Peterson did say quite confidently at InvestInME Conference that the study results will be released (I think he said study published) on June 30. That has since been questioned by one source, but most other sources seem to still be saying it's expected this month.
Any news on Lipkin study?
- Thread starter Bevbh
- Start date
Sushi
Moderation Resource Albuquerque
- Messages
- 19,953
- Location
- Albuquerque
Didn't Lipkin himself say that this had been a projected date and that is wasn't going to happen? Saw a letter from him somewhere--maybe Facebook?
Sushi
NIH XMRV Study Update. | Phoenix Rising ME / CFS Forums
Info on the publication push back date was posted here on PR ( see above link)
Info on the publication push back date was posted here on PR ( see above link)
Thanks beaker.
I think Dr Peterson stated at IiME that the study itself had been completed and was now being written up/published. I guess "the work" referred to in the quote above could be that process...but if that Facebook post was on June 4, it's after IiME so I guess it's effectively a response to that, implying that publication date isn't certain.
I find it surprising if Dr Peterson said what he did (with a definite statement on the publication date) without having had confirmation from those involved in the study that publication would be on June 30...and confirmation that it was OK to say so. But that seems to be the case from the Facebook quote (assuming that quote is accurate/reliable). I would be even more surprised if the June 30 date was not at least a reasonably accurate estimate; it would be a bit disappointing if Dr Peterson gave us inaccurate information on this.
I think Dr Peterson stated at IiME that the study itself had been completed and was now being written up/published. I guess "the work" referred to in the quote above could be that process...but if that Facebook post was on June 4, it's after IiME so I guess it's effectively a response to that, implying that publication date isn't certain.
I find it surprising if Dr Peterson said what he did (with a definite statement on the publication date) without having had confirmation from those involved in the study that publication would be on June 30...and confirmation that it was OK to say so. But that seems to be the case from the Facebook quote (assuming that quote is accurate/reliable). I would be even more surprised if the June 30 date was not at least a reasonably accurate estimate; it would be a bit disappointing if Dr Peterson gave us inaccurate information on this.
Sushi
Moderation Resource Albuquerque
- Messages
- 19,953
- Location
- Albuquerque
Hi Mark,
I'm pretty sure I saw a full letter from Dr. Lipkin but I can't be sure of the date or where I saw it. Facebook doesn't seem to be searchable (if that is where I saw it) and it doesn't appear on his page.
Sushi
I'm pretty sure I saw a full letter from Dr. Lipkin but I can't be sure of the date or where I saw it. Facebook doesn't seem to be searchable (if that is where I saw it) and it doesn't appear on his page.
Sushi
There was another Tweet about this
Jenny Spotila asked "it was reported at the CFASC meeting that the XMRV results will be published as a white paper in a few weeks. Can you confirm?"
Response from CII722 "Another false rumour. XMRV paper will be peer reviewed. Will announce on twitter when it is submitted/accepted/published".
(The Center for Infection & Immunity is dedicated to pathogen surveillance & grasping how gene-environment-timing interactions contribute to health & disease. New York City · http://cii.columbia.edu )
Jenny Spotila asked "it was reported at the CFASC meeting that the XMRV results will be published as a white paper in a few weeks. Can you confirm?"
Response from CII722 "Another false rumour. XMRV paper will be peer reviewed. Will announce on twitter when it is submitted/accepted/published".
(The Center for Infection & Immunity is dedicated to pathogen surveillance & grasping how gene-environment-timing interactions contribute to health & disease. New York City · http://cii.columbia.edu )
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Odd how people who ought to know (Dr Petersen, CFSAC) are so very mistaken about when the results are to be published. Seems like we have major communication breakdown not just researchers to patients, but among the people involved in the project itself. Wonder why.
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Could certainly be, but in my experience people in that position tend to be very careful about announcing anything about the research. Still, there are always mix-ups.
