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.

ERV (Scienceblog.com)'s take on CDC's paper....and Alter's paper's review process...

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by dean, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. dean

    dean

    Messages:
    80
    Likes:
    0
    Maybe we should throw it on a big bon fire and burn it,
  2. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    it serves a purpose

    people object to positive (to us) papers being pulled but want references to negative (to us) sites pulled - refusing to listen to disenting views is what people are accusing the opposition of isnt it?

    the only problem IMO with this link is the thread shoudl have been in media or somewhere similair
  3. dean

    dean

    Messages:
    80
    Likes:
    0
    I am not familiar with thread protocol. My post can be moved anywhere.

    And really really important....... I am part of us .....
  4. CBS

    CBS Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes:
    246
    Western US
    I know I came off as abrupt. My intent wasn't a personal attack. My apologies for that. I'm more exasperated because this has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Not your doing.

    I doubt that.

    It wasn't meant as intimidation. More just a case of fatigue with her line of obfuscation. She doesn't want to understand or she wouldn't get glaring issues like cohort so wrong. Months ago people were trying to share information with her and it looks like she's still getting it wrong when it suits her. On non-CFS topics her blog get 8-10 posts in a week. She posts about CFS and she gets 160. Like it or not, we're her bread and butter and she lives off getting a rise out of CFS folks. She stops posting about CFS (or we stop reacting on her site) and she becomes anonymous. Anonymity is death for blogger. No hits, ScienceBlogs finds someone else. No megaphone for her uniformed rants. Starve the beast.
  5. dannybex

    dannybex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes:
    519
    Seattle
    I'm all for hearing all sides of the issue discussed with respect and intelligence. But her blog is clearly inflammatory, designed solely to make people upset -- not to respectfully discuss dissenting views. Within the first 2 or 3 sentences she uses the c-word. That's hardly necessary or useful, and again I ask what purpose does posting ERV'S blog serve?
  6. dean

    dean

    Messages:
    80
    Likes:
    0
    cbs and dannybex.....i hear you......but I like a little edge.....and I am not too worried about people with different ideas...there is a need to know everything she knows.. for example her point about the special line to publishing for members in PNAS I didnt know, and while maybe not that significant was very interesting....
  7. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    CBS

    much more reasonable - and I substantially agree with your post - within the limitations I've posted above - I'm not advocating anyone replying to her blog

    what i objected to was people demanding the thread be deleted simply because THEY didnt want anything to do with an opposition blogger because she isnt "nice" (in both senses of the word) - IMO such a response/reaction is bad - personal abuse, spam, attacks etc possibly warrent post deletions - attempting to get threads deleted simply because you dont like them isnt acceptable behavoiur (again only IMO) - or where does it stop?

    you've got the CDC to thank for that little rant - putting me in a bad mood - I'll shut up now

    dannybex

    okay - possibly a direct link without the copy&paste would have been more appropriate - that way people can follow if they want but not have to read if they dont want - preferable to demands for deletion IMO
  8. Otis

    Otis Señor Mumbler

    Messages:
    1,116
    Likes:
    116
    USA
    Thanks CBS. I've dodged much of this history myself and it's helpful to take the time to let folks know a little history as to why most don't want to read more of this.

    dean - For any post please remove the vulgarity. And one comment I would make is that adding links to a site like this helps their standing in Google which helps the bloggers cause as well.
  9. dannybex

    dannybex Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,181
    Likes:
    519
    Seattle
    No one is DEMANDING that the link or this thread be deleted. We're just wondering why it's necessary to post it -- especially after the long history here w/regards to ERV-- and were ASKING that it be deleted...

    Anyway I'll shut up. This is TRULY making me sicker and sicker. I don't need the stress.
  10. busybee

    busybee Senior Member

    Messages:
    118
    Likes:
    3
    and now I know that this makes more sense


  11. julius

    julius Watchoo lookin' at?

    Messages:
    785
    Likes:
    5
    Canada
    No, please no links to her blog. Every time someone clicks that link she gets more traffic. Thus she continues to thrive.

    If you feel you want to copy and paste her "writing" then go ahead, but please don't include a link.
  12. srmny

    srmny

    Messages:
    81
    Likes:
    0
    Erv's "Information"

    I found the explanation of paper submission at PNAS (by scienceblog.com) sounded like she was making it up as she went along and trying hard to get a response from one of us.

    "Sooooo... the 'positive' paper was submitted by Harvey Alter to PNAS. Harvey Alter is a NAS member, so this paper had, um, 'a different peer review history' than you all are accustomed to. Normally, you send a paper to a journal, and they send the paper out to three reviewers, and they give the journal editor a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. When you are a NAS member submitting to PNAS, you pick your own reviewers and send in your own reviews. So, you could, like Lynn Margulis, send a controversial paper out to seven people to get two 'good enough' reviews, and be accepted for publication."

    I checked the PNAS site and have posted some of the submission guidelines language:

    PNAS Submission Guidelines

    The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to submit them directly to PNAS. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified referees. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review.... The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For direct submission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the referees, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews....Academy members who have told authors they are willing to oversee the review process have 48 hours from the time of submission to alert the PNAS Office to their request. During this period the PNAS Office will contact the member to confirm. Authors should coordinate submission to ensure the member is available. The Board cannot guarantee that the member designated by the author will be assigned the manuscript or that it will be sent for review. Throughout the review process authors are not permitted to contact the editor directly and all correspondence must be sent through the PNAS office....All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a direct submission. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated as new submissions."

    This is just highlights of the guidelines. They are here : http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml#submission

    What Erv says is complete poo. Her mission is not to inform or discuss. She only wishes to incite. I do not believe her posts should ever be recreated here. At the very most a link should be posted so we would have the option to not have to wade through all her poo.
  13. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,527
    Likes:
    2,004
    Sofa, UK
    Thanks busybee, so yes these two bits of info together imply a story as to what is happening, that makes some sense, although how this info reached us could be questioned - who needs to hire a better PR agent now?!

    So it had perhaps only been reviewed - under the old rules which oddly enough have changed today according to the earlier link, by (unknown) only 2 or 3 reviewers chosen by Alter himself, had been accepted for publication by PNAS on that basis and was reportedly in print, but has now been withheld and further reviewers are requiring further experiments which may take some weeks.

    Is that the picture we are to piece together from snippets from ERV's blog and CAA quotes?

    In general I would say: if there is something from ERV, or indeed Bad Science, that really does look like either (a) a snippet of potentially significant information, or (b) a new spurious argument that needs refuting, then I would tend to say: OK, fine, post that with some highlight and explanation/question/refutation, but posting the whole lot with no comment understandably upsets people. This person has described CFS as "a set of non-specific mehs", ERV's agenda seems simple: cfs doesn't exist, ergo, this must be a load of rubbish...and we don't need to give denialists oxygen and publicity here. There is very rarely anything there worthy of comment.
  14. dean

    dean

    Messages:
    80
    Likes:
    0
    srmny......I did go to the same page, a a bit futher down than your highlighted quote I found a special route to publication for members...It is still there... It seems they are in the process of changing this..... again.as I previously stated. ..i dont know how significant this is, but there is, or perhaps was, a different route to publication is PNAS for members.... or not.... I have called PNAS editorial office and I will report what the specifics are and if there are any changes....


    "An Academy member may “communicate” for others up to two manuscripts per year that are within the member's area of expertise. Beginning July 1, 2010, we will no longer accept communicated submissions. Before submission to PNAS, the member obtains reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. "

    and this " members must secure the comments of at least two qualified referees. "

    This is vastly different than noted for other authors..... "The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For direct submission papers"
  15. muffin

    muffin Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    Likes:
    5
    USA!
    And here we go again...

