letter Nijmegen to Whitemoore

[lansbergen]

http://www.umcn.nl/Research/Departments/kcv/Documents/F v Kuppeveld brief naar Whittemore.pdf

 

[Gerwyn]

Dutch study rejected by lancet

The Dutch study which reported that it could not detect XMRV in "cfs" patients was originally submitted to the Lancet and subjected to its vigorous peer review process.IT WAS REJECTED AS NOT OF SUFFICIENT STANDARD FOR PUBLICATION. It was published by the BMJ despite that it did not meet their publication criteria

 

[lansbergen]

The Nijmegen paper publiched in the BMJ was rejected by the Lancet.

 

[omerbasket]

The Nijmegen paper publiched in the BMJ was rejected by the Lancet.

Yes, that seems to me the most interesting thinjg in this letter...

Oh, I mean besides the fact the Kuppeveld probably know, and we do not, that Mrs. Whittemore has finished her doctorate (If it's not clear, I'm kidding, since Mrs. Whittemore is not a doctor - and she had never described herself as one - But what Mrs. Whittemore is saying is probably correct since she is consulting, probably, with the doctors in her institute).

 

[Gerwyn]

Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab. Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding

Translation our technique could not detect XMRV even it existed in a positive control.As we THOUGHT that our techniques were excellent it could not have been a problem with our techniques. THAT IS AN INTERESTING VERSION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING.He could have thrived in psychiatry!

 

[Otis]

Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab. Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding

Translation our technique could not detect XMRV even it existed in a positive control.As we THOUGHT that our techniques were excellent it could not have been a problem with our techniques. THAT IS AN INTERESTING VERSION OF SCIENTIFIC REASONING.He could have thrived in psychiatry!

Thanks for the translation of the doublespeak... Also could have thrived in politics although the lines are getting very blurred..

 

[ukxmrv]

And they were right to do so.

Thanks Gerwyn.

Where did that information come from Gerwyn and is it OK to repost?

 

[Alexia]

Kuppeveld writes that he doesn't like the fact that WPI published the letter in their site and made it public. What Mr. Kuppeveld forgot to mention is that he had no trouble in talking to the newspapers in the Netherlands as soon as his paper was published and tell the newspapers that the results from WPI in the Science paper were the result of contamination in the WPI labs!

 

[V99]

Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab. Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding

Simply, the entire paper was premature.

 

[lansbergen]

And they were right to do so.

Thanks Gerwyn.

Where did that information come from Gerwyn and is it OK to repost?

It is from the Nijmegen website. See

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?4690-letter-Nijmegen-to-Whitemoore&p=75662

 

[Dr. Yes]

Some quotes from the letter in question...

"Of note, the samples that you found positive were repeatedly negative upon retesting in our lab."

Not really notable if your methodology is the problem.

"Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding before having settled the reason for the discrepancy."

Robustness? That paper?? I suppose the Lancet disagreed...

And wasn't it also "scientifically premature" to make a public pronouncement, after they were published, that the case was closed on XMRV having a role in CFS "before having settled the reason for the discrepancy"?

"To solve the discrepancy, we proposed to exchange cohorts on February 9. Unfortunately, to date we have not received any response."

And the WPI says they never heard back from the Dutch team. I don't see any sample sharing between any of these labs in the near future...

 

[ukxmrv]

Thanks Lansbergen!

 

[Recovery Soon]

Also of note that he adresses Annette Whittemore as Dr. Whittemore. This man is even unaware as to whom he is adressing.

He knows exactly that she is not a Doctor. Addressing her as such is a way of dressing her down.

 

[fred]

He knows exactly that she is not a Doctor. Addressing her as such is a way of dressing her down.

It's probably a dig because Annette addressed McClure as 'Dr' rather than 'Prof'. Such large egos and yet so fragile.

 

[V99]

Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.

At the moment you reported your findings on the Nijmegen samples, our paper was under consideration of the BMJ (after being rejected after a 5-week review process by the Lancet).

Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:

Given the robustness of our paper, we considered it scientifically premature to report this finding before having settled the reason for the discrepancy.

Am I wrong about this?

 

[natasa778]

And did their technique really detect a positive sample sent to them by the WPI? Is that true??

And was that reported in their paper?

 

[Gerwyn]

Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.



Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:


Am I wrong about this?

They started their work after the science paper was published.They already had a positive XMRV blood sample which they now claim that their methods detected(despite staying silent on that fact up to now and allowing the Lancet to reject their paper!). They are talking about the fact that the WPI later found positive XMRV in samples which they found to be negative. The BMJeditor admitted that their study would not pass its peer review procedure.What consideration was the paper under exactly.The Dutch were under a duty to report the WPI findings before publication.The BMJ would have then been unable to publish it

 

[Gerwyn]

And did their technique really detect a positive sample sent to them by the WPI? Is that true??

And was that reported in their paper?

Their techniques failed to detect XMRV in a positive blood sample.They failed to report that prior to publication of their study.Reporting that would have invalidated their study or be required to prove that their techniques could in fact detect XMRv in a positive sample.They have now retrospectively claimed that they could but have provided no evidence in support of that claim

 

[Gerwyn]

Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.



Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:


Am I wrong about this?

these were the nimijen samples sent to the wpi which they reported as negative and the WPI found to be positive.They new of this before the study was published yet they did not report that fact to the publishers.had they done so the study could not have been published because their methods had been shown to be inadequate

 

[Gerwyn]

Without stating it specifically, they are saying, that they had already been trying to get the paper publish before they knew the results from the WPI.



Therefore, they did not publish the WPI results because:


Am I wrong about this?

They started their work after the science paper was published.They already had a positive XMRV blood sample which they now say their methods could detect detect despite not mentioning that crucial fact in their original paper. They are talking about the fact that the WPI later found positive XMRV in samples which they found to be negative. The BMJeditor admitted that their study would not pass its peer review proceedure.What consideration was the paper under exactly.The Dutch were under a duty to report the WPI findings before publication.The BMJ would have then been unable to publish it