The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

[dipic]

Again, every point of view is welcomed here, even those you don't agree with. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. So far I haven't edited anyone's posts but if this type of response persists, I will.

If you have a problem with any of the issues Holmsley brought up address them directly.

My apologies to you, if you thought the comment I made (that you bolded) was inappropriate, however I don't regret what I said. The thing is, I did address the issues I had with Holmsey's statements as did many others both in this thread and past threads. Holmsey himself admitted that he didn't want XMRV replication to pan out. He hasn't been tested, he is now well aware of the controversy surrounding this study and the people who authored it (whether or not he chooses to deny it), and unless he didn't read a single post in this thread (or figure it out on his own), he should also realize that are glaring flaws with which this study was executed. And yet he is "delighted" with the results and "prepared to believe until proven otherwise that this is good science done in good faith and with [his] best interests at heart".

I'm sorry, if that isn't willfull ignorance, I don't know what it is. Holmsey seems to be a reasonably intelligent individual so in my mind there is no other rational explanation for the statements he has made. Since, as I said, he has clearly already made up his mind, there is no point in trying to reason with him. And on that note, and in respect of the forum rules, I shall simply ignore his future postings and keep my thoughts to myself.

 

[Eric Johnson from I&I]

> They quite clearly don't.

Wrong. The various <i>definitions</i> are fairly clear. The "thing itself" is not.

 

[Holmsey]

Hi Sarah, I never said that "my" illness is "better" than Holmsey's, but it could very well be DIFFERENT to his. It's a fact that there are many mis-diagnosed people going around under the impression that they have ME. They quite clearly don't. It's no their fault. It DOES make a massive difference to all of us who DO have ME/CFS though because they get used in studies by people like Wessely that then skews the results in favour of their own biased agenda. Obviously I can't say for sure that Holmsey's illness definitely isn't ME, BUT from his descriptions, for example being able to work etc, it sure doesn't sound like the same illness that I've got. I think I have evry right to say that when someone comes on ME/CFS boards and constantly seems to delight in taking contrary and opposite views to the majority of people on here.

And that's all I'm going to say.

Sigh...I didn't decide I had CFS/ME the medical world did, I'm not a patient of Wessleys, which test have you taken which makes your illness real, I'll take that and then we'll all know. If the new diagnosis for our illness is to be 'can't work' how are you going to exclude the 'won't works', those are the one's which seem to interest Wessely.
Sigh...I don't have a bias, I think that's the main difference between you and I, I see three studies, I see discrepancies, I see the POSSIBILITY that I don't have XMRV, and that for me is a happy thought not a sad one.
Sigh...I find this far from delightful, but I hold the firm belief that this site came in to being to allow all sufferers to express their views and the majority may well have formed a cheer leading section for us all to have XMRV but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in not wanting that to be the case.

 

[Holmsey]

Interesting. You seem to have already made up your mind despite the numerous glaring flaws that have been pointed out here.

Whatever helps you cope, I guess. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, after all, right?

Strange, I always thought asking questions and inviting answers was the sign of not having made up your mind, hoping...that's a different fish.

 

[dipic]

Sigh...I didn't decide I had CFS/ME the medical world did, I'm not a patient of Wessleys, which test have you taken which makes your illness real, I'll take that and then we'll all know. If the new diagnosis for our illness is to be 'can't work' how are you going to exclude the 'won't works', those are the one's which seem to interest Wessely.
Sigh...I don't have a bias, I think that's the main difference between you and I, I see three studies, I see discrepancies, I see the POSSIBILITY that I don't have XMRV, and that for me is a happy thought not a sad one.
Sigh...I find this far from delightful, but I hold the firm belief that this site came in to being to allow all sufferers to express their views and the majority may well have formed a cheer leading section for us all to have XMRV but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in not wanting that to be the case.

It's not about "cheerleading for XMRV", it's about looking at the facts objectively, which I don't feel you are doing in the least.

Nevermind, not even going to get into it. What you are saying in this post is quite different from what you said in your post several pages back.

