big new post from Hillary Johnson

[Eric Johnson from I&I]

New from Hillary Johnson

http://oslersweb.com/blog.htm

 

[Sam Carter]

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
A scientist who is familiar with the data in the PNAS paper has told me that its authors found a prevalence of XMRV infection in the patients studied that was the equivalent to or greater than the positivity rate described by Science authors (which was 67 percent). In addition, these researchers reportedly performed their experiments on even more patient blood samples than were used by the Science authors. The samples came from sufferers who lived in the Northeastern U.S.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
(emphasis added)

Dr. David Bell's cohort, surely? The cohort likely to be further studied in Dr. Maureen Hanson's NIH funded study. [1]

And Dr. Alter worked with Dr. Shyh-Ching Lo on the NIH/FDA study? Jeez. Even I'm reaching for my tin-foil helmet.

[1] http://projectreporter.nih.gov/project_info_description.cfm?aid=7977530&icde=4320788

 

[serenity]

wow, bravo!

 

[hvs]

I share both her theories and the snippets of evidence she and others are getting seem to support them:
1. Its pretty straightforward CDC CYA,
and,
2. Its a stalling/diminishing game in light of the huge repercussions confirmation will lead to.

 

[anciendaze]

I think I've found the connection with those goat sera used to validate their assay.

For all conspiracies, there is a problem caused by the fact that conspiracies operate at the intellectual level of their least acute participants. Set the bar too high, and people can't figure out which way their effort should be directed. When you arrive at the modern heart of darkness you don't find a Kurtz, certainly not a Hannibal Lecter, not even a Dr. Moriarty. My own experience has fit a different genre, Scott Adams world of Dilbert. The title "Seven Years of Highly Defective People" sticks in my mind.

In such a world, scientists don't see farther because they stand on the shoulders of giants, they get booted out for having stepped on the toes of midgets.

This should help you develop a profile for the villains you seek. Don't look for too much savvy. Check carefully around knee high.

 

[Cort]

I share both her theories and the snippets of evidence she and others are getting seem to support them:
1. Its pretty straightforward CDC CYA,
and,
2. Its a stalling/diminishing game in light of the huge repercussions confirmation will lead to.

I've actually come to the conclusion that her interpretation is wrong and it's precisely because of your second point - that it's nothing more than a stalling game. If that's true then why do it? My conclusion is that in a scenario of this sort - when many different competent researchers are working - that it simply doesn't pay to be wrong; all it does is hurt you in the long run. The few months of glory will mean nothing when history shows you to be on the wrong end of the stick..

So, unless you're just psychologically over the bend on this issue and can't help yourself or as, Anciendaze suggests, they're just mental midgets - why do it?...While Dr. Reeves may be a bit over the bend on CFS I can't imagine that the AIDS division is. Therefore my conclusion is that the CDC and the rest simply think they are right.

The WPI and NCI and Cleveland Clinic and Dr. Alter think they are wrong........Time will tell

 

[August59]

Goat sera????????

The connection with the goat sera is called "Scape Goat"!!!!

 

[hvs]

ITherefore my conclusion is that the CDC and the rest simply think they are right.

That might be correct, and it's attractive for its simplicity.
If that's true, then it's especially pathetic and deluded of them to have used their bogus pool of subjects when the WPI team elaborated on who their subjects were. Self-deluding, too, to have used collection methods that assured that they were not following WPI protocol. Crazy to BOTH be certain they were right AND cheat to assure the results they expected.

 

[Dr. Yes]

They aren't crazy. And I sincerely doubt that they think they're right. They would not assume that the FDA and NIH labs were both wrong - independently. They would have wondered why their testing of the WPI positives was negative while Ila Singh's was positive. And if they actually still did think they were right, would they really have tried to get the FDA/NIH paper suspended? (The last two points assume that HJ's and Mindy Kitei's reports are accurate, of course.)

