ok, I have sat on the sidelines on this because I didn't want to get jumped. But I am going to come to Kurt's defense.
In my view, Kurt's questioning whether a scientist misspoke or is making a claim for which the rest of the scientific community does not yet accept is perfectly legitimate, especially when such a statement is made on T.V. news. From the rest of the world's view, including Kurt's, the evidence has not determined that conclusively yet.
I would not put Kurt on ignore. And Kurt, I have no problem with your criticisms or questioning of the scientific claims or conclusions patients are drawing, although I am much more convinced than you are. I don't know if there is some emotional / personal reason you don't want to believe or if suspicion is just your nature or maybe you have been burned before. Either way, I look forward to one of us being proven wrong. At this point, I hope it is you. In the mean time, keep challenging me and the scientists. (By the way, I do know there is much personal / emotional motivation for believing, even for me. But I am trying my best to look at it objectively. We will just have to see where the chips fall when the fat lady sings.)
Now, as for looking at it from Singh's point of view, as I said in another thread, those who have been looking at XMRV under a microscope are twenty chapters ahead of us and other researchers. The other researchers may not believe what others say happens in the book since they have not read it themselves, only being on chapter one, but for those who are on chapter 20, even though they have not finished the book, they do know more of what is in the book.
Since October, no doubt, Singh has been looking at XMRV in Bateman's samples or other CFS samples. Surely she spends her days looking at XMRV in some samples somewhere eight hours a day. And when you see it, you are a believer. It may not be published, but that doesn't mean it isn't so from her view of the evidence she has seen. Publications may be coming within the next six months. Same for Mikovitz and Peterson. They have moved on to cancer, autism, XMRV in CFs in other countries, drugs, etc. They are not looking for it in CFS samples, they found it. Showed pictures of it. It's there. The question has been answered for them.
And as for cause and effect, they are relying on their experience with other retroviruses and what they see under the microscope as to the behavior of this virus. Remember, they have been looking at this virus for months, years under a microscope, since 2006. Others are just looking at it within the last six months. So it is only natural Singh, Mikovitz and Peterson know more than the others.
Imagine a few people (Peterson, Mikovitz, Singh, CC and NCI) with jig saw puzzles but each one has the same image and same pieces. These few individuals start putting the pieces together to their own puzzle. Some of them help each other. They don't have any picture on a box to go by. But they are jig saw experts. They have been working jig saw puzzles for decades. As they put some pieces together, they know how to do it efficiently, quickly, etc. So within a short time, they may not have all the pieces, but they can tell you what items are in the picture when jig saw puzzle is finished. They have all the pieces put together except just a few.
Now, some others come in later with the same puzzle image, each with their own puzzle to put together. These don't have all the experience that the first ones do. So they make lots of mistakes along the way as they try to put together their own puzzles. Not to mention, they started putting together their puzzles much later than the earlier ones. The earlier experts say, "The image in the puzzle is _________." The newer ones say, "I will have to put together my own puzzle before I believe that's what the image is. I don't see it. How can they be sure? These others that started working on the puzzle at the same time as me don't know for sure. The first jig saw puzzle people shouldn't make such a claim until some of us new comers see it too. It's premature to make such a conclusion because I haven't seen it and those with me haven't seen it yet."
Problem is, the earlier ones saw it with their own eyes. Although they hadn't finished their puzzle, they put in many more pieces, enough for them to draw conclusions and be sure of what the image is. Not to mention, they have lots of experience with jig saw puzzles since they have been putting together jig saw puzzles for years. They know the pattern.
The wonderful thing about this is we can add another scientist who is linking cause and effect to CFS. And she is not associated with WPI.
Peterson, Silverman, Mikovitz and now Singh. (Even if she misspoke, she obviously believes XMRV likely causes CFS and prostate cancer based on her analogy with the other retrovirus causing both.) She has moved on to drugs instead of validation. Evidently, whether it is a yet to be published study she did, or just what she has seen in unstructured tests she did for her own questioning or she believes previous study after looking at it through her expert eyes.
Up until this news report, all who were claiming or insinuating that XMRV causes CFS were connected to WPI and the first study. So Singh, who studies this virus independently, also now is making the same claims, either implicitly or by insinuation. In other words, she is a believer based on her own judgment and evidence she has seen.
Joy, love the Celebration video. Sometimes Youtube says it better than our own words. I love using Youtube to communicate. Now there are two of us.
Tina