 

[kurt]

The CDC is releasing a report next week? How do you know this, Kurt?

Someone here mentioned they will release a report on Jan 12, sorry I can't find anything now in this enormous thread.

 

[Martlet]

I think I have evry right to say that when someone comes on ME/CFS boards and constantly seems to delight in taking contrary and opposite views to the majority of people on here.

You don't have the right to judge the nature or severity of another member's illness, and members do not have to agree with the majority. Keep to points made without becoming personal.

 

[Jody]

My apologies to you, if you thought the comment I made (that you bolded) was inappropriate, however I don't regret what I said. The thing is, I did address the issues I had with Holmsey's statements as did many others both in this thread and past threads. Holmsey himself admitted that he didn't want XMRV replication to pan out. He hasn't been tested, he is now well aware of the controversy surrounding this study and the people who authored it (whether or not he chooses to deny it), and unless he didn't read a single post in this thread (or figure it out on his own), he should also realize that are glaring flaws with which this study was executed. And yet he is "delighted" with the results and "prepared to believe until proven otherwise that this is good science done in good faith and with [his] best interests at heart".

I'm sorry, if that isn't willfull ignorance, I don't know what it is. Holmsey seems to be a reasonably intelligent individual so in my mind there is no other rational explanation for the statements he has made. Since, as I said, he has clearly already made up his mind, there is no point in trying to reason with him. And on that note, and in respect of the forum rules, I shall simply ignore his future postings and keep my thoughts to myself.

dipic,

Whatever you think about Holmsey's opinions is your own affair.

Please stick to the topic of the thread and lay off the insults.

 

[Jody]

It's not about "cheerleading for XMRV", it's about looking at the facts objectively, which I don't feel you are doing in the least.

Nevermind, not even going to get into it. What you are saying in this post is quite different from what you said in your post several pages back.

Holmsey is not the topic of this thread. Back on topic please.

 

[Jody]

Sigh...I didn't decide I had CFS/ME the medical world did, I'm not a patient of Wessleys, which test have you taken which makes your illness real, I'll take that and then we'll all know. If the new diagnosis for our illness is to be 'can't work' how are you going to exclude the 'won't works', those are the one's which seem to interest Wessely.
Sigh...I don't have a bias, I think that's the main difference between you and I, I see three studies, I see discrepancies, I see the POSSIBILITY that I don't have XMRV, and that for me is a happy thought not a sad one.
Sigh...I find this far from delightful, but I hold the firm belief that this site came in to being to allow all sufferers to express their views and the majority may well have formed a cheer leading section for us all to have XMRV but I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in not wanting that to be the case.

Yes, you're right. This site is here to allow all sufferers to express their views. We have no requirement that they all be in agreement.

As it happens I am not sure about whether I want to hear that I have XMRV. I think it's possible that I don't have it. Also think it's possible I do. Actually I'd rather think that what I have is a problem with particular foods and run down adrenals.

I also know that it's possible that the research on xmrv may NOT lead to a definite conclusion that it causes CFS. It's way too soon to tell. We have been down similar roads before.

Meantime, being supportive of each other, is the order of the day on these forums.

 

[Martlet]

Okay folks, enough of the personal attacks. Back on topic please, or we will have to lock this thread and bring out the big red marker.

 

[Holmsey]

My apologies to you, if you thought the comment I made (that you bolded) was inappropriate, however I don't regret what I said. The thing is, I did address the issues I had with Holmsey's statements as did many others both in this thread and past threads. Holmsey himself admitted that he didn't want XMRV replication to pan out. He hasn't been tested, he is now well aware of the controversy surrounding this study and the people who authored it (whether or not he chooses to deny it), and unless he didn't read a single post in this thread (or figure it out on his own), he should also realize that are glaring flaws with which this study was executed. And yet he is "delighted" with the results and "prepared to believe until proven otherwise that this is good science done in good faith and with [his] best interests at heart".

