I can understand questions but some of this is just out of the ballpark.
Explain to me why he chose to feature, and thus to propagate Trine Tsouderos's vitrolic attack on Mikovits through this site, if not to help Trine undermine her: Is he truly not aware of that woman's long, dubious history on autism coverage and anything that even remotely resembles validation of the claim by some parents that their kids got sick after vaccines?
Where have I featured and propogated Tsoudero's article on
XMRV throughout this website? I mentioned the two articles on the XMRV Buzz briefly and probably engaged in some posts on the Forums but that's it. That's not featuring or propogating that's reporting. Have you checked out the Buzz lately? Those mentions are a drop in the ocean compared to everything else on the Buzz page. If you want to see what I've propagated then look at all the XMRV articles on the website.
I realize that I have had some trouble with some of Dr. Mikovits comments and that has upset some people but if that is all you are focused on - if that's ALL you can see then you're missing a great deal. If you can't handle anything that's not wholly positive about XMRV, the WPI or Dr. Mikovits then maybe you should participate elsewhere. The
vast majority of the articles on the website are
very positive about the WPI and their finding and I personally am very excited about the findings. My articles always try to be even-handed as well.
Dr. Mikovits is an excellent and very compassionate researcher with a fine background working with some of the top researchers at the NCI. People with poor research skills do not get into that position. Sure, she's said some things that she probably regretted but the important thing is her Science and that is what I have focused 95% of my attention on. If you choose to focus your attention on the other 5% then that's your choice but be clear that that is what you are choosing to do.
As I've stated repeatedly. There a number of areas I would like to see changes in the CAA. I'd like them to be more aggressive in their advocacy and quicker to take stands on some issues. The success of the ME/CFS Awareness campaign has pointed out some areas where they have been deficient. I think they should be more transparent in their thinking. They have not been particularly adept at communicating at times
)) There are a number of other things. What I object to are wild accusations.
If you have a ground of understanding that only allows negative things to show up then you're not going to contribute to the type of discussion this Forum is devoted to and you should participate elsewhere. So long as you can interact with them or any other subject in a constructive manner then dialogue is fine. If you're simply bent on pointing out again and again what's wrong with them or another group or me or someone else - if your vision is so drenched in 'darkness' then that's all you see - then you're really not contributing to the Forum - you're damaging it . That is not 'dialogue' - that is simply you using the Forums to try and hammer your strongly held opinion onto it.
IUnfortunately it takes an enormous amount of time to rebut someone who is positional and soley bent on being right. Those people in other instances are called Trolls - they are disruptive posters who frequently appear to take the 'high ground' and mark themselves as the purveyors of correctness. They are bent on proving their point - nothing else. I don't think we need purveyors of correctness here. I think we need people who will look at all sides of the issues in an evenhanded manner and try to figure out what's correct.