggest there is a more simpler, more economic way to explain the situation. Follow the money trail. It certainly is a more logical explanation of the behavior of the contamination lobby. (Why do we even have a contamination lobby - these people have stepped so far outside the science that it is general parlance to refer to them as a lobby).

I suggest you also do a little reading on which researchers and doctors, even CFS advocates have been linked to large pharmaceutical companies like Wyeth and Pfizer. It is not scientists who determine the course of science, never has been.

Then you could check the patent registers to see which competing interests are more concerned about generating funds for their own assays, even if they are poor. The race isn't about replication, it's about finding a different assay, so they don't have to use WPI's.

Thank you Rusty, I agree.

There is little glory or recognition in true replication studies and generally little incentive to do them.....unless the researcher believes such would lead to government or private grants to venture into the general field of XMRV research or that it might have some ancillary benefit (career wise) or to the field of science the researcher is engaged in.

However, with the over reaching of findings of negative studies being reported with little subsequent qualification...many scientists are less likely to take a closer look now...and consider a true replication study.

And as you point out, commercial patents which require a degree of novelty to differentiate the process and or materials from what is pre existing, also lessens the incentive for commercial scientists (and this is what they are ) to undertake true replication studies.

Given that, you have to ask why governments do not offer incentive grants for scientists to do precisely this. It may not be the answer, but it might encourage a few more to do so.

 

History is littered with fallen monoliths, giants in science who have been crucified by lesser intellects and pilloried by a public following along like sheep.

Oh without question, however I severely doubt this is one of those cases. By pointing to a scientific consensus I was not implying that this should be the final word on the matter, but to imply there is a conspiracy in the scientific community to suppress the discovery of a new retrovirus is frankly absurd. What you are typifying is the human tendency to prefer a conspiracy theory over no theory at all.

I'll grant you there are some dubious economic conflicts of interests in places, and the fact Singh took out broad patents for XMRV etc. is slightly disturbing, although I'm not sure if this is standard practice in the event they do make a significant finding. No-one would deny the presence of financial entanglements playing a role in scientific research but I fully trust the opinion of the researchers themselves, scientists above all else care about the truth and if there were any truth to this connection there is no possible way that many studies would deliberately fail to confirm the original findings.

The evidence is stacking up against XMRV being the cause and although we won't know for sure until the WPI can carry out a true replication, there are a lot of good scientists who believe the issue is settled and you can't ignore that just because the outcome is unwelcome to you. Occam's Razor simply tells us that the hypothesis which introduces the least new assumptions, all else being equal, is more likely to be valid. I'll leave it to the discretion of anyone reading this to decide whose hypothesis has introduced more baseless, paranoid assumptions.

 

there are a lot of good scientists who believe the issue is settled

We have a saying.

Believe is what one does in church.

 

I'll grant you there are some dubious economic conflicts of interests in places, and the fact Singh took out broad patents for XMRV etc. is slightly disturbing, although I'm not sure if this is standard practice in the event they do make a significant finding. No-one would deny the presence of financial entanglements playing a role in scientific research but I fully trust the opinion of the researchers themselves, scientists above all else care about the truth and if there were any truth to this connection there is no possible way that many studies would deliberately fail to confirm the original findings.

'You fully trust'?