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.

Letter from Dr Mikovits to the editor of the IACFS Bulletin

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by fred, May 6, 2010.

  1. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes:
    220
    Clay, Alabama
    Gerwyn

    GERWYN....... HELP!..... HELP!......

    We need to put Gerwyn on the payroll.

    So help us. This lost me on the third possibility.

    So, which one does she think is likely. I thought it was low replication or low levels of virus, since it can sit inside cell, not replicating and then suddenly be turned on. If it is in the cells, just a few, and not replicating, and the scientist does not amplify it correctly, then it won't be found, in my opinion.

    But I don't know what I am talking about.

    I have strong reasoning skills (or talent). But I have no education in such things.

    Tina
     
  2. shrewsbury

    shrewsbury member

    Messages:
    1,540
    Likes:
    55
    Yikes - is it normal for a non-gay woman to have a crush on Judy?

    This is crushingly (I know - groan) relevant science

    If I had any money I'd throw it all at WPI.

    In the meantime, man-up all you "no xmrv researchers". Prove you are true scientists and see if you can find xmrv now.

    thank-you Judy
     
  3. flybro

    flybro Senior Member

    Messages:
    581
    Likes:
    5
    pluto
    nope it makes ya a trollop, LOL

    ya knows i lubs ya really.
     
  4. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    :tear::tear::tear:
     
  5. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    Low titre.Lat
     
  6. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    What she is basically saying that the base sequences of your primer has to be an exact match but complimentary to the bit of the XMRV DNA that you are attaching it to. If you base your primer on the DNA sequence of the VP62 clone(which is essentially man made)the match would not be exact enough to hook onto the bit of XMRV you are looking for

    Its a bit like the operation of a zip if the teeth are properly aligned the zip closes properly.If they aren't you end up with a mess

    .The in vivo(real life) virus could well be different.you only need to get the primer sequence wrong by two sequences to miss the virus completely.you need to construct your primer according to a real life positive sample.

    The sequence is concentrate activate culture and test for presence by 4 different methods including PCR and reverse transcription PCR. Of note is that you can,t reliably locate the HIVvirus in peripheral pmbc,s with PCR either.This fact makes MClure,s and Groom,s approach all the more damning.

    Hope that is clearer
     
  7. lululowry

    lululowry Senior Member

    Messages:
    103
    Likes:
    0
    Athens, Georgia
    I actually understand now Gerwyn - well, at least at the zipper teeth level. :) Thank you again for explaining things.
     
  8. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    It's amazing they ever found the link looking at this. Shows are damned good they are.

    One question Gerwyn, what is pmbc,s? Thank you
     
  9. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    peripheral mononuclear blood cells.the parents of various white blood cells used in the immune response.White blood cells is close enough
     
  10. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Thanks again Gerwyn, you genius you.

    So how easy would it have been for the WPI to have missed this?
     
  11. maria

    maria

    Messages:
    9
    Likes:
    1
    Tennessee
    I love our Dr. Judy. She doesn't care one bit about the possibility of being squashed or keeping her research secret for money. They can't squash a precise guide on how to find XMRV once its on the web...especially when its reached our grubby little paws...:victory::wheelchair::victory::victory::sofa::victory::victory:

    Oh my :eek: I think i see a fast moving getaway boat...it must be "Holiday Time" somewhere...
     
  12. oerganix

    oerganix Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    5
    To answer the five points/lines in your post:
    YES
    YES
    YES
    YES
    YES!
     
  13. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes:
    220
    Clay, Alabama
    ok, Gerwyn, some of what you said I didn't understand.

    But, I think I have the jest. You are saying she is saying the negative results is a primer problem? right?

    Tina
     
  14. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Hi all

    I think this is great. Now the other researchers can go through this and either detect weak points, which will help clear the argument over who's right and help in developping an efficient way to find XMRV, or they can take this recipe which will allow them to replicate the WPI and team's work.

    Perfect thing to do. Thanks.

    Eric
     
  15. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    There is no argument.The only way a scientist could decide whether the method is accurate is to run a trial trying to find the virus in a known positive sample with pcr as done by the Europeans.When that proves to be negative repeat the procedures using the WPI techniques.Which of course what Groom Mclure and company should have done in the first place.Any thing else is subjective opinion which has no place in Scientific endeavour despite our Dutch friend's ramblings.They did not need this "recipe" to replicate the work merely an intention to do so and an ability to read a scientific paper
     
  16. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I'm not a scientist, at least not in this area, but logic tells me that "the empirical way" you mentioned is not the only one. I would guess that it totally makes sense to go through the procedures someone has applied to get to a certain result and if there are, find errors in there, which based on the current established knowledge in that science will allow you to tell why that method could not produce reliable results, without even having to try it for yourself.
    Just trying your methond and trying the other method does not prove anything, just what results those methods produce. But if those results are correct is not determined at all, in my opinion.

    Of course you need an exact description of a procedure to replicate it. How else could one do that? And i've heard some critical voices say that the Science paper did not disclose all the details about the WPI's work. So it's good to go out there with total transparency.
     
  17. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    Logic has nothing to do with it.The scientific method does not use your form of logic.It is inductive not deductive.Scientific knowledge is also a distinct form of knowledge arrived at using a particular process.
    The only way to validate a method is to test it.

    We are talking about reliability consistency and reproducibility.I,m afraid that your subjective opinion is not relevant in this or any other scientific endeavour. Guessing does not help much either!Any competent scientist could reproduce the methods outlined in the science paper if they had the will and the wit to read the paper in the first place. That is the primary purpose of a peer review process.What you do not do as a scientist when you have an option of trying one of four proven methods for locating XMRV is to make up one of your own!
     
  18. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes:
    220
    Clay, Alabama
    Gerwyn, your comment:

    "What you do not do as a scientist when you have an option of trying one of four proven methods for locating XMRV is to make up one of your own!"

    is well-said. There can only be two reasons a scientist would disregard proven methods and use your own: 1) you arrogantly think your own unproven method is just as good as the others, because you have years of experience with retroviruses in general. This may not be just arrogance but hubris. 2) You want to convince the world of something based on your beliefs, so you tailor your research to produce results that support your beliefs.

    Tina
     
  19. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    176
    USA.Earth
    Maybe there are processes within 'the scientific method' that are inductive, but science in general uses all types of reasoning. Deductive reasoning has its place, and is used in the formation of a hypothesis. And often the discussion in the scientific community includes a LOT of opinion.
     
  20. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    There is only one process used in the formation of a hypothesis and two ways of testing said hypothesis.Anything else lies outside the scientific method which does not involve subjective opinion of any kind. In deductive reasoning logic is itself the authority.The scientific method uses inductive reasoning based on symbolic observations not subjective speculation
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page