The Imperial College study is what it is, the first of many replication reports. They probably would have gladly reported a high level of XMRV, if they had found that. Regardless of what part of the genome they studied, or which tubes were used, given that WPI claims 98% of PWC have XMRV, this replication study should have found something. The fact they did not does not automatically mean they made some type of error. We need to apply the same strict analysis to WPI and their Science article as we do to any replication study. There are always possible confounds to these types of studies. The game is afoot perhaps but we have miles to go before the game is over.
K
_Kim_
Guest
Kurt, I think that you should answer Dr. Vernon's objections and the objections raised on these fora about the subjects if you are going to claim that the Imperial College/Wessley study should have found xmrv if xmrv were really present.
R
Robin
Guest
I don't think anyone here wants bad science. If they were going to replicate a study, why wouldn't they use exactly the same technique as the WPI/Cleveland Clinic/NCI? Why introduce variables? If a PCR test is like a query into the database of your DNA, couldn't the wrong search terms come up with no results?
If the WPI is wrong, so be it, but any data coming from Simon Wessely is going to arouse suspicion no matter how objectively the work was done. Someone is incorrect about XMRV and thankfully other people are studying it. If the future bears bad news then we'll deal with it but we need to know how and why. But like you said the game is far from over.
starryeyes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,561
- Location
- Bay Area, California
The Phantom beat me to it but I will still write what I intended to: Why wasn't it edited by someone in the UK? UCSF seems very vested in making CFS/ME into a psychiatric disorder. (See the Thread: King's College (Wessely ex-home) Strategic Partnership with UCSF in the General CFS section here at PR.
Bravo Parvo – your posts are great!
JayS & Cort – Thank you for pointing us to articles about this study by the CAA. I'm very impressed with them. Go Suzanne Vernon!
Oooh good! I can't wait to hear about those test results.
Good job Cort!!
starryeyes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,561
- Location
- Bay Area, California
That's uncanny!
K
_Kim_
Guest
Dr. Nixon was doing his graduate studies at the University of Oxford when this article was published:
And...both Wessely and Nixon were cited in the References section.
Bedfellows???
starryeyes
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,561
- Location
- Bay Area, California
Excellent find Kim. Yes, it certainly looks like they go way back.
parvofighter
Senior Member
- Messages
- 440
- Location
- Canada
YUP - Bring on the Kool-Aid!
Geez, given the blazing speed of posts today, this one will be seriously obsolete to this thread by the time I finish it!
@ Levi, you're right that @ first glance the media feeding frenzy looks worrisome. This is their bread and butter - digging for controversy, stirring the pot. And as several have rightly pointed out, Wesseley has enjoyed a long and incestuous relationship with the UK media.
I liked your vivid analogy! But Koan's absolutely right in saying that I'm in it for the long haul. Call me bullheaded :Retro redface:- I don't feel for a moment that the ME/CFS community is having our feet swept out from under us. I remain ENORMOUSLY optimistic in not just the robust science around XMRV and ME/CFS so far (at least from WPI/Cleveland/NCI, AND that pending from Jerry Holmberg et al), but also the mountain of research on other opportunistic viruses and ME/CFS: Epstein-Barr, Human Herpes-6, CMV, Parvovirus B19. It's not just WPI, the Dr Silvermans, the Lombardi's, and of course Dr Mikovits' of this world that have me optimistic. But also the Nancy Klimases, Jose Montoya's, the gene expression and cytokine work by Kerr et al. The German viral cardiologists. The rigor and power of science is massively tipping the scales in recognition of profound organic and indeed viral involvement in ME/CFS - a devastating biologically-based condition that has been "treated" with scandalous tokenism. And in the process, taxpayers have been seriously fecked over. XMRV is just the gravy, but the meat and potatoes research on viral involvement was already compelling - and growing. That Wesseley and co. are positioning themselves front and centre in a media storm at this time - and with continuingly shoddy science - IS brilliant! It's making our case for genuine Dx/Rx of ME/CFS all the more mediagenic. The media loves controversy, David/Goliath turnarounds, and Schadenfreude. Today's "research" paper, and the claptrap surrounding it, is shining a necessary spotlight on the "Before" situation in an imminent Extreme Makeover.