    IGNORE this stupid child. ignore ignore ignore. Do NOT go to her site and push her numbers up. Do not respond to her. Ignore her. We have far bigger enemies now than her.

    Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov Please send an email to Sebelius instead of worrying about young ERV and her foolish chatter. Please??!?!?!?!
  16. Gert

    Gert

    Messages:
    22
    Likes:
    0
    Countering Erv's Misinformation

    Over the years absolute rubbish has been touted about our horrible illness and it is now regarded as fact by many professionals and the general population.:(

    In the earlier years when not so many people were on the net we had no way of countering this misinformation.

    Our tragedy has from its inception been dictated by people as viscous and foolish as Erv many of whom had vested intrests. It worked while we were unable to retaliate with the facts. And we know all to well that the mud has stuck for a long long time.

    Lets not give Erv a free reign to continue the already massive damage to our lives and reputations. She is successfully tearing the reputation of Judy Mikovitz to shreds based on the fact that Mikovitz should not answer her and we should defend a person who has put it all on the line for us.

    Im not talking insults here. What Im suggesting is that we examine Ervs posts and refute any misinformation line by line. No insults are needed. There seem to be some pretty well informed people here capable of doing that. One problem with Ervs blog is that when we try to refute what she has twisted she doesn't publish our comments making her disinfo look good to the uninformed.

    We should continue to find out who she and what her connections are, not for the purpose of ruining her but to expose any vested interests she may be connected with. I don't believe she is acting alone or in ignorance. She may (or may not) be connected to Wessley, McClure etc. If we find such connections they should be exposed. And we must stick to the facts. I would like to see a factual dossier about her as a forum topic. Facts like she is paid to write for Science Blogs. One person commented a while back that Science Blogs is connected to vested interests. I'll have to retrace that comment.

    Threats of ruining ERV may be justified but are pointless. Exposing her true motives and connectionS "if there are any" is important and puts a better perspective on what she is about.
  17. IamME

    IamME Too sick for an identity

    Messages:
    110
    Likes:
    5
    I agree with not promoting hits on ERV's site. It's not like she's anyone important like Peter White that its beneficial to keep an eye on.

    Dean maybe you should read the childish aggression she has previously shown about Mikovits (whom she labelled a c***) and the Whittemore's (inlcuding IIRC an attack on their sick daughter). She was last seen having a go at Klimas, and yeah, CFS "a collection of mehs". This is why people are taking a seen once attitude... If you want a "dissenting opinion" there's plenty of places you can get it without having your face smacked as a bonus.

    I'm not sure why anyone feels a lack of dissent anyway, with CFS and the CDC. Or to put it another way, the CDC is the norm and XMRV is the dissent. People don't disagree with psychologisation because it disallows dissent (if only that was all it was), it's because it's iatragenic harm, scientific fraud and systemic unethical dehumanisation of seriously sick, sometimes dying, people.

    The different peer review process by PNAS is a complete red herring and not important. It doesn't explain why HHS wanted to suspend both the CDC and Alter's studies yet why the CDC went ahead anyway, and varying accounts but which all state an outside influence (one which implicates the CDC's opinion of the Alter results themselves) wanted the papers suspended. It doesn't explain that it was widely reported that the study was accepted before this.

    The bottom line is we have another damaging piece of dross from the CDC and people like ERV, initially seemingly curious but now with more impunity shadowing Reeves' bigotry as scientific fact.
  18. Levi

    Levi Senior Member

    Messages:
    188
    Likes:
    27
    ERV

    You guys should make allowances for ERV's hostile demeanor since she is a hottie . . .
  19. julius

    julius Watchoo lookin' at?

    Messages:
    785
    Likes:
    5
    Canada
    Oh, man.....you're gonna make me throw up......:headache:
  20. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    440
    Raleigh, NC
    Finally someone made me laugh - that was worth it :tear::tear::tear:

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page