*2 new* letters, Myra McClue, Annette Whittemore

[eric_s]

No I stated that the methods were scientifically proven to a high level of probability.According to your argument the peer review process proves thet the Science methodology worked and the european methods failed because they did not find anything.The peer review studies the european studies actually recieved do not evaluate accuracy just reproducibility as I have told you many times before.Actually only one European study recieved any kind of peer review process.Your logic just gets you into a mess

Go back to your posting #191 and you will see that you said "proven". Period. Not "proven to a high level of probability". Same in your posting # 46 here http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...its-to-the-editor-of-the-IACFS-Bulletin/page5

Wrong about the european methods. They could detect XMRV in the positive control i think. I did not check now, but i'm pretty sure it's that way. And probably they also returned a negative result for the negative control.

But that was my last reply to that discussion. If you reply to this, i will not continue. Your choice.

 

[Gerwyn]

Go back to your posting #191 and you will see that you said "proven". Period. Not "proven to a high level of probability". Same in your posting # 46 here http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...its-to-the-editor-of-the-IACFS-Bulletin/page5

Wrong about the european methods. They could detect XMRV in the positive control i think. I did not check now, but i'm pretty sure it's that way. And probably they also returned a negative result for the negative control.

But that was my last reply to that discussion. If you reply to this, i will not continue. Your choice.

no Eric they said they could but did not publish the fact.These are the same people who failed to comply with scientific proceedure and ethics and used a false cohort. once the study was published they rerospectively saidthat they could without providing any evidence.The other european researchers refused the offer of a positive sample.You have used many words and offered nothing but ill informed speculation .You have nothing to continue with you never had any coherent argument in the first place.Science deals in established facts not supposition

 

[eric_s]

no Eric they said they could but did not publish the fact.These are the same people who failed to comply with scientific proceedure and ethics and used a false cohort. once the study was published they rerospectively saidthat they could without providing any evidence.The other european researchers refused the offer of a positive sample.You have used many words and offered nothing but ill informed speculation .You have nothing to continue with you never had any coherent argument in the first place.Science deals in established facts not supposition

I will break my word and come back for one more reply, even though i know it's not a good thing to do. But i want to correct this. You should be a bit more exact, it's not the first time you make claims about previous statements by either you or me that are untrue, as documented by this very forum (anyone can go back to the postings in question and check as long as you don't edit them). If you go back and read what i've written, you will see that i said "positive control", not "positive blood sample". I realize though that a blood sample is probably the better control.
[Edit: And even though i very much hope that the WPI is right, you don't mention the fact that the Dutch group at least claimed to have proposed to the WPI to exchange cohorts. We have to see everything, not just what we want to see.]
If you're so sure, why don't you accept my offer to have a jury, i suggest at least one person holding a PhD in microbiology, give their opinion?
Now this will be my last reply, no matter what you say.

 

[eric_s]

Time for truth

Omg.. this is going pretty far now. Martlet, i will send you a scan of my passport, birth certificate, same for both of my parents if you like. If you agree in writing that you will not pass them on and delete them after looking at them. Will that be enough to convince you? If not, what do you need?
[Moderator message: Have removed personal identifying information.]
The picture will be up until 17/5 16:00 CEST. I kindly ask everyone not to download them and not to pass the links on. Maybe this would even violate the terms and conditions of the hosting site, i did not check that.

I actually do put my money where my mouth is, in every regard. All i have said on this forum i can prove.

Anyone else who has made claims is invited to do the same.

Best regards
Eric

EDIT: The little heart is for all my friends here ;-))))

 

[Gerwyn]

I will break my word and come back for one more reply, even though i know it's not a good thing to do. But i want to correct this. You should be a bit more exact, it's not the first time you make claims about previous statements by either you or me that are untrue, as documented by this very forum (anyone can go back to the postings in question and check as long as you don't edit them). If you go back and read what i've written, you will see that i said "positive control", not "positive blood sample". I realize though that a blood sample is probably the better control. If you're so sure, why don't you accept my offer to have a jury, i suggest at least one person holding in PhD in microbiology, give their opinion?
Now this will be my last reply, no matter what you say.[/QU

Opinions have nothing to do with the scientific method Eric.There were no positive controls.Mclure used water.Groom used patients with lllnesses related to endogenous retroviruses.our dutch friends used porcine virus.

