*2 new* letters, Myra McClue, Annette Whittemore

[Cookie Monster]

I really don't want any "help" from McClure, for three basic reasons:

(1) she is obviously capable of blinding arrogance,

(2) she is obviously capable of being very unprofessional (see her press comments, especially to the BBC),

(3) she is obviously capable of crappy science.

Very good points indeed - although it is insufficient for us to let it lie now - i think many of us were holding back in the hope that some co-operation may have been prevailing in the background, however we now have clear proof that isnt going to happen.

How can one person and a weasal take it upon themselves to act on behalf of the regulatory authorites in this country and even then produce such an unprofessional and rushed piece of work? That isnt ethical practice and surely those initial decisions are way outside of her and the Weasal's durisdiction anyway. They arent tasked with monitoring how doctors are prescribing treatments - that is under the remit of the GMC.

I wonder if there is a regulatory type body that McClure practices under...if someone were considering lodging an official complaint against her? *whistles*

 

[fred]

They arent tasked with monitoring how doctors are prescribing treatments - that is under the remit of the GMC.

And what a fine job they make of this remit.

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Unbelieveable isnt it!

She's saying she doesnt want to play anymore - just after she stuck a knife in to puncture the f-ing ball .

LOL. Cookie Monster's put it more elegantly here than I ever could!

 

[Gerwyn]

LOL. Cookie Monster's put it more elegantly here than I ever could!

with that letter her scientific credibility has gone.Retrovirologists all over the world know exactly what her letter means. Correct protocol would be to validate her assay they all know that.But as she says she just runs a lab.perhaps they will take pity on her!

 

[gu3vara]

Nobel prize for McClure

 

[jimbob]

McClure McClueless!

 

[Forbin]

I always suspected that Mrs. Whittemores initial letter was a sort of olive branch in the sense of before confirmatory studies destroy your career, here is an opportunity to save face by accepting our offer to help you.

When someone is arrogant enough to ignore your advice that they stop backing up toward the edge of a cliff, at some point all you can do is wish them a pleasant trip.

Bon Voyage, Dr. McClure.

 

[Ecoclimber]

I don't think it helps our cause if we start making degrogatory comments about other researchers. She may have been set up or used unknowningly by the politics of the situation. We don't know but it sounds like she is pissed off as being the point person on this when maybe other nameless culpits were behind the scenes setting her up. Because of this, she doesn't want to be associated anymore with this research especially if later research nullifies her results....perfectly understandable.

 

[fingers2022]

Movin' on

I really don't want any "help" from McClure, for three basic reasons:

(1) she is obviously capable of blinding arrogance,

(2) she is obviously capable of being very unprofessional (see her press comments, especially to the BBC),

(3) she is obviously capable of crappy science.

I think the doc's post sums it up, and Forbin's signature seems apt here:

"In questions of science,
the authority of a thousand
is not worth the humble reasoning
of a single individual."​

Galileo Galilei 1564-1642​

Time to ignore the noise and move on I think. Humble reasoning shall prevail.

 

[leelaplay]

I don't think it helps our cause if we start making degrogatory comments about other researchers. She may have been set up or used unknowningly by the politics of the situation. We don't know but it sounds like she is pissed off as being the point person on this when maybe other nameless culpits were behind the scenes setting her up. Because of this, she doesn't want to be associated anymore with this research especially if later research nullifies her results....perfectly understandable.

Just a reminder that Dr. McClure, along with Dr Mikovits, is on the scientific committee for the 1st International XMRV Workshop this coming September. It seems that she is not planning on going away soon.

Scientific Committee:
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.

Norbert Bannert, Koch Institute, Germany
Bill Dahut, National Cancer Institute, USA
Rika Furuta, Japanese Red Cross Osaka Blood Center, Japan
Stephen Goff, Columbia University, USA
Walid Heneine, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, USA
Jerry Holmberg, US Dept HHS, Advisory Committee on Blood Safety, USA
Myra McClure, Imperial College London, UK
Judy Mikovits, Whittemore Peterson Institute, USA
Ila Singh, University of Utah, USA
Suzanne Vernon, CFIDS Association of America, USA

 

[leelaplay]

Please tell me that my following thought carries no weight and that I shouldn't be worried.

I get concerned a bit that the WPI is posting what seems to be private correspondence (with a few missing as one astute reader inferred) on their website. I'm not sure that this will win friends and influence people within the scientific community. Other researchers, funders etc that we really want involved, might want to stay away because of this.

 

[fingers2022]

Just a reminder that Dr. McClure, along with Dr Mikovits, is on the scientific committee for the 1st International XMRV Workshop this coming September. It seems that she is not planning on going away soon.

Hi Shrewsbury, I've been away a while but you don't half look like someone I know

McClure just planning on going away from CFS, but not XMRV, you mean?

