• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

Dr. Mikovits explains why it just cannot be a contamination

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,356
It seems like Hue et al have been really over-hyping their results, which aren't nearly as clear cut as they claim, but I don't hink the WPI have shown that it CAN'T be contamination. The false positives with the BWG mean that this is still an open question so long as their studies don't treat patient and control samples in exactly the same way imo. It's hard to see how contamination could explain the results we've seen... but the alternative is that XMRV is a very peculiar bug. Whatever the explanation to the varying results we've seen, it's going to be a bit of a funny one.
 

Stone

Senior Member
Messages
371
Likes
12
Location
NC
I can't help wondering if any of the researchers who say this whole XMRV thing is a contamination issue would agree to accept blood products from an ME/CFS patient. I would love to see an ME/CFS patient at one of these XMRV conferences offer their blood to the likes of McClure or Stoye. I'm not referring to the scientists who have an honest, differing opinion. I mean the ones who jump to conclusions that their research doesn't even address! It's one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to stake your health on it. I bet they wouldn't play so fast and loose with the facts and jump to such far flung conclusions as 'XMRV is not the cause of CFS' if they had to back it up more than just talk. It's a shame, but the truth is that peoples' lives and health truly are at stake when science is skewed all out of proportion; it's just not their lives or their health.
 
C

Cloud

Guest
LJS is not neutral in these arguments. He has a personal and/or professional reason against XMRV/MLV's to be the cause of CFS/ME. He tries to hide it all as science, but it's really just an ugly personal anti-XMRV/retrovirus agenda.
No idea about motives....just thought it was a bit much.
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
Lol...sorry, you quoted me while I was editing. Well, whatever the motive behind those kind of actions, it does seem odd to do it so much....but then I don't know the agenda. Personally, I would get very bored with montioring and confronting people like that.
(post removed -Emotions are running high; please try not to attack members you do not agree with).
 

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,260
Likes
1,076
I don't have the energy to ferret out people's backgrounds or go through their prior posts but LJS did make some good points in his first post.

Although there is certainly bias at work in all sorts of places, journals included, the question is how much is there or how it is working. Leaves made a post in another thread that Retrovirology likely grouped these papers together as part of a special issue rather than as a specific attack against ME/CFS patients, etc. And I would agree with her. Lots of times, journals will issue a call for specific types of papers to be submitted or will have several papers submitted about the same topic and choose to publish them together in a special issue. There are certainly institutions and person who have proved over a period of time that they are biased (e.g. the CDC) and we should point out their inconsistencies, errors, etc. publicly and broadly but I don't think it is helpful to attack journals or scientists immediately. We'll probably earn more enemies than allies that way. The question is whether Retrovirology is equally interested in printing positive infectious disese findings in ME/CFS and that remains to be seen.

I think a bigger problem than scientists just talking about contamination or XMRV is that they just leave it at that. I don't think people would be as angry or frustrated if researchers were concerned/ dedicated to finding out the causes of ME/CFS honestly, whether it is XMRV or not, whether it is an infectious disease or not. That is why Alter's statement about the need to get to the bottom of ME/CFS, whether XMRV is or is not the cause, was greeted with warmth.

Personally, I would love to see XMRV proven to be the cause much like everyone else but ultimately, the truth is more important to me than the politics although the latter must be faced.
 
Messages
96
Likes
0
Location
Chicago
I can't help wondering if any of the researchers who say this whole XMRV thing is a contamination issue would agree to accept blood products from an ME/CFS patient. I would love to see an ME/CFS patient at one of these XMRV conferences offer their blood to the likes of McClure or Stoye. I'm not referring to the scientists who have an honest, differing opinion. I mean the ones who jump to conclusions that their research doesn't even address! It's one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to stake your health on it. I bet they wouldn't play so fast and loose with the facts and jump to such far flung conclusions as 'XMRV is not the cause of CFS' if they had to back it up more than just talk. It's a shame, but the truth is that peoples' lives and health truly are at stake when science is skewed all out of proportion; it's just not their lives or their health.
Stone i have been thinking about this for about a week or so, this would put an end to all discussions and it would clear any differences, but not just a CFS patient, a XMRV positive patient remember that not all CFS patients will test positive for XMRV specially because different doctors uses different criterias to diagnosed CFS, down the road there will be a separation from CFSers and XMRV positives because you will see that positives and negatives really have different symptoms and problems going on.
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
I don't have the energy to ferret out people's backgrounds or go through their prior posts but LJS did make some good points in his first post.

Although there is certainly bias at work in all sorts of places, journals included, the question is how much is there or how it is working. Leaves made a post in another thread that Retrovirology likely grouped these papers together as part of a special issue rather than as a specific attack against ME/CFS patients, etc. And I would agree with her. Lots of times, journals will issue a call for specific types of papers to be submitted or will have several papers submitted about the same topic and choose to publish them together in a special issue. There are certainly institutions and person who have proved over a period of time that they are biased (e.g. the CDC) and we should point out their inconsistencies, errors, etc. publicly and broadly but I don't think it is helpful to attack journals or scientists immediately. We'll probably earn more enemies than allies that way. The question is whether Retrovirology is equally interested in printing positive infectious disese findings in ME/CFS and that remains to be seen.

I think a bigger problem than scientists just talking about contamination or XMRV is that they just leave it at that. I don't think people would be as angry or frustrated if researchers were concerned/ dedicated to finding out the causes of ME/CFS honestly, whether it is XMRV or not, whether it is an infectious disease or not. That is why Alter's statement about the need to get to the bottom of ME/CFS, whether XMRV is or is not the cause, was greeted with warmth.

