Article: XMRV at the NIH State Of Knowledge Workshop (SOK): The Mikovits Coffin Debate

Article: XMRV at the NIH State Of Knowledge Workshop (SOK): The Mikovits Coffin Deba

You can view the page at http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?401-XMRV-at-the-SOK-The-Mikovits-Coffin-Debate-CFS-NIH

 

I think they (hopefully) are scientists first - not out to win popularity polls - or one side or the other - that's not the point - ME/CFS has by default brought the scientific retroviral world into an era of what should be a research challange (isn't that what they seek). There may be no Nobel Prize but quietly (and there are some) who simply seek to alleviate suffering by increase of study and understanding alone. Lets hope we have them.

 

Is there any risk that the BWG and Lipkin samples could be rigged to intentionally produce certain results or lack of results?

 

At 6:55 Alter says: "The fact that contamination can occur, and nobody doubts that, does not men that it has occurred in any given laboratory...

There is as yet NO DIRECT EVIDENCE for contamination in either the Mikovits lab or the Lo laboratories."


[video=youtube;hWN3rkbXCm4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWN3rkbXCm4&feature=related[/video]

 

Actually I am taking the words out of his mouth and putting them into the paper. That is what he said to me and some reporters and bloggers. One of them specifically asked him about the variability question - whether he felt the MLV's fit into the broad XMRV picture.
.

What other reporters and Bloggers did he say this to besides you? I would like to ask them if they have the same interpretation of his words as you do.

So far no bloggers or reporters have reported that he said this that I am aware of.

 

Cort, You think Coffin is "The supreme scientist"???? He knows damn well what has gone on. He is quite well aware and that is exactly his motive for wanting to "move beyond XMRV". A lab created recombinant retrovirus is not something anyone wants to hear about never mind contract. Coffin is not the only one with a motive to bury HGRV/RCR research

I think Dr. Coffin is someone with a substantial record in retrovirology but I think your argument is a little backwards. Coffin theory rests on the idea that XMRV was caused by a laboratory accident and he's shown how that could have occurred. He's actually shown that the precursors for XMRV are found in the very laboratory mice that were used in to build that prostate cancer cell line. In doing so he more than anyone probably is the foremost acknowledger of the fact that it could be a laboratory created recombinant virus.

If he was worried about that fact my guess is that he would never have shown it in the conference - he would have hidden it away and it never would have seen the light of day. So he is promoting the fact that it IS a laboratory recombinant. I don't think that fits your theory.

I just don't agree with bury XMRV conspiracy or whatever theory and this is why; look at the Lipkin study - 1300 samples going to the WPI, Lo and the CDC and at the BWG study with five or so labs among them. Both studies were created with input from the WPI. That is more than enough research to tell us if XMRV is in CFS patients or not.

The truth is going to come out no matter what Coffin or Stoye or Dr. Mikovits or anybody says at this point. Somebody is going to be wrong (unless something really weird happens ) and Coffin giving his viewpoint at this point isn't going to (and obviously hasn't) changed the fact that these definitive studies are going on. The only way to bury XMRV is stop those studies - right?

Since Coffin is probably a pretty smart guy and realizes that Ian Lipkin and the BWG are not going to stop their experiments because he, he John Coffin, believes XMRV is not going to work out, my guess is that he is simply stating what he believes...He was on the fence for a long time - now he's off the fence - that's the tough part to take..that this person who was quite excited about XMRV is now in his mind quite sure that it is not going to work that...He doesn't think its there but doesn't want everybody to figure that out.....he just does not believe its there anymore and that's too bad...

 

Is there any risk that the BWG and Lipkin samples could be rigged to intentionally produce certain results or lack of results?

The trials were created in collaboration with Dr. Mikovits and the Lo/Alter team. They both have alot to gain from findings XMRV or MLV's. They are presumably in the mix partially to give their seal of approval to the results.

 

let me throw this out there, WPI was created specifically to help and find the cause of ME/CFS and neuroimmune diseases and they found XMRV a retrovirus, a retrovirus has always been suspected to be the culprit of ME/CFS, Coffin has never helped ME/CFS research he has never seen ME/CFS patients, ha was never there for any of it and i can bet my life savings that if XMRV gets buried(which i doubt) he will not be there to do any further research and to help ME/CFS patients DON'T LISTEN TO THIS FOOL!