I'm sorry, if that isn't willfull ignorance, I don't know what it is. Holmsey seems to be a reasonably intelligent individual so in my mind there is no other rational explanation for the statements he has made. Since, as I said, he has clearly already made up his mind, there is no point in trying to reason with him. And on that note, and in respect of the forum rules, I shall simply ignore his future postings and keep my thoughts to myself.

I'd preferr you spoke to me to be honest. I'm not clear as to what the glaring flaws are, possibly I'm not as bright as you suggest I am, but I do listen. The paper includes the authors, but if it's Wessely we're discussing lets remember as an author he can only frame the resuts he can't produce them, it's not his field. I've quite possibly missed a lot on this thread and in the paper, one stat sticks out though, they didn't replicate the 3.75% in the general population, so unless the group were tested before they were tested I stick by what I said, it's not down to consipiracy it's down to differences in the science or the geographic location. The other studies will conclude whether this one beat them to it or not, surely, we're not going to suggest they've come up with this result just to annoy us.
I'm not trying to wind anybody up, please, even if you don't beleive that pretend you do and tell me what you think. Finally, I'm not ashamed to say that I don't want the answer to be a retrovirus that nobody knows squat about, including what it can do to me, that's not burying my head in thet sand that's being honest and self preserving. The truth will out, as has been said.

 

[Martlet]

I'm not trying to wind anybody up, please, even if you don't beleive that pretend you do and tell me what you think. Finally, I'm not ashamed to say that I don't want the answer to be a retrovirus that nobody knows squat about, including what it can do to me, that's not burying my head in thet sand that's being honest and self preserving. The truth will out, as has been said.

Well said, Holmsey.

 

[dipic]

Fair enough, Holmsey. If you are sincere, which believe you are, it seems I misjudged your character and intentions and for that I sincerely apologize for the way I reacted. Not that it's any excuse but I have to admit that the brain fog and shot nerves doesn't help any. Lord knows my brain doesn't work as it used to. Again, my apologies. (And mods, if you feel I or anyone else is acting inappropriately, please feel free to give me/them a whack (delete the offending posts, suspend, whatever.) Please, do not, however, let a dispute between members force you to close a thread, especially one as important as this. Without mentioning any names, ahem, the last CFS forum I was at was notorious for doing that and worse, and believe me, it did nothing to fix the problem and everything to make it worse. It's not fair to let a couple people ruin it for everyone else.

Anyway, IRTT: Holmsey, have you read the Dr.Vernon's (of CAA) response to the Imperial College study? Even leaving the politics out of the equation (which in my mind, no doubt plays an important role), she brings a lot of legitimate reasons why the outcome of the study may have resulted the way it did. (http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2010/010603.asp) There is also another well written objective analysis from a site (with a third party perspective) that I cannot find at the moment. It's likely buried somewhere in this thread... if I can find it I will post it.

In any case, while I agree wholeheartedly with you that the science will prevail, regardless of whether or not any sinister forces are at play, that element cannot and should not be ignored.

 

[spit]

I'm not clear as to what the glaring flaws are

Here's what I see so far as potential problems with this study:

- they didn't use the same methods as the original study. Both used nested PCR, but PCR is a tool, not a test. The tests themselves -- the primers used, etc -- are different. That may or may not make a difference in accuracy, but we can't assume that it didn't, and neither should they. They only tested their test on one single positive control specimen, sounds like, and that's problematic, too.

- they didn't use the same cohort. Now, I think that it's going to be very, very important as time goes on to test very different cohorts, because the cohort in the original study was very specific and very severely ill; those results may not hold up across a wider spectrum of CFS, and that's not because there are "real" CFS patients and "fake" CFS patients, but because there could, for example, be multiple underlying causes that are producing similar sets of symptoms. Regardless, we're not at a point yet where it seems appropriate to use a totally different cohort. Scientists need to replicate first to confirm or fail to confirm the original finding, then start fiddling with the variables. This study fiddled with the variables first.