Personally, I would love to see XMRV proven to be the cause much like everyone else but ultimately, the truth is more important to me than the politics although the latter must be faced.


The ones i attack are not my allies lol, so i couldnt care too hoots about upsetting them, they will still stab us in the backs when they get there chance, even if we dont say BOO to them.

would be surprised if they did print positive papers,And some of the conclusions were indeed strectching too far. For the greatest impact against the xmrv discovery. I can not prove that the all in row release was a setup, to cause as much impact as possible, knowing full well the uk press would run the XMRV IS DEAD CRAP. but you can also not prove they did not. Funny thats what happened though isnt it lol. surprises surprise. Maybe we should save up 4 positive papers and ask them to print them all in a row, proving contamination is not a issue. wonder if they will ? about time we used such tactics that are purely just coincidence then, oh i lied he he, actually they didnt all get released the same day AND SAVED.

The journal decided this will knock the believers sideways when the KNOWN NEGATIVE PRESS GETS CONVINCED WITH SO MANY PAPERS ALL SAYING THE SAME THING, HELL IT MUST BE TRUE RIGHT. yeah lets run the, its all over story, purely by coincidence mind. I respectfully dissagree.
 

Ecoclimber

Senior Member
Messages
1,004
Likes
2,472
REPONSE TO THE NEGATIVE PAPERS by Dusty Miller

I agree - this is a genuine scientific mystery. The WPI has posted a nice strong response which puts the ball in the other sides court. I wish we could get a response from them.

I'd really like to get a retrovirologist on board who can give us the pro's and con's of both sides. We have two camps saying the opposite things...I don't think either side is making it up - I think both sides firmly believe they are right. It's too bad we can't have a debate ....Anyone know any retrovirologists who want to talk?
I talked to Dr. Dusty Miller. His lab is currently in the stage in testing and experimenting and gathering the evidence to rebut their claims. He states he can refute their claims. He will be getting together with Ruscetti, Silverman, Klein, Smith and others to post their rebuttal as a group against the negative papers.
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
I talked to Dr. Dusty Miller. His lab is currently in the stage in testing and experimenting and gathering the evidence to rebut their claims. He states he can refute their claims. He will be getting together with Ruscetti, Silverman, Klein, Smith and others to post their rebuttal as a group against the negative papers.
Yes, Yes, Yes
 

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
525
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I can't help wondering if any of the researchers who say this whole XMRV thing is a contamination issue would agree to accept blood products from an ME/CFS patient. I would love to see an ME/CFS patient at one of these XMRV conferences offer their blood to the likes of McClure or Stoye. I'm not referring to the scientists who have an honest, differing opinion. I mean the ones who jump to conclusions that their research doesn't even address! It's one thing to have an opinion, but quite another to stake your health on it. I bet they wouldn't play so fast and loose with the facts and jump to such far flung conclusions as 'XMRV is not the cause of CFS' if they had to back it up more than just talk. It's a shame, but the truth is that peoples' lives and health truly are at stake when science is skewed all out of proportion; it's just not their lives or their health.
You may or may not be familiar with a certain character named Peter Duesberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg

To this day he continues to assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; that AIDS is actually caused by various factors including recreational drug use, contaminants, etc. He also claims there is no AIDS in Africa. He is a tenured professor at Berkeley and therefore (tenure being what it is) he is free to put forward his idiosyncratic view, however unsupported by the scientific community.

Dr. Bob Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, challenged him to inject himself with blood from an AIDS patient to prove he really believes his hypothesis. Duesberg says he would be perfectly willing but he can't, because he could never get ethical approval to conduct such an experiment. Convenient.
 

lancelot

Senior Member
Messages
324
Likes
5
Location
southern california
Dr. Bob Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, challenged him to inject himself with blood from an AIDS patient to prove he really believes his hypothesis. Duesberg says he would be perfectly willing but he can't, because he could never get ethical approval to conduct such an experiment. Convenient.
How about challenging the Weasel to inject himself with blood from a XMRV+ CFS/ME patient?
 

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
You may or may not be familiar with a certain character named Peter Duesberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg

To this day he continues to assert that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; that AIDS is actually caused by various factors including recreational drug use, contaminants, etc. He also claims there is no AIDS in Africa. He is a tenured professor at Berkeley and therefore (tenure being what it is) he is free to put forward his idiosyncratic view, however unsupported by the scientific community.

Dr. Bob Gallo, co-discoverer of the HIV virus, challenged him to inject himself with blood from an AIDS patient to prove he really believes his hypothesis. Duesberg says he would be perfectly willing but he can't, because he could never get ethical approval to conduct such an experiment. Convenient.
No problem, go to another country and do it there (or better don't) :mask:
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
Likes
239
I talked to Dr. Dusty Miller. His lab is currently in the stage in testing and experimenting and gathering the evidence to rebut their claims. He states he can refute their claims. He will be getting together with Ruscetti, Silverman, Klein, Smith and others to post their rebuttal as a group against the negative papers.
Great News Ecoclimber thank you for informing us, thats exactly what they should be doing, as a group force their message will be that more powerful, just like the 4 in a row papers he he. When this happens, i for one will be complaining to have the UKs NHS agreement with these papers removed from the NHS website,maybe we can do it as a group. once uncertainty about them is proven. I cant wait to see this.