The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

[Countrygirl]

Science is publishing McClure story tomorrow

Don't panic! It is my mistake.....sorry folks, but I can't edit the heading, perhaps a mod can do it for me (done). The M.E.A says that the STORY by McClure with appear in Science tomorrow. I originally thought it was referring to the publication of the article. It's not the same thing. Phew!!

 

[Katie]

Wake up troops !!I have just read on the M.E.Association web-site that Wessely and McClure's paper is being published in Science magazine tomorrow. What is going on? How come it has been accepted for publication in just a few days?

Is the M.E.A. mistaken? Can the scientifically minded explain the implication of this, please.

I'm going to have a comforting cuppa :headache:

Can you link to this Country girl? I can't navigate the ME Association website.

 

[Countrygirl]

Can you link to this Country girl? I can't navigate the ME Association website.

Hi Katie,

I have just re-read the article. It says in a STORY by McClure, Science will publish etc. A story.....that is not the same as publishing the research is it.......My above post needs to be changed. Phew!!

I accessed through M.E. Association.org.uk, then clicked on news. It's dated Wednesday 13th.

Best wishes,

C.G.

 

[flex]

Wake up troops !!I have just read on the M.E.Association web-site that Wessely and McClure's paper is being published in Science magazine tomorrow. What is going on? How come it has been accepted for publication in just a few days?

Is the M.E.A. mistaken? Can the scientifically minded explain the implication of this, please.

I'm going to have a comforting cuppa :headache:

Is this good or bad or done by Science for pure circulation? Will the study be reviewed by Science or presented as legitimate? Is this the chance for peer review that IC never gave?!! Surely from this IC is leaving themselves wide open, is that why Science is publishing it? Oh, so many questions!!!

Never mind the cuppa, I'm hitting the bottle!!!

What is happening at the WPI today, is there a live link and what time London time?

 

[Esther12]

It's always troubled me when people here have talked about the WPI having Science magazine in their corner. They don't. I wouldn't be surprised if Science magazine were also unimpressed by the way the WPI has been responding to McClure.

If you want the WPI etc to speak in an aggressive manner, to accuse others of deliberatly skewing their results for fraudulent reasons, then you should not be surprised if a lot of scientists are turned off by such talk. I think that some people here spend too much time talking to those of a similar viewpoint to their own, and are now being surprised by the way those not a part of any CFS community are responding. Remember how angry people here got when Wessely said something like : "I don't think we'll find XMRV amongst most CFS patients." You'll note that he wasn't stupid enough to say "I think that these results are part of a fraudulent campaign to allow the metnally disturbed to go on pretending to be ill." That's why he's respected within the medical community, and a lot of CFS patients are seen as nutters. Maybe we having something to learn here?

 

[Countrygirl]

Correction - it's the STORY not a PAPER that is in Science on Friday.

flex, don't hit the bottle...I'm sorry if I've driven you to drink. I have corrected my post and you will see that it is a STORY not a PAPER that is to appear tomorrow. That is bad enough, of course, given all the criticisms of the I.C. research. I'm sorry that I misunderstood.....please put that bottle down. It might not be that bad.....possibly.

 

[Katie]

It's always troubled me when people here have talked about the WPI having Science magazine in their corner. They don't. I wouldn't be surprised if Science magazine were also unimpressed by the way the WPI has been responding to McClure.

If you want the WPI etc to speak in an aggressive manner, to accuse others of deliberatly skewing their results for fraudulent reasons, then you should not be surprised if a lot of scientists are turned off by such talk. I think that some people here spend too much time talking to those of a similar viewpoint to their own, and are now being surprised by the way those not a part of any CFS community are responding. Remember how angry people here got when Wessely said something like : "I don't think we'll find XMRV amongst most CFS patients." You'll note that he wasn't stupid enough to say "I think that these results are part of a fraudulent campaign to allow the metnally disturbed to go on pretending to be ill." That's why he's respected within the medical community, and a lot of CFS patients are seen as nutters. Maybe we having something to learn here?

Science is in no ones corner. They peer review and publish what they deem to be good science. We can't ascribe an opinion to them, positive or negative.

 

[flex]

flex, don't hit the bottle...I'm sorry if I've driven you to drink. I have corrected my post and you will see that it is a STORY not a PAPER that is to appear tomorrow. That is bad enough, of course, given all the criticisms of the I.C. research. I'm sorry that I misunderstood.....please put that bottle down. It might not be that bad.....possibly.

ISSS tooo late NOWW.... I'm f****g p**sed and on my way out for a kebab. WHO WANTS SOME THEN!! COME ON!! I'LL TAKE YOU ALL ON..ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME!!!