If they had used a positive control they would have been in danger of having their methods disproved would they not?

In scientific terms a positive control and positive blood sample is exactly the same thing

You are probably the least qualified poster to complain that another persons post should be more exact as you have used no facts whatsoever

 

[oerganix]

Here is a scan of two of my passports, the current one and an old one, to document how long i have been a Swiss national (since birth and so have been my parents, my family has always been Swiss).
Furthermore, i have added screenshots of both the donations i have generated for the WPI.
If you look at the screenshots you will see that my version of Windows is not an english one.

Those are the thumbnails and links to the pictures



EDIT: The little heart is for all my friends here ;-))))

Eric, you do not have to prove to who you are. I believed you when you said English is not your first language. I have had several Swiss friends, most who do not use English as well as you do.

I would suggest you delete your personal information from the above post, for your own ID safety.

 

[Adam]

Eric, you do not have to prove to who you are. I believed you when you said English is not your first language. I have had several Swiss friends, most who do not use English as well as you do.

I would suggest you delete your personal information from the above post, for your own ID safety.

Same goes here Eric. No need to prove who you are.

 

[Knackered]

(Moderator message: Have removed large image that bears no relationship to the thread)

In case anyone was wondering who I was.

 

[_Kim_]

(Moderator message: Have removed large image unrelated to topic of post)
Oh Knackered, I thought you were a little bit older than that

 

[Orla]

Eric, I think you should remove that personal stuff for your own safety. This forum can be viewed by anyone (so non-members as well as member), and you need to be careful about potential problems with identity theft.

And from what I could tell (I was only skimming some posts) Martlet was not criticising you re which was your first language etc. I think she was making a genuine mistake, and not a criticism.

Orla

 

[oerganix]

Eric, I think you should remove that personal stuff for your own safety. This forum can be viewed by anyone (so non-members as well as member), and you need to be careful about potential problems with identity theft.

And from what I could tell (I was only skimming some posts) Martlet was not criticising you re which was your first language etc. I think she was making a genuine mistake, and not a criticism.

Orla

Yes, I think Martlett was just saying that your command of English is as good as one who has it as a first language.

 

[eric_s]

The way i understand her, she was suggesting i'm a liar. I'm not.

I'm well aware that this forum is publicly accessible and i was thinking about what i'm doing before doing it.

Anyone who can read a telephone directory can get my name (and here it's not even visible). Neither is my date of birth, height etc. a secret. From that picture noone can get the complete set of my personal data. Just the passport number was critical for security reasons, i felt.
The only thing i was worried about is that someone could take this as a model to forge a passport. But i'm sure there are plenty of such pictures available already, so that should not be a problem. Publishing it might be illegal after Swiss law though, i did not check that, but i guess i'll take that risk.

Please tell me what dangers you see, i'm curious. This is not a credit card number. I don't see what anyone could do with this information.

And knackered, the person who edited your image did quite a good job, but i think anyone can see that the letters in my image don't look like letters inserted by a photo processing software. If it was you, then i suggest you put your time and talent to better use.

Eric

 

[Knackered]

Please tell me what dangers you see, i'm curious. This is not a credit card number. I don't see what anyone could do with this information.

And knackered, the person who edited your image did quite a good job, but i think anyone can see that the letters in my image don't look like letters inserted by a photo processing software. If it was you, then i suggest you put your time and talent to better use.

Eric

It was just a silly joke Eric. Type Batman Bin Suparman in to google and you'll see that image all over the place.

 

[Martlet]

The way i understand her, she was suggesting i'm a liar. I'm not.

As far as I am aware, Eric, you did not state your nationality. Location is meaningless, given that many of us live in countries other than those of our birth. If English is not your first language, then you should be taking my mistake as a compliment!

Now once again, please get back to the subject of this thread. Everyone.

 

[Cort]

It's people hitting the report button?

Person X says something to Gerwyn, Gerwyn retorts, Person X doesn't like it then hits the report button?

Then Gerwyn's made to look the bad guy.

Gerwyn knows that all she has a propensity to make cutting comments at times and we, as moderators, hear about it.

