CDC RESPONDS TO THE QUESTION, by Mindy Kitei

[V99]

The CDC had no interest in really testing those samples. They don't want the XMRV investigation to go anywhere. The question that should be asked is why haven't they also done a study that was calibrated with those samples?

 

[Otis]

I'm too foggy to start writing letters to places right now. But here is a basic point that the CDC response sidesteps.

Checking ones assays against samples found positive by others is a scientific method for double-checking the validity of ones tests. It is not outside the realm of routine publication to include information about validation steps, even if the results call for more testing. By omitting information about these results, they deprive other scientists potentially useful information. They deprive other scientists the opportunity to decide whether the inconsistencies the CDC found need further consideration.

The Centers for Disease Control have a professional and moral obligation to assist in the control of disease. But their actions show only half-hearted attempt to do this. Some might even say this is lying by omission. But either way, they have fallen short of their charter to promote the control of disease. Their lack of full disclosure interferes with other scientists having as much information as possible from which to work. And in making excuses for doing this, the CDC has taken the lower moral ground.

Well said. That lower moral ground seems to be subterranean at this point.

 

[Otis]

The CDC had no interest in really testing those samples. They don't want the XMRV investigation to go anywhere. The question that should be asked is why haven't they also done a study that was calibrated with those samples?

Vincent Racaniello, who hasn't appeared to be that tough of a CDC critic (at least on this paper), made the point that as a peer reviewer he would have asked for the CDC to display they could detect XMRV in blood. But as the CDC said, they adhered to the study design. Arrrgh. I am continually amazed at their transparency. Who do they think they're fooling?

 

[markmc20001]

Who do they think they're fooling?

Hey Otis, obviously they are not fooling many of the sharp folks here, but they probably think they are fooling enough to get away with it politically? Michelle Bachmann and death panels????

 

[anciendaze]

Well said. That lower moral ground seems to be subterranean at this point.

The morality on display here is not the immediate question. What bothers me about that response (or lack of same) is the implication that the validity of their test assay is not a subject open to discussion. If you can't compare the work of one group with another, and ask questions about the basis, you can't do science. (Perhaps, we should ask what they have been in the business of doing for 25 years.)

They deliberately inserted a statement in their paper about the lack of a panel of control subjects/specimens which, given the omission we now recognize, was deliberately misleading. They have created an assay, and now plaintively ask for someone else to provide controls which will validate their results without validating claims that some people are infected. Quite a conundrum. (Note: These people need not be CFS/ME patients, though I expect it will be easier to find infection in such. Ila Singh found a way around reliance on WPI for samples. The CDC didn't try.)

I'm glad I don't have to defend their "Test Assay Development" in front of a room full of PhDs. It could be a memorable spectacle.

 

[Otis]

The morality on display here is not the immediate question. What bothers me about that response (or lack of same) is the implication that the validity of their test assay is not a subject open to discussion. If you can't compare the work of one group with another, and ask questions about the basis, you can't do science. (Perhaps, we should ask what they have been in the business of doing for 25 years.)

They deliberately inserted a statement in their paper about the lack of a panel of control subjects/specimens which, given the omission we now recognize, was deliberately misleading. They have created an assay, and now plaintively ask for someone else to provide controls which will validate their results without validating claims that some people are infected. Quite a conundrum. (Note: These people need not be CFS/ME patients, though I expect it will be easier to find infection in such. Ila Singh found a way around reliance on WPI for samples. The CDC didn't try.)

I'm glad I don't have to defend their "Test Assay Development" in front of a room full of PhDs. It could be a memorable spectacle.

Would love to be a fly on that wall!

And apparently Retrovirology doesn't feel obligated to explain themselves either. If you haven't seen this thread by Mindy Kitei. Where do I sign up as a peer reviewer? I remember a bit from high school biology.

 

[V99]

Vincent Racaniello, who hasn't appeared to be that tough of a CDC critic (at least on this paper), made the point that as a peer reviewer he would have asked for the CDC to display they could detect XMRV in blood. But as the CDC said, they adhered to the study design. Arrrgh. I am continually amazed at their transparency. Who do they think they're fooling?

I think the CDC have been so safe and comfortable, they didn't realise what XMRV meant until in the last few months. They really did think it was contamination.

Now their choices are limited, and they are stalling. If they're listening, I can tell them exactly what they must do to limit the damage. Tell the truth!

 

[Andrew]

If Bill Clinton can get off the hook by saying he didn't know oral copulation was a sex act, the CDC can certainly get away with this.

 

[V99]

I didn't know Clinton got away with it.

The CDC can only get away with it, if everybody helps them to. If the Government lies, then we have a problem. I really hope they don't try anything funny with the Alter paper, or in the future. But I'm ready for it if they do.

 

[RustyJ]

Who do they think they're fooling?

Not about fooling people. It's about deniability.

 

[*GG*]

Hey Otis, obviously they are not fooling many of the sharp folks here, but they probably think they are fooling enough to get away with it politically? Michelle Bachmann and death panels????

I will take a Conservative over a Liberal any day! Happen to notice who discovered XMRV? The gov't and all their research? or a "Free Market" research lab? With some skin in the game?

If people could keep their money, they can spend it how they chose!

I am sure it would be easier to get money from Americans etc who see how sick we are instead of begging and begging for money from the Feds for research!