Lesley
Senior Member
- Messages
- 188
- Location
- Southeastern US
Anyone got the link to what Dr Vernon said?? [I guess we're all going to need to keep it handy]
http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Anyone got the link to what Dr Vernon said?? [I guess we're all going to need to keep it handy]
Cort, Dr. Vernon did a fantastic job with her quick response and she defiantly will not allow the XMRV research to die on the vine. I hope folks remember in all the e-mailing to send Dr. Vernon, and our own jspotila a thank you. Anytime there is controversy JSpot is on the spot for us. Thanks Jenny from a huge admirer, me!
Thank you, George and CBS!! I will give credit where it is due: Dr. Vernon and Ms. McCleary who are busting their butts to find out what is going on and push push push for funding and properly done studies and understanding of CFS at the highest levels in federal agencies.
As far as JSpot on the Spot - that spot is now bed! :In bed: Today's roller coaster took a lot out of all us, and I have to lie down before I fall down. But tomorrow is another day . . . .!
But tomorrow is another day . . . .!
I think that it's not entirely surprising that the positive study has been withheld, or withdrawn, or postponed in order to make modifications for re-reviewing...
The negative CDC study tells us nothing new... it doesn't rock the scientific or establishment boat... it's not radical... it doesn't stir up a hornet's nest for the establishment or government...
So the CDC study can be published easily and quietly... no one is upset by it, except us, and everyone in the government quietly gets on with their business as if nothing is wrong.
Whereas, the positive study could be explosive... it really could be explosive, for so many different reasons... It will categorically confirm the WPI's findings to the establishment and to the scientific world, as scientific fact...
It will open the flood gates, for all sorts of things... research money will come pouring in... the public will have to be informed and will start asking questions... the blood supply will have to be screened... the media will go into a frenzy... professional reputations will be made or broken... The government will have to start taking serious action...
So, the government agencies will, understandably, want to make sure that this paper is solid... and extra checks are probably being made on the study... Remember how the WPI study had to be refined and resubmitted several times... the same is going on here... All the agencies probably want to make sure that this is water-tight... and that seems to be the information coming out about it at the moment... Extra peer reviewers are being brought in, and extra safeguards are being introduced into the study itself... All of this is so everyone can be absolutely certain that this study is rock solid, and that there aren't any holes in it... Just like the WPI study. (It's a shame that the negative studies don't get subjected to the same rigorous oversight, but at the end of the day, it will benefit us if the positive studies are absolutely rock solid and rigorous science.)
So the delay in publication isn't really surprising, all things considered.
Sorry George, but tonight you seem to be my compass..So if we know - or at least with good cause strongly suspect - the CDC is being disingenuous with this study, to whom do we express those concerns since we can fairly safely assume (hyperbole in reverse?) that the CDC will most likely be disinclined to police itself? This is not merely a function of potential deception; there are victims, and more of them join this sad chorus of ours daily. And finally, didn't the journal the CDC study results appear in have a responsibility to asterek said report? As a matter of course? Or am I just being naive...
Sorry George, but tonight you seem to be my compass..So if we know - or at least with good cause strongly suspect - the CDC is being disingenuous with this study, to whom do we express those concerns since we can fairly safely assume (hyperbole in reverse?) that the CDC will most likely be disinclined to police itself? This is not merely a function of potential deception; there are victims, and more of them join this sad chorus of ours daily. And finally, didn't the journal the CDC study results appear in have a responsibility to asterek said report? As a matter of course? Or am I just being naive...
Does not explain why both conflicting articles were put on hold by DHHS, followed by a mainstream article about the controversy in WSJ, and then only the CDC article was green-lighted for publication the very next day after the WSJ article, leaving the NIH/FDA article on hold.
It also does not explain Dr. Alter's apparent back-tracking and distancing from his study, which was apparently otherwise ready for publication. I can understand the extra peer reviewers since PNAS uses a different review system than is typical for most publications, but why not hold off on the CDC study as well, or get more peer reviewers involved in that?
Something is not quite right here.
In the end it will all work out.
I just keep waiting to for the dang "end"!