Can somebody debunk this?

[dannybex]

But it's actively repressed m.e.. research for decades.
There's a whole raft of assumptions, like not including women in trials for a long time, that skewed results.
Then there's the actual mendacity and slight of hand of pharmaceutical s or those conducting science under pressure of results.
There are so many biases inside science that saying " follow the science" is a lot more flimsy than we were lead to believe

There are also HUNDREDS of good studies showing various abnormalities in ME/CFS which have not been 'actively repressed'. Many of them are posted on this site, and a quick google search will turn them up as well.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Agree to disagree.

Totally agree. Without disagreement.

But people who prey on that are the worst kind of people. Unfortunately we're stuck with the medical community, full of arrogance and dismissiveness, or the 'alternative' community, full of charlatans and snake oil.

On the nose. As I’ve said so many times before, to the point of tedium, we really have to bring an intensely critical eye to everything from the claims made by various practitioners, to the papers published by predatory journals.

Like you, my loathing for, and fury at, the charlatans and snake oil salesmen and the purveyors of what I call Ghost Breath Protocols (the Lightening Process, for one) is deep, profound and scathingly white-hot. They're the scum on the mold on rotting cheesy things ....

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

That doesn't change that science is the best source of knowledge we have and medical science is in the end an evidence-based science.

This is absolutely true, as far as it goes. But one of the more dispiriting things is that an awful lot of scientifically ‘proven’ theories comes out of seriously contaminated research, due to some extent to the enormous pressure to ‘publish or perish’ ….

The rise of numerous, almost uncountable, predatory journals who’ll publish pretty much anything if it’s accompanied by a large enough check, and who have an obedient stable of ‘peer reviewers’ standing by to give that research credibility, is a reminder that not only do we have to be our own Petrie dishes and lab rats, we need to parse out research papers carefully and critically as well, which is really exhausting, as well as often needlessly dull, almost like they're hoping no one will actually get thru the whole thing ….

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

I think she is intelligent .

She’s cunning and clever. There’s a difference ….

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Unfortunately naturopaths aren't known for their solid grasp of science.

This is not entirely accurate, tho it is true of some ...

Naturopaths come in a variety of flavors. Real naturaopaths, like those graduated by Bastyr Univeristy, undergo rigorous medical training equal to that of any other doctor or medical researcher.

The main difference is that they’re also heavily trained in other healing disciplines which theoretically expands their potential base of treatments for their patients, since they’re not just limited to whatever BigPharm is currently pushing out the door ..,

Then there are the others, the guys who like to call themselves naturopaths because that’s an easy way to gather in customers, but whose grasp of anything medical or scientific or even ‘natural’ is deeply limited. They generally have graduated from places like the Univ of Grenada or the University of the Democratic Republic of Congo and can’t find a hospital willing to give them privileges. So their only avenue of income is to proclaim themselves as naturopaths and hope for the best. Which is pretty much all that their customers …. uh, patients can do, too.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Its ad hoc. Random.

At the risk of being called a tiresome pedant yet again, ad hoc doesn’t mean random. It means ‘for this’, and generally is used to mean something created or undertaken for a specific purpose only.

So in that sense, you’re right: TCM and naturopathic medicine are both noted for treatments specific to one particular patient's illness or needs, altho some of the treatment's constituents may also apply to other patients, in different combinations of course ….

EDIT .... typos and missing apostrophes ... and an added phrase for clarity ...

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

No one can find the virus that's supposed to be affecting us tho.

That’s not entirely correct. The connections between this illness and Epstein-Barr are pretty unignorable, along with others ….

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

As is SO typical with Mikovits, she offers NO proof to back up her claims -- just like she's done since she was thoroughly discredited 10 years ago.

Save yourself time -- and especially energy -- and avoid anything she says, like the Plague. Pun intended.

Yup, and yup.

It’s hard to believe that the controversies surrounding and defining Mikovits still have legs. She was not only thoroughly discredited, she was found to be outright lying in some instances, which seems to indicate more intent than just being inaccurate in her conclusions, or possibly misled.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

Believing anything Judy Mikovits says as a whole just because she might speak the truth a small amount of the time would be a grave error.

One of a con man’s most reliable tools of the trade is the building of an enormous lie on one small truth, which then seems to pre-validate anything that comes after …

 

[hapl808]

Just because one system has failed us doesn't mean that any and all opposing that system are to be trusted.

I find our conventional medicine structure to be horribly unbalanced and improperly incentivized. Yet I still am not planning to join a cult in Guyana, because I don't think they had the answers, even though their criticisms of multinational corporate power were likely valid.

I watched one of her videos upon the urging of a friend. At one point in the video, she claims Ebola was unable to infect humans until she worked at USAMRIID and taught Ebola to infect human cells. So either her relationship with the truth is suspect. Or somehow all Ebola outbreak reports prior to 1999 were a conspiracy, until she personally committed a horrific crime against humanity by purposefully making Ebola deadly to humans?

Either way, comments like that combined with her track record on ME makes me pretty unlikely to give her the benefit of the doubt.

That doesn't mean I'm not skeptical of 'mainstream' research, but that same skepticism applies to those who are 'fighting the system'.

 

[Oliver3]

That’s not entirely correct. The connections between this illness and Epstein-Barr are pretty unignorable, along with others ….

But it's still theoretical isn't it.

