Fred, I really don't think this is the case. If there is little XMRV talk, it most likely is because we are in a quiet period, both for prostate cancer and CFS. The recent WPI paper is most likely too small to get a headline (Although it does add more weight to the theory) unless a replication study has been done first, and thats not happened yet. Hopefully soon?
1st International Workshop on XMRV
- Thread starter joyscobby
- Start date
On their website they have the following. http://www.virology-education.com/index.cfm/t/Abstracts/vid/1FFAFEBE-EE86-EA33-9C698DAFD570A8F9
oooo, a debate. I would love that. ERV isn't involved, is she?
Otherwise, I wish I could be there.
Who is the pro-XMRV person in the debate?
Sorry for those that didn't like the video. But it was for Adam.
Tina
Otherwise, I wish I could be there.
Who is the pro-XMRV person in the debate?
Sorry for those that didn't like the video. But it was for Adam.
Tina
In case
In case some of you don't know what I was referring to when mentioning the eggs and smoke bombs, here you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfCRyLlyqJI
Tina
In case some of you don't know what I was referring to when mentioning the eggs and smoke bombs, here you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfCRyLlyqJI
Tina
[Quote starts]
Topics for abstract submission
Selection of the most appropriate topic is important as it determines who reviews your abstract. The Program Committee reserves the right to reassign your abstract to a more appropriate category.
- Prostate cancer
- Chronic fatigue syndrome/ neuro immune diseases
- Therapeutic / vaccine (animal model)
- Pathogenesis
- Basic virology
- Immune response
- Host restriction factors
- Assay development and screening
[Quote ends]
Who is going to review abstracts for 'chronic fatigue syndrome' (sic) and neuro immune diseases? Who else other than the WPI has the knowledge and expertise to review papers in this category?
For organisers of this conference to 'review' a submission from the WPI would be like a failed student reviewing the work of his professor.
EDIT: from the VE website
"The members of the Organizing Committee (OC) collaborate on the content of the scientific program of the workshop, identifying interesting topics and candidate speakers, and reviewing all submitted abstracts."
"The members of the Scientific Committee (SC) assist the OC by providing them with suggestions for speakers and topics. In addition, members of the SC actively participate in the reviewing process of the submitted abstracts."
Topics for abstract submission
Selection of the most appropriate topic is important as it determines who reviews your abstract. The Program Committee reserves the right to reassign your abstract to a more appropriate category.
- Prostate cancer
- Chronic fatigue syndrome/ neuro immune diseases
- Therapeutic / vaccine (animal model)
- Pathogenesis
- Basic virology
- Immune response
- Host restriction factors
- Assay development and screening
[Quote ends]
Who is going to review abstracts for 'chronic fatigue syndrome' (sic) and neuro immune diseases? Who else other than the WPI has the knowledge and expertise to review papers in this category?
For organisers of this conference to 'review' a submission from the WPI would be like a failed student reviewing the work of his professor.
EDIT: from the VE website
"The members of the Organizing Committee (OC) collaborate on the content of the scientific program of the workshop, identifying interesting topics and candidate speakers, and reviewing all submitted abstracts."
"The members of the Scientific Committee (SC) assist the OC by providing them with suggestions for speakers and topics. In addition, members of the SC actively participate in the reviewing process of the submitted abstracts."
For me it's a question of scale.
There are three human exogenous retroviruses (not counting their sub-variants).
The newest retrovirus is potentially five-ten times more prevalent than HIV and it may be lying dormant in millions. It is simple and stable which implies that it may have more transmission media than HIV (e.g. saliva, urine, faeces, vomit as well as blood).
It has been linked to one of the most controversial and debated illnesses of this and the last century and may prove to be linked to a host of other 'overlap' conditions which could push up the prevalance rate even further.
Given this, if it was my conference, I'd kinda want to spend some time sharing information about it and getting some input from delegates.
