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!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CROI (Retrovirology and Opportunistic Infections, Boston) on XMRV and CFS

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Ecoclimber, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    176
    USA.Earth
    Grape Funk
    Ecoclimber has the right to privacy here as do we all. She/He does not need to identify him/herself.

    BTW, I think your question #2 is a good one, but with a little research the identity of many forum members can be found out.

    Having been in the hot seat myself for maintaining minority viewpoint on some issues I think people have the right to be a bit defensive when caustically attacked.
  2. natasa778

    natasa778 Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes:
    1,209
    London UK
    Yes please INDEED. Do speak up.

    I am especially interested in 2.

    Any lawyers here?
  3. Ernie

    Ernie *****

    Messages:
    118
    Likes:
    33
    No proof was provided regarding what was said about Dr. Silverman's research. So what would those negative statements be classified as?
  4. JohnnyD

    JohnnyD Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    Likes:
    210
    You have to prove you were harmed, in a monetary way. How do you intend to prove an anonymous forum account named "Ecoclimber" was harmed monetarily? It is total BS, you have no idea what you are doing.

    I take it you are now threatening me. Yes, please add JohnnyD to your list. I'm happy to call your bluff.
  5. urbantravels

    urbantravels disjecta membra

    Messages:
    1,333
    Likes:
    507
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'm confused by this. Has anyone *here* attacked Ecoclimber or called him a liar? Was this thread created with the sole purpose of communicating with people on the "other forum"? If so, I think Ecoclimber's original posts could have been more clear about that; because it seems that here, people expressing doubt about the statements being made, asking what sources they are derived from, and disagreeing about some conclusions is the worst I've seen directed at Ecoclimber. I don't think people on this forum deserve to be berated by proxy for whatever has happened on the "other forum."

    Always glad to have, yet again, my decision to never have anything to do with "that other forum" confirmed in the strongest possible terms.

    It is not a personal attack to question someone's words, ask about what sources claims are derived from, express doubt about hearsay or second- or third-hand information, or disagree with someone's conclusions. There is a big difference between disagreement, even strong disagreement, and personal attack. Asking for backup is not the same thing as calling someone a liar. I appreciate this forum because disagreement is allowed, usually stays in a reasonably civil zone, and when civility gets forgotten it's enforced by moderators. Mudslinging is not my idea of fun, nor is it very informative.
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,267
    Likes:
    5,474
    I don't know what's happening on the other forum, but from here, it looks pretty overblown for people to be talking about the criminality of writing a post. Good luck with getting the police on to that one.

    Back to the CROI, this was just tweeted from a new twitter account under the name of an HIV researcher (although it could always be faked):

    "Derya, you're my 1 follower! Met w/ F Ruscetti today. Expecting news from CROI re XMRV origin & contamination arguments w/ JC in the mix."
    http://twitter.com/vineetprime
  7. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    15
    I know i saw that tweet :)
    Who:what is jc? Coffin?
  8. dannybex

    dannybex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes:
    519
    Seattle
    Joan Collins? :)
  9. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    15
    Jesus Christ?
  10. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    15
    Think it is either John coffin or the jc virus (Human popyloma virus)
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,267
    Likes:
    5,474
    I assumed Coffin - but that was just my guess.
  12. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    I agree with JohnnyD - how can anyone libel or defame 'Ecoclimber' as 'Ecoclimber' is not a person or organisation?

    I could understand if 'Echoclimber''s identity was known and not anonymous but how can you libel or defame a shadow, an anonymous nonperson?

    As 'Echoclimber''s identity isnt known how can 'Echoclimber' suffer any loss?

    Prior to 'Echclimber''s legalistic outburst I had been prepared to accept that 'Echoclimber' at least believed what 'Echoclimber' had posted but if 'Echoclimber' is prepared to post such blatant threatening legalistic BS on a forum 'Echoclimber' acknowledges had no input into whatever has sparked this blatant threatening behaviour to members of this forum then why should I think 'Echoclimber''s other posts are anythign other than ravings?