 

What other reporters and Bloggers did he say this to besides you? I would like to ask them if they have the same interpretation of his words as you do.

So far no bloggers or reporters have reported that he said this that I am aware of.

I'm not going to 'out' anybody but there was someone there that has been very pro XMRV and we were both standing there and we'll see if it shows up.

Amy Dockser Marcus was one of them and she reported

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/04/08/at-nih-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-conference-xmrv-debate-heats-up/

The referee in the fracas was Harvey Alter, part of a different group of scientists who found a family of retroviruses (to which XMRV also belongs) in patients with CFS. Alter said that he found Coffins data about the origins of XMRV very convincing, but questions the next step in Coffins suggestion, that the XMRV findings in patients are the result of contamination.

which is actually a bit stronger than what I said and the rest of it mirrors what I reported.

 

Whatever - truth will out -usually does in the end.

 

I too want to urge extreme caution when reading this summary. Instead of going into great detail about the bias of this article, I instead want to focus on the new talking point that is being sold to us.

Namely: Anything but XMRV.

In essence, they concede that there might be an infectious agent underlying ME/CFS, just not XMRV. This idea manifests in a variety of forms:

• Coffin's statement at SOK that it was time to move past XMRV, but that CFS could be caused by some other HGRV.
• Cort's unsubstantiated assertion that Alter "no longer appears to believe the MLV sequences that he and Dr. Lo found are part of a larger XMRV family; instead he believes that they are probably separate entities."

It is important to recognize when you are being sold this idea for three reasons:

Firstly, it is a rhetorical device that is used to emotionally deflect from illogical and unsupported positions. It makes the person saying it appear to have a genuine interest in the disease, despite unscientific efforts to derail XMRV. Put another way, it is empty emotional manipulation.

Secondly, this idea (esp. as presented by Coffin) is rather meaningless. "XMRV" is just a name for a still-poorly-understood virus. "XMRV" is a placeholder until more is understood about genetic variability. Likewise, "HIV" meant something different in the early days of its discovery than it does now. To say that this particular name (XMRV) doesn't exist, while other viruses in the same classification (HGRV) could exist is merely a semantic ploy.

Lastly, this seems to be the currently favored approach to cool off public interest XMRV. Whether the intent is to fully bury it or merely delay research until XMRV can be "re-discovered" as a differently named HGRV, I can't say. Regardless, this concept ("Anything but XMRV") should be recognized for what it is: a semantic ploy used to distract from the unscientific politicization of XMRV research.

 

Then why have no actual reporters written this? You sais that he said he is leaning towards contamination. I'm sure we can get some real reporters to verify that.

 

I too want to urge extreme caution when reading this summary. Instead of going into great detail about the bias of this article, I instead want to focus on the new talking point that is being sold to us.

This happens every now and then....someone complains about the 'bias' and then says rather than go into it....I'm going to talk about XXXXX....I would appreciate that if you're going to label it as 'biased' that you actually point out which points are biased....Otherwise there's no other way for me to respond to that.

 

I said this on another thread, but I remember (and so do others) that Ruschetti found XMRV in Alter and Los samples.

 

Amy Dockser Marcus was one of them and she reported

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/04/08/at-nih-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-conference-xmrv-debate-heats-up/



which is actually a bit stronger than what I said and the rest of it mirrors what I reported.

Actually, Cort, this is completely wrong. What Amy Dockser Marcus said was a direct quote from Alter in the video. You have stated that Alter told you, in private conversation, that "he is now personally leaning to the idea that XMRV was accidentally created in a lab and somehow got into the WPIs samples." This assertion about Alter's overall viewpoint is much stronger than Alter's own comment on the strength of Coffin's data.

You also stated: "He no longer appears to believe the MLV sequences that he and Dr. Lo found are part of a larger XMRV family; instead he believes that they are probably separate entities."

Both of these statements are much stronger characterizations of Alter's position than what Marcus wrote. And both were taken from an unrecorded conversation between you and Alter (supposedly). These are potentially defamatory mis-characterizations and I think you need to provide evidence of their veracity.

 

But questions the next step in Coffins suggestion, that the XMRV findings in patients are the result of contamination.

This statement is not what you are saying at all. It says that Alter QUESTIONS Coffin's next step regarding XMRV being a result of contamination. Totally oppposite.

 

I too want to urge extreme caution when reading this summary. Instead of going into great detail about the bias of this article, I instead want to focus on the new talking point that is being sold to us.