I'm afraid I made a blunder which provoked Gerwyn. In the course of switching between the four studies available, I got fixated on a problem in the paper by Groom et al. Gerwyn apparently didn't recognize my humble appeals for direction to the source of some information on samples as real. I had pretty well written the Erlwein et al. paper off, and didn't realize I was supposed to be reading that. We were talking at cross purposes, and I was at fault for not catching my error.

It is fine to point out errors; please do not point them out in a belittling or condescending manner - do not question peoples intelligence or motives. IF everyone treats each with respect we can have fantastic conversations about all areas under the sun. Let's let the debates continue.

Others put forward "beliefs" for other quite different reasons.

We have had many examples of the latter in recent days and week

Please debate the posts on the facts not on their ulterior motives - of which quite frankly none of us has any idea or any way of finding out. For one thing its difficult to know where to stop.... If you think someone is simply being disruptive and rude please communicate that to the moderators otherwise please DO NOT bring conspiracy theories regarding forum members into the conversation.

repeating personal opinion, questioning fact, questioning Gerwyn's ability to comment, qualifications is in itself harassment and is causing distress. -Adam I

Here's my assessment - questioning facts is fine, questioning Gerwyn ability to comment and qualifications is questionable altho I would note that Gerwyn has certainly done that in the past . Overall I think questioning qualifications is dangerous - things can go south quickly - and its better not to do it. I encourage people not to do that - things get personal too quickly.

We can have it all you know - Gerwyn's curiosity and interest and informed ideas and discussions that don't get personal and turn into pissing contests. Lets just resolve to have it all.

 

[Cort]

If people stopped repeating unfounded propaganda and did not come from other forums to cause mischief for political reasons we would be in even better shape.I generally get combative when people repeatedly make claims they pretend to be based on science when they are not.I do that because i think it.s wrong to distress vulnerable people with such tactics.I generally only do it when people keep presenting the same faux claims time and time again despite being presented with the scientific evidence to the contrary.I do admit that I put the sensitivities of the many well ahead of the sensitivities of the few.If they cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.Yes I do get cutting as a last resort.I have never insulted anyone personally and anyone presented with the same spiel time and time again would be at least a little cutting and probably do a lot worse

a and did not come from other forums to cause mischief for political reasons we would be in even better shape.

We have banned several people who were obviously here to cause some mischief.

I do admit that I put the sensitivities of the many well ahead of the sensitivities of the few.If they cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.Y

Please keep providing your analysis and digging into the topics at hand but please do not do so in an insulting manner.

 

[Cort]

One more thing: This same poster thought it was perfectly all right to mock Gerwyns punctuation, a blatant attempt to trivialize his arguments. (This was not the gentle teasing Gerwyn's idiosyncratic way with the keyboard has sometimes received, given and taken with high affection)

If that happened then that's a engregious breach of the Forum ethics.

 

[Cort]

The only thing that i really can't accept is people making up weird assumptions about my motives. That's going too far. I'm in this fight because i have CFS myself and if people accuse me of being dishonest and trying to hurt the cause, then i hope they are aware of the gravity of what they are saying.

This has got to stop. The Forum is filled with all sorts of different types of patients who have different viewpoints and probably different types of illness. We need to have the room to have have different opinions aired without someone questioning another person's motives or illness.

 

[Cort]

Tone is an interpretation and not fact.I do not apologise for being direct but I have never knowingly belittled or insulted anyone.I strongly resent the accusation that I have.Dismantling an argument is not like dismantling a person.If belittling is the issue then i am not the guilty party, there are however many members of the forum who are guilty of that charge.They engage in it repeatedly without censure of any kind



I express my views honestly and sincerely and if that upsets people because they don't like what they hear then that is not my fault

Its not because Gerwyn is presenting the wrong facts - its not because at times she is very aggressive in her posts. This is not rocket science. This is not an attack against Gerwyn. This is a problem for the moderators who are committed to having an even tone on the Forums and have to deal with complaints about that. This is a fixable (although not necessarily easy) issue. We had one person state they were leaving the Forums on this thread and another, to my impression, suggest that they might be.

 

[Mark]

All of what Cort said. Brilliant.

And it's also true that Gerwyn does have some really irritating provocation to contend with.