I hear it now in the first time, and I have to say, it's redicilous that a person who is considered to be a scientist says that there is not reason to look for what caused the illness. He is, I think purposely, "forgets" that the thing the "caused" the illness might be still causing it. Yes, as he says, if you get hit by a car it does not matter what is the license plate's number of the car (for treatment), but that is because the car is not expected to hit you again (if it was expected to do that, than the license plate number would have been improtant, in order to confiscate the car), but if a snake stings you - than it's very important to know what type of snake it was, in order to know what type of venom you need to deal with and what type of serum to treat you with.
Even when a person is hit by a car, the cause for his illness is now that his bones are broken - and if we will eliminate the cause, meaning that we will fix the bones - than the person would be fine. Let's say XMRV causes inflammation and inflammation causes ME/CFS's symptoms. So yes, if we would be able to completley eliminate the inflammation, and if XMRV is not infecious and doesn't do any harm besides causing inflammation, so yes, we wouldn't care about XMRV. But why look for the bacteria that causes tuberculosis and not look for a solution that keeps that bacteria alive yet the patient healthy? Becuase that's much harder and perhaps impossible. Every amature scientist knows that. What does that say about Wessely?
)
