Article: Four Viruses! Alter Paper Confirms Retroviral Findings in CFS
- Thread starter Phoenix Rising Team
- Start date
Some people. You do not speak for me.
Because he's a closet sexist?
The issue here is that people don't like some of the things Cort has said and would prefer if he didn't say them in future.
Let's simplify - You have not shown ONE piece of credible evidence to support your accusation. NOT ONE. Your civics lesson is falling on deaf ears.
That was indeed a common theme in the discussion of his coverage of the Mikovits/Racaniello interview on the other forum at least. I do not take such an extreme view. Dolphin I know you do understand subtleties well. You must therefore understand that the subconscious use of sexist stereotypes is pervasive, that it colours the ways in which we all go about reacting to the words and actions of others, and that pointing this out does not mean that one is accusing everyone of overt sexism.
If one points it out when criticising one individual, it seems very much like an accusation to me. Just like the racism example given earlier by somebody else.
It needs to be pointed out when employed in a way that does harm.
OK - see post #227.
Your point being?
Not all male scientists are socially impaired obviously, but some are. Their research and important discoveries are not treated with less respect as a result. Cort has used Judy's PR skills to cast doubt on her research. I point you to his triumphant reposting of Trine Tsouderos's article as a case in point.
The majority who have chosen to stay at Phoenix Rising clearly don't share your biased opinion. If your group is going so well -- then why have you voluntarily chosen to come back here?
I can't even believe that you're saying this. For one the article was largely positive. Most of the changes are quite minor - some of them are changes in wording so that V99 and others will not leap to unintended conclusions. The basic conclusion of the article was that something major and positive had occurred and that there were still issues to be resolved. I think that makes sense.
I want to point out that the major changes involve information that I was not aware of at the time and that I believe never been discussed in the Forums. Its an entirely new topic. The big change in the article involved my understanding the nested PCR - something that Dr. Mikovits - who was not at upset at the article at all - has helped with. She recommended, in fact, that I title the new article 'Its complicated' - because it really is very complicated. While I'm sorry I missed it I do understand how I did.
If GHK is going to make an accusation like that I request that you demonstrate that by showing a pattern of behavior wherein I give the wrong information to support the psych lobby. You might start by looking at the Front Pages articles which is where my articles appear. You could then go onto the website into the Research and Treatment sections and show the same. If you can't then please remit your statement.
It's unfortunate YOU keep providing them. And still haven't produced ONE piece of evidence- other than this reminds me of that, and things are so subtle, I can support my own accusations with actual statements.
Your argument has gone AWOL.
1. The beginning of this thread made it perfectly clear that many people here fully support Cort. This does not change the fact that some do not.
2. When people tried to set Cort straight on some important details, something they have tried to do many many times before (and as it has fallen on deaf ears they have become frustrated) they were attacked for daring to criticize him, and for their tone, which, given the history, is actually understandable, if not exactly tactful.
3. Everything is great at the other forum. I have come back to try to get an important activism project going.
4. While back, I have felt compelled to try to counter certain pieces of disinformation. My post, which I invite you to actually read, is a clear and very polite articulation of a set of serious issues. I think it offers a good explanation, if people actually care to read, of why people are frustrated.
busybee asked
Cort, I humbly suggest you change the name of your piece from
"Article: Four Viruses? The Alter XMRV Paper Arrives"
to
"Article: XMRV - like HIV and HTLV, a member of a larger family"
or something similar. The existing title is misleading.
The article is full of errors that anyone who just read the studies and repeated what they said would not make...unless they had an ax to grind or a spin to spin. Cort has a history of subtly spinning valid information to make it seem to say something else.
One example is his contention that FDA said it was cohort, not method, that would account for CDC not being able to find XMRV.
In fact, the FDA article specifically says that "Undefined difference in the methods of sample preparation (remember Vernon mentioned the chemical in the tubes they used for blood collection was inappropriate for viruses?) could be contributing to the discordant test results."
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac.../ucm223232.htm
He once again, tries to make out that WPI didn't do what they did, or that it isn't as important as it is, while speaking out of the other side of his mouth and damning them with faint praise. Mikovits has been quoted all over the web as saying that they have been finding these other variants of MLVs, so his inference that they didn't find them is just spinmeistering and subtle slamming.
Also, his inference that there are "four viruses" is just wrong. XMRV is a variant MLV. He apparently doesn't get that, or doesn't want to stop trying to make out the XMRV variant isn't important.
He emphasizes the murk and ignores the light in this research. He continually emphasizes how hard it is to know anything about this illness. His vested interest is in keeping it mysterious and murky, even if he had to help provide the mud with which to muddy the water.
His frequent mention of contamination is another tactic of the denialists. He then goes on to say how it has been essentially disproven, but he keeps on mentioning it, bringing it back into play, thus keeping it alive. But I doubt that is why WPI will correct him. It probably has to do with his misquoting the FDA article and his inference that WPI hasn't got a clue when it comes to the MLVs that Alter/Lo/Komaroff found.
