Comments on Lombardi, et al in Science

I can understand going looking for funds. That is fair enough. I can understand wanting to present results (although I question the forum). Given what has happened up to now wouldn't a peer reviewed journal make more sense?

What I can't understand is linking your self to a snake oil sales organization like Bio Ray. At this point that is a stupid stupid thing to do.

Elective Bedfellows

Impish, it is self evident to you, apparently, that Bio Ray is a dastardly bunch. I see a business selling Traditional Chinese Medical formulations and other alternative remedies. Searching using VIP DX Bio Ray on google brought up as the first link, drum roll please, ERV, an old friend of this Forum, at Science Blogs, who "coincidentally" seems to be preoccupied with the same issue as you are.

Until I have firm evidence to the contrary, investigating gut issues in Autism, financed by this company seems kosher to me. I don't believe in guilt merely by association. If you are hanging around ERV, I would suggest a tetanus shot.

I understand your concern about some of the groups the WPI is associating with. But we've seen how mainstream medicine has treated CFS for a long time - I'm not terribly confident about identifying who the true quacks are anymore. You can find craziness from all manner of medical institutions. In PR terms, I think it would be best for the WPI to be more careful about these things, but it's also possible that they have good reason to think this supplement will be useful, and think that the other stuff being sold is no worse than a lot of the more respectable nonsense out there. I really don't know enough to comment properly though.

I think Lesley's points are good too (as I read your post I though 'I bet the alcoholoic product suggests a tine dosage.').

Functional Symptoms and Jon Stone

Yes fly. Here is another wonderful little piece by Stone and colleagues (aren't I generous today? )

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think issuing press releases supporting unproven medicines is a good idea when you are already having credability issues with mainstream scientists. I am guessing that there are very few ways quicker to dry up scientific funding than associating yourself with a company like this. Maybe the WPI is considering Dr. Timothy Ray, the chief scientist at BioRay, to replace Dr. Peterson.

He does have experience with Biological Terrain Analysis, Complex German Homeopathy, The Performance 2001, Mayr Cure and Pleomorphism and Sanum Therapy. I am sure those qualify him to be creating cures for CFS as well as Autism.

I really really hope I am wrong but I suspect we will see some BioRay cures for CFS shortly...

In the meantime sorry for distracting from the main task at hand. The letters in response from the groups that couldn't find XMRV are very poor and should have their short comings pointed out.

It is just so disappointing to see the WPI making mistakes like this.

Uh, did I miss the memo? When did this happen? Source?

Or maybe you have an overactive imagination.

While the phrase may be scientifically neutral, in practice the term is taken by doctors to mean no medical explanation is ever going to be found because no medical problem exists except in the mind of the patient.

The consequence to the patient of this diagnosis is not good and certainly not neutral so their judgement of the term is not a surprise but is a proper and justified response.

Mithriel

http://www.vipdx.com/press/

VIP Dx is not WPI. They are completley and totally separate.

Sorry but you are wrong. VipDx is owned by the Whittmores and Judy is a VP.

Can you please stop trolling this thread?

@ Impish - it could be worth starting a new thread about VIP's press release. Personally, I'm not that concerned by it though. It seems really odd to me that the WPI has moved on to autism at this point, but there you go.

As I said in my previous post, the Whittemores' ownership interest in VIP Dx was placed in trust for the benefit of WPI. This was discussed ad nauseam on this forum in January. Here's the press release: http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/WPI_pressrel_011410.pdf

no you have no idea what you are talking about

Cheers Orla,

This the link to the pdf I mentioned earlier http://www.acnr.co.uk/pdfs/volume4issue6/v4i6reviewfunctional.pdf

its titled Functional Symptoms in Neurology: Diagnosis and Management and Stone is a pictured contributor.

along with Professor Michael Sharpe

and wesley is referenced in the refrences

it was printed/published
ACNR VOLUME 4 NUMBER 6 JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2005

Impish: Can I have some please?

BTW - sorry, but you are annoying people. Please go to the nearest exit where you will be escorted from the premises by a Moderator.

BYEEEEEEE

Adam is not a moderator, but he plays one on TV... (that is a joke)

Please everyone show some tolerance. Innocent until proven guilty. If someone breaks forum rules then let the MODs know and we will act without prejudice. If you don't like someone's opinions you are free to post the reasons, and disagree all day long. But no personal insults no matter how subtle and clever. Just remember some forum members might not like your opinions either. Not liking someone's views, or believing they are incorrect, is a basis for making posts, but not a basis for insults and certainly not for banning someone.

Dude the person is a troll. Even their username says so!

impish
A adjective
1 impish, implike, mischievous, pixilated, prankish, puckish
naughtily or annoyingly playful; "teasing and worrying with impish laughter"

Go to the letter in question i.e. one of:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5980/825-a

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5980/825-b

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5980/825-c

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5980/825-d

On the left hand side, under “Article Tools”, click “Submit an E-letter”

This journal has E-letter guidelines:

starryeyes wrote: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...et-al-in-Science&p=80763&viewfull=1#post80763
(Sorry starryeyes, it's an awkward one to quote fully)

This probably comes under starryeyes' comments but reference 12 is:

i.e. an exercise provocation study.
Saying people with CFS had reduced cytokine responses following an exercise test is different from simply saying they have lower cytokine responses.

I think it is true to say that there are more immunological abnormalities in CFS patients (on average). The WPI clarification that not all patients had immunological abnormalities is useful. The description in the first WPI was a bit odd for a science journal paper and my guess was that it was written by Dan Peterson who might be more used to talking about his patients in other situations.