There should be plenty of time to do this given that the meeting runs across a whopping four days. I'd carve off half a day of plenaries and get Silverman and Mikovits to do some masterclasses in it and then run some break out groups with moderators capturing questions and actions.
Having a retrovirus conference and not putting XMRV in the spoltlight is, in my opinion, like inviting Brad Pitt * to dinner and keeping him in the broom cupboard.
* for the ladies.
There are three human exogenous retroviruses (not counting their sub-variants).
The newest retrovirus is potentially five-ten times more prevalent than HIV and it may be lying dormant in millions. It is simple and stable which implies that it may have more transmission media than HIV (e.g. saliva, urine, faeces, vomit as well as blood).
It has been linked to one of the most controversial and debated illnesses of this and the last century and may prove to be linked to a host of other 'overlap' conditions which could push up the prevalance rate even further.
Given this, if it was my conference, I'd kinda want to spend some time sharing information about it and getting some input from delegates.
There should be plenty of time to do this given that the meeting runs across a whopping four days. I'd carve off half a day of plenaries and get Silverman and Mikovits to do some masterclasses in it and then run some break out groups with moderators capturing questions and actions.
Having a retrovirus conference and not putting XMRV in the spoltlight is, in my opinion, like inviting Brad Pitt * to dinner and keeping him in the broom cupboard.
* for the ladies.
that made me smile :tear:
G
Why on earth is Dr Vernon chairing the meeting?she is not a retrovirologist.Who exactly is organising this meeting.Are we to have yet another political meeting to dissociate ME from XMRv?
OR have I simply been given the wrong information.Surely aretrovirologist must be chairing otherwise it is a farce
OR have I simply been given the wrong information.Surely aretrovirologist must be chairing otherwise it is a farce
I'm not sure who is chairing the meeting, but the organizing committee is:
The Organizing Committee
Charles Boucher, Erasmus University, The Netherlands
John Coffin, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA
Stewart Le Grice, NIH, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA
Robert Silverman, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA
Jonathan Stoye, National Institute for Medical Research, UK
Dr. Vernon is chairing one of the sessions, not the meeting as a whole. Her degree is in virology.
The Organizing Committee
Charles Boucher, Erasmus University, The Netherlands
John Coffin, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA
Stewart Le Grice, NIH, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD, USA
Robert Silverman, Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, USA
Jonathan Stoye, National Institute for Medical Research, UK
Dr. Vernon is chairing one of the sessions, not the meeting as a whole. Her degree is in virology.
At the risk of sounding disingenuous, why can the largest ME charity in the world not contact the leading ME research institute in the world on behalf of ME patients of the world?
Why should sick people have to do the legwork here? Isn't that why we have a charitable organisation to whom we make donations? Why do we have a dog and bark ?
Does the medical director of said charity not have an ongoing dialogue with the medical director of said institute and, if not, why not?
If the medical director of said charity is aware of and involved in this conference, should she not be urging the organisers to enrol representatives of the said institute and, if not, why not?
Why should sick people have to do the legwork here? Isn't that why we have a charitable organisation to whom we make donations? Why do we have a dog and bark ?
Does the medical director of said charity not have an ongoing dialogue with the medical director of said institute and, if not, why not?
If the medical director of said charity is aware of and involved in this conference, should she not be urging the organisers to enrol representatives of the said institute and, if not, why not?
Venue Location: Bethesda?
From the Virology Education website:
"Meeting Venue
The meeting venue will be published on this website by the end of April 2010"
....and yet....
"Climate
In September, the average daytime temperature in Bethesda is 79 F / 26 C"
"Electrical power
Bethesda, like the rest of the continental US, uses 110 V/60 cycle electric power with two flat-blade plugs. More modern receptacles have an additional round grounding pin and remain compatible with the two flat-blade plugs. Visitors using foreign appliances with incompatible plugs or electrical needs must bring an adaptor and/or a voltage converter."
"Information on Bethesda
For more extensive general information on Bethesda, MD refer to http://www.bethesda.org/."
So, perhaps the venue is in one of the NIH buildings. How very ironic.
