List of various recent interviews with Judy Mikovits

Messages
71
Likes
104
Point out the logical fallacy in my argument by quoting the logically fallacious part of my text, and I will retract it.
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)
The fallacy is "burden of proof" which is described as follows:


Burden of Proof
A fallacy is when someone makes an argument based on unsound reasoning. Burden of proof is one type of fallacy in which someone makes a claim, but puts the burden of proof onto the other side. For example, a person makes a claim. Another person refutes the claim, and the first person asks them to prove that the claim is not true. In a logical argument, if someone states a claim, it is up to that person to prove the truth of his or her claim.

Source: http://www.softschools.com/examples/fallacies/burden_of_proof_examples/521/

You can't argue that because something has yet to be proven, that it is automatically false. You don't know what you don't know. You cannot tell people something doesn't exist, simply because it has yet to be proven. We haven't proven the big bang happened, that doesn't mean the universe doesn't exist. You cannot say that because something is unknown and not proven that it's automatically false.
 
Last edited:

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,745
Likes
20,179
Does one to be a virologist to suggest valid ideas and are you a virologist?
No and no, but over the years I slowly learnt a few things about the complexities of some of the pathogens linked to ME/CFS, such as enteroviruses and herpesviruses, which means that I can engage in discussion of the science behind these.

I suggest you may want to learn more about the science of XMRV, so that you can discuss it at the scientific level, rather than irresponsibly promoting these views that there was a coverup, and promoting completely baseless theories about corruption in the XMRV story.

Are you aware that because of these sort of conspiracy views, a British virologist who conducted one of the first negative XMRV replication studies started getting lots of violent hate mail from angry ME/CFS patients who erroneously assumed there was a conspiracy going on. Are you trying to re-ignite this anger and hated?



Calling Mikovits or anyone else crazy for being infected with ME is just low, and there's no excuse for it.
Not if it is the truth, which I suspect it is. I suspect Dr Judy Mikovits could be suffering from some very mild psychosis or disconnect from reality. I have experienced mild psychosis myself, which appeared after a viral brain infection, so I am all too familiar with how it can distort one's perceptions.

Lots of scientists have their ideas or theories rejected or disproven by their colleagues, but they don't go around spinning yarns about some global coverup.



"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)."
Those studies 7 and 13 were published around 10 years ago. They may no longer be valid, since a lot of the early papers on XMRV were later realized to be dubious due to contamination issues.

Also this 2017 paper says:
In conclusion, the occurrence of highly conserved, repeated DNA sequences in the XMRV genome deeply undermines the reliability of diagnostic PCRs by leading to artifactual and spurious amplifications. Together with all the other evidences, this makes the association between the XMRV retrovirus and CFS totally unreliable.
 

JES

Senior Member
Messages
781
Likes
1,553
The fallacy is "burden of proof" which is described as follows:
The burden of proof is on the party that is claiming a factual statement, in this case that XMVR exists in humans. I am saying I don't believe you. This is not the same as saying "XMRV does not exist in humans". My statement of disbelief is not an expression of fact, therefore I cannot have the burden of proof. If I had said "XMRV does not exist in humans", then I would have the burden of proof. But I precisely avoided saying that if you read back my last post. Disbelief in a claim is not the same as the negation of the claim.

The null hypothesis (disbelief until proven) is the default starting position in science, which you failed to acknowledge. The burden of proof is on the research community to establish XMRV in humans as a fact.

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I'm interested to hear about XMRV if or when there is some real news about it. Mikovits commemorating her a decade old lab work doesn't bring much new to the discussion.
 

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,383
Likes
5,594
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.
Mikovits herself also failed to reliably detect the virus in the blinded multi-lab study, while at the same time managing to contaminate her cell cultures with mycoplasma and being unable to prove culturable virus.

Regardless, PCR primers don’t care about methylation. They will still bind to and amplify their target genetic sequence, methylated or not. Methylation might effect attempts to culture virus or detection of retroviral antigen, but it won’t effect PCR, and I believe most or all of the negative studies included a PCR component.

What we’ve since learned years after the fiasco is that her methods are demonstrably unreliable. The Lombardi PCR primers were recently found to cross react and amplify HERV env genes present in all of our DNA, causing false positives. It was also found that the monoclonal antibody against SFFV env protein that she used also cross reacts with HERV env. As she couldn’t prove she could culture live virus when given the chance, this left her with basically no credible evidence.

