List of various recent interviews with Judy Mikovits

[Murph]

I am a journalist and I reckon you should follow the money... when there is any. Corporations can control science, for a while, but they normally do so when there is a product making them billions, like cigarettes or oil.

If anyone was making good money off selling us something there'd be money to follow and I'd follow it gladly.

I see above the idea that Big Shrink is implicated.

The idea the psychology industry (mostly independent operators in small clinics) is coordinated enough to suppress the much larger, richer and more powerful pharma industry, which would gladly sell us pills at high margins, is risible. Yes, they are powerful enough to fill a void, but if there were an alternative, medical explanation, they'd be toast.

As for vaccines, I don't want to definitively say they are utterly blameless in all domains. I lean towards thinking the evidence is strongly in their favour at the moment, while I remain open-minded to future studies.

Any links from vaccines to me/cfs are just so very tenuous. We get MECFS after we get sick, not after we get vaccines.

Unfortunately, our disease remains unexplained because it is complex, not because of conspiracy. People latch onto agents who they think can explain unknown phenomena. In certain communities the agent is America or the CIA. In others it is bankers, in still others, Jews. All of these are powerful groups but they control less than people hope for.

tl;dr: A conspiracy suppressing understanding of me/cfs is wishful thinking. It's far worse than that.

 

[heapsreal]

The idea the psychology industry (mostly independent operators in small clinics) is coordinated enough to suppress the much larger, richer and more powerful pharma industry, which would gladly sell us pills at high margins, is risible

Have you not read about simon wessely and his gang in the uk who control cfs there. And the €5billion study supposedly proving cbt/get treats cfsme but further scientific investigation into this group running this large study were proven to falsely manipulating data from the study. This might change your mind on how much the psych industry especially in the UK controlhiw cfsme is treated.

 

[Hip]

Have you not read about simon wessely and his gang in the uk who control cfs there.

The conspiracy/collusion between the biopsychosocial psychiatrists/psychologists and the disability insurance industry to promote the biopsychosocial view of ME/CFS as well as other functional disorder illnesses is well-known, well researched and well publicized. You can find articles in left-wing media explaining how the biopsychosocial model of these illnesses is used to deprive patients of disability financial support.

When there is genuine conspiracy going on, you tend to find that there are journalists, academics, professors, politicians, etc all aware of it, and often speaking out against it.

For example, with the biopsychosocial view of ME/CFS and the associated PACE trial scandal, you have people like Professor Malcolm Hooper, Margaret Williams and parliamentarian the Countess of Mar who have been writing and speaking out about this conspiracy for decades. And of course in recent years this group has grown with journalist David Tuller, psychologist Professor James Coyne, Professor Andrew Gelman and Professor Jonathan Edwards all joining the fray.

So when there is a genuine conspiracy or collusion going on, you will tend to find there are reputable high ranking people aware of it and, in the free world, publicly speaking out against it.

I see no such group of reputable high ranking people supporting Dr Judy Mikovits's views.

 

[JT1024]

I will state again, I believe/know Judy M was on to something significant. I watched live via web while the NIH/CDC/Blood Working Group and other interested parties worked through "XMRV". I cannot answer each post above.

The issue is not "XMRV".. it is the fact that recombination of viruses and retroviruses can and have occurred and that these can infect humans. They were not looking for them in the past and probably won't look (at least in patients/general population) for a very long time because they know it has happened and the cost to governments and Biopharma would be astronomical.

Until the 2009 report, the public was unaware of the possibility of viruses and retroviruses from different species recombining. Think of the use of animal cell cultures for vaccine and biologics.