 

[Abrin]

I think the thing about Judy Mikovits that a lot of people who developed ME/CFS after the whole XMRV controversy don't really understand is how much she personally set back ME/CFS research as a whole with her dishonest shenanigans.

I can totally understand that the vitriol towards her might seem unproportional for those who did not live through this chapter of ME/CFS history but for those of us who did live through it, what she did back then and what she continues to do now with her platform is truly unforgivable. She is the freaking Queen of BS.

 

[Oliver3]

Just because one system has failed us doesn't mean that any and all opposing that system are to be trusted.

I find our conventional medicine structure to be horribly unbalanced and improperly incentivized. Yet I still am not planning to join a cult in Guyana, because I don't think they had the answers, even though their criticisms of multinational corporate power were likely valid.

I watched one of her videos upon the urging of a friend. At one point in the video, she claims Ebola was unable to infect humans until she worked at USAMRIID and taught Ebola to infect human cells. So either her relationship with the truth is suspect. Or somehow all Ebola outbreak reports prior to 1999 were a conspiracy, until she personally committed a horrific crime against humanity by purposefully making Ebola deadly to humans?

Either way, comments like that combined with her track record on ME makes me pretty unlikely to give her the benefit of the doubt.

That doesn't mean I'm not skeptical of 'mainstream' research, but that same skepticism applies to those who are 'fighting the system'.

Yes, but I think there's an assumption that anyone who has an open mind is thrown in with Tim foil hat brigade.
I don't trust any scientist or institution and will listen to outliers , but with the same uncertainty as those with power.
The big mistake, I think at the moment, is the tribalism involved in medicine. Its a red n blue political thing which is silly.
Its like the ivermectin example. Why can't we be open minded about that drug. I have no desire to prove its worth, would be nice to have a cheap safe drug as a prophylactic tho . But the media and "scientists" came down on it like s ton of bricks
Its so predictable. Group think. You're either for or against. Why can't we just be open minded without the clichéd knee jerk reaction that if you broach certain people, then you're a whacko.
I think it's good to keep an open mind on people like klinghadrt as much as it is to treat Pfizer fairly.
Both have mendacity attached to them. Just cos one entity has power , you have to treat them both with skepticism.
Science is traditionally male, white and as we know very very quick to jump to psycho somatic blame n Shane.
The alternative s , like mikowitz, well, you may be totally right, I just like to keep an open mind because everyone has vested interests

 

[Oliver3]

I think the thing about Judy Mikovits that a lot of people who developed ME/CFS after the whole XMRV controversy don't really understand is how much she personally set back ME/CFS research as a whole with her dishonest shenanigans.

I can totally understand that the vitriol towards her might seem unproportional for those who did not live through this chapter of ME/CFS history but for those of us who did live through it, what she did back then and what she continues to do now with her platform is truly unforgivable. She is the freaking Queen of BS.

Whilst that's true.
The medical community set back m.e. research. Not mikowitz. Let's be fair

 

[Martin aka paused||M.E.]

This is absolutely true, as far as it goes. But one of the more dispiriting things is that an awful lot of scientifically ‘proven’ theories comes out of seriously contaminated research, due to some extent to the enormous pressure to ‘publish or perish’ ….

That's true and why it's SO important to have a reproducible result. I don't think that any serious scientist would contradict that. One study alone doesn't make a usable result.

 

[Oliver3]

One of a con man’s most reliable tools of the trade is the building of an enormous lie on one small truth, which then seems to pre-validate anything that comes after …

You mean like the get trial ...there is no dividing line between the orthodoxy and the " heretic" that's so clichéd ..we have to read between the lines on both sides.. mikowitz has some points I feel about the endo canniboid system.so I'll listen even tho I'm sure she's a fruitcake.
Just like I'll listen to mainstream studies that somatise us,or have valuable but not entirely correct ideas.
I just find this splitting that's occuring, like with covid , as a typical and clichéd knee jerk response

 

[dannybex]

I think the thing about Judy Mikovits that a lot of people who developed ME/CFS after the whole XMRV controversy don't really understand is how much she personally set back ME/CFS research as a whole with her dishonest shenanigans.

I can totally understand that the vitriol towards her might seem unproportional for those who did not live through this chapter of ME/CFS history but for those of us who did live through it, what she did back then and what she continues to do now with her platform is truly unforgivable. She is the freaking Queen of BS.

^^^ THIS, x 100,000. Thanks @Abrin. So very well said.

 

[YippeeKi YOW !!]

But it's still theoretical isn't it.

What I said was that the connections between EBV and ME " .... are unignorable....". That's not theoretical. It deals with empirical evidence.

 

[dannybex]

Whilst that's true.
The medical community set back m.e. research. Not mikowitz. Let's be fair

Of course others have -- we're all familiar with the CBT/GET fiascos -- but Mikovits' "discovery" commanded so much more attention because it wasn't CBT/GET, that when it backfired, many took that as confirmation that it was/is 'all in our heads'.

And even though she signed off on the final study, and described that study as "the definitive answer", she then went on as if that study -- and a dozen others -- never happened, and then...went waaaaay off the deep end. She needs serious, psychological help, which is the irony of all ironies in this story.

 

[dannybex]

But it's still theoretical isn't it.

In a way, yes. I would say that there are many causes or contributing factors, and they're probably different for most if not all of us, because we all got sick in different ways.