You can view the page at http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?102-WPI-Throws-the-Glove-Down
Article: WPI Throws the Glove Down
- Thread starter Phoenix Rising Team
- Start date
Exactly! thank you, Gemini! Dr. Fauci is right up there with Reeves in being historically one of our biggest persecutors. He backed up Stephen Straus' anti-science campaign against us, including personally meeting with congressman John Porter to tell him to back off scrutinizing Straus' and NIH's malfeasance and nonfeasance. He is currently an editor of Harrison's Internal Medicine, probably the best-selling medical textbook. The latest edition (that I could view on Amazon) still has the deceased Straus' article as the text's entry on ME/CFIDS chock full of Straus' same old lies he was persecuting us with in the 1980's. Just letting you know, Fauci a persecutor of us on the order of Reeves. (as far as I know; correct me if he's changed his position). We need to stand up to this Bully.
Also, it goes without saying- what gracenote said! Let's please keep demanding the help we deserve as per Dr. Mikovits' spot-on points!
I agree with all those that say regardless of the status of evidence that XMRV is linked to ME, we need to strike while the iron is hot- demand adequate funding and treatment and no more BS from our governments or anyone else.
Regarding whether XMRV is definitively linked to ME: We are dealing with two standards. One is the default scientific community standard that you can't say a study proved anything until it is replicated. This is the only standard the scientific community is going to use to accept WPI's findings in their own minds, in their published opinions and for purposes of funding. It has its place, but I think scientists are too wedded to it. This standard, of course, says that the association hasn't been proven.
The other is the more ad hoc consideration of all the information. This standard, in my mind, says that the XMRV - ME link is proven.
Speaking in scientific fora, I don't think that insisting that the link has been proven is that productive, because scientists are, to an irrational extent IMO, stuck on the idea of validation in another paper. The scientific community standard holds that the fact that NCI and CC achieved the same results doesn't 'prove' the association because they were 'collaborating' and published in the same paper. That mindset doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I do think we can say and insist that the strong link is proven in dealing with non-scientists using the, IMO more valid in this instance, standard of consideration of all the data. At least I will.
I guess I'd use what I guess is kind of a convoluted analogy- but I tend to think in a legal context, that being my trade. Say a guy is tried for murder and for some reason (this would never happen, but bear with me) three separate juries of twelve were impaneled and they all heard the case. The trial went on for months. The prosecuting and defense attorneys were both stellar. Every bit of evidence was thoroughly examined. And all three juries came back with unanimous guilty verdicts.
A few months later three groups of friends are watching a summary of the trial on court tv and they all decide, based on the tv show that they couldn't find the guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then someone points out that one of the groups was watching a different tv show about a different defendant in a different trial (Dutch study of Oxford 'CFS').
The upshot is, the guy is guilty despite a few amateurs voicing their uneducated opinions. The first trial was done so well, we don't need another trial to prove it. That's my view. I am aware that science works differently; I just don't think their process for deciding something is proven makes much sense in this case.
Regarding whether XMRV is definitively linked to ME: We are dealing with two standards. One is the default scientific community standard that you can't say a study proved anything until it is replicated. This is the only standard the scientific community is going to use to accept WPI's findings in their own minds, in their published opinions and for purposes of funding. It has its place, but I think scientists are too wedded to it. This standard, of course, says that the association hasn't been proven.
The other is the more ad hoc consideration of all the information. This standard, in my mind, says that the XMRV - ME link is proven.
Speaking in scientific fora, I don't think that insisting that the link has been proven is that productive, because scientists are, to an irrational extent IMO, stuck on the idea of validation in another paper. The scientific community standard holds that the fact that NCI and CC achieved the same results doesn't 'prove' the association because they were 'collaborating' and published in the same paper. That mindset doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I do think we can say and insist that the strong link is proven in dealing with non-scientists using the, IMO more valid in this instance, standard of consideration of all the data. At least I will.
I guess I'd use what I guess is kind of a convoluted analogy- but I tend to think in a legal context, that being my trade. Say a guy is tried for murder and for some reason (this would never happen, but bear with me) three separate juries of twelve were impaneled and they all heard the case. The trial went on for months. The prosecuting and defense attorneys were both stellar. Every bit of evidence was thoroughly examined. And all three juries came back with unanimous guilty verdicts.
A few months later three groups of friends are watching a summary of the trial on court tv and they all decide, based on the tv show that they couldn't find the guy guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Then someone points out that one of the groups was watching a different tv show about a different defendant in a different trial (Dutch study of Oxford 'CFS').
The upshot is, the guy is guilty despite a few amateurs voicing their uneducated opinions. The first trial was done so well, we don't need another trial to prove it. That's my view. I am aware that science works differently; I just don't think their process for deciding something is proven makes much sense in this case.
Roy,
I'm new to the Forum, but enjoy your posts.
Remember you from the early days.
Gemini