ixchelkali
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,107
- Location
- Long Beach, CA
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6050/1694.full.pdf
The tone of the article is pretty ugly. Lots of people who want to say "nyah-nyah" to Judy Mikovits are given an opportunity to do so. It seems to focus more on the personalities involved and on discrediting Judy Mikovits than on the actual XMRV science (complete with an unflattering photo of Judy and a smiling photo of Simon Wessely). Simon Wessely repeats his death-threats-from-patients cant.
I'm not an apologist for the WPI or Judy Mikovits, although I appreciate their efforts on our behalf. I've been in the "let's see what the science tells us" camp on XMRV. At first I thought the science looked very promising. Now, it doesn't look good to me. Contrary to what some people believe, I think that some of the negatives are scientifically solid, such as Illia Singh's study. This BWG study was well designed, too, although the sample size should have been larger, and it's seriously disappointing that the WPI couldn't consistantly differentiate between positives and controls.
But this article looks like they're trying to savage Judy Mikovits, and getting a few digs in at patients while they're at it (like mentioning our mistrust of the CDC without mentioning the history behind it, such as the misappropriation of funds). Reminds me of a wolf pack circling in for the kill. I guess that was predictable, but I didn't expect it would show up on the Science website.
Oh, and it has a couple of quotes from the PR forum and from Cort, too.
BTW, you have to go through a free registration to read the full article.
The tone of the article is pretty ugly. Lots of people who want to say "nyah-nyah" to Judy Mikovits are given an opportunity to do so. It seems to focus more on the personalities involved and on discrediting Judy Mikovits than on the actual XMRV science (complete with an unflattering photo of Judy and a smiling photo of Simon Wessely). Simon Wessely repeats his death-threats-from-patients cant.
I'm not an apologist for the WPI or Judy Mikovits, although I appreciate their efforts on our behalf. I've been in the "let's see what the science tells us" camp on XMRV. At first I thought the science looked very promising. Now, it doesn't look good to me. Contrary to what some people believe, I think that some of the negatives are scientifically solid, such as Illia Singh's study. This BWG study was well designed, too, although the sample size should have been larger, and it's seriously disappointing that the WPI couldn't consistantly differentiate between positives and controls.
But this article looks like they're trying to savage Judy Mikovits, and getting a few digs in at patients while they're at it (like mentioning our mistrust of the CDC without mentioning the history behind it, such as the misappropriation of funds). Reminds me of a wolf pack circling in for the kill. I guess that was predictable, but I didn't expect it would show up on the Science website.
Oh, and it has a couple of quotes from the PR forum and from Cort, too.
BTW, you have to go through a free registration to read the full article.