Her only finding that survived replication in all of this was the finding of SFFV reactive antibodies in a portion of patients. However, this is a non specific finding. HERVs and gammaretrovirus are closely related, so antibody cross reactivity is not surprising. HERVs are known to be transactivated in several diseases, including other infections, and this is even part of the Naviaux CDR model. It would be unsurprising if this was occurring in ME as well.
 
Messages
71
Likes
104
LOLOLOL!! Mikovits hasn't lost it. What she and Heckenlively allege in Plague has a solid basis to it. Why?
The CDC themselves admit the polio vaccine given out in the 1950's was contaminated with a cancer causing simian (primate) virus, called "SV-40."

First in order, I'll list the link to the archived CDC fact sheet, since the original page on the CDC website was pulled. I used Internet Archive but Google Cache is said to have a copy too. For instructions on how to find it via Google Cache, check the video at the bottom of my post, which is also my source for this info.
Link:
https://web.archive.org/web/2011030...pdates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm


Now I will quote, verbatim, what the CDC said about the polio vaccine and SV-40:
Cancer, Simian Virus 40 (SV40), and Polio Vaccine Fact Sheet
  • SV40 is a virus found in some species of monkey.

  • SV40 was discovered in 1960. Soon afterward, the virus was found in polio vaccine.

  • More than 98 million Americans received one or more doses of polio vaccine from 1955 to 1963 when a proportion of vaccine was contaminated with SV40; it has been estimated that 10–30 million Americans could have received an SV40 contaminated dose of vaccine.

  • SV40 virus has been found in certain types of cancer in humans, but it has not been determined that SV40 causes these cancers.

  • The majority of scientific evidence suggests that SV40-contaminated vaccine did not cause cancer; however, some research results are conflicting and more studies are needed.

  • Polio vaccines being used today do not contain SV40. All of the current evidence indicates that polio vaccines have been free of SV40 since 1963.
Additional Facts
  • In the 1950s, rhesus monkey kidney cells, which contain SV40 if the animal is infected, were used in preparing polio vaccines. Because SV40 was not discovered until 1960, no one was aware in the 1950s that polio vaccine could be contaminated.

  • SV40 was found in the injected form of the polio vaccine (IPV), not the kind given by mouth (OPV).

  • Not all doses of IPV were contaminated. It has been estimated that 10–30 million people actually received a vaccine that contained SV40.

  • Some evidence suggests that receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine may increase risk of cancer. However, the majority of studies done in the U.S. and Europe which compare persons who received SV40-contaminated polio vaccine with those who did not have shown no causal relationship between receipt of SV40-contaminated polio vaccine and cancer.
More Information
  • For in-depth information about SV40, polio vaccine, and cancer, see our frequently asked questions.
  • National Immunization Hotline:
    English 1 (800) 232-2522
    Spanish 1 (800) 232-0233
Page last modified: October 22, 2007
Last but not least, I want to thank my source for this information, the maker of this video:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________


Mikovits herself also failed to reliably detect the virus in the blinded multi-lab study, while at the same time managing to contaminate her cell cultures with mycoplasma and being unable to prove culturable virus.

Regardless, PCR primers don’t care about methylation. They will still bind to and amplify their target genetic sequence, methylated or not. Methylation might effect attempts to culture virus or detection of retroviral antigen, but it won’t effect PCR, and I believe most or all of the negative studies included a PCR component.
What Mikovits said is that XMRV leaves the blood stream and hides in the tissues. There is no way to culture a virus from a blood sample which has no virus in it. I think it's methylated when it's residing in tissue. The demethlyating agent, I presume, somehow changes that equation.

However, maybe there have been so many failures in finding pathogens in the blood of CFS patients, period, because if it's XMRV, a virus that hides out in tissue is difficult to detect. The problem often times boils down to knowing where to look. Viruses infect different parts of the body, and also vary in their behavior, using different reproductive strategies from each other.

Mikovits said XMRV enters blood stream periodically.

XMRV likely follows a pattern most viruses hold to, which means, there are times it replicates and times it's dormant, (as far as reproduction).

Entering the blood stream would surely help the virus to spread its progeny, so it's probably only present in blood during it's replication cycle. Don't quote me on that until I check it with a few more studies.
 
Last edited:

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,383
Likes
5,594
What Mikovits said is that XMRV leaves the blood stream and hides in the tissues. There is no way to culture a virus from a blood sample which has no virus in it. I think it's methylated when it's residing in tissue. The demethlyating agent, I presume, somehow changes that equation.
This may be true, but in their initial published work they claimed to be able to culture virus from either PBMCs or plasma. I’d really recommend reading the multi site study. They were given cases, negative controls, and spiked positive samples. The results showed that her lab actually had poorly sensitive assays because she couldn’t even detect all the spiked positives, and worse she got positive hits on the negative controls.

