Questions, Questions...
So it was an accidental release of information, from a credible source as well.
Kurt, several people have questioned whether it's a good thing to post leaks and rumours like these, and we've had lively debates on the subject before. I've generally said that anyone should be able to post them and we can make of them what we will, but of course it does leave one open to being used by disinformation and smear campaigns, and there's a danger that any link in that chain of leaks could unknowingly be used in that way.
I've always said that my curiosity means that I would rather know more than less, but really the question only arises because of the lack of transparency in the first place. Ultimately my view is that details of taxpayer-funded research ought to be available to those taxpayers in such a transparent way - and I mean, in real time, as events unfold - that the question of leaks never arises because we should have the right to know all this information anyway. Most especially in the 'Land of the Free'...
I've also said that I'm personally happy for leaks to appear because people can make up their own minds, based on the track record of those leaks, whether to believe the next one. But since this one didn't pan out, does that make you trust your sources less, and/or should it make us trust leaks like this less? That would seem to be the rational response. Has this incident undermined your confidence in your sources, or have you had an explanation for why this one didn't work out? I guess you are suggesting they "had something planned and backed off" ?
There still is apparently a paper but those can be yanked at the last second, so who knows when or whether we will see that.....
I don't really understand how these things work, so perhaps my question here is naive. If government authorities (and indeed other researchers too) can decide which scientific research they wish to publish and which they do not, in secret, does that make a complete mockery of the supposedly neutral and objective nature of the scientific process? Does it undermine the whole basis for trust in Science to deliver us the truth? Or is that just my imagination?
Information has been released by one blogger to suggest there are conflicting XMRV studies in two separate government agencies. Maybe they have decided to take more time to work out why. Who knows.
Is that a public blog? If so, could we have the link please? This would be massive news, even if it is just a leak at the moment.
Because if there are conflicting studies then that is yet further evidence that the controversies and conflicting results over detection of XMRV in both prostate cancer and CFS are an unexpected complexity in the testing and the nature of what those tests mean. That in turn would mean that those who
can find XMRV are at the least finding
something that everyone else can't find, and it would pretty much rule out the most credible theory I've heard as to what may have been wrong with the WPI study - that they are all liars and they made the whole thing up to make money from a spurious test. (By the way, that theory isn't the least bit credible of course, it's just that I haven't heard a better one yet...).
And of course it's crucial to note that even if it turns out that for some reason the WPI were detecting something else, and not XMRV, but something similar or related, then that news is equally massive and significant for us as if it were XMRV. The WPI would still have made a crucial breakthrough.
Also, if those conflicting studies both concerned ME/CFS specifically, then that would imply that at least one of them found a significant level of XMRV in ME/CFS. If that were the case, then for some of us this would represent proof that the WPI were right. I think you've said before that the scientific debate won't be settled until there have been 4 or 5 studies confirming the findings, and perhaps also more such studies than there are negative studies, and that sounds right as far as what the wider scientific community will need in order to accept the evidence - but for many of us, a second confirming study would be more than enough given that many of us don't even need that in order to believe.
I really can't understand why the CDC haven't released any information at all despite all the requests they must be getting. Is this normal practice, to keep the whole thing under wraps? Does this happen in the same way with other research on other conditions? One would have thought they could at the least put out a statement saying that there are conflicting results and explaining something of why they are waiting for further information.
The only thing I can conclude from their silence, and the reluctance to release any information at all, is that the potential implications - which they haven't been able to rule out - are so enormous that they are afraid to release the information until they are both certain of the details and have taken necessary measures to manage the implications and the public reaction to the news. Which would kind of suggest that Dr Mikovits' dire warnings are rather less "hysterical" than has been suggested...