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!
Hyperparathyroidism: An Often Overlooked Differential Diagnosis to ME/CFS
Andrew Gladman puts hyperparathyroidism under the microscope, exploring what the disease is, how it can mimic ME/CFS in presentation and how it is treated.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Strictly Hypothetical Question

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by ixchelkali, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    266
    Long Beach, CA
    If you knew a good researcher who had tried to find XMRV in a well-defined patient cohort and failed to find it, would you urge him/her to delay publication of the findings?
     
  2. Mya Symons

    Mya Symons Mya Symons

    Messages:
    842
    Likes:
    171
    Wyoming
    ixchelkali, could you provide more information about your question. What would be the motive for asking the researcher to delay their findings. Would it be because he or she needed help or further information on how to find XMRV or are you afraid the negative results would hamper other studies or is there some other reason?
     
  3. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    266
    Long Beach, CA
    Well, as I said, it's just hypothetical. I'm wondering if people here would think a researcher with findings like that needs to go back and re-examine their methods? Do it over? Go ahead and publish? Hold back so that it doesn't hamper research? I'm just wondering, if you had the chance, what would you say to such a researcher?
     
  4. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    627
    Likes:
    104
    England
    Publish with an honest conclusion

    I have no objection to negative papers provided they dont overreach or misrepresent
     
  5. heapsreal

    heapsreal iherb 10% discount code OPA989,

    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes:
    4,675
    australia (brisbane)
    I just think there has to be some infectious cause. In my case it started with an infection and i never got better. I have tests that show immune abnormalities etc. I would be telling that researcher if he couldnt find xmrv to keep looking for something else. Or if its not an infectious agent causing the main problems what about some type of chronic immune deficiency that allows all these other infections to run wild.

    cheers!!
     
  6. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,102
    Likes:
    2,725
    WA, USA
    I honestly don't know... if I felt sure that positive papers were getting a fair shake I would say the negative paper should definitely not wait, but since I am unsure that positive papers are getting a fair chance at publication, I might consider waiting until there are some additional positive papers published.

    It's not like a negative paper is going to accomplish anything in terms of changing the field, changing opinions--except to possibly make it harder for good positive papers to get funded and published, which would be a negative outcome. We want positive and negative papers side by side to compare. We don't want just one kind, which is pretty much what is newly getting published currently.

    The people who believe in an association are wating for Singh, Ruscetti, Lipkin, BWG, etc. Another negative paper is probably not going to change many minds, at this point, of vary many of those who believe in XMRV.

    So I don't see a lot of potential value in prompt publication, but I see some potential value in delay.

    But all that is hypothetical and based on my incomplete understanding of what's going on.
     
  7. heapsreal

    heapsreal iherb 10% discount code OPA989,

    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes:
    4,675
    australia (brisbane)
    After reading Oslers web, which is 15 years plus ago, theres more interest in scientists disproving others then proving others are correct. I could image a scientist out to disprove another and finding him being correct but because he doesnt like or agree with his ways doesnt publish the study, its all about bullcrap politics and getting research grants etc etc. Whats going on today is just history repeating itself in oslers web, hopefully times and technology have changed and maybe more influential people have cfs and there relatives which has changed there mind set.

    cheers!!!
     
  8. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,362
    Likes:
    6,423
    USA
    Ditto. Honest studies that don't find XMRV are still valuable science. Overreaching conclusions are not.

    We want the truth, whatever it is, and good science will get to the truth.
     
  9. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes:
    2,124
    My position too. Any study done honestly using basic standard scientific protocol should be published, regardless of the results.

    However disappointing the results of such papers may be for us, we need to know what they are.
     
  10. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    4,091
    Likes:
    912
    Concord, NH
    What makes you say this heaps: "theres more interest in scientists disproving others then proving others are correct."?

    I suppose it would depend upon the subject, perhaps if you said no Global Warming or something else where people have personal/professional gains to make by negating another researchers findings?

    GG
     
  11. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,373
    Likes:
    1,948
    Australia
    If the research protocol was complete and of high quality, then no I would not suggest delaying the publication.
     
  12. JPV

    JPV Senior Member

    Messages:
    295
    Likes:
    84
    We should ignore scientific findings just to please people and give them false hope?

    What an absurd question...
     
  13. ukxmrv

    ukxmrv Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes:
    2,042
    London
    Depends on

    Did they use the WPI methods and was a honest replication attempt?
    Were they honest to the patients who took part in the study?
    Are they prepared to disclose their full methods so that we can all learn from their attempt?

    If the answer is no to any of these questions, maybe they are not such a good researcher after all.

    And finally - Do they have a track record of not finding things that others can?

    We need to see papers that bring the science forward regardless of the contents. If they cannot do that it would maybe be best for them to continue their work in another way, until it is more comprehensive and then publish.
     
  14. markmc20001

    markmc20001 Guest

    Messages:
    877
    Likes:
    80
    If his research is an honest attempt at getting answers, by all means publish it. Positive or negative.

    If he is designing tests in advance knowing it will have a negative outcome. Then we have a problem.
     
  15. floydguy

    floydguy Senior Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes:
    238
    I guess the key word is "good". If there was an honest effort to replicate WPI's finding then by all means publish whatever the results are. I don't think anyone is bothered by negative studies. It's when they do a 2 week study on people that probably don't have CFS, have no peer review, pay to have their findings published, then announce on the BBC that there is no infection involved in the illness and it must be psychosomatic. That's when people have a problem with negative studies.
     
  16. Doogle

    Doogle Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Likes:
    28
    Publish, but make sure the cohort is accurately described and every detail of the investigation is thoroughly documented. The negative study details will eventually hold the answer to why they are correct or incorrect.
     
  17. eric_s

    eric_s Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,925
    Likes:
    73
    Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
    I think any research group that gets a negative result in a ME/CFS cohort should get in touch with one of the groups that have found XMRV/MRV and discuss their methods.

    If they still can't find it, even after following the advice of one of the groups that have reported finding it, they should publish, but as detailed and accurate as possible and with no overdrawn conclusions.
     
  18. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    266
    Long Beach, CA
    There are no absurd questions, only absurd answers. :Retro tongue:
     
  19. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    Messages:
    7,025
    Likes:
    441
    Raleigh, NC
    I agree to publish if you can. I've heard that believe it or not that publishing negative XMRV studies is not hot news anymore and is getting more difficult to do - although they are still coming out. I don't think anyone's going to publish a study that simply replicates what others have found...it has to have something new...a new disease...a new method....something that they have done differently. If that's the case then it contributes something to the science.
     
  20. Nielk

    Nielk

    Messages:
    5,273
    Likes:
    5,292
    Queens, NY
    Why would you tell them to wait?
    Wait for what?
    Were we to ask them to suppress that information, we would be acting like the people that we accuse of covering up
    real science.
    Will we only accept studies that tell us what we want to hear?
    I want to believe in XMRV as much as others but, foremost I want to know the truth.
    What if a study comes out where they didn't find XMRV but found something else which we never heard of?
    What if this other biomarker makes more sense?
    I'm not a scientist. How could I judge which study is more accurate?
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page