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!
ME/CFS: A disease at war with itself
We can all agree that ME/CFS is a nasty disease, particularly in its severe form, but there are abundant nasty diseases in the world. What is unique and particularly confounding about our disease is that so much controversy surrounds it, and not only surrounds it, but invades it too.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Whose XMRV serology assay is McClure using?

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by fred, Sep 28, 2010.

  1. fred

    fred The game is afoot

    Messages:
    400
    Likes:
    1
    Posted on Co-Cure.

    http://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1009d&L=co-cure&T=0&F&S&P=4248

  2. VillageLife

    VillageLife Senior Member

    Messages:
    674
    Likes:
    36
    United Kingdom
    weldone.:victory::victory::victory::victory:
  3. Jemal

    Jemal Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,031
    Likes:
    60
    I believe there's just one expression for this: ROFL
  4. garcia

    garcia Aristocrat Extraordinaire

    Messages:
    933
    Likes:
    102
    London, UK
    Just proves that McClure doesn't know her assay from her elboway.
  5. Stone

    Stone Senior Member

    Messages:
    371
    Likes:
    6
    NC
    Great Work!

    Well done! I've been wondering just how Prof. McClure could say she did the serology when only WPI (and/or VIPDx) was doing it. When Dr. Mikovits said, "No--WE did it" at the end of her exchange with Prof. McClure, do you think she meant that is was her lab that performed the serology for Prof. McClure? Hmmmm. I need to watch that exchange again in the Q&A session after the conference.
  6. Megan

    Megan Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Likes:
    13
    Australia
    The German group from Robert Koch also had a serology test. In anstract O_18 from the conference it says, 'In none of the sera XMRV specific antibodies were found.' And if I remember right, the CDC also had one. Maybe ICL used one of those?
  7. Cookie Monster

    Cookie Monster

    Messages:
    76
    Likes:
    0
    I know the transcriptions say "no we did it" but i think Dr Judy actually said "no, we didn't" meaning either mcclure never asked for her help or possibly that mcclure didnt do any of that testing herself.

    Interestingly - on the TWIV 99 episode in Boston - McClure admitted to Racaniello that she shipped her samples out to Shozo Izui in Geneva for serology testing. She also mentioned that his test was not specific for XMRV.
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,176
    Likes:
    5,169
    I think that there could be some confusion over what was said here too. I was a bit confused by this part when I saw it, and have never really known what they all meant then.
  9. Mark

    Mark Acting CEO

    Messages:
    4,515
    Likes:
    1,932
    Sofa, UK
    It was a peculiar exchange alright, and all the interpretations of those words above make some sense to me. I did hear it as "no, we did it", myself.

    Cookie Monster's info sounds like it's the answer to the FOI issue, though: it seems fairly clear that the serology was done elsewhere, and so "no, we didn't" makes good sense in that context.

    Can't help wondering whether Prof McClure would have simply answered this question herself if asked directly. Has anybody tried that, I wonder?

    ETA: It again seems curious to me that the serology referred to by McClure was unpublished work, especially when Dr Mikovits' unpublished reports are dismissed so routinely and she is even roundly criticised for mentioning them publicly - there are so many double standards at play it gets very confusing!

    It was similarly strange when McClure's original XMRV/CFS study popped up out of the blue on PlosOne, despite earlier questions in the House of Commons as well as FOI attempts to determine what XMRV studies were being undertaken. These secret studies are a cause for grave concern, because it's fairly obvious that if you undertake studies in secret and then decide which ones you're going to publish, there's huge potential for abuse of the scientific process there.

    Of course, that kind of abuse is routine in the pharmaceutical industry, as anybody with contacts in UK medical research should know very well: studies are routinely only published when they get the "right" answer. I know several people who have left their research careers in disgust at the lack of academic freedom and the domination of the research agenda by multinational corporate interests. They broadly agree with my assertion that what one might properly call "Science", or "The Scientific Method", is effectively dead.

    This doesn't mean that the scientific studies we get to hear about aren't "true". It's just that there is a selection process being applied to which "truths" we are allowed to know about. Some scientific facts are more convenient than others...

    Once corporations are able to control the agenda and skew the results in their favour, the neutrality of Science is fatally compromised. Genuine Scientists can no longer trust the voice of Science in the modern world, I'm afraid.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page