- They didn't have a healthy control, they ran water instead for a negative control. Had they come up with positives, they would have had no way of finding statistical significance of XMRV in the CFS patients unless they then added in some healthy controls. That they didn't bother to find healthy controls is a bit strange to me, honestly.

- <I>PLoS ONE</I> is not a podunk publication by any means, but it ain't <I>Science</I>. It's relatively young, it's still viewed with a variable level of trust depending on who you're talking to, and its peer review process is different from that of most of the long-respected journals. Does that mean this study is lame? No, not at all. But it's worth noting, too, that the peer review process here was different from the peer review to which the original study was subjected.

- The science aside -- and it is the important point -- I'm having a really hard time feeling like defending these folks, not because of who's involved or whatever, but because the arrogance in some of their quotes is frankly pretty outlandish. Scientists get nasty and swipe violently at each other all the time, but they usually frame it in much more careful and underhanded language than some of this. That doesn't cast doubt on the science for me, necessarily, but it should serve as a reminder that there is, in fact, a hugely political element to lots of research, and especially research on this topic.

Just my takes. Others can add whatever they might see, and if anybody sees issues with my issues, they should also chime in.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

For one who was hounded out of ME research (Wessley) he was the first out of the blocks after the WPI findings and was quite confident that others would fail to replicate the findings. Now here he pops up as co-author.

Now if all Wessley did was provide the subjects (I know the associated issues) this might be understandable given his grip on NHS patients. I just wonder who kicked off the research and who funded it?

Finally - why publish what they would hope to be perceived as top quality research on a 'vanity publishing' site? Have any of these respected researchers ever published a paper on that site?

Hi Marco,

The funders are given as:

South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
Institute of Psychiatry
National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre

I am not aware of Wessely having published papers before via PLoS. I imagine the attraction was the speed with which the paper might be got out through PLoS, compared with the type of journal with which Wessely (and possibly his co-authors) are more accustomed. It is also published "Open Access" - so it's widely available to all, not just those with subs and journal access via institutions.

I don't buy into the "hounded out of ME research" thing. These are the papers Wessely has authored/co-authored since 2002.

It was reported in 2001 that he had "quit the field" and he now claims to have very little to do with CFS research. But I make it getting on for 40 papers since 2002. He's like the Energizer Bunny...he keeps on and on...and on and on....

Here's our man in the mac. If you are wondering what the "C" stands for - I believe it is "Charles".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

PubMed

[The XMRV paper]

Harvey SB, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome: identifying zebras amongst the horses.
BMC Med. 2009 Oct 12;7:58.

Harvey SB, Wessely S, Kuh D, Hotopf M.
The relationship between fatigue and psychiatric disorders: evidence for the concept of neurasthenia.
J Psychosom Res. 2009 May;66(5):445-54. Epub 2009 Mar 3.

Roberts AD, Charler ML, Papadopoulos A, Wessely S, Chalder T, Cleare AJ.
Does hypocortisolism predict a poor response to cognitive behavioural therapy in chronic fatigue syndrome?
Psychol Med. 2009 Jul 17:1-8. [Epub ahead of print]

Dinos S, Khoshaba B, Ashby D, White PD, Nazroo J, Wessely S, Bhui KS.
A systematic review of chronic fatigue, its syndromes and ethnicity: prevalence, severity, co-morbidity and coping.
Int J Epidemiol. 2009 Dec;38(6):1554-70. Epub 2009 Apr 6.

Harvey SB, Wessely S.
Tired all the time: can new research on fatigue help clinicians?
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Apr;59(561):237-9. No abstract available.

Cho HJ, Menezes PR, Hotopf M, Bhugra D, Wessely S.
Comparative epidemiology of chronic fatigue syndrome in Brazilian and British primary care: prevalence and recognition.
Br J Psychiatry. 2009 Feb;194(2):117-22.

Hickie I, Davenport T, Vernon SD, Nisenbaum R, Reeves WC, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Lloyd A; International Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study Group.
Are chronic fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome valid clinical entities across countries and health-care settings?
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009 Jan;43(1):25-35. Review.

