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!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Why does 5AZA matter?

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by Lee, Oct 6, 2011.

  1. Lee

    Lee

    Messages:
    82
    Likes:
    75
    Parental approval of the doctor, does not justify risky, painful, clinically unnecessary, organizationally-unapproved spinal taps on children.

    it does not justify risky, painful, clinically-unnecessay, oganizationally-unapproved research colonoscopies on children.

    It does not justify taking a half million pounds money from attorneys suing the manufacturer of the vaccine he was criticizing, and failing to disclose that blatant conflict of interest.

    Parental testimony was irrelevant to those charges.
  2. currer

    currer Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    Likes:
    774
    I can see parallells here.

    When people with ME wanted to trial Antiretrovirals the medical establishment jumped up with one voice and blocked it.

    When we would gladly give tissue for testing, we are not allowed to because it is "too risky"

    Just what are these interests that are so eager to block research into these two illnesses?

    Incidentally, the autism parents said their children had improved following the investigations and treatment. No-one had previously considered their gut symptoms worth investigating.

    Lee, think of what you are saying from an ethical perspective. This is children's lives and futures we are considering here. Why do you want to stop research that will help them? Dont you have children of your own?

    .
  3. Lee

    Lee

    Messages:
    82
    Likes:
    75
    Of course. I must be an unethical evil man who wants children to suffer and die.

    Yes, this is children's lives and futures. Bad science is BAD FOR children's (and other's) lives and futures. BAd science is bad for the prospects of my friend with ME/CFS. This is why bad science upsets me.

    Wakefield directly harmed children, with medically unnecessary painful invasive research procedures. Indirectly, his bad science caused MMR vaccination rates to plummet, below herd immunity levels in many areas, causing a return of measles outbreaks that had become exceedingly rare. Children got sick, some has serious permanent nerve problems as a result. Some children died as a result.

    I do have children of my own, and the effects of bad science is very much a concern of mine. I'm also quite disgusted when people stoop to 'don't you care about children' as a discussion tactic.

    i want ME/CFS research to move in productive directions. I'm happy to see the multi-infectious agent screening effort still moving forward. I'd love to see good, well designed efforts to look for metabolic and immune correlates of ME/CFS, to help garner more clues about what causes it, and how to effectively treat it. I'm in favor of efforts to help people ameliorate the symptoms impact now, to whatever small extent we can, while we don't have effective treatments - and some of the CBT approaches strike me as being potentially useful here, and I'd like to see good research continue there as well. I'd like to see a pool of money made available for researcher-originated ideas, so that scientists immense creative insight can be brought to bear on trying to understand this disease.

    And I don't want to see more money and time and resources and scientists insight and creativity thrown at bad science chasing a virus that isn't there an cant be found, instead of pursing directions that might have some chance of paying off.
  4. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes:
    11,242
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Hi have no real opinion on Wakefield as I have never felt the need to research the facts, and wont draw a conclusion without research.

    MMR may or may not cause issues including autism - all vaccines can cause issues.

    Measles definitely causes issues. If it crosses the blood brain barrier it causes measles encephalitis. This is fatal for about one in four and causes neurological damage for about half the children.

    I had measles encephalitis when I was 7. I have never been right since.

    I do not recall the prevalence of measles encephalitis however. The issue would seem to be whether or not its more common than autism or other issues following vaccination. This should be a matter of epidemiology, but again I have not researched this.

    What I can say is that vaccines are dangerous, but so is not getting vaccinated. As vaccination levels drop epidemic risk rises. Major epidemics can disable or kill millions. This is not as simple as vaccines are dangerous and so are bad. This is a complex issue, and I expect the debate will continue for years or decades into the future.

    Bye
    Alex
  5. Mula

    Mula Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes:
    46
    As Dr John Coffin was the peer reviewer of the paper I will try and discuss Science magazine and him as one, maybe I should include the editors in this as well. It was Coffin/Science/editors who made the alteration to the attached labels of the blot in the paper. Dr Ruscetti and Dr Mikovits are not responsible for the absence of 5-aza or the code switch, as the decision to not have this information rested with Coffin/Science/editors. Every variation so far is real, so please don't use the word fake.
  6. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,974
    Cornwall England
    Very good Barb. Thanks.

