• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

letter Nijmegen to Whitemoore

lansbergen

Senior Member
Messages
2,512
The BMJ Kuppevald paper was first rejected by Lancet - is that correct?

http://www.umcn.nl/Research/Departments/ECCF/Pages/default.aspx

That is in the letter posted on their website.

The letter is mentioned in a dutch newspapers article posted on a dutch forum today

Van der Meer noemt het 'buitengewoon onwetenschappelijk' dat de integriteit
van zijn onderzoeksgroep in een brief aan een ander in twijfel wordt
getrokken. Nijmegen heeft deze week een brief teruggeschreven (en die ook
maar op de eigen website geplaatst).
 

V99

Senior Member
Messages
1,471
Location
UK
Gerwyn
yet Mclure and Groom did not appear to know this!
Yep

No where has the WPI said that patients were only from the Lake Tahoe outbreak. They (McClure and Groom) just wish it was.


Is this where the misinformation started?
BMJ 25 February 2010, Editorials, Chronic fatigue syndrome and human retrovirus XMRV, Myra McClure & Simon Wessely. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/feb25_1/c1099
It is possible that XMRV is implicated in the Lake Tahoe episode but does not play a substantial role in most cases of chronic fatigue syndrome elsewhere.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
Gerwyn
Yep

No where has the WPI said that patients were only from the Lake Tahoe outbreak. They (McClure and Groom) just wish it was.


Is this where the misinformation started?
BMJ 25 February 2010, Editorials, Chronic fatigue syndrome and human retrovirus XMRV, Myra McClure & Simon Wessely. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/feb25_1/c1099

it was the other point that really grabbed me.Retroviruses cannot replicate if the cells are not actively replicating.yet Mclure and groom choose to use old blood in which the cells are not replicating.PCR only detects replicating viruses so lets use PCR on old blood samples.Intelligent or what?
 

Alexia

Senior Member
Messages
168
Location
Portugal
Does anyone know anything about a letter from Nijmegen about the american study being accepted by science?

I also found that a bit strange .. I will translated that part of the article that you are referring to it, correct me Lansbergen if I make mistakes :
" International researchers have written letters to the Science about the lack of methodology of the American research (WPI Science paper). The letter from the researchers from Nijmengen was accepted."

I've never heard that Science was accepting letters from researchers about the publications. I suppose you can comment on the articles but they put it in a way as if it was a formal acceptance from the Science.
We can't take this newspapers articles very seriously I have the impression..
 

oerganix

Senior Member
Messages
611
The Dutch study which reported that it could not detect XMRV in "cfs" patients was originally submitted to the Lancet and subjected to its vigorous peer review process.IT WAS REJECTED AS NOT OF SUFFICIENT STANDARD FOR PUBLICATION. It was published by the BMJ despite that it did not meet their publication criteria

I was wrong about who owns the BMF so I have deleted this post.

It is quoted below, so anyone who wants to can see what I posted, erroneously.
 

V99

Senior Member
Messages
1,471
Location
UK
Will that letter be in Science next month along with Mikovits reply?
 

lansbergen

Senior Member
Messages
2,512
I also found that a bit strange .. I will translated that part of the article that you are referring to it, correct me Lansbergen if I make mistakes :
" International researchers have written letters to the Science about the lack of methodology of the American research (WPI Science paper). The letter from the researchers from Nijmengen was accepted."

I've never heard that Science was accepting letters from researchers about the publications. I suppose you can comment on the articles but they put it in a way as if it was a formal acceptance from the Science.
We can't take this newspapers articles very seriously I have the impression..

I think your translation is correct. I guess van der Meer wanted to give the impression it was a formal acceptance.
 

usedtobeperkytina

Senior Member
Messages
1,479
Location
Clay, Alabama
If WPI reported positives in what these Dutch folks found as negative, publication should not have happened until it was resolved, pure and simple. I am a news reporter. I know that if you have two conflicting accounts, you dig deeper to find the truth, if possible. Difference is newspapers and T.V. News have deadlines. Publication of scientific research doesn't. Although, even in my field, if you have two conflicting accounts and one of them is accusing of wrong doing, often you pull the story. Yes, you take the chance that your competition gets the story out first. But you avoid the chance of false information going out and egg on your face, not to mention libel problems. It's a judgment call. But scientific studies are different. Do we have a response from BMJ after Whittemore's letter? Would they have published had they known WPI found same samples positive? This is omission to the point of misleading.

My favorite part of the letter is the tone is vamped up. Whittemore's letter was direct, but not an insult. This letter is an insult.

More controversy, more likely to get exposure. I know, we need to get all these scientists together and have the patients throw eggs and them and then set off smoke bombs. That might get us some T.V. time.

Tina
 

fred

The game is afoot
Messages
400
Does anyone know anything about a letter from Nijmegen about the american study being accepted by science?

