• 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.

XMRV testing: The REDLABS, trading as VIP Dx, WPI connection

fingers2022

Senior Member
Messages
427
Yes, you can read them in the large multicenter study that was published. She was unable to reliably detect blinded spiked positive samples and detected negative samples as false positive. When finally given the opportunity to prove she could culture the virus, her samples somehow mysteriously were contaminated with mycoplasma and she couldn't prove anything. Her techniques were flawed, something that was later proven by others using the same PCR primers and monoclonal antibodies.
OK, well that's the end of that then...oh yeahhhhhhhh?
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,320
All concluded then.
Best not waste my energy reading 24 pages...unless you can point me to THE evidence that closes the case...?
Five more years, still no answers.
Ever wonder why that is?

Science doesn't work like that. It's not the job of me or any other researcher to present THE evidence that proves her 100% conclusively wrong. It's her job to publish results that we can trust without having reasonable doubt. And then for someone else to replicate her results. After that we can start talking about a sensible hypothesis.

Also, we don't have to have "something better". Just because we don't necessarily have something better, doesn't make "theory X" correct.
 
Last edited:

fingers2022

Senior Member
Messages
427
Science doesn't work like that. It's not the job of me or any other researcher to present THE evidence that proves her 100% conclusively wrong. It's her job to publish results that we can trust without having reasonable doubt. And then for someone else to replicate her results. After that we can start talking about a sensible hypothesis.

Also, we don't have to have "something better". Just because we don't necessarily have something better, doesn't make "theory X" correct.
I heard that Rituximab study turned up negative.

So, why did Lipkin and many others do studies to prove 'her' wrong? Not their job? They were all over it like a fucking rash.

Ha, 'her job'...put someone in jail, suppress it as much as possible ...then say it's your job.
A hypothesis is exactly that...and she has a sensible one.

I don't get your logic about 'something better'. If you are in a submarine running out of oxygen you gotta go with your best option.