This study basically puts to rest what you’re saying. Blood drawn from the same patients at the same time, sent to Mikovits and another lab showed opposite results. Mikovits found positives which means it should have been in the blood but the other lab found nothing. It also showed that the virus they claimed to have found was not wild virus and looked identical to VP62 plasmid. They also showed that XMRV probably can’t even infect human cells outside of a test tube because our blood neutralizes the virus.
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,745
Likes
20,179
What Mikovits said is that XMRV leaves the blood stream and hides in the tissues. There is no way to culture a virus from a blood sample which has no virus in it. I think it's methylated when it's residing in tissue. The demethlyating agent, I presume, somehow changes that equation.

However, maybe there have been so many failures in finding pathogens in the blood of CFS patients, period, because if it's XMRV, a virus that hides out in tissue is difficult to detect. The problem often times boils down to knowing where to look. Viruses infect different parts of the body, and also vary in their behavior, using different reproductive strategies from each other.
The point you make about viruses infecting tissues rather than the blood may be a valid one; this occurs in enterovirus infection in ME/CFS. Enterovirus is not much found in the blood in ME/CFS, and so a PCR test on the blood of ME/CFS patients with enterovirus infection will more often be negative than positive.

But if you take biopsies of muscle or stomach tissues from ME/CFS patients, and then test those for enterovirus, that's when you will get a strong positive result.

However, in the case of chronic enterovirus infections in ME/CFS, although blood PCR is often negative, you still find high antibody titers to enterovirus, most likely because the immune system is responding to the infection in the tissues.

So if there were a chronic XMRV infection in the tissues in ME/CFS, you might expect high XMRV antibody titers; but I don't think anyone has tested for these in ME/CFS.



In studies on XMRV infection in monkeys, they found that during the acute infection, XMRV could be detected by PCR in the blood. But after the acute infection was over, the virus could no longer be detected by PCR.
 
Messages
71
Likes
104
The point you make about viruses infecting tissues rather than the blood may be a valid one; this occurs in enterovirus infection in ME/CFS. Enterovirus is not much found in the blood in ME/CFS, and so a PCR test on the blood of ME/CFS patients with enterovirus infection will more often be negative than positive.

But if you take biopsies of muscle or stomach tissues from ME/CFS patients, and then test those for enterovirus, that's when you will get a strong positive result.

However, in the case of chronic enterovirus infections in ME/CFS, although blood PCR is often negative, you still find high antibody titers to enterovirus, most likely because the immune system is responding to the infection in the tissues.

So if there were a chronic XMRV infection in the tissues in ME/CFS, you might expect high XMRV antibody titers; but I don't think anyone has tested for these in ME/CFS.



In studies on XMRV infection in monkeys, they found that during the acute infection, XMRV could be detected by PCR in the blood. But after the acute infection was over, the virus could no longer be detected by PCR.
You make an excellent point. There are other autoimmune diseases, like IBS and fibromyalgia, which are often comorbid with CFS, which affect muscle and stomach tissue.

I'm not sure about studies involving antibody titers. Mikovits looked for cytokine titers, that's all I'm aware of.

She mentioned another thing about CFS. that isn't controversial or in dispute. This is that CFS patients have a unique cytokine signature. These studies describe these findings:

Elevated serum titers of proinflammatory cytokines and CNS autoantibodies in patients with chronic spinal cord injury.
Hayes KC1, Hull TC, Delaney GA, Potter PJ, Sequeira KA, Campbell K, Popovich PG.
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/45/E9435.full

MEA Summary Review: Cytokine signature associated with disease severity in ME/CFS | 18 August 2017
http://www.meassociation.org.uk/201...ith-disease-severity-in-mecfs-18-august-2017/

A study on diabetes indicated there was a correlation between cytokines and antibodies:
An association of autoantibody status and serum cytokine levels in type 1 diabetes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716743
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
11,745
Likes
20,179
She mentioned another thing about CFS. that isn't controversial or in dispute. This is that CFS patients have a unique cytokine signature.
The only consistent cytokine finding in ME/CFS is elevated TGF-beta, but that's not unique to ME/CFS. You also find it elevated in Dr Shoemaker's mold-induced illness (ie, CIRS, chronic inflammatory response syndrome).

