Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Ecoclimber, Feb 28, 2011.
Do you have any further info, or references, about these other MLV's please?
free, do you have a specific comment in mind? Can you give a position in the video that was posted early in this thread?
I had time to watch part of the conference video that was posted. Seems they believe they have found the origin of XMRV. What I saw in that video was realization that XMRV has the potential to to become a nosocomial infection, some lab workers may be at risk. Patient risk would seem minimal at the moment unless they work in labs. What also seemed clear was that they like XMRV as a topic of study because it is interesting, but they don't think the connection with disease will hold up (other than risk to lab workers which they now must manage).
None of these researchers were saying we are not sick, they are just saying XMRV is a lab artifact and not a likely cause of our illness, based on their studies. I think any moderation of the comments was probably just to keep discussion on that topic. I do think their retrovirus findings are credible and should not be dismissed.
Actually, based on a mutual friend, Switzer is very competent. Just look at his publications record, the studies he has been involved with. Pubmed lists him as primary or coauthor in 77 retroviral related studies, going back to the 1980s (Pubmed search: 'switzer wm'). He is primary author of 14 of the studies, I think he is qualified to present results.
Mikovits is also well published, but not as much as Switzer. Pubmed lists her as primary or coauthor in 29 studies, also going back to the 1980s (Pubmed search: 'mikovits jm'). She is primary author of 8 of the listed studies.
If my memory serves me correctly I think it was in Judy Mikovits Santa Rosa lecture on jan 17. In the section where she gives her talk. She mentions that they have found XMRV, MLVs and one case of mink focus forming virus. (I hope I have remembered the virus correctly, there is so much info on these threads that its hard to remember exactly as I search through for infomation quickly.) I ought to take notes.
Do the number of publications have a positive relationship with a quality researcher? Not sure what it takes to get a MPH, but it seems to me that his educational background is not that impressive.
Wouldn't it make more of a difference in what publications (some have very high standards(Science?) and my impression is that some are rags) a person has their research published?
PS I think it depends upon where you work (Gov't vs Private) and how far up the ladder you are in your workplace in order to be included as a co-author on papers. I believe that it is better if you work in Public Institutions and if your research gets published, isn't that supposed to help you get tenure?
I checked this out but could not find it, is it just me or the website?
Yea broken link
I agree, most researchers this well published have more credentials. But there are exceptions, and Switzer appears to be one prolific and successful example. Maybe he has more training than appears, we don't know details of what coursework he took at what level. Anyway, there are plenty of PhDs out there that would be envious of his publication record.
He has published in the major journals in his field, particularly 'Virology,' 'J of Infectious Diseases,' and 'Retrovirology', similar to most other credible retrovirologists. He also was first author for a study published in Nature in 2005.
To be a co-author you generally must participate in the study. To be principle author you are usually the PI (principal investigator and author of the research design). But yes, this varies, I don't know the pattern in retrovirology, in my former research field the boss did not get included in the list of authors unless she or he participated directly in the research.
Miller's rebuttal of Gerwyn's comment on Retrovirology
Miller's rebuttal of 'psych graduate' Gerwyn comment ( I wonder what PA institute means, hmm?) on
Analysis of XMRV integration sites from human prostate cancer tissues suggests PCR contamination rather than genuine human infection in Retovirology
Response to the comment by Gerwyn Morris posted 26 February 2011
response to Miller
Citation request by Dr. Miller--
the study cannot demonstrate direction of transfer
Response to the comments by Gerwyn Morris posted 02 March and 03 March 2011
Honestly Ana this does nothing for Gerwyn's stance for me....I think Miller believes Towers knows how to do that experiment correctly and did not introduce XMRV into the cells prior to doing the study. For me - its hard to read, let alone trust, someone who is continually taunting the other.
Look at this
Now he enters speculative mode. Note: this is not even the paper I raised.
Well, yes he is speculating. Why? Because past results of experiments in the past undoubtedly suggest that this is true. Since they didn't actually measure this he had to assess that based on his knowledge...Gerwyn chooses to call informed reasoning - mere speculation...
Then as Miller brings the findings of another paper to bear on the subject - as researchers often due - Gerwyn simply dismisses this as 'not even the paper I raised"....?
Gerwyn: Note "if at all." and so what?
???? - yes, given the recent findings - it is entirely appropriate to say, if at all regarding XMRV's presence in prostate tissue. In fact, any researcher should say that - but Gerwyn doesn't like to have his favorite finding bashed.....Notice that Miller leaves open the possibility of XMRV being there as well
Gerwyn: The point, of course, is that if the sequences were introduced during the experiment the conclusions of the study are false!
I think I do understand Gerwyn's point - he's frustrated because Miller had not responded to his main question - which is understandable.
Gerwyn: No evidence is given to support that comment of course.
?? Again this kind of childish retort - the evidence is apparently in the papers cited and is easy enough to assess by looking at them.
Gerwyn may have a point - I don't know. His posts have been described to me by researchers as a mishmash of sometimes valid and other times invalid points....Its hard for us to assess because Gerwyn has delved deeper into the field than most of us.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Now that is interesting.
Thanks for the abstracts Rita.
The WPI have been working with Quest, I think? So I'm not sure how much that queries their status as 'independent' confirmation...but how far away is this Quest Diagnostics team's claim from confirming WPI's findings? One randomised control trial away?...They are saying they can "reliably detect XMRV from CFS patients" !!!
I agree with all of the above 100%, except that I would add: If you don't keep it civil, you damage your own credibility and the credibility of the argument you are making.
The best debaters are those who can keep their statements civil even in the face of provocations by others to drop below that standard.
I agree 100%. Let's work for the best science possible, wherever it leads. We want to know what's making us ill and how to treat it.
Do bear in mind, while analyzing personalities, that Greg Towers (author of the paper under discussion) is the author of the misleading press release that stated that it had been proved that XMRV is a contaminant, over-blowing the results of the December 20th Retrovirology papers.
Bear in mind also that Gerwyn does not stand to gain money or status, he is working to shine light on the research purely because, like us, he wants to be well.
Cort, this unsubstantiated allegation is worth precisely nothing. While Gerwyn tackles Miller point by point, you throw out a generalisation, appealing to authority (described to me by researchers) without giving any facts, like the identity of these "researchers". Gerwyn is putting his reputation on the line for us. Vague criticisms of his work, like yours above, are unhelpful, and bad for your reputation.
Honestly, I don't know which side is correct, but as I understand it, Gerwyn appears to be holding his own despite lacking formal qualifications (correct?).
When it comes to ME/CFS, experts having their ass handed to them by mere lay patients isn't all that surprising for the soft psych sciences, but when it comes to a field such as retrovirology I would expect this to be much more unlikely. I can only imagine the embrassment a "renouned expert" like Miller would feel if XMRV/MLV turned out to be significant and Gerwyn had been right all along.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.