There was also the UK neurologist (instantly forgettable, but female I think) who wrote a piece in the BMJ about issues with the methodology of the Science article and she said that various concerns had been accepted by Science. I assumed it was these concerns that Dr Judy would be responding to. Perhaps there was a 'group' attack on the Science paper from the Europeans.
 

hvs

Senior Member
Messages
292
Didn't pass peer review with Lancet? Damming. And they din't bother to meet reviewers' objections, just took a shot at getting it to pass muster somewhere else. Unimpressive.
We know that the WPI/NIH/Cleveland Clinic paper faced brutal scrutiny at Science and passed muster.
I do not know if XMRV is a causative agent for "cfs"--though it'd be foolish to bet against it as the cause of some human disease, at this point--but the Science paper still stands head and shoulders above all other comers.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
BMJ is owned by Reed Elsevier, the same Dutch/International company that set up fake journals in Australia in order to promote Merck drugs. It owns 25% of all medical journals and a lot of other publications, from Variety to NexisLexis (the online law publication). He seems to exercise a heavy hand in promoting or restricting what gets published. Some scientific Journals have disbanded because of lack of "independence".

From wikipedia: blue underlining from wiki)


" Operations

Reed Elsevier conducts its business through the following divisions:
ScienceDirect contains over 25% of the world's science, technology and medicine full text and bibliographic information.
Scopus is the world's largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources. Scopus is updated daily.
Reed Business, Reed Elsevier's global Business division, is a provider of magazines, exhibitions, directories, online media and marketing services across five continents. Its prestige brands serve professionals across a diverse range of industries. These brands include Variety, New Scientist, totaljobs.com, Elsevier, Kellysearch, and the World Travel & Tourism Market.
Pricing issues

Main articles: Elsevier#Criticism and controversies and Elsevier
Reed Elsevier has been criticised for the high prices of its journals and services, especially Elsevier and LexisNexis. Members of the scientific community have called for a boycott of Elsevier journals and a move to open access publications such as those of the Public Library of Science or BioMed Central."

that is fabulous information do we know who the main shareholders are? either for the global outfit or the BMJ
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
I also found that a bit strange .. I will translated that part of the article that you are referring to it, correct me Lansbergen if I make mistakes :
" International researchers have written letters to the Science about the lack of methodology of the American research (WPI Science paper). The letter from the researchers from Nijmengen was accepted."

I've never heard that Science was accepting letters from researchers about the publications. I suppose you can comment on the articles but they put it in a way as if it was a formal acceptance from the Science.
We can't take this newspapers articles very seriously I have the impression..

accepted does not mean accepted for publication.nice play on words though! I wonder who" the international researchers" are.Any takers?.I predict that two will be english and one Dutch!
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
There was also the UK neurologist (instantly forgettable, but female I think) who wrote a piece in the BMJ about issues with the methodology of the Science article and she said that various concerns had been accepted by Science. I assumed it was these concerns that Dr Judy would be responding to. Perhaps there was a 'group' attack on the Science paper from the Europeans.

A neurologist knows nothing about virology she would not know a methodolgical isssue if it lept up and bit her!
 

fred

The game is afoot
Messages
400
I thought the BMJ was owned by the BMA.

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/about-bmj

[Quote starts]

Owner and publisher

The BMJ is published by BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. The editor of the BMJ is Fiona Godlee.

The BMA grants editorial freedom to the editor of the BMJ. The views expressed in the journal are those of the authors and may not necessarily comply with BMA policy. The BMJ follows guidelines on editorial independence produced by the World Association of Medical Editors and the code on good publication practice produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
If WPI reported positives in what these Dutch folks found as negative, publication should not have happened until it was resolved, pure and simple. I am a news reporter. I know that if you have two conflicting accounts, you dig deeper to find the truth, if possible. Difference is newspapers and T.V. News have deadlines. Publication of scientific research doesn't. Although, even in my field, if you have two conflicting accounts and one of them is accusing of wrong doing, often you pull the story. Yes, you take the chance that your competition gets the story out first. But you avoid the chance of false information going out and egg on your face, not to mention libel problems. It's a judgment call. But scientific studies are different. Do we have a response from BMJ after Whittemore's letter? Would they have published had they known WPI found same samples positive? This is omission to the point of misleading.

My favorite part of the letter is the tone is vamped up. Whittemore's letter was direct, but not an insult. This letter is an insult.

More controversy, more likely to get exposure. I know, we need to get all these scientists together and have the patients throw eggs and them and then set off smoke bombs. That might get us some T.V. time.

Tina

I love the way he said that his science was "robust" when the Lancet had told him that it was not! what would our Simon diagnose that as.Virologist denial syndrome perhaps?
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,427
Location
UK
BMJ is owned by Reed Elsevier, the same Dutch/International company that set up fake journals in Australia in order to promote Merck drugs. It owns 25% of all medical journals and a lot of other publications, from Variety to NexisLexis (the online law publication). He seems to exercise a heavy hand in promoting or restricting what gets published. Some scientific Journals have disbanded because of lack of "independence".

I think it's the Lancet that is owned by Elsevier, not the BMJ.
 

V99

Senior Member
Messages
1,471
Location
UK
Virologist denial syndrome

A vague collection of symptoms, including denial, frustration, accusations, a tendency to put ones head in a bucket, inability to accurately read previously published studies. I could go on and on.