Namely: Anything but XMRV.

In essence, they concede that there might be an infectious agent underlying ME/CFS, just not XMRV. This idea manifests in a variety of forms:

• Coffin's statement at SOK that it was time to move past XMRV, but that CFS could be caused by some other HGRV.
• Cort's unsubstantiated assertion that Alter "no longer appears to believe the MLV sequences that he and Dr. Lo found are part of a larger XMRV family; instead he believes that they are probably separate entities."

It is important to recognize when you are being sold this idea for three reasons:

Firstly, it is a rhetorical device that is used to emotionally deflect from illogical and unsupported positions. It makes the person saying it appear to have a genuine interest in the disease, despite unscientific efforts to derail XMRV. Put another way, it is empty emotional manipulation.

Secondly, this idea (esp. as presented by Coffin) is rather meaningless. "XMRV" is just a name for a still-poorly-understood virus. "XMRV" is a placeholder until more is understood about genetic variability. Likewise, "HIV" meant something different in the early days of its discovery than it does now. To say that this particular name (XMRV) doesn't exist, while other viruses in the same classification (HGRV) could exist is merely a semantic ploy.

Lastly, this seems to be the currently favored approach to cool off public interest XMRV. Whether the intent is to fully bury it or merely delay research until XMRV can be "re-discovered" as a differently named HGRV, I can't say. Regardless, this concept ("Anything but XMRV") should be recognized for what it is: a semantic ploy used to distract from the unscientific politicization of XMRV research.

I'm really struck by some of the language here....like you are being 'sold' something...What do you think that I'm selling and how am I profiting from this? Any article that is not pro-XMRV runs the possibility of generating negative responses and believe me its not fun. I would much, much rather print pro-XMRV material - it makes my life so much easier....

As to the rest - I think these are researchers having differences - no ploys, no longterm agendas - just researchers arguing out what each thinks the facts mean in a rather public way.

 

This happens every now and then....someone complains about the 'bias' and then says rather than go into it....I'm going to talk about XXXXX....I would appreciate that if you're going to label it as 'biased' that you actually point out which points are biased....Otherwise there's no other way for me to respond to that.

Cort, it is much harder and more time-consuming to write non-fiction than it is to write fiction.

Furthermore, this is simply not true. Anyone can take a look at my comment history, where I have specifically pointed out many, many, many of your biased, flawed, deceptive positions. That I don't want to correct your specific mistakes, yet again, does not make them correct.

 

Hopefully end of story Cort - enormously gratefull for all you and PR bring (time, energies, etc) for us all. How else would we know the very latest and best.

 

Actually, Cort, this is completely wrong. What Amy Dockser Marcus said was a direct quote from Alter in the video. You have stated that Alter told you, in private conversation, that "he is now personally leaning to the idea that XMRV was accidentally created in a lab and somehow got into the WPIs samples." This assertion about Alter's overall viewpoint is much stronger than Alter's own comment on the strength of Coffin's data.

You also stated: "He no longer appears to believe the MLV sequences that he and Dr. Lo found are part of a larger XMRV family; instead he believes that they are probably separate entities."

Both of these statements are much stronger characterizations of Alter's position than what Marcus wrote. And both were taken from an unrecorded conversation between you and Alter (supposedly). These are potentially defamatory mis-characterizations and I think you need to provide evidence of their veracity.

OK so we know that Alter personally finds Coffins arguments about the origins of XMRV 'very convincing'. Which means that he believes that XMRV was created in a lab between 1992 and 1996 from a prostate cancer cell line.

I said 'leaning' and she said 'very convincing' so her emphasis was more forceful than mine but I did go further when I reported that he stated that the MLV's are probably not part of the XMRV family. All I can say is that that's how I remember it.

 

Cort, it is much harder and more time-consuming to write non-fiction than it is to write fiction.

Furthermore, this is simply not true. Anyone can take a look at my comment history, where I have specifically pointed out many, many, many of your biased, flawed, deceptive positions. That I don't want to correct your specific mistakes, yet again, does not make them correct.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. I would note that I don't call your posts 'biased' or 'deceptive' or accuse you of trying to 'sell something' or suggest that you don't have a 'genuine interest' in this disease. Instead of attacking my motives I would appreciate it if you would do the same courtesy with me and focus on the facts. I think we'll get alot further into the subject that way...