1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Can You Come for a Visit? My ME/CFS Says No
My daughter and son-in-law just had a baby last week. We are thrilled. But we won't be able to see the baby or hold her any time soon. We won't be able to take over little gifts or help out with housework or babysitting.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

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

Discussion in 'Phoenix Rising Articles' started by Phoenix Rising Team, Aug 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    436
    Raleigh, NC
    I can understand questions but some of this is just out of the ballpark.
    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.
  2. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    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.
  3. Recovery Soon

    Recovery Soon Senior Member

    Messages:
    380
    Likes:
    37
    Glad we're back on science.
  4. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    And glad the attack dogs are back! Oh how I missed thee.

    How about you guys just stay out of it since Cort and I are actually having a good, civil discussion here ok? You've done enough damage.
  5. SOC

    SOC Moderator and Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,283
    Likes:
    6,254
    USA
    Okay, that's it. I'm not reading this thread any further. I doubt I'm the first to make this decision; I'm probably at the end of a long line of people completely fed up with this garbage.
  6. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    436
    Raleigh, NC
    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...
  7. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    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.
  8. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    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

    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.
  9. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    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?
  10. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    With respect, this is an impossible standard to ask of anyone.

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

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    No, this is precisely the standard that good science requires.

    I think V99's suggestion of getting quotes directly from people who do understand is a good one.
  12. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    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
  13. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    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.
  14. Recovery Soon

    Recovery Soon Senior Member

    Messages:
    380
    Likes:
    37
    LOL- I did the damage. funny.

    Let's get back to the science in the article. PLease start your own thread about Sexism, Civics, whatever you want to lecture about, somewhere else.

    The attack dogs will let you preach in peace.
  15. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    seems to me, you are the one that just brought it up again, unnecessarily.
  16. LaurelW

    LaurelW Senior Member

    Messages:
    552
    Likes:
    92
    Utah
    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.
  17. Sam Carter

    Sam Carter Guest

    Messages:
    297
    Likes:
    192
    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.
  18. awol

    awol *****

    Messages:
    417
    Likes:
    0
    Dr. Alter in particular is playing the politics of the situation brilliantly. This is certainly a factor.
  19. glenp

    glenp "and this too shall pass"

    Messages:
    753
    Likes:
    16
    Vancouver Canada suburbs
    I agree


    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
  20. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    No, it means you should only write about technical details if you are a scientist.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page