Roberts A, Papadopoulos AS, Wessely S, Chalder T, Cleare AJ.
Salivary cortisol output before and after cognitive behavioural therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome
Journal of Affective Disorders, 2008, Oct.

Cho HJ, Bhugra D, Wessely S.
Physical or psychological?- a comparative study of causal attribution for chronic fatigue in Brazilian and British primary care patients.
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008 Jul;118(1):34-41. Epub 2008 May 22. PMID: 18498433 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Harvey SB, Wadsworth M, Wessely S, Hotopf M.
Etiology of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Testing Popular Hypotheses
Psychosom Med. 2008 Mar 31; [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 18378866 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Cho HJ, Menezes PR, Bhugra D, Wessely S.
The awareness of chronic fatigue syndrome: A comparative study in Brazil and the United Kingdom.
J Psychosom Res. 2008 Apr;64(4):351-5. PMID: 18374733 [PubMed - in process]

Kanaan RA, Lepine JP, Wessely SC.
The association or otherwise of the functional somatic syndromes
J Psychosom Med. 2007 Dec;69(9):855-9. Review. PMID: 18040094 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Rimes KA, Goodman R, Hotopf M, Wessely S, Meltzer H, Chalder T.
Incidence, prognosis, and risk factors for fatigue and chronic fatigue syndrome in adolescents: a prospective community study.
Pediatrics. 2007 Mar;11 (3):e603-9. PMID: 17332180 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Quarmby L, Rimes KA, Deale A, Wessely S, Chalder T.
Cognitive behaviour therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome: comparison of outcomes within and outside the confines of a randomised controlled trial.
Behav Res Ther. 2007 Jun;45(6):1085-94. Epub 2006 Oct 30. PMID: 17074300 [PubMed - in process]

Jerjes WK, Taylor NF, Peters TJ, Wessely S, Cleare AJ.
Urinary cortisol and cortisol metabolite excretion in chronic fatigue syndrome.
Psychosom Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;68(4):578-82. PMID: 16868267 [PubMed - in process]

Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Clin Evid. 2005 Dec;(14):1366-78. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 16620458 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cho HJ, Skowera A, Cleare A, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome: an update focusing on phenomenology and pathophysiology.
Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2006 Jan;19(1):67-73. Review. PMID: 16612182 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Jerjes WK, Peters TJ, Taylor NF, Wood PJ, Wessely S, Cleare AJ.
Diurnal excretion of urinary cortisol, cortisone, and cortisol metabolites in chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Psychosom Res. 2006 Feb;60(2):145-53. PMID: 16439267 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Huibers MJ, Wessely S.
The act of diagnosis: pros and cons of labelling chronic fatigue syndrome.
Psychol Med. 2006 Jul;36(7):895-900. Epub 2006 Jan 10. Review. PMID: 16403245 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cho HJ, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome: an overview.
Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2005 Sep;27(3):174-5. Epub 2005 Oct 4. No abstract available. PMID: 16224602 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Smith J, Fritz EL, Kerr JR, Cleare AJ, Wessely S, Mattey DL.
Association of chronic fatigue syndrome with human leucocyte antigen class II alleles.
J Clin Pathol. 2005 Aug;58(8):860-3.

Jerjes WK, Cleare AJ, Wessely S, Wood PJ, Taylor NF.
Diurnal patterns of salivary cortisol and cortisone output in chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Affect Disord. 2005 Aug;87(2-3):299-304. PMID: 15922454 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Clin Evid. 2004 Dec;(12):1578-93. Review. No abstract available. Update in: Clin Evid. 2005 Dec;(14):1366-78. PMID: 15865734 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Cho HJ, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
The placebo response in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta analysis.
Psychosom Med. 2005 Mar-Apr;67(2):301-13. Review. PMID: 15784798 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] MEagenda 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Clin Evid. 2003 Dec;(10):1289-303. Review. No abstract available. Update in: Clin Evid. 2004 Dec;(12):

