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. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    you made points I merely corrected them.Apparently I should not have done that according to the moderators of the forum. My post was factual strtaightforward and supported by peer reviewed evidence.I note that you did not question the content of my post but your percieved tone and style of my reply.I did not care much for the style,tone or content of your post but I chose to focus on the content.apparently I am not allowed to comment on the tone and style of other posters.
    Inaccurate comments are ok but tone and style are not.
    Best wishes to you Eric and to your beliefs
  2. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

  3. oerganix

    oerganix Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    5
    There is a whole thread on the Prague Conference, available to you here on PR. Basically, they questioned the ethics and the validity of the research, especially of the Dutch. Ruscetti specifically mentioned the "whisper campaign" alleging lab contamination, (the Dutch researchers excuse for not acknowledging their samples actually had XMRV in them), that is being conducted against WPI at this moment.

    Eric, you claim to be a logical person, then you say, re the Failure to Find studies:
    " It is just as well possible that they did not find XMRV in those samples because it was actually not there."

    How is this logical? That they found ZERO XMRV? Japan has found it in 1.7% of blood donations from presumably healthy people. People from UK have had their blood tested by WPI and about 50% have tested positive. The original WPI cohort had samples from people from Europe and Australia who had come to the US for treatment at American clinics. How logical is it that those quick and dirty studies, sponsored by psychiatrists with a long history of distorting research regards CFS, would find ZERO XMRV? To my logical mind, the only way they could find zero XMRV would be if they had stored the samples so badly that it wasn't findable; or that Simon Wessely, who provided the samples to Dr McClure did something to them to remove any XMRV because he doesn't want it to be found; or they just didn't know how to find it. The last possibility makes the most sense to me, considering that they went out of their way to do it differently than WPI.

    Logic tells me that there is a continuation of the decades long attempt to disprove any viral or retroviral cause of CFS. McClure's subsequent statements indicate that she was duped and used by Wessely, that she told his lies like a good little parrot, and now they have come back to bite her in the posterior.

    Then you, Eric say: "i don't want people to cheer about things now and later be disappointed.
    For that reason i say, please stay cautious, those news about XMRV are exciting and promising but please wait until we have more certainty."

    On the face of it, that seems very noble of you, trying to spare the rest of us the uplift of having hope, because you fear that it might not pan out. We have already addressed this time and time again here, and I, for one, reject your attempt to take responsibility for my "false hope" and potential disappointment. The very fact that there is an organized effort to defame Dr Mikovits and WPI and any efforts associated with them is a lot more deserving of my attention. I assure you that I am perfectly aware that XMRV may not be "IT", but people who know more about it than you or I say it very well could be...that "it fits". (Drs Cheney, Bell and Klimas, for example)

    Two more things that I have noticed about your posts: you repeat McClure's "crocodile tears" statements about trying to "spare" us the disappointment of finding out that XMRV isn't what we hope it is. And after criticizing Gerwyn's writing and punctuation, a red herring IMO, you constantly use lower case "i" instead of "I". Simon Wessely does the same thing in his emails. For those reason, I don't like the style and tone of your posts.

    Again, you say: "i don't want people to cheer about things now and later be disappointed.
    For that reason i say, please stay cautious, those news about XMRV are exciting and promising but please wait until we have more certainty."

    I would prefer that you wait for more UNcertainty about the exciting and promising news of XMRV, that you stay cautious about trying to refute it with your brand of logic. If you've got evidence that XMRV isn't involved in CFS, please share. But until you do, please don't tell the rest of not to cheer the positive news about it.
  4. Advocate

    Advocate Senior Member

    Messages:
    506
    Likes:
    14
    U.S.A.
    Hi Eric S.,

    I keep going back to your admonishment of Gerwyn: "Is it so hard to add a space between the period at the end of a sentence and the first word of the new sentence?"

    Well, maybe it is hard. That's where the history comes in.

    A long time ago, in one post, Gerwyn listed his symptoms. Wow, I thought. Sounds almost like a stroke, I thought. So if he writes his posts upside down or backwards, I take his history into consideration.

    Another history point: His posts--in terms of spaces, commas, capitalization--have improved immensely since he first started posting here. This demonstrates another benefit of posting frequently on the forum. :Retro smile:

    I don't care what Gerwyn's scholarly qualifications are, because he certainly knows a lot more science than I will ever know. He has been a huge help to me by clarifying difficult concepts. He has pointed out flaws in the science of the politically motivated studies in Europe, even as others were using those same studies to gleefully attack the WPI or Judy Mikovits.

    The bottom line is that it's very clear to me whose side Gerwyn is on, and that means a lot to me.

    Advocate
  5. Forbin

    Forbin Forbin

    Messages:
    238
    Likes:
    205
    I've tried to find this video again on youtube, but so far no luck. It may have been among the videos posted by LuminescentFeeling and, unfortunately, his channel went away for some reason.

    What I remember was Dr. Mikovits standing in a hallway, I think at some sort of conference, and she said that the virus replicates when "the cell divides, and only when the cell divides."

