Required reading: XMRV the Virus
Required reading to accompany this article: XMRV the Virus
Don't know how you keep up this prolific learning curve and writing pace! Just wanted to offer readers that your other article from today: XMRV the Virus http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?79-XMRV-the-Virus should be required reading as a companion to this article.
Play to your strengths: Science, not Sensationalism!
One of my biggest concerns about the XMRV replication attempts was that they made conclusions that were not at all in keeping with the science and their fragile methodology. Many readers have written how these leaps of logic diminish the credibility of these authors. With today's two articles, you do a great job of summing up and thoughtfully examining many of the findings to date. I have to say however that I am dismayed that you would join the chorus of premature and sensationalistic conclusions in this article, when your writing on the science (AKA XMRV the Virus) is so thoughtful and compelling.
A cheap (but hopefully helpful) shot from the Peanut Gallery
I guess my cheap shot from the peanut gallery is this: You do such a brilliant job usually of dispassionately summarizing and weighing the science. But I perceive a huge disconnect between some of your conclusions in this article, and the measured, professional, intelligent discussion of science that you typically provide (XMRV the Virus
being a great example).
A few examples of where sensationalism raises its unnecessary head:
"The inability of anyone other than the WPI (and the NCI and Cleveland Clinic)
to find XMRV is mysterious.
it's alarming that no one has yet found even one
CFS patient with an XMRV infection.
The fact that zero of several 100 people with CFS
have tested positive for the virus is alarming...
Were at a real conundrum. "
C'mon Cort... you don't have to join the fray of tabloid and unfounded conclusions on XMRV science ... you do such a fabulous job discussing the science... you don't need sensationalistic and inaccurate conclusions to draw readers to this site!
We're not in any kind of conundrum with XMRV!
There is no mystery. No cause for alarm.
These are VERY early days!:Retro smile:
Look at how long it took the Science
team to do their fine work. As you said yourself,
"Its worth noting as well that no study has come close to matching
the comprehensiveness of the WPIs original study".
So why the gratuitous, alarmist language? Look at how long in the pipeline the XMRV research papers were, that were presented @ the Conference on Retroviral Infections! These rush jobs on ME/CFS/XMRV, with profoundly flawed methodology (UK etc.), don't deserve the influence you're granting them. IF a rigorous, credible, replication study comes out that can't find XMRV in ME/CFS patients - THEN might be the time for sensational language! But your above statements are just not in keeping with the science.
Bottom line, play to your strengths, because they are indeed GREAT! And leave the spurious and premature conclusions to the tabloids. It just diminishes the credibility of an otherwise OUTSTANDING site!:Retro smile: