ERV (Scienceblog.com)'s take on CDC's paper....and Alter's paper's review process...

Wonko

Senior Member
Messages
1,467
Likes
4,733
Location
The other side.
it serves a purpose

people object to positive (to us) papers being pulled but want references to negative (to us) sites pulled - refusing to listen to disenting views is what people are accusing the opposition of isnt it?

the only problem IMO with this link is the thread shoudl have been in media or somewhere similair
 
Messages
87
Likes
13
I am not familiar with thread protocol. My post can be moved anywhere.

And really really important....... I am part of us .....
 

CBS

Senior Member
Messages
1,513
Likes
849
Thank you cbs....i will go back and read more of her blogs regarding both cfs and other subjects and make up my own mind......but dont tell others what to post and not to post... and I am very sensitive about this....
I know I came off as abrupt. My intent wasn't a personal attack. My apologies for that. I'm more exasperated because this has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Not your doing.

There are probably some people on this forum who would listen to you ....
I doubt that.

intimidation by anyone, especially a "senior" member isnt welcome....
It wasn't meant as intimidation. More just a case of fatigue with her line of obfuscation. She doesn't want to understand or she wouldn't get glaring issues like cohort so wrong. Months ago people were trying to share information with her and it looks like she's still getting it wrong when it suits her. On non-CFS topics her blog get 8-10 posts in a week. She posts about CFS and she gets 160. Like it or not, we're her bread and butter and she lives off getting a rise out of CFS folks. She stops posting about CFS (or we stop reacting on her site) and she becomes anonymous. Anonymity is death for blogger. No hits, ScienceBlogs finds someone else. No megaphone for her uniformed rants. Starve the beast.
 

dannybex

Senior Member
Messages
3,437
Likes
2,474
Location
Seattle
it serves a purpose

people object to positive (to us) papers being pulled but want references to negative (to us) sites pulled - refusing to listen to disenting views is what people are accusing the opposition of isnt it?

the only problem IMO with this link is the thread shoudl have been in media or somewhere similair
I'm all for hearing all sides of the issue discussed with respect and intelligence. But her blog is clearly inflammatory, designed solely to make people upset -- not to respectfully discuss dissenting views. Within the first 2 or 3 sentences she uses the c-word. That's hardly necessary or useful, and again I ask what purpose does posting ERV'S blog serve?
 
Messages
87
Likes
13
cbs and dannybex.....i hear you......but I like a little edge.....and I am not too worried about people with different ideas...there is a need to know everything she knows.. for example her point about the special line to publishing for members in PNAS I didnt know, and while maybe not that significant was very interesting....
 

Wonko

Senior Member
Messages
1,467
Likes
4,733
Location
The other side.
CBS

much more reasonable - and I substantially agree with your post - within the limitations I've posted above - I'm not advocating anyone replying to her blog

what i objected to was people demanding the thread be deleted simply because THEY didnt want anything to do with an opposition blogger because she isnt "nice" (in both senses of the word) - IMO such a response/reaction is bad - personal abuse, spam, attacks etc possibly warrent post deletions - attempting to get threads deleted simply because you dont like them isnt acceptable behavoiur (again only IMO) - or where does it stop?

you've got the CDC to thank for that little rant - putting me in a bad mood - I'll shut up now

dannybex

okay - possibly a direct link without the copy&paste would have been more appropriate - that way people can follow if they want but not have to read if they dont want - preferable to demands for deletion IMO
 

Otis

Señor Mumbler
Messages
1,117
Likes
117
Location
USA
I know I came off as abrupt. My intent wasn't a personal attack. My apologies for that. I'm more exasperated because this has been hashed over ad nauseum in the past. Not your doing.

I doubt that.

It wasn't meant as intimidation. More just a case of fatigue with her line of obfuscation. She doesn't want to understand or she wouldn't get glaring issues like cohort so wrong. Months ago people were trying to share information with her and it looks like she's still getting it wrong when it suits her. On non-CFS topics her blog get 8-10 posts in a week. She posts about CFS and she gets 160. Like it or not, we're her bread and butter and she lives off getting a rise out of CFS folks. She stops posting about CFS (or we stop reacting on her site) and she becomes anonymous. Anonymity is death for blogger. No hits, ScienceBlogs finds someone else. No megaphone for her uniformed rants. Starve the beast.
Thanks CBS. I've dodged much of this history myself and it's helpful to take the time to let folks know a little history as to why most don't want to read more of this.

dean - For any post please remove the vulgarity. And one comment I would make is that adding links to a site like this helps their standing in Google which helps the bloggers cause as well.
 

dannybex

Senior Member
Messages
3,437
Likes
2,474
Location
Seattle
No one is DEMANDING that the link or this thread be deleted. We're just wondering why it's necessary to post it -- especially after the long history here w/regards to ERV-- and were ASKING that it be deleted...

Anyway I'll shut up. This is TRULY making me sicker and sicker. I don't need the stress.
 

busybee

Senior Member
Messages
119
Likes
7
for example her point about the special line to publishing for members in PNAS I didnt know, and while maybe not that significant was very interesting....
and now I know that this makes more sense


The CFIDS Association of America: Statement About XMRV Studies by Federal Agencies

Today at 8:56pm


As we have since the Lombardi study was published in October 2009, the CFIDS Association of America has actively promoted studies that seek to validate and confirm the association of XMRV in CFS. We are working with several investigators who have studies under way. Publication of study data in top-flight peer-reviewed journals is essential to advancing our understanding of the role that XMRV plays in CFS, and we are actively advocating for publication of the study conducted by NIH/FDA as swiftly as possible. The Lombardi paper was reported to be under review for five months at Science, and its important to recognize that top journals enforce tight requirements on their authors.

Last weeks unauthorized report about the NIH/FDA study by a news agency in the Netherlands disrupted steady progress being made toward publication of the data. In response to a report in the June 30, 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Harvey Alter issued this statement last evening, transmitted via the NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison: "Our paper has not yet been accepted for publication. My colleagues and I are conducting additional experiments to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. Our goal is not speed, but scientific accuracy." According to John Burklow, director of the NIH Office of Communication and Public Liaison, these additional experiments were a condition of acceptance by the journal, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA (PNAS), and may take weeks to complete and review. Mr. Burklow is confident that the results will be published, and stated that all the collaborators are working expeditiously, but carefully, to ensure the accuracy of their results and the manuscript. The CFIDS Association has confirmed that additional reviewers for the paper were recruited as recently as two weeks ago.

The CDCs paper published today in Retrovirology was submitted to the journal on March 26, 2010, and accepted and published on July 1 after undergoing final scientific review by CDC scientists. According to Joe Quimby, senior press officer at CDC, additional assessment was performed after the paper was originally submitted as part of CDCs commitment to ensuring the accuracy and relevancy of the scientific information it reports. He noted that the paper published today is the same as the original submitted manuscript. No changes were made to the CDC paper authored by Dr. William Switzer, et al.

A critique of the Switzer study by Association scientific director Suzanne Vernon, PhD, titled, Blood from a Stone, has been posted at, cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp.

In the months that passed between publication of XMRV/CFS studies (February-June), many people expressed concern that XMRV was being ignored, dismissed or overlooked. The discrepant findings by federal agencies have brought XMRV and CFS to the attention of the nations top public health officials and media outlets. As more information about the timetable for publishing the NIH/FDA study (and studies from other institutions that are in the pipeline) becomes available, we will rapidly share that news.

-----------------------------------
 

julius

Watchoo lookin' at?
Messages
785
Likes
5
Location
Canada
okay - possibly a direct link without the copy&paste would have been more appropriate - that way people can follow if they want but not have to read if they dont want - preferable to demands for deletion IMO
No, please no links to her blog. Every time someone clicks that link she gets more traffic. Thus she continues to thrive.

If you feel you want to copy and paste her "writing" then go ahead, but please don't include a link.
 
Messages
84
Likes
2
Erv's "Information"

I found the explanation of paper submission at PNAS (by scienceblog.com) sounded like she was making it up as she went along and trying hard to get a response from one of us.

"Sooooo... the 'positive' paper was submitted by Harvey Alter to PNAS. Harvey Alter is a NAS member, so this paper had, um, 'a different peer review history' than you all are accustomed to. Normally, you send a paper to a journal, and they send the paper out to three reviewers, and they give the journal editor a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. When you are a NAS member submitting to PNAS, you pick your own reviewers and send in your own reviews. So, you could, like Lynn Margulis, send a controversial paper out to seven people to get two 'good enough' reviews, and be accepted for publication."

I checked the PNAS site and have posted some of the submission guidelines language:

PNAS Submission Guidelines

The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to submit them directly to PNAS. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified referees. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review.... The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For direct submission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the referees, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews....Academy members who have told authors they are willing to oversee the review process have 48 hours from the time of submission to alert the PNAS Office to their request. During this period the PNAS Office will contact the member to confirm. Authors should coordinate submission to ensure the member is available. The Board cannot guarantee that the member designated by the author will be assigned the manuscript or that it will be sent for review. Throughout the review process authors are not permitted to contact the editor directly and all correspondence must be sent through the PNAS office....All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a direct submission. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated as new submissions."

This is just highlights of the guidelines. They are here : http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml#submission

What Erv says is complete poo. Her mission is not to inform or discuss. She only wishes to incite. I do not believe her posts should ever be recreated here. At the very most a link should be posted so we would have the option to not have to wade through all her poo.
 

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Likes
6,200
Location
Sofa, UK
Thanks busybee, so yes these two bits of info together imply a story as to what is happening, that makes some sense, although how this info reached us could be questioned - who needs to hire a better PR agent now?!

So it had perhaps only been reviewed - under the old rules which oddly enough have changed today according to the earlier link, by (unknown) only 2 or 3 reviewers chosen by Alter himself, had been accepted for publication by PNAS on that basis and was reportedly in print, but has now been withheld and further reviewers are requiring further experiments which may take some weeks.

Is that the picture we are to piece together from snippets from ERV's blog and CAA quotes?

In general I would say: if there is something from ERV, or indeed Bad Science, that really does look like either (a) a snippet of potentially significant information, or (b) a new spurious argument that needs refuting, then I would tend to say: OK, fine, post that with some highlight and explanation/question/refutation, but posting the whole lot with no comment understandably upsets people. This person has described CFS as "a set of non-specific mehs", ERV's agenda seems simple: cfs doesn't exist, ergo, this must be a load of rubbish...and we don't need to give denialists oxygen and publicity here. There is very rarely anything there worthy of comment.
 
Messages
87
Likes
13
srmny......I did go to the same page, a a bit futher down than your highlighted quote I found a special route to publication for members...It is still there... It seems they are in the process of changing this..... again.as I previously stated. ..i dont know how significant this is, but there is, or perhaps was, a different route to publication is PNAS for members.... or not.... I have called PNAS editorial office and I will report what the specifics are and if there are any changes....


"An Academy member may “communicate” for others up to two manuscripts per year that are within the member's area of expertise. Beginning July 1, 2010, we will no longer accept communicated submissions. Before submission to PNAS, the member obtains reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. "

and this " members must secure the comments of at least two qualified referees. "

This is vastly different than noted for other authors..... "The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified referees, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For direct submission papers"
 

muffin

Senior Member
Messages
940
Likes
15
And here we go again...

IGNORE this stupid child. ignore ignore ignore. Do NOT go to her site and push her numbers up. Do not respond to her. Ignore her. We have far bigger enemies now than her.

Kathleen.Sebelius@hhs.gov Please send an email to Sebelius instead of worrying about young ERV and her foolish chatter. Please??!?!?!?!
 
Messages
22
Likes
0
Countering Erv's Misinformation

Over the years absolute rubbish has been touted about our horrible illness and it is now regarded as fact by many professionals and the general population.:(

In the earlier years when not so many people were on the net we had no way of countering this misinformation.

Our tragedy has from its inception been dictated by people as viscous and foolish as Erv many of whom had vested intrests. It worked while we were unable to retaliate with the facts. And we know all to well that the mud has stuck for a long long time.

Lets not give Erv a free reign to continue the already massive damage to our lives and reputations. She is successfully tearing the reputation of Judy Mikovitz to shreds based on the fact that Mikovitz should not answer her and we should defend a person who has put it all on the line for us.

Im not talking insults here. What Im suggesting is that we examine Ervs posts and refute any misinformation line by line. No insults are needed. There seem to be some pretty well informed people here capable of doing that. One problem with Ervs blog is that when we try to refute what she has twisted she doesn't publish our comments making her disinfo look good to the uninformed.

We should continue to find out who she and what her connections are, not for the purpose of ruining her but to expose any vested interests she may be connected with. I don't believe she is acting alone or in ignorance. She may (or may not) be connected to Wessley, McClure etc. If we find such connections they should be exposed. And we must stick to the facts. I would like to see a factual dossier about her as a forum topic. Facts like she is paid to write for Science Blogs. One person commented a while back that Science Blogs is connected to vested interests. I'll have to retrace that comment.

Threats of ruining ERV may be justified but are pointless. Exposing her true motives and connectionS "if there are any" is important and puts a better perspective on what she is about.
 

IamME

Too sick for an identity
Messages
110
Likes
6
I agree with not promoting hits on ERV's site. It's not like she's anyone important like Peter White that its beneficial to keep an eye on.

Dean maybe you should read the childish aggression she has previously shown about Mikovits (whom she labelled a c***) and the Whittemore's (inlcuding IIRC an attack on their sick daughter). She was last seen having a go at Klimas, and yeah, CFS "a collection of mehs". This is why people are taking a seen once attitude... If you want a "dissenting opinion" there's plenty of places you can get it without having your face smacked as a bonus.

I'm not sure why anyone feels a lack of dissent anyway, with CFS and the CDC. Or to put it another way, the CDC is the norm and XMRV is the dissent. People don't disagree with psychologisation because it disallows dissent (if only that was all it was), it's because it's iatragenic harm, scientific fraud and systemic unethical dehumanisation of seriously sick, sometimes dying, people.

The different peer review process by PNAS is a complete red herring and not important. It doesn't explain why HHS wanted to suspend both the CDC and Alter's studies yet why the CDC went ahead anyway, and varying accounts but which all state an outside influence (one which implicates the CDC's opinion of the Alter results themselves) wanted the papers suspended. It doesn't explain that it was widely reported that the study was accepted before this.

The bottom line is we have another damaging piece of dross from the CDC and people like ERV, initially seemingly curious but now with more impunity shadowing Reeves' bigotry as scientific fact.
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Likes
29
ERV

You guys should make allowances for ERV's hostile demeanor since she is a hottie . . .