Neuroskeptic - New blog about XMRV CFS.

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,798
Likes
37,560
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Hi

This is a well balanced blog from an outsider who is also a neuroscientists. There is nothing new here, but it shows that scientists are capable of reviewing CFS issues well, even if they aren't completely up-to-date on CFS research and history. It doesn't matter if someone agrees with us or not, only that they come to their opinion via the evidence. That is how science should work.

Bye
Alex
 
Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
There are many things wrong in this blog. Lots of misinformation.

It's a case of someone writing a blog, when their knowledge of the subject is small. Clearly they have not read the studies, otherwise it would be clear the CDC paper was not a replication attempt. They have no understanding of the difference between Fukuda, revised Fukuda, the Canadian, or any other definition. They don't know about the WPI sharing samples with Kuppevald or the CDC. More importantly, he does not question whether using a different test will produce different results.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,798
Likes
37,560
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Hi V99

You are correct, but he is still fair and reasoned using his minimal knowledge base. This is someone who could be on our side, or at least the side of good science, if he knew a little more. there is no difference in my view between someone who supports us and someone who supports good science. If you read the comments, he has been following up on links posted to him by patients to check the new information out. We should be helping him find solid research to read up on, including research on what is wrong the operationalized Fukuda criteria. I am busy with politics at the moment, maybe someone else could send him a very few select links to published commentaries by other researchers etc?

Bye
Alex
There are many things wrong in this blog. Lots of misinformation.

It's a case of someone writing a blog, when their knowledge of the subject is small. Clearly they have not read the studies, otherwise it would be clear the CDC paper was not a replication attempt. They have no understanding of the difference between Fukuda, revised Fukuda, the Canadian, or any other definition. They don't know about the WPI sharing samples with Kuppevald or the CDC. More importantly, he does not question whether using a different test will produce different results.