 

[kwietsol]

Cort --

From your always interesting buzz page:

"Instead of the broad ranging conspiracy theory to keep CFS patients down a more likely explanation for the events that have taken place is that everybody thinks they are correct. In this scenario the CDC tests the WPI samples, is unable to find XMRV in them, believes it knows why and then proceeds to put its stake in the sand by publishing it's paper. (In this scenario the CDC believes it can find XMRV and that XMRV is actually not present in the WPI samples! (How does that happen?)"​

Cort, do you (or anyone else) have a theory of how your last assertion could be true? That the CDC believed that XMRV was not actually present in the WPI-certified XMRV blood samples sent by the WPI?

I'm trying to consider all possible scenarios given the facts we know, but I get stuck here.

 

[Recovery Soon]

And I sincerely doubt that they think they're right. if they actually still did think they were right, would they really have tried to get the FDA/NIH paper suspended?

Right- no matter their opinion they would not try to obstruct science if they were above board.

Such actions do not smack of confidence.

 

[muffin]

Where is Hillary's new blog?

Was waiting to hear what Hillary was going to say about this whole thing and it's not there now, as of 10:47pm EST.

 

[Tembo]

Was waiting to hear what Hillary was going to say about this whole thing and it's not there now, as of 10:47pm EST.

I cant see anything either - there are no new July updates showing?

 

[Cort]

They aren't crazy. And I sincerely doubt that they think they're right. They would not assume that the FDA and NIH labs were both wrong - independently. They would have wondered why their testing of the WPI positives was negative while Ila Singh's was positive. And if they actually still did think they were right, would they really have tried to get the FDA/NIH paper suspended? (The last two points assume that HJ's and Mindy Kitei's reports are accurate, of course.)

Its just a big mystery. I cannot fit it all together. I agree they must've wondered why their testing did not show XMRV while Singh's did. (She must've been wondered about the opposite). It all comes down to feeling very certain about your results; if you're feeling very certain about your results - if you feel that you've figured out the sampling dilemma, then maybe you go to the NIH and say - they are wrong, here's why they are wrong and here's what we think they should make them do that will show them that they're wrong. Or maybe they don't go to the DHHS at all - the DHHS comes to them and looks at Alter's study and thinks they've got the upper hand right now.

Kwietsol, I can't put the pieces together - how not finding XMRV in the WPI's samples works for them. I imagine that it could be that there is a very closely connected virus that is showing up and the CDC is the only one able to distinguish between the two thus far. That doesn't really make a lot of sense since as I remember the WPI cloned the virus and it was XMRV......I just don't know about this XMRV plasmid they got from Silverman; they plop it into their samples and can find it but can't find XMRV in the WPI's samples. Yet Silverman works with WPI on XMRV! So he believes its in there and he knows how to find XMRV - he has it, in hand! So he can apparently find it in their samples.....its crazy stuff....

I don't know. I just can't think that they are willing to saw the branch of the limb they're sitting on either. I think they think they've got it and the WPI thinks they've got it and we'll see who has the real answer.

If the CDC thinks they figured out why XMRV was really NOT in the WPI's sample I imagine there's a paper on that coming down the pike at some point. I imagine, though, that Illa Singh - an accomplished researcher - is making darned certain that all her tests are up to snuff.

 

[kwietsol]

Thanks, Cort. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

It is all so very strange. And now Hillary, at least temporarily, has pulled her story. Stranger and stranger.

 

[muffin]

Maybe Hillary got more info, like that the FDA and NIH will be able to publish or the studies will never be released? Guess we have to wait and see what she comes back with.

 

[Ash]

There is no July post in Google's cache of the page that I can see either

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

There is another option, she misunderstood someone and revealed something she shouldn't have.

Cort, I agree, none of this is making any sense.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Tina

 

[taniaaust1]

Did anyone copy what Hilary did have up but isnt there now? i'd like to see what was written for interest).

 

[Levi]

Didn't copy it, but I DID read it. She posited that Dr. Fauci may be the NIH puppetmaster (sorry Cort) behind the quashing of the Alter paper. If true, then the NIH/PNAS paper is toast. And the story was eerily foretold last year here:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...rers-vindication-in-a-virus/?apage=7#comments (see comment 155)

Did anyone copy what Hilary did have up but isnt there now? i'd like to see what was written for interest).