F

 

[Dr. Yes]

Just a reminder that Dr. McClure, along with Dr Mikovits, is on the scientific committee for the 1st International XMRV Workshop this coming September. It seems that she is not planning on going away soon.

Maybe not.. but never underestimate the lure of a free trip and one more thing to put on your CV!

 

[Gerwyn]

I don't think it helps our cause if we start making degrogatory comments about other researchers. She may have been set up or used unknowningly by the politics of the situation. We don't know but it sounds like she is pissed off as being the point person on this when maybe other nameless culpits were behind the scenes setting her up. Because of this, she doesn't want to be associated anymore with this research especially if later research nullifies her results....perfectly understandable.

she used the wrong technique and she knows it.If a student was told in a viva that there were four known ways to find a virus and asked which one would be best to use.IF he/she said that he /she would use one of their own they would get an F grade and rightly so

 

[Gerwyn]

Please tell me that my following thought carries no weight and that I shouldn't be worried.

I get concerned a bit that the WPI is posting what seems to be private correspondence (with a few missing as one astute reader inferred) on their website. I'm not sure that this will win friends and influence people within the scientific community. Other researchers, funders etc that we really want involved, might want to stay away because of this.

McClur,sbreach of scientific protocol will not go unnoticed

 

[VillageLife]

Please tell me that my following thought carries no weight and that I shouldn't be worried.

I get concerned a bit that the WPI is posting what seems to be private correspondence (with a few missing as one astute reader inferred) on their website. I'm not sure that this will win friends and influence people within the scientific community. Other researchers, funders etc that we really want involved, might want to stay away because of this.

I think everyone is a little worried but they are doing it because we have / are treated so badly by the world. They feel someone has to stick there neck out and fight for us. We are all really un well people and WPI cannot just sit and watch us suffer, now they know the truth about XMRV. It's like if people with cancer were not believed and made to have psychiatric therapy and the scientists wouldn't retest there blood again to see if they have cancer. I'm suprised wpi are so calm, giving what they know and how things are for us. I'm suprised they are so diplomatic.

You only get one life, one chance and I'm proud there fighting for us.

 

[Rivotril]

McClure agrees to cooperate with WPI -> WPI shares her techniques with McClure ->UK samples turn out to be positive in McClure's Lab -> end of scientific reputation of McClure

it's just as simple as that. And McClure already knows by now that WPI did find XMRV in the Dutch samples with their more sophisticated techniques

conclusion: she can win nothing with cooperation, and just lose a lot of things
For her the best escape out of all of this is let another lab solve this..
in the worst case for her, this other lab finds XMRV in UK samples, but this is not so bad news as headlines in the papers as "McClure didn't find anything with her own method and now finds XMRV in her own lab, helped by WPI"

Science is cooperation, sharing results, and helping each other to ultimately find the truth, for the benefit and health of people who are ill
This is more or less the opposite of everything that integer science stands for...

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

My immediate thought was that the Whittemore letter seems to refer to a conversation or comments from McClure that is not in the first letter.

It is nice, after Whittemore's bold first letter, to see McClure taking a friendly, personal tone.

So, McClure wants to obviously stay in XMRV but get out of the CFS part. LOL Honey, I don't blame you. Too complicated. You only put your toe in and ended up in the center of international and vicious debate. It sounds like it is too complicated. We'll leave that ground breaking (and possible Nobel Prize) to those with courage.

I don't know about posting these follow up letters, but I have no problem with the first letter where Whittemore corrected other information in the public. In fact, she should have done it sooner. Incorrect public statements about scientific research must be corrected swiftly and publicly.

Tina

 

[jspotila]

Please tell me that my following thought carries no weight and that I shouldn't be worried.

I get concerned a bit that the WPI is posting what seems to be private correspondence (with a few missing as one astute reader inferred) on their website. I'm not sure that this will win friends and influence people within the scientific community. Other researchers, funders etc that we really want involved, might want to stay away because of this.

McClure's email read very informally to me, and I really hope WPI had her permission to publish it. The CFS community is best served by lots of rigorous research, and the accompanying rigorous discussion/debate among researchers. I don't have any idea whether WPI had McClure's permission, but IF they didn't and they published a direct personal email communication without her permission, I share shrewsbury's concern about a chilling effect on the dialogue. I want everyone to be talking to each other, sharing results and information. We do not want any researcher to think "I'm not going to email WPI (or any other entity) because it might end up on their website." Members of this forum and others have rightly sought permission before publishing personal communications, and when it became apparent permission was not given, forum members have deleted the posts involved. But if WPI had McClure's permission then that makes all the difference. Like I said, I don't know the facts of whether permission was given, so this is all speculation.

 

[Adam]

Maybe not.. but never underestimate the lure of a free trip and one more thing to put on your CV!

Known in UK as a Beano, Junket or Jolly.

Who knows, maybe they can straighten things out over a beer or ten and a best of three arm wrestle?

One can but hope.