 

[fresh_eyes]

Wow, what a dustup around here over erv! Yikes. I bet she's reading this with great glee. Hi erv, you little sociopath!

@ charity and Esther: Did you guys read the comments erv got on that post? Not the ones from patients, the other ones? They are FAR from universally supportive of her pov, much less her delivery. I don't think we're well-served to consider her a representative of "scientists". Erv is clearly biased against WPI and XMRV (it's obvious if you look back over her posts on the topic), which really undermines her credibility. It's ironic that she's ranting about how use of strong language undermines a scientist's credibility, isn't it?

There's a perfectly civil but lively debate on this topic at the Virology blog: http://www.virology.ws/2010/01/07/x...k-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients/#comments Those folks don't seem offended at all that controversy has been stirred up, and are very interested to see how it will all pan out.

I agree with whoever said that playing nice has not gotten us very far. If we can't have straight-up answers (and it appears we can't, not for a while at least) I think a huge controversy is our next-best bet for keeping this research going. And I'm among those who are glad to see Judy M standing up this strongly for her work - she's putting her career on the line for this research, and I feel like I owe it to her to back her up. My $.02.

 

[fresh_eyes]

Whoever the blogger is, s/he probably talks to 50 other retrovirologists and scientists every week.

Surely 90-some percent of those think she's a foulmouthed, abrasive, ranting jerk? Just judging by her writing...

 

[flex]

JUSTICE WILL ALWAYS BE DONE!!


SIMON WESSELY MISJUDGES JUDGEMENT DAY!!

Simon Wessely goes to heaven and meets St Peter at the Pearly Gates. St Peter says, "wait there you are next".
The gates open and Wessely walks in.

The next thing there is an almighty cyclone the likes never seen or heard before by man that passes from heaven, through earth with Wessely inside visible to the worldwide ME community.
He is waved on and jeered by eveyone as the cyclone dumps him into hell!!

Satan appears and says "what happened"?

Wessely looks at him shocked and says:

"I went in to heaven, saw a huge man with a long beard just sitting in a chair waiting for me, so I told him to get of his fat arse and stop somatizing"

 

[Esther12]

Wow, what a dustup around here over erv! Yikes. I bet she's reading this with great glee. Hi erv, you little sociopath!

@ charity and Esther: Did you guys read the comments erv got on that post? Not the ones from patients, the other ones? They are FAR from universally supportive of her pov, much less her delivery. I don't think we're well-served to consider her a representative of "scientists". Erv is clearly biased against WPI and XMRV (it's obvious if you look back over her posts on the topic), which really undermines her credibility. It's ironic that she's ranting about how use of strong language undermines a scientist's credibility, isn't it?

There's a perfectly civil but lively debate on this topic at the Virology blog: http://www.virology.ws/2010/01/07/x...k-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients/#comments Those folks don't seem offended at all that controversy has been stirred up, and are very interested to see how it will all pan out.

I agree with whoever said that playing nice has not gotten us very far. If we can't have straight-up answers (and it appears we can't, not for a while at least) I think a huge controversy is our next-best bet for keeping this research going. And I'm among those who are glad to see Judy M standing up this strongly for her work - she's putting her career on the line for this research, and I feel like I owe it to her to back her up. My $.02.

It certainly seems the ERV has got her nose knocked out of joint by some CFS commentators, and is now reacting badly. I certainly don't think such an extreme reaction is remotely representative of the scientific community. But tho only people who seem impressed by the WPI response are those already on our side. What's the point? We need to be trying to win over those who are unsure about CFS, not pepping up those already convinced that Wessely is a quack. Has anyone found any post or comment by someone previously unconnected to CFS who has been impressed by the WPI's response? I've not. But I've seen lots of comments with varying degrees of disapproval.

 

[valia]

Wow, what a dustup around here over erv! Yikes. I bet she's reading this with great glee. Hi erv, you little sociopath!

@ charity and Esther: Did you guys read the comments erv got on that post? Not the ones from patients, the other ones? They are FAR from universally supportive of her pov, much less her delivery. I don't think we're well-served to consider her a representative of "scientists". Erv is clearly biased against WPI and XMRV (it's obvious if you look back over her posts on the topic), which really undermines her credibility. It's ironic that she's ranting about how use of strong language undermines a scientist's credibility, isn't it?

There's a perfectly civil but lively debate on this topic at the Virology blog: http://www.virology.ws/2010/01/07/x...k-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-patients/#comments Those folks don't seem offended at all that controversy has been stirred up, and are very interested to see how it will all pan out.