    Thoughts?
  13. leaves

    leaves Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,193
    Likes:
    15
    Maybe they know his name on the other forum? I dunno. Lets prioritize and focus on the main question of today: what's JC?!

    :p
  14. Ecoclimber

    Ecoclimber Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes:
    1,081
    Mercer Island Wa
    Specious Argument:
    To amplify my comment about the argument apparently being presented: Endogenous sequences are like fossil footprints of former retroviral epidemics. They are claiming these sequences are remarkably similar and only in a few mice, implying these are fresh footprints. Which says it wasn't too long ago, in mouse generations, that something extremely similar to XMRV was loose in the wild.

    Most mice cannot be infected with XMRV, that's what the X stands for. The only mice which definitely can support it are those with human xenografts. These bozos are so sure it can't be in humans they haven't thought of the really easy way to get two very similar variants inserted in a mouse genome. You start with an infected human prostate. This allows XMRV to reproduce in mice, which then mutates until it is able to insert its genes in mouse cells. The easy answer is human -> mouse. Not mouse -> human.



    The problem with the above argument: that XMRV was present in the human prostate cells and was transferred to mice, is that the prostate cells were PCR negative for XMRV during several serial transfers in mice. Given the documented ability of XMRV to rapidly spread in human prostate cancer cells, and the ability of PCR to detect a single copy of XMRV in 100,000 cells, we can be sure that XMRV was not present in the original tumor cells. Only in later transfers of the cells in mice did they become XMRV positive, showing that the virus came from the mice, or from something else the prostate cancer cells were exposed to in the lab during the course of transfer from mouse to mouse.

    Second, the integrated retroviruses in the mice ARE NOT XMRV. This precludes the hypothesis that the integrated virus copies in mice are the result of infection by XMRV produced by the human prostate cells. Instead, the researchers found two viruses in the mice, one consisting of a left part identical to XMRV and a right part from some other retrovirus, and the other virus consisting of a left part from some other retrovirus and a right part identical to XMRV.

    While it might seem unlikely that the viruses in these mice could contaminate other experiments, the 22Rv1 cell line, which secretes very high numbers of XMRV virus particles, is present in many labs studying prostate cancer, and it is not so unlikely that virus or DNA from these cells is a source of contamination.
  15. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    excuse my ignorance but arent there trillions of cells in a human body? so a resolution of 1 in 100,000 isnt exactly high, especially if XMRV prefers cells which werent actually sampled - which statistically speaking was all of them.

    assuming 10 Trillion cells in a human body

    10^13 cells vs 10^5 = a sample size of 1/10^8 = 0.000001% chance of detection in a random sample cell assuming XMRV is equally distributed - which it probably isnt.

    so what it comes down to is how many cells in a sample (coz if it's less than 100,000 the odds of detection drop much lower than the above figure) and how many samples.

    1 in 100,00 resolution is pretty damn pathetic when you get down to it.

    (of course the above assumes only 1 cell containing XMRV in a human body - which is pretty unrealistic - but for 1 in 100,000 resultion to work, assuming equal distribution, your looking at needing 100,000,000 XMRV infected and replicating cells in a human body to stand even a 50/50 chance of detection)
  16. Ecoclimber

    Ecoclimber Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes:
    1,081
    Mercer Island Wa
    When Mikovit's email got released, it's amazing how certain members on the other forum were yelling about libel and copyright infringement etc. Sue them they shouted from the rooftops. Suddenly there is a reversal and the rooster comes home to roost. This situation stems from much further back than the recent postings made today although those will be included. Can't have it both ways, my friend.
  17. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    edit - must play nice

    he comes on here threatening little old me who aint done nut'in
    mutter mutter
  18. SilverbladeTE

    SilverbladeTE Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes:
    1,680
    Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
    Eco'
    the history of science is littered with fierce, even violent (few duels iirc back in the day, lol) debates over issues.
    Some folk happily worked with each other over decades even though in disagreement.
    Some could never be resolved during the lifetimes of the people involved.