Woolley J, Allen R, Wessely S.
Alcohol use in chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Psychosom Res. 2004 Feb;56(2):203-6. PMID: 15016579 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Winkler AS, Blair D, Marsden JT, Peters TJ, Wessely S, Cleare AJ.
Autonomic function and serum erythropoietin levels in chronic fatigue syndrome.
J Psychosom Res. 2004 Feb;56(2):179-83. PMID: 15016575 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Roberts AD, Wessely S, Chalder T, Papadopoulos A, Cleare AJ.
Salivary cortisol response to awakening in chronic fatigue syndrome.
Br J Psychiatry. 2004 Feb;184:136-41. PMID: 14754825 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Lyall M, Peakman M, Wessely S.
A systematic review and critical evaluation of the immunology of chronic
fatigue syndrome.
J Psychosom Res. 2003 Aug;55(2):79-90. Review. PMID: 12932505 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Fischhoff B, Wessely S.
Managing patients with inexplicable health problems.
BMJ. 2003 Mar 15;326(7389):595-7. Review. No abstract available. PMID: 12637409 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Clin Evid. 2002 Dec;(8):1075-88. Review. No abstract available. Update in: Clin Evid. 2003 Dec;(10):1289-303. PMID: 12603930 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Wessely S.
Women experienced chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia as stigmatising.
Evid Based Ment Health. 2002 Nov;5(4):127. No abstract available. PMID: 12440469 [PubMed]

Reid S, Chalder T, Cleare A, Hotopf M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome.
Clin Evid. 2002 Jun;(7):966-78. Review. No abstract available. Update in: Clin Evid. 2002 Dec (8):1075-88. PMID: 12230719 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reid S, Wessely S, Crayford T, Hotopf M.
Frequent attenders with medically unexplained symptoms: service use and costs in secondary care.
Br J Psychiatry. 2002 Mar;180:248-53. PMID: 11872517 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Clark C, Buchwald D, MacIntyre A, Sharpe M, Wessely S.
Chronic fatigue syndrome: a step towards agreement.
Lancet. 2002 Jan 12;359(9301):97-8. No abstract available. Erratum in: Lancet
2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1352. Lancet 2002 May 25;359(9320):1866. PMID: 11809249 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Another good example of Wesselys continued involvement in CFS research are the PACE Trials. Randomisation and database design and management directed by Simon Wessely who oversees the Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) in collaboration with Professor Janet Darbyshire, MRC CTU [PACE Protocol, BMC Neurology].

 

[hvs]

Anne catches a great press release re the Imperial College/Wessely paper by the CAA.

 

[srmny]

Control Group?

I am trying hard to keep up but I am confused. I have read all the comments and nearly all of the studies they reference as I don't think it good manners to make comments when you have not bothered to read the material. That said, am I not tracking because I thought the Imperial College Study did not have a control group. Is it not the "healthy" control group that determines any XMRV in the general population? Perhaps I am getting my research studies mixed up and if so I am sorry for wasting anyone's time.

srmny

 

[Martlet]

Please, do not, however, let a dispute between members force you to close a thread, especially one as important as this.

Dipic, this is not a mere disagreement or dispute, is it? It is about a very small number of people hounding another member on a very personal level. Anyone should feel safe to disagree with the prevailing view without being subjected to personal attacks. If everyone sticks to the points of their disagreements, then there is no need for moderators to step in.

 

[hvs]

- <I>PLoS ONE</I> is not a podunk publication by any means, but it ain't <I>Science</I>. It's relatively young, it's still viewed with a variable level of trust depending on who you're talking to, and its peer review process is different from that of most of the long-respected journals. Does that mean this study is lame? No, not at all. But it's worth noting, too, that the peer review process here was different from the peer review to which the original study was subjected.

I think your list is right, spit; but I disagree with this. Upon publishing a paper reviewed only by an editor for 72 hrs, PLoS became little better than a blog. They and the paper writers would get laughed out of the room in my profession.