I think people who are trashing the reputations of some of the best scientists in these fields should take a look at the careers of these people.
Appealing to past credentials and reputations is merely an appeal to authority, which carries very little weight. It is, at best, tentatively meaningful in the absence of deeper understanding. But many here have moved well past such superficial metrics of research quality.
Their reputations are being "trashed" by virtue of their own efforts: conducting studies that conspicuously avoid the scientific method and fail to withstand cursory examination.
For the first time ever, some of the most objective, competent scientists on this planet are involved in CFS research. Babbling a bunch of nonsenical conspiracy garbage is not helpful to keeping this calibre of researcher involved.
Your labeling them "objective" and "competent" doesn't make them so. Again, ironically, I think you are overlooking the low caliber of their recent actions and research and clinging to the "reputation"-laced narrative that they are "top-notch" and "objective."
I repeat, their research, actions, and words of late do not match the image of them as "objective" and "competent."
And throwing around words like "conspiracy" is, I hate to say, the lowest form of argumentation. It is a technique used to emotionally bully people out of certain lines of discussion.
Wise up. These are good people. The answer is what the answer is. That's science.
And we don't have a definitive answer yet.
Already have. So is my grandmother. An empty platitude is empty. Historical ignorance. Finally, a sentence I can agree with.
I'll take people with a long track record of quality published research in their field every time before researchers whose "results" appear in the media. Where is De Meirleir's H2S research, about which he saw fit to hold a London press conference for major media ? Give me a break.
Again, appealing to reputation and credentials to obscure glut of recent flawed research.
Furthermore, it's very telling that you are soooo concerned with DeMeirleir's media appearance, yet you say nothing of the Wellcome Trust press release or the aggressive media campaigns of McClure, Coffin, and others to end XMRV research.
Indeed, give me a break.
Keep spouting the conspiracy crap against this calibre of researcher and eventually we will go back to having the type of researcher who publishes papers in lesser journals, makes a big song and dance of being "for" the patients, and tends to make media headlines for what they say rather than what they publish. There are a few of them involved in CFS research still. They contribute virtually nothing to the field but their careers trundle along. ( Incidentally, so I'm clear : Judy Mikovits is not in this group ).
The fallacy to word ratio here is impressive. More "conspiracy." More appeal to authority. More historical and political ignorance. More straw men. More character assassination.
When you refer to researchers who make "a big song and dance of being "for" the patients, and tends to make media headlines for what they
say rather than what they
publish," I assume you are talking about John Coffin. After all, he's been on quite the media and conference tour pumping up his
unpublished recombination paper. And his being "for" the patients amounts to nothing more than swooping in and calling for a premature termination of research into their best hope in decades.
Yes, please, I welcome the departure of Coffin and his ilk from XMRV research.
We have been royally screwed by the medical profession for many years and are fully entitled to be angry. But high-quality virologists are not the people to be angry at. I'd love to see this calibre of researcher take some further interest in CFS. That's less likely to happen if they see people accusing them of ridiculous levels of manipulation.
Having said all that, in speaking of manipulation, I wish more outside researchers were aware of the extent of manipulation that is possible with regard to cohorts. How many people in some of this XMRV research actually had the "core" illness - whatever the hell it is ? Has manipulation of cohorts taken place in CFS research ? What criteria are used ? How rigorously are they applied ?
Have researchers in past CFS research been careful in choosing their cohort ? No chance - unless they were setting out to get a particular answer, of course. Diagnostic criteria is the "elephant in the room". Have XMRV researchers been careful in choosing their cohorts ? That's a very interesting question. McClure's cohort from Simon Wessely ? Yes, that's hilarious. If it wasn't so damaging.
So we are entitled to be angry - damn right. But not at the wrong people. And I'm knackered now....What a life we lead.
The rest of this is just emotional backpedaling to give the appearance of genuine discussion after launching a deeply fallacious rhetorical assault.
Finally, of course cohorts are important, but they represent one of about fifty "elephants in the room." Pointing out one elephant exclusively while labeling the others "conspiracy" is just diversionary.
. It is my strong recollection that he does not believe in the family theory and he was directly asked -- something to the effect of ...weren't the MLV's supposed to simply reflect more of XMRV's variability.. and his answer was that he now guessed not. I'm going to stick with that. It is my recollection...I don't have tape on that (I forgot to turn my recorder on until later) and if it's wrong it's wrong and I apologize.