The risks associated with Xenotransplantation (pig valves used in humans, etc.) has been know for quite awhile.. From the Report of WHO Consultation on Xenotransplantation. Geneva, Switzerland, 28-30 October 1997: "One concern raised about xenotransplantation is the risk of inadvertent transmission of infectious agents into xenotransplant recipients and subsequent secondary transmission of infections to the wider human population"

Manufacturers realized the increased need to better identify and mitigate risk associated with "adventitious agents". A consortium was begun in ??2011 to address industry concerns since Biotech/Pharma wasn't going to be letting the public and competitors know they found contamination in their products The consortium is housed at MIT in Cambridge, MA and is known as "The Consortium on Adventitious Agent Contamination in Biomanufacturing (CAACB)". Link here: http://cbi.mit.edu/research-overview/caacb/

Adventitious Agents and Live Viral Vectored Vaccines: Considerations for Archiving Samples of Biological Materials for Retrospective Analysis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5130882/

As vaccines are produced using biological materials, there is a need to safeguard against potential contamination with adventitious agents. Adventitious agents are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as microorganisms that may have been unintentionally introduced into the manufacturing process of a biological medicinal product [5]: these include bacteria, fungi, mycoplasma/spiroplasma, mycobacteria, rickettsia, protozoa, parasites, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) agents and viruses. Adventitious agents could be inadvertently introduced into a vaccine through starting materials used for production, such as cell substrates, porcine trypsin, bovine serum, or any other source materials of animal or human origin [6]. Therefore, extensive testing is recommended at various stages during vaccine manufacture to demonstrate the absence of adventitious agents [5]. Additionally, the incorporation of viral clearance steps in the manufacturing process, which evaluate the capability of the manufacturing production process to inactivate and/or remove potential viral contaminants [7] can aid in reducing the risk of adventitious agent contamination in a biological product; however, for live viral vaccines, aside from possible purification of the virus or vector, extensive adventitious agent clearance may not be feasible. Hence, the issue of unknown contamination risks of live or vectored vaccines requires more stringent safety oversight [5].

Can't write more now. Will check back in when I'm able.

 

[nanonug]

They were not looking for them in the past and probably won't look (at least in patients/general population) for a very long time because they know it has happened and the cost to governments and Biopharma would be astronomical.

This doesn't compute. "Astronomical costs" also means "astronomical profits" by entities with the ability to solve the problem. If there was even an inkling that "astronomical profits" were on the horizon, all kinds of private for-profit entities would be ferociously looking to research and develop treatments. The fact that no such for-profit entities exist is de facto proof that no such "astronomical profits" exist and, for the same reason, de facto proof that no such conspiracy exists.

 

[Hip]

The issue is not "XMRV".. it is the fact that recombination of viruses and retroviruses can and have occurred and that these can infect humans.

If the issue is not to do with XMRV, why are we still talking about it? I agree that there are almost certainly other unknown viruses in humans that could cause or contribute to diseases.

Virologists are aware that new viruses or strains of virus are constantly being created through recombination or mutation events. And they are aware that animal viruses have the potential to pass to human beings. And virologists are also finding viruses that may have been present in human populations for millennia, but have only recently become known to humans.

See: List of viruses discovered from 1897 to 2010 which cause human illness (see table S1).



Just recently it was proven that a retrovirus called bovine leukemia virus (BLV) is found in at least 1 in 3 people in the general population. This virus is assumed to have passed to humans as a result of the neolithic revolution, when we started drinking cow's milk. I started a thread about this BLV retrovirus — and in that thread I speculate that BLV might have been the retrovirus that Dr Elaine Defreitas found in ME/CFS patients.

 

[pamojja]

Who would benefit from a coverup of a cause and potential cure of ME/CFS? The government? Definitely not, as ME/CFS represents a huge loss to the economy. The disability insurance companies? Certainly not, as these people are very concerned about paying out billions in disability payments to patients with ME/CFS. The pharmaceutical industry? No, these people stand to make a lot of money from developing and selling treatments for ME/CFS once a physical cause is established.

Concerning the investment industry, I think there is a clear answer for huge losses due to cures:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/go...tients-not-sustainable-medical-business-model

A recent Goldman Sachs report reveals the company questioning whether or not curing chronic illness is compatible with a sustainable business model.
In an internal report viewed by CNBC about the potential of the biotech industry and gene therapy titled “The Genome Revolution,” analysts asked: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing,” wrote analyst Salveen Richter. “However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Richter wrote in the April 10 report.

