Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Do you think Alter, Mikovits, etc, are not aware of this issue?
Actually that is not correct. The main Reeves biomarker is ability to answer a telephone.
These CFS cases are different from CFS patients seen in general practice and referral clinics; of the participants from the populationbased study in Georgia, only half had consulted a physician because of their fatigue, about 16% had been diagnosed with CFS, and 75% described an insidious onset to their illness that had no obvious relation to an acute infectious disease
Overall, 2.54% of the study populations had CFS; 83% reported gradual onset and 17% reported sudden onset of their illness.
Good one! But, there is a real issue here that may be overlooked.Actually that is not correct. The main Reeves biomarker is ability to answer a telephone.
Good one! But, there is a real issue here that may be overlooked.
We have a parallel case where XMRV is hard to detect in prostate cancer. Now, try the following thought experiment.
You ignore reports from clinicians who have contact with patients and believe they suffer from a serious illness as obviously biased. You use random dialing to locate people who believe they might have prostate cancer, but do not have a confirmed diagnosis. You bring them in for examination by clinicians you control. Any with clear physical signs of illness are excluded from your cohort.
Now, what conclusion will you reach concerning prostate discomfort syndrome?
Interesting. Do you have a citation?
I don't know what they know, and I don't know much about science. But I can feel a tidal wave- and when it picks up speed no one or no thing can stop it.
At this point it doesn't matter how neurotic we are painted- it's not about us. It's about science. And there's a battle brewing that will not be settled on our dispositions.
From what I've read, Alter is a powerhouse- and I cannot imagine a man of his acclaim allowing his work to be discarded or himself bullied.
If he found something- and it seems he did- he will have to fight to expose the truth, if not for science, than for his own reputation and Ego.
And then there's the WPI- they've got their teeth into this and they're not stopping. They didn't get this far to be intimidated. Not gonna happen.
Annette Whittemore is fighting for her daughter- no mother- especially that one- will let this go down like that- not after the road she's traveled.
The truth WILL come out- I'm sure of it.
If you want inspiration- just look to those two Dutch journalists who singlehandedly forced this issue. There will be more like that to come- The word is out and the door is slowly opening.
Each exposure only emboldens others to expose the truth and keep pushing. Add the WSJ reporter (Marcus) to the mix and you see where this is going.
No coverup will last- Not with a Nation's Blood Supply hanging in the balance.
You think the pressure is on us- It's not.
The pressure is on them.
For my preliminary assumption about this is someone using the handle IanH commenting in a Prohealth article about the leak by Dutch Journalists:
I have nothing more to offer. Thats why I am putting this question out here.
What is known about the Alter Cohort? I believe the patients come from Dr. Lerner, correct? .................. If so, they will be a different kettle of fish compared to the CDC cohort.
The main biomarker that Reeves et al uses to diagnose CFS is cortisol, http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/536946
and low cortisol is a biomarker for a CDC diagnosis of CFS. Low cortisol will inversely correlate as a marker for WPI/Lerner patients, so there is not likely to be much overlap in the patient cohorts if there are many other markers are also inversely correlated.
Remember that by making extraordinary demands of Lombardi and Mikovits, Science made their paper incredibly water-tight.
This could be exactly what happens here. The paper only becomes more of definitive home run that moves this discussion into a new phase and halts the silly negative studies based on bogus cohorts and collection/lab techniques.
This morning the Patient Advocate blog said that the NIH research people are being asked to test the CDC samples (the ones designed to NOT have XMRV in them - with ridiculous cohort, wrong test tubes, and whatever else).
I don't know what his source is for this, but it does worry me. I fear the CDC using these shenanigans to try to dilute or weaken the powerful findings of the NIH/FDA paper.
I was extremely upset when the papers were held up and then only the negative CDC paper was published, but the more I think about it, the more sense it makes to hold the Alter paper for 'additional studies' to be done AND ALSO to go ahead and let the CDC publish that smelly load in their pants they call a study. This gives Alter the time (opportunity, actually) to shine a light on the gross incompetence of the CDC in his own paper by making it very plain by sound science just how the CDC blew it.
i can see there is only 3 possibilities (let me know if there is a 4th)
1/ "They are sticking with the CDC paper = they WANT it to be the more accurate one" (as quoted by Recovery Soon)
2/ "They are sticking with the CDC paper = they believe its the more accurate one". (cort)
or 3/ They are sticking with the CDC paper, they believe it to not be accurate but wanted it published first. eg using it as a delaying tactic while they put other things in place.
One of these 3 has to be correct.
So are they in denial, are they grasping at straws or are they just trying to hide something.