Seems claims WPI is not sharing is not true. They are evidently sharing with the ones they want to share with.
Hi Tina. I keep having the same recurring thought about this issue, so time now to post on that thought.
There clearly are some key issues of methodological detail, and enough has been said about those discrepancies between what the Science paper said and the subsequent 'clarifications' (?) on the need for multiple samples drawn at different times, and the need to culture the samples. The bottom line of all this seems to be that the Science paper is somewhat economical in revealing what detailed steps are necessary to find XMRV in CFS patients.
How to explain this apparent lack of key detailed information? Options I can see:
1. The Science editorial team made them remove a load of detail they wanted to include (there was a comment early on to this effect).
2. As a relatively small player, and as a new institute with limited funds, they have occasionally been a bit patchy with publicly-released info, and their media work has been a bit weak.
3. They had no real reason to believe or assume that certain details of their methodology were essential to successful detection: they just implemented what they considered to be the best practice with best hope of finding XMRV, but had no way to know which measures they took were necessary and which weren't.
4. They are playing an absolute blinder and they think the way I do.
I think the overwhelming probability is for elements of all of the first 3 to be true, although point 3 does have a weakness as a theory: they must have done other unpublished testing as well so they are fairly likely to know full well that XMRV is hard to find, so it's my pet theory number 4 that I keep coming back to...
Think back to Wessely's immediate statement on the Science publication. He came straight out in the press and said he didn't think the finding would be replicated in the UK. More should have been made of that quote when the IC study was published btw, we should have pointed out more clearly that SW at least had made his mind up before the IC study began, and we should perhaps have played closer attention to his suggestively careful choice of words along the lines "I don't think this finding will be replicated in the UK" - a safe prediction to make if you know you are able to make it come true...
And note also that it is entirely predictable that he would take this line. Also entirely predictable that he would jump in with a debunking replication study as quick as possible, and entirely predictable that his study wouldn't exactly turn over every rock he could find in an enthusiastic attempt to find the virus...
So: entirely predictable that the first response to the WPI research would be exactly what DeFreitas got: a series of studies from experts in failing to find things, followed by a bullish set of public comments from all our enemies (remember, the WPI team have been in the business, and on our side, long enough to see these people as enemies) stating that the whole thing was a mistake, there's no XMRV in CFS.
Now: If it turns out that other labs do confirm the correlation, and that XMRV is the key root cause of CFS, what do our enemies look like now? What kind of a corner have they just painted themselves into? What light would that cast on their previous studies that have failed to find anything?
Against this background, if you were Judy Mikovits and you picked up the phone and there was Simon Wessely asking for some tips on how best to detect XMRV, what would you do? Would you invite him over for a cup of tea and a chat? (If so, what sort of tea would you offer?
). If you were anything like me, you might just want to pause for a moment and consider how much you wanted to help this guy. If you were anything like me, you would have already thought very carefully about who you were going to share with, because you are in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to call the shots, and there are more than enough scores to be settled here, and this is your one big chance to determine the script. And your Wesselys are now utterly predictable, because you know exactly what they will think and how they will react, their prejudices will determine their behaviour, and you have the opportunity to expose them for what they are.
So: that's how I'd do it, anyway, but perhaps that's just the way I think. Whether my twisted conspiracy theory is right or not, if XMRV does turn out to be the cause of most CFS, this is the way it will have played out.
The WPI warned us from an early stage to expect a rollercoaster ride and some negative studies before the positive ones. So they did tell us that was all coming, they knew it was coming. I'd just love to believe that they way things are playing out is just the way they thought it would. They've been pushing on with XMRV research while the world struggles to catch up, and personally I don't begrudge them that extra year or so's head start: they have thoroughly earned it, and I'd gladly stick it out for another year if that bought me Wessely's head on a stick.