Other cytokines like IL-1β, TNF-α, IL-6, etc are inconsistent from study to study.
 

Dan_USAAZ

Senior Member
Messages
137
Likes
162
Location
Phoenix, AZ
While I have little interest in rekindling the XMRV debate, I do believe there were some unanswered questions (not related to conspiracy theories!). I do think that the XMRV discovery was very important, if for no other reason than it was contaminating many of the top labs. I have heard many people on this forum claim that XMRV is not a retrovirus and is just contamination. This is just not true. It is a retrovirus, albeit human made. I am making no claims as to whether I think it can and has infected the human population. Replication studies suggest not.

So if there were a chronic XMRV infection in the tissues in ME/CFS, you might expect high XMRV antibody titers; but I don't think anyone has tested for these in ME/CFS.
As for XMRV antibody tests, the WPI did test. I do not believe they published the study.
The attached document is the WPI press release.

The XMRV antibody test result is one area I still have lingering questions. I understand how contamination could have affected the PCR results, rendering them invalid. But I do not believe contamination can affect antibody immune response to blood that is no longer in the body. Can contaminating blood in the lab cause the sample to start making a new antibody response to a novel pathogen? I don’t think so, but correct me if I am wrong on this point.

There have been a few explanations posited for the XMRV antibody response.

- Cross Reactivity: This is a possibility, but doesn’t this mean there is infection with a virus that is somewhat similar to XMRV? I recall some scientists at the time suggesting it would likely have to be a novel MLV somewhat similar to XMRV in order to generate this antibody response.

- HERV Response: Another possibility, but still important and would warrant a deeper look.

Assuming the WPI antibody test results were valid, either one of the above explanations would still be very important. The antibody response in patients was >95%. If I remember correctly, in controls it was < 6%. This is an immune system abnormality that, if nothing else, would appear to be a good biomarker. It would also warrant further investigation to determine what is causing it (but not to prove XMRV).

I suppose there could be other explanations for the antibody results, such as extreme incompetence or fraud.

Because they did not formally publish the antibody response study, it is not possible to run a replication study. As far as I know, the scientific community has left the antibody aspect alone.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Dan_USAAZ

Senior Member
Messages
137
Likes
162
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Messages
71
Likes
104
While I have little interest in rekindling the XMRV debate, I do believe there were some unanswered questions (not related to conspiracy theories!). I do think that the XMRV discovery was very important, if for no other reason than it was contaminating many of the top labs. I have heard many people on this forum claim that XMRV is not a retrovirus and is just contamination. This is just not true. It is a retrovirus, albeit human made.
I agree. Dr. Silverman found a complete virus. Still, I think calling it a conspiracy theory is a bit much. Particularly, because Merck, a vaccine manufacturer did a host of scary, unethical things to push it's drug, Vioxx, which killed 60 thousand people. It also developed a policy of targeting and discrediting doctors who disagreed with Merck's insistence Vioxx was safe. This matches what Mikovits is alleging.

I'll quote from Slashdot and a few other sources about how far Merck was willing to go to push an outright dangerous product.

Drug Company Merck Drew Up Doctor "Hit List"

"An international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be 'neutralized' or discredited because they criticized the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced. Staff at US company Merck & Co. emailed each other about the list of doctors — mainly researchers and academics — who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action. The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words 'neutralize,' 'neutralized,' or 'discredit' against some of the doctors' names. It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments. 'We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live,' a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff."

https://science.slashdot.org/story/09/04/25/1626200/drug-company-merck-drew-up-doctor-hit-list
Here's another story on this same subject.
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/new_page_2.htm

I know that Dr. Judy Mikovits is also pointing the finger at corruption in the CDC, The Centers for Disease Control, in the U.S. This also is not surprising, given the history of the CDC and their response- or lack thereof- to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. This has been going on for years. Here's a nice little documentary on the CDC coverup of CFS which was the TV show "Primetime" on ABC back in 1996:

Last, but not least, there's some evidence that people have recovered from ME/CFS through using antiviral and anti-retroviral treatments. This was more of a thing back around 2010, and most attempts were abandoned a year or so later, because of the Lipkin study reducing interest in such things. Things looked promising, in spite of the Lipkin study.
The following articles discuss the use of anti-viral and anti-retroviral medications in treating ME/CFS, and there has been success with each:

Two Physicians Try Anti-retroviral Drugs For ME/CFS
http://biomedicalmecfs.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-physicians-try-antiretroviral-drugs.html