“While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.“

Richter cited a Hepatitis C drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences that achieved a 90% cure rate. As CNBC noted:

“The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.”

In light of the reduced profits as a result of the success of the drug, Richter wrote:



“GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients. In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”

Indeed, cancer is a highly profitable disease. In 2015, the world spent $107 billion on cancer drugs, and according to 2016 projections, that number was expected to grow to $150 by 2020. Further, Gilead Sciences, which Richter singled out as a company losing profits due to cures, was still the second-most profitable pharmaceutical/biotech company in the world in 2017, earning over $12 billion in net income.

Richter, who did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment, offered several ideas to cope with the ‘problem’ of healing patients. He suggested targeting large markets, such as those suffering from hemophilia, because “Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.” in addition, he advised clients to target disorders with high incidences, such as spinal dystrophy, as well as focus on “[c]onstant innovation and portfolio expansion.”

Additionally, Ars Technica reported, the analysis “hints that, as such cures come to fruition, they could open up more investment opportunities in treatments for ‘disease of aging.’”

Goldman Sachs confirmed the authenticity of the report to Ars Technica but declined to comment on its contents.

 

[Hip]

Concerning the investment industry, I think there is a clear answer for huge losses due to cures:

That is a very interesting quote, and could be in a thread of its own, because it is an important issue to discuss.

However, it does not really relate to ME/CFS and XMRV. If ME/CFS did involve some retrovirus, it would probably be treated with drugs that you would have to take all your life, as HIV patients do at present, which would be highly profitable for pharmaceutical companies.

 

[Annikki]

The content of these interviews I'm linking to explain why the other researchers didn't find XMRV in their studies. Judy Mikovits said that unless you add a demethylating agent, you can't detect XMRV. Again, this is because it uses methylation to hide from the immune system.

This accounts for the discrepancy. If you can show all the studies which "disproved" XMRV used a demethylating agent, only then can you honestly state that XMRV doesn't exist. The discoverer of XMRV, Dr. Silverman wasn't attacked about his findings. Only Mikovits' were disputed.

All of this is sort of like trying to test for AIDS using a urine test instead of a blood test. The test would falsely convince the HIV positive man he was clean, because they used the wrong test. He'd likely go out, have sex and infect innocent people. Bad scenario, all around.

The devil is in the details, always.

I'm not a virologist, so if anyone wants to get a complete understanding of the subject, listen to the first part of the first interview. I think these interviews explain very well about how XMRV hides using methylation:

Part One of Interview:

Part Two of Interview:

And this is a webinar, presented by Judy Mikovits, is excellent. It presents the data in slides, for easy understanding:

 

[Murph]

Concerning the investment industry, I think there is a clear answer for huge losses due to cures:

This is a very valid point and pharma is biased towards things it can sell, not diseases it can cure. (Baldness and impotence remedies are huge money-spinners)

However, in much of the world, we have socialised medicine and governments are biased toward cutting healthcare costs. Even in America, they are drifting gently toward socialising medicine. This is a powerful force for aligning the incentives of the sick with the people who direct research,

 

[Hip]

This interview explains why the other researchers didn't find XMRV in their studies. Judy Mikovits said that unless you add a demethylating agent, you can't detect the virus, because it uses methylation to hide from the immune system

That's nearly 2 hours of video. Would you have the timecode where she says this?


@Annikki, since you say your health issues revolve around interstitial cystitis rather than ME/CFS, shouldn't your virological interest be more in polyomaviruses, and in particular BK virus, which have been linked to IC?

 

[Annikki]

While you seem to be aware on how the media can be used to manipulate and dupe the public, you don't appear to be aware that Mikovits's book is itself the part of the media, and so is equally capable of manipulating and duping its readers.