    While Science in the end maybe about facts (and not alas, always 100% of the time), the reality is, it's about PEOPLE.
    Joe has a position A on subject Y
    Jolene favours position B
    and they will butt heads on that
    That's life, inevitable and GOOD for science because it's NOT about being a bloody Democracy, where the largest/loudet voice wins. About verifiable, repeatable facts.
    Long as each view point/person has logic and evidence for their position, it's perfectly reasonable for them to disagree, even against the "established view".

    Science is not some immutable, perfect, 100% correct impossibility. Every day new data and theories trump old established ones.
    Much as I loathe idea, it is possible the psychs are right about ME....the odds though are staggeringly small, but do exist if you have true honesty in this (and nobody get at me on this, it's way things are: always that chance you can be wrong/right even though the odds are insane or it would make you want to puke hairballs! lol).
    Betting on the lottery, 1:14 million, when yer life is on the line, is NOT good odds though ;)
    XMRV could be right, it could be wrong....*only time and many MANY MANY experiments and debates* will show the reality.

    But, when it comes to money and power, research inevitably starts to get corrupted. Ego does it all the time, lot of studies over the years have been "tweaked" to boost someone's belief in a certain thing, and usually they get caught out, hence, peer review (it's not perfect but is best we have at moment)
    I don't know of folk you are talking about, nor do I have any knowledge of their honesty, I genuinely don't know, pro or con.
    None of us can really tell, we just assume and hope for the best and usually, they are honest :)

    Bu again, as said, when it comes to power/money, and thus health research in particular, there's a woeful amount of stuff that goes on :/
    yet also, because it's about folks lives, there's incredibly brave, scrupulously honest researchers who "shake the pillars of heaven", history remembers some of those type as heroes.

    In short...we're only yakking, most of us are very ill, most courts do NOT wanna see silly spats especially with seriously sick people wasting time best left for serious things
    you know, like folk being mugged, serious assualts etc. Bit of perspective, hm? :)

    I'm very jaundiced about anything anti-XMRV, not because I think the researchers of any one piece are automatically bad/wrong/fraudulent, but because there IS a serious desire by very powerful very unpleasant people, to have this whole issue and disease BURIED, and I want to be bloody CURED while I have some chance of a life left!


    None of us have a right to be so cock sure about anything, really, especially because were ill and thus more inclined to screw up!
    and I do not exclude myself from that ::eek: :thumbsup:
    just because I rant and bitch at times, doesn't mean me, the guy underneath the ME sickness sh*t, is not a nice, well informed person (but I do have a real dislike for folk being screwed over)

    Can we keep the ire for folk who have deserved it, and even give them the possibility of the benefit of the doubt/being correct, even if that gives us gas? :D

    Life is literally too short for such stuff.
  19. Ecoclimber

    Ecoclimber Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    Likes:
    1,081
    Mercer Island Wa
    @Silverblade, I hear you and I wish it was not so but this has been brewing for sometime now.

    I agree but this has been going on for sometime now. The other forum knows who I am. When I make a statement and say that the source comes from Silverman. Certain members without first checking the facts undeniable and with maliciousness call me a liar. I tell them don't call me names, call Silverman. They still call me a liar among other choice words, saying I have an agenda without any proof whatsoever that I have an agenda. They misquote, misrepresent, mislead, mock and attribute certain motives that are not backed up in fact nor theory. They accuse me and other researchers and institutions that I am associated with, with all sorts of names in the public arena that affects my ability to raise funds for one thing, damages, tarnishes and impugnes the names of myself, the reputation of fellow researchers and institutions in good standing within the community without justification nor cause. Today, I posted on Cort's forum only to find my postings and material being banter about in the most unscrupulous manner on another forum when I Google my postings. It's one thing attacking the material, it's another issue when you attack the person behind the material.

    The damage has been done, enough is enough.
  20. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I can't imagine it means anything else than John Coffin.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page