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!
AVIVA Semi-Finals: National ME/FM Action Network is competing for $100,000
The National ME/FM Action Network in Canada is competing for $100,000 for biomedical research of ME and FM in the Aviva Community Fund contest. With thanks to all who helped, they made it through the first round of voting into the Semi-Finals.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

letter Nijmegen to Whitemoore

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by lansbergen, May 1, 2010.

  1. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    579
    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).
     
  2. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    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
     
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    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?
     
  4. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    See what you mean. A very special kind of intelligence.:eek:
     
  5. Alexia

    Alexia Senior Member

    Messages:
    164
    Likes:
    0
    Portugal
    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..
     
  6. oerganix

    oerganix Senior Member

    Messages:
    611
    Likes:
    5
    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.
     
  7. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    UK
    Will that letter be in Science next month along with Mikovits reply?
     
  8. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    The Science article apparently contains Dr. Mikovits answers to some questions that have been raised. My understanding is that it should be out very soon. A week ago she said in the next two weeks.
     
  9. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    579
    I think your translation is correct. I guess van der Meer wanted to give the impression it was a formal acceptance.
     
  10. usedtobeperkytina

    usedtobeperkytina Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes:
    201
    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
     
  11. fred

    fred The game is afoot

    Messages:
    400
    Likes:
    1
    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.
     
  12. lansbergen

    lansbergen Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,142
    Likes:
    579

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D
     
  13. hvs

    hvs Senior Member

    Messages:
    292
    Likes:
    0
    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.
     
  14. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

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

    Gerwyn Guest

    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!
     
  16. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

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

    fred The game is afoot

    Messages:
    400
    Likes:
    1
    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.
     
  18. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    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?
     
  19. Countrygirl

    Countrygirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    858
    Likes:
    702
    UK
     
  20. V99

    V99 *****

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    1
    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.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page