May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

NY Times re: XMRV " Its Science, but Not Necessarily Right"

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Rafael, Jun 26, 2011.

  1. Rafael

    Rafael XMRV+ Member

    Ontario, Canada
  2. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Ta Rafael.

    Not really much there we don't know. The bacteria using arsenic to build its DNA story sounded interesting, but I don't feel like I've got the time/energy to look in to that right now.
  3. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Thanks Rafael!

    This pretty much sums up the current XMRV standoff... (though this part is about another controversial study).
  4. Wayne

    Wayne Senior Member

    Ashland, Oregon
    I thought the article was good, except when he said Judy Mikovitz is claiming CFS is caused by a virus. She has never said that. But the concluding paragraph (below) effectively refutes the claim by many that the final word is in. I don't think they can say this with credibility when the highly regarded Lipkin is still not finished with his research.

  5. WillowJ

    WillowJ คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl

    WA, USA
    the odd thing is that Zimmer seems to think the conclusion is already known. We actually don't know. Some scientists (including top-class scientist(s)?) think they know, other top scientists say we don't yet know.

    some of the end-of-XMRV theories are interesting, but none answer more questions than they raise or leave open. to be at the end (the conclusion is known), you have to answer more questions than you raise or leave open.

    one way or the other, we need to know... and that requires replication studies, preferably more than one--not that I'm not grateful for the NIH study, which is fabulous and unprecedented in the history of "CFS"

    anyway, the theme of his article, that we need to do more replication science, is great. however, we need replication studies both for rebuttal and for confirmation--many things we think we know have not been adequately replicated. Indeed, some investigations have shown that some things we operate on as fact, have actually been refuted in the literature.

    Modern science is a mess, and something about the grant process or the textbook-writing process or the review process something else, or some combination or all of these, needs to change.
  6. jen1177


  7. In Vitro Infidelium

    In Vitro Infidelium Guest

    There is at least an ongoing debate about the obligation to publish negative studies . The problem of buried positive studies is somewhat more difficult - there is perhaps a case for interim intellectual property protection that falls short of full patent grant, so that studies could be published without the potentially very substantial costs of patent application having to be met, while still according exploitation rights to the author/funder. Where the defining outcome of research product is company share price in a competitive market, science is unlikely to remain 'pure', and the dangers attached to that highlight how important public funding of science is, not just of 'frontier' projects and major health and social challenges, but the whole spectrum of science.

  8. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    Why can't the NY Times say "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" or CFS or better yet ME/CFS? Is this so hard to get right? What we have is not "chronic fatigue". Edit: Ok, now that i read the entire article, i see that they only said "chronic fatigue" once, towards the end, but i still think it should never be called like this at all.

    Since the CAA says they're not doing advocacy anymore, could the Coalition 4 ME/CFS explain this issue to those people please? I think it's very necessary, what people read in those newspapers impacts wheter they see how serious the problem is or not.

    Cort or Mark if you read this, could you discuss this problem with Coalition 4 ME/CFS? I think it's important a group like yours tries to talk with the media, so they finally get the name right.
  9. markmc20001

    markmc20001 Guest

    84 thread
  10. valentinelynx

    valentinelynx Senior Member

    Another example of where relying on "market forces" is not the best idea. I would also like to point out that I've read drug company publications, in particular about the ubiquitous "statins," in which the written conclusions are not supported by the results. The conclusions are what's latched onto and reported by the media, and published in textbooks, and the actual results are forgotten.
  11. Some years ago,t here wa sa "long term" study of the hopeful ebnefits of prolonged statin use
    it was supposed to last for 5 years with further follow ups
    they ended it after two years, saying they there was no need for further esting, the benefits were obvious, hurray the new wonder drug!
    and as we now know...statins DO have serious problems from long term or wrongful use.

    Drug company execs should each be forced to take a dose of each of their poisons....modern day anti-Socrates ;)

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page