Harvey Alter and Shyh-Ching Lo both stated in the telebriefing that their work confirmed the work of the WPI. The opposite conclusion could be conferred from the existing article. That is inaccurate, and needs to be changed.
audio links to the telebriefing
Part 1: http://www.mediafire.com/?6phy8fyxxj4mhy9
Part 2: http://www.mediafire.com/?40esxfnjflnyzhz
All the semantics of this science are in flux, being assigned as the discoveries progress. No XMRV, MLV, ME, XAND, NDS (or whatever it is) GERD etc is yet set in stone. A certain humility is appropriate.
Words only try to describe reality.
Good people deal in and discuss ideas. Sad people discuss personalities.
I take the liberty of reposting the things that I am not happy about in the article.
Cort, I humbly suggest you change the name of your piece from
"Article: Four Viruses? The Alter XMRV Paper Arrives"
to
"Article: XMRV - like HIV and HTLV, a member of a larger family"
or something similar. The existing title is misleading.
The article is full of errors that anyone who just read the studies and repeated what they said would not make...unless they had an ax to grind or a spin to spin. Cort has a history of subtly spinning valid information to make it seem to say something else.
One example is his contention that FDA said it was cohort, not method, that would account for CDC not being able to find XMRV.
In fact, the FDA article specifically says that "Undefined difference in the methods of sample preparation (remember Vernon mentioned the chemical in the tubes they used for blood collection was inappropriate for viruses?) could be contributing to the discordant test results."
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVac.../ucm223232.htm
He once again, tries to make out that WPI didn't do what they did, or that it isn't as important as it is, while speaking out of the other side of his mouth and damning them with faint praise. Mikovits has been quoted all over the web as saying that they have been finding these other variants of MLVs, so his inference that they didn't find them is just spinmeistering and subtle slamming.
Also, his inference that there are "four viruses" is just wrong. XMRV is a variant MLV. He apparently doesn't get that, or doesn't want to stop trying to make out the XMRV variant isn't important.
He emphasizes the murk and ignores the light in this research. He continually emphasizes how hard it is to know anything about this illness. His vested interest is in keeping it mysterious and murky, even if he had to help provide the mud with which to muddy the water.
His frequent mention of contamination is another tactic of the denialists. He then goes on to say how it has been essentially disproven, but he keeps on mentioning it, bringing it back into play, thus keeping it alive. But I doubt that is why WPI will correct him. It probably has to do with his misquoting the FDA article and his inference that WPI hasn't got a clue when it comes to the MLVs that Alter/Lo/Komaroff found.
Harvey Alter and Shyh-Ching Lo both stated in the telebriefing that their work confirmed the work of the WPI. The opposite conclusion could be conferred from the existing article. That is inaccurate, and needs to be changed.
audio links to the telebriefing
Part 1: http://www.mediafire.com/?6phy8fyxxj4mhy9
Part 2: http://www.mediafire.com/?40esxfnjflnyzhz
All the semantics of this science are in flux, being assigned as the discoveries progress. No XMRV, MLV, ME, XAND, NDS (or whatever it is) GERD etc is yet set in stone. A certain humility is appropriate.
Words only try to describe reality.
Good people deal in and discuss ideas. Sad people discuss personalities.
you are welcome look for Cort's pervasive attacks on Judy's PR skills, his clear favoratism of Racy opinion over hers in his interview with them both and his exuberant reposting of Trine's article yourself.
You are also welcome to search yourself, though I am sure it will be in vain, for a single instance where he has provided a real critical analysis of the activities and methods of the CAA.
'
Its not a matter of speaking out. Other people spoke out. Dolphin and I also had a disagreement about something in the paper that we discussed amicably and I altered the wording of a sentence there to incorporate his point. Ixcheli pointed out that one of my numbers was wrong and Oceanblue pointed out that the Alter group reported they only tested the CDC findings for XMRV - something I had missed - and opened up something important - all of those ended up in changes to the paper. I inserted a sentence regarding V99's statement on the primers to a paragraph listing reasons the two groups received different results. That should have been in there....it didn't change the outlook of the paper significantly - that topic had already been covered to some extent elsewhere - but it was good to have it there.
I was happy to make all of those mostly small changes - and it seemed to me that the Forum was doing it job - it was analyzing the paper, finding flaws and we were correcting them. We were acting as a community. With V99 it was a different world indeed.
Its a difficult complex topic and while I am going to bring some things to the table I am always going to miss some as well. There is, after all, a lot of different expertise on the Forums - which is what they are about. I am very happy to correct or restate or embellish parts of any paper that needs that.
You're deflecting attention away. No one cares about your original post or your bullet points after you have accused someone of being sexist with no basis.
And your pedantic subtlety argument didn't cut it.
You can't bring this around without producing direct evidence to support what you have said, or retract your statement.
- Status