Hi Kurt
In your response to your reply to me at post 97, I agree that clarity is important Kurt, so let us try to find it.
1. I said Judy *may have* made a simple un emotive statement of fact, I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
2. I do not recall though, ever having said that Judy has not addressed criticism of her work. She has in
Science etc. That is expected of scientists. It is, as I am sure you know having a scientific background, how it delivers us with good science. It is I believe, in part, why there has been the sustained interest in this area. Good science works this way and need I remind you, it cuts both ways as we have seen.
3.
‘’She has on other occasions said things similar to what appeared in that Nature article.’’
What are you referring to exactly in the Nature article and where has she repeated these remarks?
Please also remember, what has been written is an attribution and not necessarily a fact.
4. What do you mean by ‘’attacking her critics?’’
Do you mean pointing out scientific flaw or deficiency in their studies or methodology (which has been addressed), or do you mean personal attacks? If you meant the later, could you please provide source material demonstrating the attacks and on all the persons involved (I assuming there has been more than one, given your employment of a plural term).
5.
I am not attacking her work
Then could you kindly explain this remark you made at post 65 to me where you stated:
I think Mikovits needs to stick to her cancer virology studies and leave the speculation of motives of her detractors alone. She should present data to answer them’’
6. I refer you further to your post at #65 where unless I am mistaken, your comment there stated that should I trail through everything she has said in the past 17 mths that I would probably find or conclude, the belief you attributed to her there. However, unless Judy has specifically and publicly stated this as her belief, then you are asking me to infer and attribute it to her, which I am not prepared to do (and I must say, I would prefer to use my limited energy to understanding the scientific papers than trying to track down everything Judy or any other scientist has said in the last 17mths, as you could appreciate).
7. You then go on at post #65 to state that Mikovits *appears* to have generalised the out rage of CFS patients and is directing it at other researchers. Your own words (*appears) suggest that you are engaging in speculation.
In your most recent post to me (post #97), you refer to ''insinuations''. Let me just say, my view is that insinuations are attributed to material by the reader. They cannot be relied on or promoted as facts.
I don’t mean to be harsh, but for the purposes of clarity and fairness, unless you can back up your claims here, it will leave me with an impression that you are responsible for the very error you are levelling at Mikovits: speculating on the motives of others.
Unless you can provide me with some source material in which Judy clearly states what you have attributed to her, then I am afraid that I might have to conclude that what you have attributed to her is also speculation and spin.
8.
Incidentally, if Mikovits can find the problem in all the negative studies, why hasn't she published her evaluation? She could save other labs a lot of money and save CFS patients a lot of aggravation if she would sit down and write out something that other researchers could use to fix their tests, if they are in fact broken
.
Who is to say that she has not and it is isn’t being scrutinized by an editorial committee of a more prestigious scientific journal who are not inclined to rush to print? Who is to say, it has not been deferred for publication for any one of a number of reasons?
I hear
your aggravation kurt, but I question whether it is as wide spread as you would like to have me believe. My own observations are that many in the CFS community are grateful for the diligence, and dedication to the through exploration of this one area of science associated with CFS by the WPI, in the face of a great number of challenges. Keen as those of us are for more answers, I think there are those amongst us, that understand that there are many factors at play that precludes answers being delivered in accordance with our expectations and on our time table.
Finally, Judy and or the WPI cannot be held responsible for what other labs research and or how they chose to spend their dollars. When science dollars are scarce, and politics in these labs/research institutions is fierce- (clamouring for every spare research dollar in support of their studies), their motivations for having undertaken research in this area will have been multi factorial, some of which will undoubtedly also have been self serving.
We have no contention whatsoever with any skilled virologists and retrovirologists studying CFS. Our problem is with governing agencies and some medical professions such as psychiatry that have taken advantage of the lack of understanding of CFS to promote their own agendas over top of us.
I am not sure what this means or who you speak for Kurt,(though I would like to know) but I would like to be clear and say, that you do not speak for me.