FDA/NIH PAPER in PRESS, by Mindy Kitei

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
521
Location
Los Angeles, CA
OK, so presumably not today's edition - who had Tues., August 17 in the pool??

PNAS press embargoes lift on Monday, 3 PM Eastern time. So unless they're really doing some special procedure for this story, one presumes the headlines will appear on Monday and the actual paper Tuesday...? (of whatever week it turns out to be)
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,349
OK, so presumably not today's edition - who had Tues., August 17 in the pool??

PNAS press embargoes lift on Monday, 3 PM Eastern time. So unless they're really doing some special procedure for this story, one presumes the headlines will appear on Monday and the actual paper Tuesday...? (of whatever week it turns out to be)
Do we get headlines/titles of all the papers on Monday, or just some of them?

I had Aug 31. Levi was going with Never, as I recall. I think you had Aug 17, urbantravels, didn't you? ;)
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Likes
29
Sickofcfs

Here is the relevant quote:
There will be no study that says "the WPI study published in Oct. 2009 Science is replicated/reproduced by this new study and they were actually right about a XMRV/CFS connection" Trust me on this.
Lets wait and see what gets published . . .


(snipped) Levi was going with Never, as I recall.
 

urbantravels

disjecta membra
Messages
1,333
Likes
521
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Others have speculated more knowledgeably about how the paper might come out -- it appears to me that PNAS puts up new stories throughout the week in an online form, which then get rolled up into the print edition at the end of each week. So they normally appear online before they appear in print.

Since the pool never actually existed, I will happily stake my imaginary bet in the imaginary pool for the 17th.
 

VillageLife

Senior Member
Messages
674
Likes
36
Location
United Kingdom
Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!


Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Yippeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!


Ok, I'm Happy!!! :victory::victory::victory::victory::victory::victory:
 

julius

Watchoo lookin' at?
Messages
785
Likes
5
Location
Canada
What does 'in press' mean. Is it just submitted and waiting for the galley proofs (whatever TF those are). Or does it mean it's completely ready?
 

VillageLife

Senior Member
Messages
674
Likes
36
Location
United Kingdom
and....................:D

hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!

hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!

hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray hip hip hooray!!!!
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,349
Sickofcfs

Here is the relevant quote:


Lets wait and see what gets published . . .
Okay, sounds good except for one question -- You don't mean those literal words, right? I'm expecting the paper to be a validation paper of the WPI study in Science and that it therefore confirms the XMRV/CFS connection. I don't need them to have used exactly the same methodology as WPI for this paper to be a validation paper. Are you in agreement on that?

As far as I'm concerned, if the paper comes out and doesn't also show XMRV in a majority of the ME/CFS patients tested, than it's not the paper. Even if it comes out on Aug 31, if it doesn't show XMRV in a majority of the ME/CFS patients, then I don't win bragging rights. Deal?
 

ukxmrv

Senior Member
Messages
4,406
Likes
4,569
Location
London
Julius,

Someone else asked that as well. Mindy said (under comments)

"In press" means that the FDA/NIH paper is being printed and will then appear in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Usually, the online version comes out first, but Dr. Schekman hasn't reported when that will be"
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,349
Since the pool never actually existed, I will happily stake my imaginary bet in the imaginary pool for the 17th.
Ah, this is just for bragging rights. Have another day, if you have a good guess, but I'm thinking bets need to be placed before 3pm today.
 
C

Cloud

Guest
News of the study finally being in press is most certainly worthy of celebration. But, I'm reserving the real party for the actual publication. The paper will surely be published (YAAAAA), but the question remains as to what kind of modifications they have done to the original paper. These people have very publicly demonstrated repeatedly that they are not to be trusted. So, this is awesome news that we are in the homestretch finally.....I just want to know for sure that the Finnish line hasn't been moved.

Thank you Mindy for keeping us in breaking news loop
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,349
News of the study finally being in press is most certainly worthy of celebration. But, I'm reserving the real party for the actual publication. The paper will surely be published (YAAAAA), but the question remains as to what kind of modifications they have done to the original paper. These people have very publicly demonstrated repeatedly that they are not to be trusted. So, this is awesome news that we are in the homestretch finally.....I just want to know for sure that the Finnish line hasn't been moved.

Thank you Mindy for keeping us in breaking news loop
You bring up an interesting question, Cloud. What do people consider needs to be true about this paper for it to be worthy of celebration? Does it need to reference WPI directly? Does it need to show a correlation between XMRV and ME/CFS? Does it need to find XMRV in a specific percentage of ME/CFS patients?

What do we think is the minimum condition which allows us to celebrate? :D
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Likes
29
Bragging rights

Sickofcfs,

Here is the part of the leaked ORTHO press release from the Zagreb conference that is relevant:
http://www.mmdnewswire.com/xmrv-9040.html

"Although blood transmission to humans has not been proved, it is probable. The association with CFS is very strong, but causality not proved. XMRV and related MLVs are in the donor supply with an early prevalence estimate of 3%‐7%. We (FDA & NIH) have independently confirmed the Lombardi group findings."
I expect this statement, or any semblance of it, to be disappeared. Literal or not. As far as the data presented, I honestly do not know what to expect. But you may have bragging rights and I will officially eat my words if the data presented by the Lo/Alter paper meaningfully contradict the latest CDC XMRV "research" paper.

Without sounding like a killjoy, I would only note that this appears to be the second time this article has been "in press", and that the evil minions at the Centers for Demonic Control (of ME patients) would certainly relish the event of yet another last minute intervention by those at the highest levels of DHHS. Do you really want to invite a jinxing on the cosmic level here?

Okay, sounds good except for one question -- You don't mean those literal words, right? I'm expecting the paper to be a validation paper of the WPI study in Science and that it therefore confirms the XMRV/CFS connection. I don't need them to have used exactly the same methodology as WPI for this paper to be a validation paper. Are you in agreement on that?

As far as I'm concerned, if the paper comes out and doesn't also show XMRV in a majority of the ME/CFS patients tested, than it's not the paper. Even if it comes out on Aug 31, if it doesn't show XMRV in a majority of the ME/CFS patients, then I don't win bragging rights. Deal?