I posted about the rumors on my blog. If anyone has additional information to share, please let me know!
http://www.occupycfs.com/2012/06/15/xmrumorsv/
http://www.occupycfs.com/2012/06/15/xmrumorsv/
Daffodil
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,879
if they found something, wouldn't it have been leaked? do all the people involved really keep everything to themselves 100% of the time? maybe they do, i don't know.
I am wondering why people are so shocked that the time line has slipped ? I also was informed by someone involved in the project that it would be late June a preliminary report would be ready. I took this as a goal, not as something written in stone. I certainly look forward to what the conclusions are but if people have to know in advance to the minute that it will be released, you are most likely setting yourself up for a major disappointment. Personally, I appreciate the effort to be informative.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
The dates for these types of things are always fluid.
Peterson seems to have announced a provisional date, which obviously wasn't fixed in stone.
The CII has now said is will be published soon-ish.
The official at the CFSAC said it would be a white paper first, and then published as a peer reviewed article afterwards.
Maybe that was a plan at one time, but maybe they've changed their mind about that, hence the changing dates.
So I don't think we should expect any fixed plans or dates.
The CII stated:
"Hopefully the publication ... will be released relatively soon... That's all we can say 4 now."
https://twitter.com/CII722/status/209802473672675329
Peterson seems to have announced a provisional date, which obviously wasn't fixed in stone.
The CII has now said is will be published soon-ish.
The official at the CFSAC said it would be a white paper first, and then published as a peer reviewed article afterwards.
Maybe that was a plan at one time, but maybe they've changed their mind about that, hence the changing dates.
So I don't think we should expect any fixed plans or dates.
The CII stated:
"Hopefully the publication ... will be released relatively soon... That's all we can say 4 now."
https://twitter.com/CII722/status/209802473672675329
SOC
Senior Member
- Messages
- 7,849
Agreed, dates are always fluid with this kind of thing. What surprises me are the mis-timed announcements by people who ought to know. Researchers are routinely, even habitually, close-mouthed pre-publication, including about deadlines.
That said, some of our researchers know how desperate we are for any kind of information. That might unconsciously influence them to be more talkative than they would ordinarily be.
That said, some of our researchers know how desperate we are for any kind of information. That might unconsciously influence them to be more talkative than they would ordinarily be.
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
And, I think we've all guessed what the outcome is going to be anyway, haven't we?
Your question in that article is (j)spot on:
That's exactly what's puzzling me about all this. Something has gone very wrong in the communication somewhere along the line. It seems to me that there's a suggestion in the way this latest communication has unfolded that somebody near to the heart of all this must be providing unreliable information to people who trust them implicitly - or that somebody is intervening to change the public communications in ways that are still unexpected to those involved.
Oddities like this have characterised the XMRV story since the beginning, in every quarter that has touched on the subject, which has only fuelled the controversy - and by the way, these problems aren't solved by trying to retreat and stay tight-lipped about everything, quite the reverse: it seems to me that what is needed is more accurate, authoritative, consistent, transparent communication, throughout the process. Keeping things under wraps just fuels suspicion, paranoia, and conspiracy theories.
One lesson I've learned from all of this is that even esteemed researchers can be somewhat sloppy in their communications; both from a scientific/research perspective and normal communication. I love a good conspiracy theory but I don't see one here - yet anyway 
One lesson I've learned from all of this is that even esteemed researchers can be somewhat sloppy in their communications; both from a scientific/research perspective and normal communication. I love a good conspiracy theory but I don't see one here - yet anyway
I agree that it's too early to cry conspiracy theory. It is much more likely to be the result of miscommunication. BUT as Mark noted, given how sensitive communications re: XMRV have been from the beginning I had hoped for a bit more cohesiveness in communications.
Daffodil
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,879
well i know we have something that replicates via mitosis - whatever it is - and that its likely a retrovirus...cuz azt brought up my nk cell function a lot...and azt acts on dividing cells, which is why it was considered for cancer. azt doesn't help with herpes viruses and some papers say it makes them worse.
we must continue to fight, no matter what this paper says!
we must continue to fight, no matter what this paper says!