Letter from Dr Mikovits to the editor of the IACFS Bulletin

eric_s

Senior Member
Messages
1,925
Likes
75
Location
Switzerland/Spain (Valencia)
Ok. Like i have said before, i respect a moderator's right to say what's accepted and what is not.
May i ask you for a favor, nevertheless? If i prove to you that i have CFS, will you then state that it was wrong to say that i was making a "crocodile's tears" argument? Because you can't shed crocodile's tears if you suffer yourself. Or do you? I did not think that this is funny at all.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
No, it was actually "Microbiology" Go back and check (but don't edit) ;-)
I understood it in connection with the following statement about mitosis. Not as a declaration of the field you're trained in.

Yes, logical thinking can't test a hypothesis. But it can demonstrate that the hypothesis is highly unlikely. We can make a bet about the truth of that hypothesis, i will do that. Now i really have to go.
microbiology has absolutely nothing to do with mitosis.mitosis only occurs in eukaryotes.Microbiology studies prokaryotes
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
Did you read my posting correctly? I did not say that logic is the method used by microbiologists to test a hypothesis. I said that logic can demonstrate that a hypothesis is highly unlikely. And i still think this is true. Everyone of us, in daily life, uses logic to determine wheter he thinks something is likely or not. You always refer to "the scientific method" as if microbiology was the only science existing. Other sciences apply other methods. Those are scientific too.
Once again, if of all the microbiologists in the world so far i have only heard you state your hypothesis about the old blood, despite Dr. Mikovits for example having very good reasons for stating it too, would she think it's plausible, then yes, that leads me, and i'm sure many other people as well, to think that your hypothesis is unlikely to be true. But please, feel free to test it using microbiology. That would be a good contribution. So far i have only heard you defend your hypothesis based on your knowledge. That's exactly what i suggested scientists should do now, regarding the quality of the testing method described my Dr. Mikovits in her letter to the CFSAC! But you said that this does not make sense and is not scientific. Remember?
no Eric it is your posts that do not contain any sense.you are entitled to express your opinion but it is not based ony any scientific knowledge whatsoever.Scientists only apply one method the scientific one. If you have not heard judy M saying it then you have not done any research in the matter.in Scientific terms a key variable between the two studies was the age of the blood.Lombardi et al used
old blood in one of their experiments but they activated the pMBC,s to induce mitosis.As I have already told you Retroviruses are unable to replicate unless the host cells are dividing.The white blood cells in the European studies were not activated and hence not dividing.Therefore there would have been insufficient viral DNA for their PCR method designed for HIV to detect.That is what is called an explanatory parsimonious hypothesis.I don't know whether it is true because it is impossible to test because they design of the European studies were so poor that they had 16 confounding variables.

They have designed studies whose conclusions are unsupportable by their own data.The only scientific conclusion allowable is that they could not detect XMRV using differen techniques and different patient cohorts compared to a study which did detect the virus. That would have been adhering to the scientific method. Of course that would have been the only part of their studies that did!