Using that argument, then all media and everything you could possibly read is false, and no one should read anything, or watch news, which is absurd. The establishment scientists have motive, Mikovits has none. Lipkin got a 25 million dollar grant right after his skewed study and Mikovits is broke and struggling. Who has something to gain, is usually the culprit. There's money lost to pharmaceuticals and culpability for any harm done to patients. They have the money, Mikovits doesn't.

 

[Annikki]

I

While you seem to be aware on how the media can be used to manipulate and dupe the public, you don't appear to be aware that Mikovits's book is itself the part of the media, and so is equally capable of manipulating and duping its readers.

She's not funded by Merck or any pharmaceutical company, which has unlimited funds to pay for fake studies and to pay public relations firms to help come up with strategies to lie. I'm sure paid trolls also fall under the category of what billions of dollars corporate money can buy. Should these sell outs with no ethics be allowed to run the world? No.

 

[JES]

This accounts for the discrepancy. If you can show all the studies which "disproved" XMRV used a demethylating agent, only then can you honestly state that XMRV doesn't exist. The discoverer of XMRV, Dr. Silverman wasn't attacked about his findings. Only Mikovits' were disputed.

That's not how the null hypothesis (on which basis science in general works). It's not necessary to prove that XMRV does not exist in humans, in fact it would be almost impossible to "prove" something does not exist. According to the null hypothesis, first it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that something (in this case, XMRV in humans) exists. And after that fact is established, the next, much bigger step would to prove that there is an association between CFS/ME and XMRV.

Both of these steps would need large-scale studies and replication. Until such day that this is proven to be the case, the default position should be disbelief in the XMRV hypothesis. That's how the null hypothesis works and it's something that some often ignore (i.e. by trying to switch the burden of proof to the opposite side of the matter). So as of current time, I remain unconvinced that XMRV has a role in CFS/ME, and so should everyone who understands the reasoning above.

 

[Hip]

That's a bleak view of humanity. A bleak mind-state may be the reason Judy Mikovits imagines that there is conspiracy in the XMRV story. Not may people know that Judy also suffers from a ME/CFS-like condition, which as many ME/CFS patients know, may include depression or dysphoria, which can certainly taint one's view of the world.

But I remind you that you have not provided a shred of factual evidence to support your conspiracy assertions.

Mikovits has none. Lipkin got a 25 million dollar grant right after his skewed study and Mikovits is broke and struggling.

You are juxtaposing the $25 million funding (actually it was $31 million) Lipkin's lab received with the XMRV events, and trying to make us believe there must have been some conspiracy; but good labs get awarded grants all the time. There is nothing unusual here.

Using that argument, then all media and everything you could possibly read is false, and no one should read anything, or watch news, which is absurd.

Naturally it is the case that anything could be misleading. You always have to be wary that any source could be potentially distorting the facts or being economical with the truth. No individual or organization is above scrutiny.

The establishment scientists have motive, Mikovits has none.

Individuals can have lots of motivations for doing things other than money. Protecting their reputation, for example.

I'm not a virologist,

This seems to be the crux of this discussion; you don't have the skills to assess the science, and you presumably don't have the time or inclination to teach yourself those skills, so instead you brush over the technical details, and instead focus on these imaginative but completely unsubstantiated conspiracy plots. That's lazy.

There can be lots of subtleties in virology, lots of reasons why a virus might evade detection in certain tests. If you had presented the details of a purely scientific argument of why XMRV might be present in human beings but is hard to detect, then people might take interest.

But you have instead based your argument on imaginative conspiracy plots.

 

[Sushi]

This thread has been reported numerous times for inflammatory and off-topic posting. If this thread does not stay civil and on-topic, it will be closed.

 

[wastwater]

It’s accepted that measles vaccine can precede ADEM is that the fault of the vaccine or a persons genetics

 

[Annikki]

That's not how the null hypothesis (on which basis science in general works). It's not necessary to prove that XMRV does not exist in humans, in fact it would be almost impossible to "prove" something does not exist. According to the null hypothesis, first it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that something (in this case, XMRV in humans) exists. And after that fact is established, the next, much bigger step would to prove that there is an association between CFS/ME and XMRV.