Why did it take the CDC so long to reverse course on debunked treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CBT)?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/09/25/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-cdc/

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and How to Treat It
http://www.drpodell.org/chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatments.shtml

Valacyclovir in the treatment of post viral fatigue syndrome

http://drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/Valacyclovir_in_the_treatment_of_post_viral_fatigue_syndrome

CFS patients with ciHHV-6 may benefit from antiviral treatment

https://hhv-6foundation.org/news/cfs-patients-with-cihhv-6-may-benefit-from-antiviral-treatment

Raltegravir Is a Potent Inhibitor of XMRV, a Virus Implicated in Prostate Cancer and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848589/
 
Last edited:
Messages
71
Likes
104
I’m going to share information which supports my thesis that Dr. Judy Mikovits is telling the truth. First, I want to stress some key points. There are key questions I’m sure all of us have asked: “Why are we being brainwashed to believe we’re not sick? Why is there so little research into this disease? Why has the British Government kept it’s findings about ME/CFS under lock and key until the year 2070?

I encourage everyone to ask these questions and keep asking them until we get answers. There’s a saying that if you keep an open mind you’ll find great things. In that spirit, I’m encouraging you to consider what answers to those questions could look like.

Next, I'm going to discuss odd statements from Simon Wessely. Before I do, I want to address anyone who thinks the Lipkin study couldn’t be skewed, when we just endured the PACE trial, which itself was a skewed study.

Now, back to the topic, I was looking at odd behavior from government health agencies about ME/CFS, and viewing this in light of what Dr. Judy Mikovits is suggesting.

For the sake of U.K.government officials and Simon Wessely, I hope Dr. Judy Mikovits is right, because then they have a tangible, if unjustifiable, reason for all their abuse of CFS patients. Why abuse us!? Does the UK government just need to rough up sick people for yucks? Being a bureaucrat can’t be that boring!

This line of reasoning led me to do more research from a different angle. First, you readers may need some background information.

This press release from the Whittemore Peterson Institute indicates that Gulf War Syndrome was also slated to be tested for XMRV.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110903133833/http://wpinstitute.org/xmrv/index.html

Another important fact is that CFS/ME is similar to Gulf War Syndrome (GWS):
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/closing-in-on-a-medical-mystery/

ME/CFS is very similar to Gulf War Syndrome in terms of symptoms. I heard one report years ago which said civilians in Iraq after the Gulf War had an epidemic of CFS. Some people say that Gulf War Syndrome actually is ME/CFS, just under a different name. I don't know. There are similarities between ME and Gulf War Syndrome:

Here’s a quote from another article which shows the similarity between GWS and ME/CFS. It is from this website, Phoenix Rising:

..A look at the other recommended CDMRP studies suggests that research interests in the disorders overlap significantly. Two of the “Consortium Development Projects’, each of which should recieve substantial funding in the future, are on topics (Brain-Immune Functioning/ Autonomic Nervous System Functioning, Central Neural Processing and Sleep) that would have fit perfectly in the ME/CFS State of the Knowledge Workshop last March Link to article: http://phoenixrising.me/archives/5615/

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in Gulf War Veterans

Gulf War Veterans who develop Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) do not have to prove a connection between their illnesses and service to be eligible to receive VA disability compensation. CFS must have emerged during active duty in the Southwest Asia theater of military operations or by December 31, 2016, and be at least 10 percent disabling.
Link: https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/gulfwar/chronic-fatigue-syndrome.asp
Now I'm done with the background information and onto my discoveries. I used a different approach to test what Judy Mikovits is saying. I learned some very fascinating things! Initially, all I did was “google” Simon Wessely and vaccines. I read about his antics with the Gulf War Syndrome patients. Fun, fun, fun!

Gulf War Syndrome (GWS), was denied as real by our favorite ME/CFS denier, Simon Wessely.

I browsed some articles and I found Simon Wessely doing his usual spin on things but this time with vaccines and their link to GWS. He was a participant in a study which found a link between three vaccines being given at once to soldiers and the onset of GWS.

