PNAS STUDY OUT http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/16/1006901107

Dainty

Dainty

Senior Member
Messages
1,751
Location
Seattle
"In contrast to the reported findings of near-genetic identity of all XMRVs, we identified a genetically diverse group of MLV-related viruses."

This has got to be an interesting one, possibly accounting for various 'subtypes' of CFS?
 
Mark

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
"In sum, none of the four studies that have failed to confirm the PCR evidence reported by Lombardi et al., nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study."

Indeed, one year on, nobody has. Why not?
 
Mark

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
Dainty said:
This has got to be an interesting one, possibly accounting for various 'subtypes' of CFS?
Click to expand...

Totally. It's the way details like this are able to explain all the long-standing mysteries that I find so compelling.
 
anciendaze

anciendaze

Senior Member
Messages
1,841
Mark said:
Totally. It's the way details like this are able to explain all the long-standing mysteries that I find so compelling.
Click to expand...
We now have clear evidence of on-going mutation, substantiating one kind of problem in past research. The next thing I'm looking for is recombination. This turns up regularly in MuLV research, and now we are told there are many parallels with human gamma retrovirus and MuLV.

Go back to practically any list of confusing research papers on CFS/ME and tell me if you don't see common viruses behaving in uncharacteristic ways.
"In sum, none of the four studies that have failed to confirm the PCR evidence reported by Lombardi et al., nor our own study, has attempted to fully replicate that study."

Indeed, one year on, nobody has. Why not?
Click to expand...
Most likely because it took researchers 2 years to do this the first time. As you can see, this wasn't enough to get them a fair hearing with critics of infectious hypotheses.
 
Mark

Mark

Senior Member
Messages
5,238
Location
Sofa, UK
anciendaze said:
Most likely because it took researchers 2 years to do this the first time. As you can see, this wasn't enough to get them a fair hearing with critics of infectious hypotheses.
Click to expand...

OK fair enough, to a point...it took them 2 years to work out everything needed to get the results they got - across a range of 4 tests. But nobody has yet replicated the methods they used in any one of those 4 tests. I think you can perhaps excuse nobody trying to replicate the entire methodology of all 4 tests, but I don't think there's any excuse for a range of researchers running the simple, basic PCR, finding absolutely nothing, and then jumping to publication and saying "there's nothing there to be found, maybe they had a contamination problem".

And part of the WPI's 2 years work was 6 months of rigorous review by Science magazine - the other studies didn't have to do all that.

In my view, they simply disrespected the WPI because they were 'small' and 'not one of us'. They couldn't see past that prejudice, and they can't deny that they failed to find something real and significant as a result. One would hope they would learn from that, but I doubt it very much. They will reconstruct reality to suit their prejudices - and that means saying it was the WPI's fault for not helping them out more in the details of the paper.

I'm afraid that's what they're going to say, and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. When they badmouth the WPI, we should ask them: Who made this breakthrough anyway? Not you...

And really, that's what's wound them up the most.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back