Both of these steps would need large-scale studies and replication. Until such day that this is proven to be the case, the default position should be disbelief in the XMRV hypothesis. That's how the null hypothesis works and it's something that some often ignore (i.e. by trying to switch the burden of proof to the opposite side of the matter). So as of current time, I remain unconvinced that XMRV has a role in CFS/ME, and so should everyone who understands the reasoning above.

XMRV is not a lab contaminant, and this has been proven . That fact is clearly indicated here, in this article/study:
The Prostate Cancer-Associated Human Retrovirus XMRV Lacks Direct Transforming Activity but Can Induce Low Rates of Transformation in Cultured Cells▿
http://jvi.asm.org/content/84/4/1874.full
"Importantly, XMRV has been found integrated into human genomic DNA from tumor-bearing prostatic tissue samples of 11 patients, showing that XMRV can indeed infect humans and is not a laboratory contaminant (7, 13)."

XMRV exists. The research into it has been halted as far as ME goes. Much is unknown. However you can't ever argue that just because it is unknown, that it shouldn't be believed in. That's ridiculous.


When you say "So as of current time, I remain unconvinced that XMRV has a role in CFS/ME, and so should everyone who understands the reasoning above,"
you're trying to force consensus with people who read this by saying that if they agree with your argument, then they agree with the other ideas you promote. Those ideas should stand on the basis of fact and not on your arguments.

When you were trying to use the error in my argument as fodder to derail the larger issue of a retrovirus causing ME, you're doing what in critical thinking, is called this:

• Argument from fallacy

  (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – assumption that if an argument for some conclusion is fallacious, then the conclusion is false.[7]-from Wikipedia

If you have to use logical fallacies to promote your ideas, you probably lack in valid reasons to promote your idea.
I encourage other people here to study critical thinking, this page is a great intro into the subject: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#middle

 

[JES]

If you have to use logical fallacies to promote your ideas, you probably lack in valid reasons to promote your idea.

Point out the logical fallacy in my argument by quoting the logically fallacious part of my text, and I will retract it.

 

[Annikki]

That's a bleak view of humanity. A bleak mind-state may be the reason Judy Mikovits imagines that there is conspiracy in the XMRV story. Not may people know that Judy also suffers from a ME/CFS-like condition, which as many ME/CFS patients know, may include depression or dysphoria, which can certainly taint one's view of the world.

This seems to be the crux of this discussion; you don't have the skills to assess the science, and you presumably don't have the time or inclination to teach yourself those skills, so instead you brush over the technical details, and instead focus on these imaginative but completely unsubstantiated conspiracy plots.

Does one to be a virologist to suggest valid ideas and are you a virologist? This post was to encourage people to look at videos done by an actual virologist, and it is not about me. If you have to be a virologist to post ideas on this forum, then this would exclude most everyone.

I've answered a few of your questions as I saw fit, and provided solid answers to those questions. I feel that you are trying to pick apart what I say more than look at an issue objectively. I simply did not care to spend time while I'm sick fielding attacks when my time can be better spent.

You use a buzz word, "conspiracy theory" to attribute the book Plague to other more absurd ideas, which are out there. If were absurd I wouldn't have shared it.


You attack me and Judy Mikovits rather than focusing on facts. Calling Mikovits or anyone else crazy for being infected with ME is just low, and there's no excuse for it.

Ad hominem

(Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

The truth is lost when people become prejudiced towards and issue or persons. To try to prejudice people so they will not consider an idea is an anathema to free thought. Better wisdom teaches people to look at all sides of an issue, and to hear all arguments without prejudice, before drawing a conclusion.

That's nearly 2 hours of video. Would you have the timecode where she says this?

At 3:42 in the first video.


Moderators please close this thread, all I wanted to do was share videos.