I agree with whoever said that playing nice has not gotten us very far. If we can't have straight-up answers (and it appears we can't, not for a while at least) I think a huge controversy is our next-best bet for keeping this research going. And I'm among those who are glad to see Judy M standing up this strongly for her work - she's putting her career on the line for this research, and I feel like I owe it to her to back her up. My $.02.

Thank you fresh-eyes,

I have been trying for some time to compose a similar response.

 

[Abraxas]

Hello everyone, this is my first post here - although I'm another lurker since the XMRV news broke back in October and have been following all the developments with great interest!

I presume the McClure story apparently due to be published in Science tomorrow is what Mikovtz refers to in yesterdays Reno Gazette article? http://www.rgj.com/article/20100113/NEWS/1130437/1321

"They paid to have their study published in the Public Library of Science, and it was then picked up by Science (magazine)," said Mikovits

 

[fresh_eyes]

Has anyone found any post or comment by someone previously unconnected to CFS who has been impressed by the WPI's response? I've not. But I've seen lots of comments with varying degrees of disapproval.

Hi Esther12. You're right, I haven't seen any scientist mention being impressed by the WPI's press release. Of course, it's not intended for them, it's intended for the press and the public, and I understand if some scientists are touchy about anyone going over their heads to the court of public opinion. I'd describe the reaction I've seen as bemused, as in, Wow, this is getting to be quite the controversy. Wonder how it will turn out. Nobody but erv seems to think that the politics and controversy means that the science is bad - everybody knows that, in the end, the science will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

The only real disaster for us would be if the research was dropped and forgotten. As long as it keeps going forward, I'm satisfied.

ETA Hi Abraxas, welcome. Thanks for posting that - yes, that must be what she was talking about.

 

[Esther12]

CF - I think we were both posting around the same time when you wrote this so I missed it before. I see that you have a real vested interest in the WPI.

I didn't respond to CF's post either - partly out of guilt. I've been genuinely too broke to be able to give to charity for the last few years, but it is now looking likely that I might have some spare cash soon and I have to admit that I was planning to spend it on a new hi-fi. I now feel a bit of an arse.

 

[fresh_eyes]

Oh, yeah, charity - I didn't mention that post either, I think because I am stunned by the level of support you've offered to WPI. It's humbling. I hope that jerk erv hasn't made you question your actions - that would be a tragedy, if someone as thoughtless as her were to influence someone as thoughtful and caring as you.

 

[Esther12]

Hi Esther12. You're right, I haven't seen any scientist mention being impressed by the WPI's press release. Of course, it's not intended for them, it's intended for the press and the public, and I understand if some scientists are touchy about anyone going over their heads to the court of public opinion. I'd describe the reaction I've seen as bemused, as in, Wow, this is getting to be quite the controversy. Wonder how it will turn out. Nobody but erv seems to think that the politics and controversy means that the science is bad - everybody knows that, in the end, the science will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

The only real disaster for us would be if the research was dropped and forgotten. As long as it keeps going forward, I'm satisfied.

I don't think this will matter is the replication studies are uncontroversial and successful. But if this is not the case then I think that the WPI's media response could serve to reduce interest in examining what caused their blip, and if it might lead on to somthing more interesting. They've made themselves easier to discount altogether. I don't see why they'd take that risk at this point, and personally, I'd prefer that they not. CFS has enough reputation problems as it is, and we know that this can unfairly influence the way research is carried out. At this early stage I think that they should be focused on the expectations of the science community, not the press and general public.

Of course, they're free to act however they want and this is all just my fearful opinion.

 

[Dr. Yes]

Actually, the Reno Gazette article itself mentions that a story about McClure's study will appear in the print version of "Science" on Friday. I noticed a tiny blurb in the upper right corner that says that the print edition of Science will feature a longer version of the lousy Sam Kean article we already saw in "Science Now". So I guess that's how McClure will appear in the print edition tomorrow. That was a dreadful article, and now I wish I had written in to complain about it!
(He says, taking for granted that the editors of "Science" would have read his letter and said "My God - He's right!")

 

[flex]

Has anyone found any post or comment by someone previously unconnected to CFS who has been impressed by the WPI's response? I've not. But I've seen lots of comments with varying degrees of disapproval.

People previously unconnected with CFS have always been subject to the spin and manipualtion of the Wesselites. We have to get our message accross but you are right, the WPI should appear less PR. However they keep on having journalists ask them questions. If they dont reply to the IC criticism the Wessely nonsense will stand again.

As somebody else stated here this is a new era of PR and media. How do you escape it?

The IC people could be doing it to make them look like hotheads and reactionists. After all, they are psychiatrists, thats one of thier specialities!!