That study found proof that multiple vaccinations led to the onset of GWS. Yet, when the results proved a strong correlation between the receipt of multiple vaccines and GWS. Simon Wessely says in the conclusion of the study that vaccines didn’t cause GWS, that instead it was just stress. Wessely then glibly announces that the administration of multiple vaccines in veterans is perfectly safe. See the study here:

Study: “Role of vaccinations as risk factors for ill health in veterans of the Gulf war: cross sectional study” Matthew Hotopf, senior lecturer, Anthony David, codirector, Lisa Hull, research worker, Khalida Ismail, lecturer, Catherine Unwin, study coordinator, and Simon Wessely, codirector

Results
The response rate for the original survey was 70.4% (n=3284). Of these, 28% (923) had vaccine records. Receipt of multiple vaccines before deployment was associated with only one of the six health outcomes (post-traumatic stress reaction). By contrast five of the six outcomes (all but post-traumatic stress reaction) were associated with multiple vaccines received during deployment. The strongest association was for the multisymptom illness (odds ratio 5.0; 95% confidence interval 2.5 to 9.8).

Conclusion
“Among veterans of the Gulf war there is a specific relation between multiple vaccinations given during deployment and later ill health. Multiple vaccinations in themselves do not seem to be harmful but combined with the “stress” of deployment they may be associated with adverse health outcomes. These results imply that every effort should be made to maintain routine vaccines during peacetime.” link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27378/
How can Wessely attribute stress alone as the cause when a study shows that receiving multiple vaccines was a prerequisite for becoming ill with GWS? I think back to what Judy Mikovits saying that stress and hormones are triggers for the XMRV virus. So even if Wessely isn't doing his usual gaslighting, stress does worsen all viral infections. Maybe there you have your answer for how CFS worsens when people are stressed.

Let me reiterate that Dr. Judy Mikovits does not believe all vaccines are evil. Her only warnings about vaccines is overusing them, giving them at times the immune system is compromised, and and giving them to infants less than 3 months old. Mikovits says she's noticed a relationship between disease and how vaccines are administered. Giving multiple vaccines at once she criticizes as dangerous.

Isn’t it strange we find this practice being used during the Gulf War? Even stranger, that Simon Wessely is called into the fray to spin the findings of the study.

There's more evidence than just Simon Wessely twisting study results. The journal, Nature recently has published an article about the relationship to vaccines and the onset of GWS:

The science journal Nature confirms there was a link between vaccines and GWS:
“Admission on Gulf War vaccines spurs debate on medical records,”

https://www.nature.com/articles/36158
“Pressure in the United Kingdom for an overhaul of military medical research was reinforced last week by an admission from the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) that it had failed to heed warnings at the start of the Gulf War about the possible side-effects of a vaccine combination administered to British troops.

A report presented to the House of Commons by John Reid, the armed forces minister, confirms that a pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine was given to troops as an adjuvant for an anthrax vaccine, so that the latter took effect after seven instead of 32 weeks. Use of the pertussis vaccine in this way was highly experimental, relying on preliminary results from MOD-sponsored research at the Centre for Applied Microbiology Research (CAMR) at Porton Down, but was done to get troops out to the Gulf quickly.

But the report reveals that the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) had warned the MOD, in a fax dated 21 December 1990, that in animal studies this combination caused “severe loss of condition and weight”. Although the MOD recorded receipt of the fax, no-one there could recall “or admitted to recalling the fax”, said Reid.

The revelations have also lent weight to suspicion that vaccinations might account for some of the purported symptoms of Gulf War syndrome. A recent paper, by Graham Rook and A. Zumla from University College London, suggests that multiple vaccinations may cause a large change in the immune response that could result in similar symptoms to those observed in Gulf War veterans (see The Lancet 349, 1831; 1997).

Circumstantial evidence pointing to vaccines as a cause for the syndrome also comes from the fact that no symptoms have been reported in French forces, who were not given the vaccines used by British and US troops.

If this difference is confirmed, it would be a “crucial epidemiological point”, says Simon Wessely, a researcher at King's College in London who is leading a study on Gulf War syndrome. But he adds: “I'm only prepared to accept this when there is evidence that the French have looked for [symptoms]; they haven't systematically looked yet.”.

Veterans need to be treated as a special group for research purposes, with particular health needs, he says. “Regardless of whether Gulf War syndrome exists or not, many veterans are bitter and disillusioned at the feeling there has been official disregard for their health.”
People have been saying that it was the vaccines given to soldiers in the Gulf War, both in Britain and the U.S. which made them sick. If it was depleted uranium at fault with GWS, it would be more logical to conclude that the symptoms should match for radiation sickness and not a CFS-like medical condition. I’ve watched some documentaries on Chernobyl and none of the residents there became ill with a CFS-like disease.

