Campaign to have Mikovits speak at the XMRV conference!!!
- Thread starter V99
- Start date
I am with V99 and muffin on this one. But I am even more concerned about Switzer giving the talk on "Assay Development". That feels a bit like a slap in the face. Here is the ink to the program http://www.virology-education.com/index.cfm/t/Program/vid/1FFCB7B8-FB88-C1D2-92C420E3BCEB0FB0
I agree that Frank Ruscetti is a distinguished researcher and an appropriate invited guest speaker. However, to me, it would make sense that Judy Mikovits would be the keynote speaker and the person speaking on CFS while Frank Ruscetti spoke on Assay Development.
I would say serious snubbing is going on. Like Thomas said - the current situation is like having the 1st polio conference and not inviting Salk to speak.
The main point, though, that Judy Mikovits was not invited to speak still stands. There are a couple of threads so it was easy to miss, but early on in the first thread, Frickly said she had confirmed the fact that Judy Mikovits had not been invited to speak with Judy herself.
I would say serious snubbing is going on. Like Thomas said - the current situation is like having the 1st polio conference and not inviting Salk to speak.
The main point, though, that Judy Mikovits was not invited to speak still stands. There are a couple of threads so it was easy to miss, but early on in the first thread, Frickly said she had confirmed the fact that Judy Mikovits had not been invited to speak with Judy herself.
*hugs V99*
If this rumor is true, it's a clear explanation. They want someone to speak who does not have the appearance of bias. That does matter in the scientific world. It will give ME/CFS more street cred in their little world if Dr FR does the speaking. Not fair to Dr M, of course, but probably better for us in the long run. I wish for her sake, that it isn't true, but that doesn't make it not true.
This is an extremely important point. We could be in real danger of being seen to politicise the scientific process too much if we overdo the pressure.
I originally was not happy with Mikovits being snubbed. But upon reflection I now agree with Cort and SoCFS. I have no problem with Ruscetti being our 'representative' for this conference. He is right at the top of his field, cannot be dismissed, and was an author on the original Science paper with Mikovits. He is fully aware of what is happening and what is at stake. He also has the distinct advantage over Mikovits of not being seen as too identified with a particular cause, of not being too political. Mikovits has made some strong public statements and criticisms that could be held against her (rightly or wrongly, but we are talking politics here, and it counts in science like everywhere else). The most outspoken people are not always the most politically effective advocates, no matter how right they are. (Just to be clear, I am in no way downplaying the outstanding work Mikovits and her team have done. They are real heroes in my book. But that does not mean they will always be our best advocates in every situation. Horses for courses.)
Please be patient, folks. Things are finally moving in the right direction for us, but we must not unduly rush this. Let the scientific process, and the associated politics, unfold at its own pace for the moment. Smart politics is knowing where and how and when to apply the pressure. Right now we need to let the medical world clearly know we are watching them very closely, and they will not get away with anymore nonsense, but without us interfering with the actual science or internal scientific politics. It is a balancing act we must deal with.
I originally was not happy with Mikovits being snubbed. But upon reflection I now agree with Cort and SoCFS. I have no problem with Ruscetti being our 'representative' for this conference. He is right at the top of his field, cannot be dismissed, and was an author on the original Science paper with Mikovits. He is fully aware of what is happening and what is at stake. He also has the distinct advantage over Mikovits of not being seen as too identified with a particular cause, of not being too political. Mikovits has made some strong public statements and criticisms that could be held against her (rightly or wrongly, but we are talking politics here, and it counts in science like everywhere else). The most outspoken people are not always the most politically effective advocates, no matter how right they are. (Just to be clear, I am in no way downplaying the outstanding work Mikovits and her team have done. They are real heroes in my book. But that does not mean they will always be our best advocates in every situation. Horses for courses.)
Please be patient, folks. Things are finally moving in the right direction for us, but we must not unduly rush this. Let the scientific process, and the associated politics, unfold at its own pace for the moment. Smart politics is knowing where and how and when to apply the pressure. Right now we need to let the medical world clearly know we are watching them very closely, and they will not get away with anymore nonsense, but without us interfering with the actual science or internal scientific politics. It is a balancing act we must deal with.
At the risk of getting shouted down, I understand why being a 'patient advocate' may be a negative. As a patient community we stand to gain a great deal with the success of Dr Mikovits' advocacy... as does she. It is a 2-way street. Patient support, good will and financial, will benefit WPI. The hint of financial gain taints everything WPI are involved in. Now, while I am in thrall to WPI's efforts thus far, I can see why the scientific community, at least those with no visible financial gain, would want to keep them at arm's length. Mind you, it reeks of double standands, particularly when you follow the money trail in the so called pure science arena.
So any public attempt to compel WPI's involvement in the XMRV workshop will only reinforce the original perceptions of the pure scientists that WPI is biased. Science is not about public pressure... Yes, I know, I can almost taste the hypocrisy!
So any public attempt to compel WPI's involvement in the XMRV workshop will only reinforce the original perceptions of the pure scientists that WPI is biased. Science is not about public pressure... Yes, I know, I can almost taste the hypocrisy!
Mikovits is not a patient advocate. She is a researcher who made the connection between XMRV and CFIDS, and other possible XMRV connections. This was a stupid and transparent ploy to keep her from speaking. If Mikovits is a patient advocate then what the heck are the others? What is Switzer? The anti- patient advocate?
Too transparent a game - and yet they get away with this sort of thing. But not without a lot of public outrage they won't...
Too transparent a game - and yet they get away with this sort of thing. But not without a lot of public outrage they won't...