    Edit:

    Talking of Wakefield - though what it has to do with this thread is beyond me - I notice that LBRB posted another cracking piece about the latest:

    The Wakefield Rehabilitation: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/20...LeftBrain/rightBrain (Left Brain/Right Brain)

    Seems that some had been getting excited by the mention of Wakefield's previous papers by Lipkin. Rather too excited as it turns out.
  7. jace

    jace Off the fence

    Messages:
    855
    Likes:
    170
    England
    Mula, do you have a source for this information?
    Wakefield did not criticise the MMR vaccine as a whole, but rather the early batch of MMR that was bought cheap by the NHS when it had already been shown to be causing real problems in Canada, and was therefore withdrawn there. Before they could buy it (for about 1/3 the price of the safer alternative) the NHS had to indemnify the manufacturers against public liability for it's administration.

    Personally, I believe that vaccination has to be used judiciously, and that giving multiple vaccinations to children and babies with compromised health is foolhardy. I believe that vaccinations make a lot of money for pharmaceutical companies. Follow the money.

    barbc56, do you really expect us to take that unreferenced cartoon seriously? Where is the evidence to back up their assertions? The small exploratory paper, co authored by Wakefield, really touched a nerve, didn't it?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHrgYxqcU0w

    So all of the traceable parents of the children involved, 9 out of 12, publicly backing Andrew Wakefield, and none of the twelve parents voicing any concern = anecdotal evidence? Really?

    More from the Wakefield story http://goldenhawkprojects.blogspot.com/
  8. Mula

    Mula Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes:
    46
    Dr John Coffin would be the source.
  9. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes:
    10,310
    England, UK
    But Mula, do you actually have a source for that information, that we can all refer to?

    If not, then we can't rely on that information.
  10. Mula

    Mula Senior Member

    Messages:
    131
    Likes:
    46
    Dr Coffin is reliable enough. There is no published quote available, but he can be reached through his Tufts email address.
  11. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    8,051
    Likes:
    10,310
    England, UK
    So there is no source for that information?
  12. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,132
    Likes:
    176
    USA.Earth
    Probably nobody is reading this thread anymore, but anyway, I just ran into the following posts and want to respond (and no, I was not avoiding them, just had other things going on and never read them before now).

    Yes this is true, JM is executive level sales, her photo is on a pharmanex website, so that would be something she would submit. I don't know what her sales volume would have to be for that company, but it is a successful firm, so probably not trivial as Rusty suggests. But my point was not to 'smear' Judy because I think taking side jobs, no matter what they are, is a respectable thing to do. I did side work when I was a researcher (before ME/CFS). My point was simply to show that she had marketing experience, and I was as surprised as you to learn this, because how would she have time? But also it answered a question I have had about why has she been so successful with patients. Marketing skills might explain part of that. Anyway I think this is a legitimate point to raise, it has been raised.

    Leela, why do you care what my profession was? I do have a background in research methods but not virology, my area was interdisciplinary, including cognitive and systems sciences....but that background does not help much with the ME/CFS or this discussion, I study out the issues like most other patients here. And nobody has the upper hand, I have read posts by patients claiming to know biological sciences that contained obvious errors. So I check facts for myself, I read many studies and my conclusions are my own.

    The PCR is what matters the most in the whole situation because that is where you prove the sequence and organism is what you say it is. Other tests are dependent on the PCR's validity to varying degrees. So when there is doubt about PCR, you stop there and work that out. You are repeating arguments that I have also repeatedly addressed, but that is all over the forum, so maybe you have not read my responses. The VP62 issue is about a strain and not a family. WPI tested the strains (gag, env), many of the 0/0 studies tested the family (pol). Thus the studies using VP62 pol gene have tested for the MLV family, while those using the VP62 gag or env genes have tested for the strain. This is an important distinction, between the genes, that means the VP62 issue is not as clear as might appear, if labs used its pol gene they should find ANY MLV strain.

    I am not aware of any precedent for a blood-borne retrovirus like XMRV to be transmitted by any casual contact, that is probably why WPI ran a blood transfusion study, they knew they needed blood-borne transfer models. This is also true in animal RVs, they are generally blood-borne. Anyway, all the transmission routes you mention are valid for retrovirus, but not common in ME/CFS epidemiology, and that is a point I first raised two years ago, and have mentioned from time to time. It is a problem with the MLV/HGRV hypothesis in ME/CFS. I'm not saying there is no possible solution to that problem, just that a novel transfer mechanism would have to be discovered if this is the cause of ME/CFS.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page