For further study, I’ll share more articles about Wessely and GWS:

“Assigned to investigate Gulf War Syndrome, Wessely came to believe that the same maladaptive processes working in ME/CFS are at play in Gulf War Syndrome.”
‘Instead Wessely favours psychological explanations for what he views to be a 'Gulf War health effect' which he believes to be caused by stress, specifically troops' anxiety about chemical weapons and vaccines, as well as misinformation about Gulf War Syndrome.[40] (Wikipedia)’ Link to quote: https://www.healthrising.org/forums...-cbt-icon-calls-for-big-rituximab-trial.2727/
An article from The Independent:
”He (Simon Wessely)...though more cautious than his wife, he is more media-savvy… at the couple’s 25th wedding anniversary last year, their sons caused laughter when they summed up their parents’ relationship in a single word: “competitive.”

His competitiveness has got him into trouble in the past. His findings on chronic fatigue and Gulf War syndrome proved controversial because activists in both groups claimed that their symptoms had a biological cause – a virus in the case of chronic fatigue and vaccines, depleted uranium or smoke from oil fires in the case of Gulf War syndrome. Wessely argued that whatever the cause – which could not be determined in either condition – it was the treatment that mattered. Even if a virus was the original trigger of a patient’s fatigue, the challenge was how to tackle it.
link: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...hose-with-depression-there-would-9924174.html
 
Last edited:
Messages
71
Likes
104
She can talk all she wants, but the facts and the evidence do not support her. I don't know if you've noticed, but most of the content you are linking is from fringe/conspiracy theory programs.
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.
When there is no solution to the problem, no cure, then explain to me how anyone is going to make a profit? You have to have an item to sell, first, before you can sell it, and only if it sells can a profit be yielded. No one can make money off something which doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, then show me one example of a cure for CFS. Gee, there isn't one, is there? Now who can make money off that?

Secondly, most of the pharmaceutical companies have abandoned research for cures since more money is to be made by symptom controlling drugs which have to be taken indefinitely. I'm sure this will be argued with and people will say some drug companies will look for cures. But Goldman Sachs just came out and said, "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" CNBC discusses the financial giant making this statement:

"Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html

Sadly, it's true, you make more profit by selling billions of pills than you do one cure which may cost just a couple grand. They take in typically $100 plus for each new drug. Multiply that times one month's worth of medication, one pill bottle and then multiply that by the span of a sick person's lifetime. Then multiply that times the number of people sick with the disease. This easily could make anyone a million year. They say money talks, b.s. walks.

Now, all this has to happen before you can say at all, it proves Judy Mikovits is wrong. It proves nothing because you require a million things which have as yet to happen and as yet to exist to make your argument true.

The following is a documentary which is from not a conspiracy website but the Canadian Broadcast Corporation and it's content was also in a Rolling Stone article in 1992. It's saying far more incriminating about animal viruses crossing over to humans via vaccines cultured in animal tissue than Judy Mikovits is. Also, BTW, it shows just how many different diseases, far beyond CFS, which have their roots in this practice:

 
Messages
71
Likes
104
When there is no solution to the problem, no cure, then explain to me how anyone is going to make a profit? You have to have an item to sell, first, before you can sell it, and only if it sells can a profit be yielded. No one can make money off something which doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, then show me one example of a cure for CFS. Gee, there isn't one, is there? Now who can make money off that?

Secondly, most of the pharmaceutical companies have abandoned research for cures since more money is to be made by symptom controlling drugs which have to be taken indefinitely. I'm sure this will be argued with and people will say some drug companies will look for cures. But Goldman Sachs just came out and said, "Is curing patients a sustainable business model?" CNBC discusses the financial giant making this statement:

"Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: 'Is curing patients a sustainable business model?"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/goldman-asks-is-curing-patients-a-sustainable-business-model.html

Sadly, it's true, you make more profit by selling billions of pills than you do one cure which may cost just a couple grand. They take in typically $100 plus for each bottle of a new drug. Multiply that one month's worth of medication, (one pill bottle) times 12. Then multiply that by the span of years in a sick person's lifetime. Then multiply that times the number of people sick in the world with the disease. This easily could make anyone a millions, even billions. They say money talks, b.s. walks. Money pays too for mouthpieces to run around trying to fool people from thinking the sky is blue, so a profit can be made- i.e. Wessely, et. al.

Now, this fantasy scenario has to take place first before Judy Mikovits is "by defacto" wrong. It proves nothing because you require a vast series of events which have as yet to happen and as yet to exist to make your argument true. Unless you know of a CFS cure and you're just holding out. If you do, then you shouldn't be wasting time on my thread, you should be telling the world about your new CFS cure- and getting rich, LOL!