From the Virology Education website:
"Meeting Venue
The meeting venue will be published on this website by the end of April 2010"
....and yet....
"Climate
In September, the average daytime temperature in Bethesda is 79 F / 26 C"
"Electrical power
Bethesda, like the rest of the continental US, uses 110 V/60 cycle electric power with two flat-blade plugs. More modern receptacles have an additional round grounding pin and remain compatible with the two flat-blade plugs. Visitors using foreign appliances with incompatible plugs or electrical needs must bring an adaptor and/or a voltage converter."
"Information on Bethesda
For more extensive general information on Bethesda, MD refer to http://www.bethesda.org/."
So, perhaps the venue is in one of the NIH buildings. How very ironic.
First things looked good to me, but it worries me a bit that Virology Education is a Dutch company (the country of the Van Kuppeveld/Van der Meer study)
Contact
If you have any questions regarding the workshop please contact us directly:
Logistics:
Virology Education B.V.
Biltstraat 106
3572 BJ Utrecht
The Netherlands
Besides, this company also arranges a meeting about infectious diseases in The Netherlands on June 4th, where one of the members of the organisation board of the XMRV workshop in the USA (Charles Boucher) will presentate about XMRV along with Van der Meer, The co-author of The Dutch XMRV study:
http://www.virology-education.com/index.cfm/t/Programma/vid/BCA66016-F1CA-9B06-5AA8654C614A42B1
And van der Meer is the one who was interviewed by The Volkskrant (dutch newspaper) yesterday and called the WPI unprofessional and the recent bloodban by canada and other countries "incomprehensible"
But on the other side, Silverman and Coffin are also in the US meeting and they are big guys in the XMRV story, so I cannot really understand things anymore...
I don't know on which side Boucher stands, and I can't believe that Van der Meer will work together with "XMRV in ME/CFS believers", knowing his opinion about XMRV in relation to ME/CFS
Contact
If you have any questions regarding the workshop please contact us directly:
Logistics:
Virology Education B.V.
Biltstraat 106
3572 BJ Utrecht
The Netherlands
Besides, this company also arranges a meeting about infectious diseases in The Netherlands on June 4th, where one of the members of the organisation board of the XMRV workshop in the USA (Charles Boucher) will presentate about XMRV along with Van der Meer, The co-author of The Dutch XMRV study:
http://www.virology-education.com/index.cfm/t/Programma/vid/BCA66016-F1CA-9B06-5AA8654C614A42B1
And van der Meer is the one who was interviewed by The Volkskrant (dutch newspaper) yesterday and called the WPI unprofessional and the recent bloodban by canada and other countries "incomprehensible"
But on the other side, Silverman and Coffin are also in the US meeting and they are big guys in the XMRV story, so I cannot really understand things anymore...
I don't know on which side Boucher stands, and I can't believe that Van der Meer will work together with "XMRV in ME/CFS believers", knowing his opinion about XMRV in relation to ME/CFS
G
it is not retrovirology which is something completely different.Given her lack of enthusiasm about XMRV I cant understand why she was invited and an XMRV expert was not.If my understanding is correct then Dr vernon has not practiced as a virologist for some years.Why are the CAA not insisting that she be present? A meeting without a researcher who has the greatest practical experience of working with the virus has little meaning.A session chaired by someone with none is simply bizarre
If anyone missed the latest thoughts from Coffin, Ruscetti, etc. It's here, from the Prague conference. http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?4733-Feedback-from-Prague-Conference&p=76500&posted=1#post76500
So, Coffin supports Ruscetti's 'ventilation' of annoyance over the Dutch "whisper campaign" about contamination and yet the organiser of the September conference, Charles Boucher, is hosting a debate with one of the perpetrators of the "whisper campaign".
Curiouser and curiouser.
I assume Gerwyn means Dr Mikovits. If so, quite so.
Curiouser and curiouser.
I assume Gerwyn means Dr Mikovits. If so, quite so.