Lack of Detection of XMRV in Seminal Plasma from HIV-1 Infected Men in The Netherland

[V99]

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0012040
Lack of Detection of XMRV in Seminal Plasma from HIV-1 Infected Men in The Netherlands

Although HIV-1 was amplified from 25% of the seminal plasma samples, no XMRV was detected, suggesting that either the prevalence of XMRV is very low in The Netherlands, or that XMRV is not naturally present in the seminal plasma.

 

[V99]

A local outbreak of CFS in the USA in 1984 was postulated to be associated with XMRV [1], [8].

Wrong

 

[V99]

XMRV proteins [4]. Also, in a third study, XMRV DNA was found in blood samples from 3.7% of healthy people living in the USA, and in an astonishing 67% of patients with CFS [1]

Astonishing!

 

[V99]

. The latter patients were from a local outbreak of CFS in Incline, Lake Tahoe, USA, with an already suspected viral aetiology. The detection of XMRV in such large numbers could indicate that the virus is spreading in humans and causes local outbreaks

All lies

 

[Sam Carter]

All lies

A lie is an intentionally deceptive statement -- ie. it is not a mistake or an error, it is a conscious attempt to deceive.

The authors of the paper are:

Marion Cornelissen, Fokla Zorgdrager, Petra Blom, Suzanne Jurriaans, Sjoerd Repping, Elisabeth van Leeuwen, Margreet Bakker, Ben Berkhout, Antoinette C. van der Kuyl.

All lies

I trust you can substantiate your allegation because, if not, you have libelled each member of the research group.

 

[IamME]

Moderator: Post completely edited out as it was completely offensive in every single line and could not be permitted to stand.

 

[Sam Carter]

...If they'e not telling porkies, the only other explanation is sheer incompetence and carelessness...

An entire research group is either composed of i) liars or ii) incompetents -- this is not a persuasive argument.

 

[SOC]

An entire research group is either composed of i) liars or ii) incompetents -- this is not a persuasive argument.

Agreed. Not at all persuasive.

 

[leaves]

Heheh I gues most researchers prefer to be called deceptive over incompetent, so basically V99 is doing them a favor
But I must say that in this case I don't believe in the CFS plot theory; I just think it is a bunch of researchers wanting a quick score/ publication with the XMRV.
I know for a fact that people from the NL have tested positive (moreover it is ridiculous to assume that a retrovirus can be present in big neighbor germany but not in the nL) so their reasoning is not convincing.

 

[SOC]

Heheh I gues most researchers prefer to be called deceptive over incompetent, so basically V99 is doing them a favor

Ex-CUSE me? Could you run that by me again; I don't think I understood it.

 

[leaves]

hmmm? I think that if they had to pick, they rather go for deceptive (implies knowing what you are doing). I don't think they are either btw, it is just not very good research and it has the disadvantage that it harms us.

 

[SOC]

hmmm? I think that if they had to pick, they rather go for deceptive (implies knowing what you are doing). I don't think they are either, it is just not very good research and it has the disadvantage that it harms us.

Okay..... It's like, "Which would you rather I call you, ugly or stupid?"

 

[leaves]

right, but reading the thread again my comment probably does not make sense, so it is off to bed for me! xo

 

[SOC]

right, but reading the thread again my comment probably does not make sense, so it is off to bed for me! xo

Lol! I know what you mean. *grin* Off to bed for me, too.

 

[Greggory Blundell]

"An entire research group..." Ummm, I count less than ten. That "entire" qualifier smacks of hyperbole. Take one strong-willed misguided leader, and you have a research group whose findings could be suspect. In theory.

 

[IamME]

Moderator: Post completely edited out as it was completely offensive in every single line and could not be permitted to stand.

Well clearly not, as one statement was reposted without fuss. I also don't see what was so offensive about the humorous statement about people being less than polite on the internet, which was clearly not aimed at anyone in particular, and doesn't even apply merely to only us and this board.

At any rate here Sam is coming across very pedantically and judgementally on other's posts and needs to be called on it. Some people find the continual blame the CFSer message which we directly or by inference see a lot of round here, offensive itself, you know.

Come to think of it, what was offensive about this statement (from memory):

"The WPI have repeatedly emphasised that their cohort were global in origin but had travelled in the US, not merely of US origin"

Huh?!? Offensive?!?

Is this post going to be entirely censored as well?

Your moderation style is, as others have stated, OTT, and I question your motives.

Not everyone is a fragile flower needing protection from robust debate you know, and not everyone has to approach things in exactly the same way as you would like.

 

[IamME]

An entire research group is either composed of i) liars or ii) incompetents -- this is not a persuasive argument.

It wasn't an argument, merely a statement of fact on elimination of impossibles. And I didn't say anything about plots or conspiracies to the other person who contributed that.

So Sam, if not incompetent, what do you call people who make stupid mistakes, competent?!

I am still waiting to here what other excuse can be for an entire research team's inability to check facts.

Of course the peer reviewers are to blame too.

 

[IamME]

Okay..... It's like, "Which would you rather I call you, ugly or stupid?"

No, it's about being incapable of getting basic facts right, or choosing to ignore them. Surely that isn't news in the world of ME/CFS duplicity that has been going on since 1980s and before?

 

[Martlet]

Well clearly not, as one statement was reposted without fuss. I also don't see what was so offensive about the humorous statement about people being less than polite on the internet, which was clearly not aimed at anyone in particular, and doesn't even apply merely to only us and this board.

I am not concerned how my moderation style is perceived by those who don't agree with my decisions. Believe me, there are plenty of people who do!

I am not sitting here reading through every post on this forum. Posts only come to my attention when they are reported, so there has to be at least one other person who finds a given post offensive for any action to be even considered, let alone taken.

Now, you can continue to argue with my decision or you can go back to the discussion. What I am not about to do is to engage in argument with you over a moderating decision.

 

[IamME]

The defenders of the idnefensible seem to have spilled over from the CAA thread where it was (?) SickofCFS who initiated complaints that sufferers are not nice enough to the purportedly altruistic researchers (to which someone replied, it's just another job) and that we're <Wessely>deterring researchers</Wessely>. I was mindful of that sort of nonsense which is what Sam is repeating here. We get that on a daily basis from the psychobabblers, do sufferers think it's not enough?