The following is a documentary which is from not a conspiracy website but the Canadian Broadcast Corporation and it's content was also in a Rolling Stone article in 1992. It's saying far more incriminating about animal viruses crossing over to humans via vaccines cultured in animal tissue than Judy Mikovits is. Also, BTW, it shows just how many different diseases this is about:

 

serg1942

Senior Member
Messages
406
Likes
730
Location
Spain
I finished reading 'plague' a few weeks ago. My English is limited and so is my energy right now, so I won't actively participate into this exciting debate. I just want to point out that I found the book really convincing from a scientific point of view. I have some background on medical science as well as on labs techniques, which, at least, allowed me to follow the whole chain of events that happened since the Science publication until the large study that officially shut down the issue of XMRV... I think there are many loose ends that the book makes really clear.. The PCRs were just not made as 'opened' as they should have been, plus the antibodies against retoviral proteins found in the 4% of both CFS and control patients were not explained ..

Anyway, I just wanted to give my humble opinion. I really recommend this book.

Best!
Sergio
 
Messages
12
Likes
34
Location
BC
Hi all, been a while. Thanks Annikki for this thread. One thing I have learned recently is corruption applied in just the right places gets mega companies anything they want. Including crimes against humanity. I began poking around trying to get an answer as to why the medical injustices have been applied to the ME/CFS population. I went down a rabbit hole and kept seeing similarities of toxin exposures and epigenetic changes similar to ME/CFS.

In this short interview (10 mins) Judy is very convincing, and I believe her. I was tested before studies were debunked and I had a positive antibody XMRV in 2010. They tried to destroy her, then Dept of Defence hires her to work on Gulf War Syndrome because of her brilliance. She has stated in the past that GWS and ME/CFS are identical in symptoms but very different on brain imaging. My theory is vaccines, virus, bacteria, etc can bring on ME/CFS but toxins in our food, water, air supply prevent chronically ill ME/CFS and GWS from making a full recovery, add to that the multiple subgroups they are finding just to confuse matters. I, like many others feel better when soy, corn, wheat, sugar and non organic foods are eliminated.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06...blowing-interview-with-judy-mikovits-phd.html

Crimes against humanity when the precautionary principal is not followed, corrupted decision makers and bad science. No conspiracy story here Hip.

Glyphosate based chemicals are being applied all over our country, studies show hormone disruption, cancer, and liver toxicity in human cell lines below allowable limits, and lethal to amphibians at much lower levels than currently allowed. My daughter has 2 painful diseases connected to hormones these toxins disrupt. Time for Health Canada to review their re-evaluation decision of Glyphosate “safe” in April 2017, if they used any of the materials listed in below court documents. I have asked for an inquiry based on these documents that will be released here: Glyphosate cancer case https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Judges-order-in-Johnson-Case-ahead-of-trial.pdf coming before California courts June 18, 2018,

It will allow the California Johnston et. al. jury to see Monsanto internal documents that the Judge allowed because the jury may find they show malice, fraud, oppression, marketed a product that could cause injury and death, was aware Glyphosate based products were carcinogenic and more dangerous than Glyphosate in isolation, continuously sought to influence scientific literature, prevented internal concerns from reaching public, bolstered its position in product liability actions, ghost writing scientific literature 1999 to 2015, sponsorship of literature defending liability claims 2012, calculated the benefits of securing experts to lend credibility to their sponsored studies 2012.

Monsanto/Bayer/Synergy are makers of 3 neonics that are killing pollinators, EU just banned them from all outdoor use within 6 months. Suspect corrupted studies there too. PM Trudeau sides with chemical company again. I have asked for an inquiry.

Atlantic salmon farming poised to cause extinction of BC wild salmon, coverup of just how toxic farmed salmon is to human health, babies in the womb and during breastfeeding absorb mothers toxins from the fish. Monsanto manufactures chemicals used in fish farms. There is dead zones in ocean ecosystems and virus transfered to wild salmon. Timely investigation requested due to upcoming salmon farm license renewals on June 20th and restocking. All these good scientists cannot be lying.
http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/Norwegian Articles reduced file size.pdf

Lets recap, Monsanto - Bayer Merger is connected to poisoning the food chain. PM Trudeau is approving the merger with a few exemptions of canola, etc. through the Competition Bureau in Canada because of monopoly. Can you ignore Bayer’s connection to companies it took over that had used Jewish slaves and children during holocaust for human experiments?
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-06...d-as-bayer-consumes-the-evil-corporation.html

Yes, there is absolutely corruption in medical world.