    I found another video, possibly Mikovits' first interview on XMRV, in which she describes the virus existing in B and T cells and then replicating when those cells divide in response to a vaccine. That video is dated October 14th, 2009.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TQzlL0nd6I#t=6m34s

    I'll keep loooking for the other video, though.
  6. oerganix

    oerganix Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    5
    I remember something like that, but a little different. She said, in response to a question about how vaccination might be invoved, that vaccination provokes an immune response and that the XMRV might then be stimulated to replicate by the immune activity.
  7. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    That posting was not directed at you Gerwyn. You must have misunderstood that.
  8. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

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

    I'm sure you will understand that it's not possible for me to go back through hundreds of threads and read up on everyone's history before i post a mesage. As i have said in antother thread just 20 minutes earlier, if that is the result of a condition that he has, then i would not have made those remarks. But if you read that other message posted by me, you can also read there why i made them. If you don't know which side i'm on, that's sad. And i would prefer if people abstain from calling the negative studies politically motivated, but of course you're free to do that. PROVE THEM WRONG. This is what will help. (And i don't mean by talk on this forum. No one in governments, pharma corporations etc. will care about that.) I'm waiting for this and hope that it will happen.

    Eric
  9. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
  10. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

  11. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I have read their comments days ago. They do not validate Gerwyn's hypothesis about the old blood. Not as far as i can remember. The raise other doubts and i was pleased to read that but it's no prove of the XMRV/CFS association yet. I'm waiting for that.

    Dr. Mikovits, in the letter that is the topic of this thread has pointed out a number of possible explanations. XMRV might not be present anywhere in the world in the same "ratio", it might have been a problem with the cohort etc. etc. So far i don't know about there being Europeans and Australians being in the Science cohort. But i might be wrong. Anyway, what i want is no more guesses, i want ANSWERS. And the only way to get them is more studies. Whoever claims to know the answer now is in my mind not serious. Look at how Dr. Coffin etc. behave. They do not say "yes" or "no" yet. Everyone is waiting and being cautious. And just in case you care: the things you say about the european studies might get you into legal troubles in a good number of countries, in my opinion. One should not accuse people without being able to prove something. But i don't think they will come after you in Nicaragua, don't worry.
    Stop that "crocodile's tears" sh.. I don't care about you, don't worry. But i won't accept anyone implying i am not honest here. This is no fun.
    Do you want to know why i write "i" instead of "I". Because in my language, as in any language other then english, "i" is written with a lower case letter. I'm not an egoistic person and will not write it in capital letters for that reason. In my language we write "you" in capital letters. Think about that. Don't associate me with Wessely. That's inacceptable neither. This man is my enemy. (That does not mean i want to harm him in any illegal way of course). Is that clear enough?
    And please, just don't reply to my postings anymore, i think that will be the best solution for you as well as for myself.

    Eric
  12. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
  13. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

  14. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
  15. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I want to end this argument now.

    So i suggest we either let it stand or we will agree on a jury that will decide who is right and then accept the verdict.

    And just one more little thing. You said in another thread that i have no scientific background. Not one in biology. But i have studied law. And courts have to decide about medical issues often. Unfortunately of course they don't always make the right decisions, sure. But those are cases where the juristic way of thinking, which is obviously scientific too, will judge biological matters in the end. They will hear experts from that area of science but they will make the decision wheter they believe something or not based on their way of working.
  16. Adam

    Adam *****

    Messages:
    495
    Likes:
    1
    Sheffield UK
    Eric. I am no scientist, but IMO, I think you might be mistaken there?
  17. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    Yes I have studied Law too.Law is not a science>juristic thinking is the opposite of scientific thinking.If you cant tell the difference between expansionist thinking(Law) and reductionist thinking(Science).then that would explain the content of your posts.One of the legal maxims is that a court of law is no place to determine matters of science.What jurors actually do is choose between to competing opinions having no scientific experise at all using their logical subjectivity to decide on relative and not scientific truth,Their processes have absolutely nothing to do with the scientific methods and their decisions are opinion and not fact
  18. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Please clarify where you think i'm mistaken. Thanks.
  19. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    LOL. You know what? In my language it's actually called "Rechtswissenschaft", which means "the science of law". It's ridiculous not to call it a science. What else is not a science? Mathematics? Economics? Science or not? Philosophy? Science or not? History? Etc. I've never before heard anyone deny that those are sciences. It might be a language issue though. Maybe you only call science what we call "sciences of nature", roughly translated.
    Science, as for example in the definition used when working on a case in the area of constitutional law is
    "research and doctrine".
    I agree on what you said about a judge not determining matters of science. That's exactly the way i have argued. I did not say that i could actually determine myself wheter the hypothesis you've made was correct or not. Right? But i've tried to use logic to get to an assessment wheter it's likely to be true or not. And i'm ready to have a scientist give his opinion on that hypothesis and then accept that. If it's someone trustworthy.
    Same here as in the other thread. That was my last comment on this.
  20. Martlet

    Martlet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,837
    Likes:
    3
    Near St Louis, MO
    Moderator note: That's enough, Eric. You are getting far too personal. No matter what the perceived provocation, this is not the way to address another member.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page