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!
ME/CFS and the Magic of the Canine Factor
There's been plenty of research indicating that having pets is good for your health. I never really noticed any particular benefits to having cats, though that may have had more to do with my cats. They've been fairly indifferent to my presence and we've shared a live-and-let-live...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Lipkin: calls to retract paper are premature

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by Jemal, Jun 1, 2011.

  1. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Yes, but do they have control over the entire process (without being able to cheat, of course ;))? My guess is no. So is their participation enough to be certain this study will be able to decide the question correctly? Unfortunately probably not. I'm not saying the risk for any sort of failure is very high, but it probably exists, and the possible damage would be very high.
     
  2. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    True, the risk is high and the damage. I just don't think the WPI will let them be pushed into a corner by Lipkin if it came to that.
     
  3. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I don't know. The Lipkin study has now for some time been promoted as "the answer". So if they fail there, i think it would be difficult. Not lost, if they're right it's never lost, but i'd prefer to not have to go through this.
     
  4. Rrrr

    Rrrr Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,402
    Likes:
    271
    But now the NCI says xmrv in cancer is dead. so what about switzer finding it?
     
  5. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    It's a mess basically. Ruscetti is also from the NCI and probably still standing behind XMRV. Then we have Alter at the FDA who has found similar viruses. And then we have the CDC that can suddenly find XMRV and rules out contamination. I see no concensus.
     
  6. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    Eric, here is Prof. R's clarification:
    From Bloomberg article:
    Oh boy! 'Suspicious' and 'misleading'!
     
  7. justinreilly

    justinreilly Stop the IoM & P2P! Adopt CCC!

    Messages:
    2,490
    Likes:
    1,175
    NYC (& RI)
    Good for Lipkin for saying it is premature to retract.

    Who knows any more info relevant to whether Lipkin is or is not biased? Who knows about Lipkin doing the study that supposedly 'definitively debunked' Wakefield? Pls post.
     
  8. Daffodil

    Daffodil Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,923
    Likes:
    895
    i hope beiger's study comes out soon. all we need is 1 more positive to put us back on the map ..in a big way. it doesnt matter how many studies say no....its such a low-copy pathogen, if 3 groups found it (or something like it), its real!
     
  9. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Thanks, Justin. Now i remember that comment too. But we don't really know what happened, it could be that Lipkin said two different things in the email and in the other conversation or that Racaniello is putting a lot of own "interpretation" into the conversation. Absent an appropriately powered study all we have is more confusion. Lol. Lipkin has the answer for this problem here as well :rolleyes:

    Levy's comments are rather ridiculous. Wasn't HIV much more dramatic and controversial?

    And regarding the "expensive studies"... come on, what they cost is peanuts compared to what they put into all the other illnesses every year. He knows this.
     
  10. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,532
    Likes:
    2,016
    Sofa, UK
    This has long seemed to be crucial to me. Wessely, Vernon, and many many other ME/CFS researchers immediately did not believe the paper, and never have, though few of them have explicitly stated this publicly. Many people did not believe this for two basic reasons (putting aside, for now, those people who did not and do not believe that ME/CFS is even a real illness). First, they did not and do not believe, for various reasons, that ME/CFS has a viral cause. They believe it is caused by a multitude of factors, that it's a kind of breakdown of the neuro-immune system that can be provoked by many things, and not an infectious disease. They think there is no evidence that ME/CFS is an infectious disease - though I myself think the evidence that it is not is slim to non-existent. Second, they did not and do not believe that ME/CFS cohorts represent a single condition - there are subsets, and they believe there are many different conditions jumbled up together.

    This reasoning - that a retroviral explanation did not make sense according to the models that many people have of ME/CFS - explains much of the opposition the WPI have faced.

    However, a few things strike me about this situation:

    - Seek and ye shall find. And if you are convinced that something is not there, that has to affect the lengths you will go to in order to verify whether it is there or not. And nobody has yet replicated the WPI's methods.

    - It's entirely possible for everyone with ME/CFS to be infected with XMRV even if the above premises are true. There has seemed to me to be a consistent lack of imagination from many people who have advanced arguments against XMRV that are not logically justified; many possible scenarios have been overlooked. There are many ways that XMRV in ME/CFS could be correct, despite the above observations. But some of those scenarios are unthinkable to many...

    - Above all that though: How can it be that so many top researchers confidently believe they know what ME/CFS definitely is not, when there appears to be no accepted consensus as to what it is? How can so much be known about something about which nothing is officially known? And even more: How can it be acceptable that any consistent finding about ME/CFS must be wrong because we know that ME/CFS is probably a jumble of mixed-up conditions? This means that research into ME/CFS must therefore all be doomed to failure - and indeed that's reasonably likely to be true, it's pretty likely there are indeed subsets, and separate but similar conditions...but to allow research to continue for decades into something you don't believe even exists as a discrete entity, while at the same time research continues to pretend that it is, and researchers continue to research on the basis that it is...and therefore dismiss any clear findings about it because they must be false because the whole thing doesn't really exist as a consistent entity...that is an unconscionable Catch-22, because it allows for no possibility of any progress ever being made.

    Anyway, it has always seemed crucial to the whole dynamic that the majority of the interested scientific community immediately took the view that "this can't possibly be right", not for any reasons to do with the WPI, but because it didn't fit their existing beliefs and theories...and it recently also seems crucial to me that while many researchers believe this, few have dared to say so, and meanwhile a great many patients do continue to believe that retroviral infection fits their experience extremely well and makes a lot of sense
     
  11. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,135
    Likes:
    2,817
    WA, USA
    great post, Mark
     
  12. bluebelle31

    bluebelle31

    Messages:
    2
    Likes:
    0
    Hello Mark
    'This has long seemed to be crucial to me. Wessely, Vernon, and many many other ME/CFS researchers immediately did not believe the paper, and never have, though few of them have explicitly stated this publicly. Many people did not believe this for two basic reasons (putting aside, for now, those people who did not and do not believe that ME/CFS is even a real illness). First, they did not and do not believe, for various reasons, that ME/CFS has a viral cause. They believe it is caused by a multitude of factors, that it's a kind of breakdown of the neuro-immune system that can be provoked by many things, and not an infectious disease. They think there is no evidence that ME/CFS is an infectious disease - though I myself think the evidence that it is not is slim to non-existent. Second, they did not and do not believe that ME/CFS cohorts represent a single condition - there are subsets, and they believe there are many different conditions jumbled up together.'

    Another possibility as to why they are adamant it is not XMRV is because they know what it is. Sorry, another conspiracy theory I know but their bullheadedness does make me wonder.
     
  13. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    Collins has confirmed that the Lipkin study will remain funded.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...ab-contaminant/2011/05/31/AG7O4dFH_story.html
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page