As Nikita Krushchev of shoe-pounding fame famously noted in the UN in 1960,
"Whether you like it or not. history (or for us, science) is on our side. We will bury you!"
That's how I feel about science vs the psycholobby. It's just a matter of time... and that's my nerdy brain speaking, based on all the hot research I've read - not my passionate emotive side.
We NEED folks like Wesseley and Reeves to go on record with the kind of scientifically flimsy statements and spurious research that we know them for. The public won't go to PubMed necessarily to dig up Wesseley/Reeves papers, which as we know have scores of scientific, methodological, and conceptual inconsistencies. But they do listen to the BBC, and Wesseley and team are beautifully showcasing what our community has been up against - and what their taxpayers' dollars have been payinig for. The more visible, loud, ludicrous and outrageous the claims of the psycholobby, the better. Mark my words, media organizations such as the BBC who (at the end of the day DO care about their scientific credibility) will drop the Wesseley's of this world in a heartbeat when the balance of evidence convinces them to do so. It's just a matter of time - we have science on our side, and thank heavens, the viral power of the internet.
So yes, I STILL think that Wesseley's bold statements are brilliant - for us! The media includes some hot investigative reporters, chomping at the bit for the kind of scientific/social/financial/scandal/tragedy embodied in ME/CFS history. And of course they also have their fair share of knuckle-dragging kool-aid drinkers, as we've witnessed today. But it doesn't take a scientist or medicolegal expert to recognize the hole Wesseley is so very publicly digging for himself. This IS brilliant!
Perhaps what is most precious in his 2010 article is the following:
Wesseley et al's brazenly flimsy science and buffonery in the media will only help us to illuminate the incompetency and conflict of interest that has railroaded biomedical care for legions of patients losing their lives to ME/CFS. So give it time.
As @Shannah's posting of the Invest in ME statement noted,
Bring on the Kool-aid! :Retro smile:
Geez, given the blazing speed of posts today, this one will be seriously obsolete to this thread by the time I finish it!
@ Levi, you're right that @ first glance the media feeding frenzy looks worrisome. This is their bread and butter - digging for controversy, stirring the pot. And as several have rightly pointed out, Wesseley has enjoyed a long and incestuous relationship with the UK media.
I liked your vivid analogy!
But Koan's absolutely right in saying that I'm in it for the long haul. Call me bullheaded :Retro redface:- I don't feel for a moment that the ME/CFS community is having our feet swept out from under us. I remain ENORMOUSLY optimistic in not just the robust science around XMRV and ME/CFS so far (at least from WPI/Cleveland/NCI, AND that pending from Jerry Holmberg et al), but also the mountain of research on other opportunistic viruses and ME/CFS: Epstein-Barr, Human Herpes-6, CMV, Parvovirus B19. It's not just WPI, the Dr Silvermans, the Lombardi's, and of course Dr Mikovits' of this world that have me optimistic. But also the Nancy Klimases, Jose Montoya's, the gene expression and cytokine work by Kerr et al. The German viral cardiologists. The rigor and power of science is massively tipping the scales in recognition of profound organic and indeed viral involvement in ME/CFS - a devastating biologically-based condition that has been "treated" with scandalous tokenism. And in the process, taxpayers have been seriously fecked over. XMRV is just the gravy, but the meat and potatoes research on viral involvement was already compelling - and growing. That Wesseley and co. are positioning themselves front and centre in a media storm at this time - and with continuingly shoddy science - IS brilliant! It's making our case for genuine Dx/Rx of ME/CFS all the more mediagenic. The media loves controversy, David/Goliath turnarounds, and Schadenfreude. Today's "research" paper, and the claptrap surrounding it, is shining a necessary spotlight on the "Before" situation in an imminent Extreme Makeover. As Nikita Krushchev of shoe-pounding fame famously noted in the UN in 1960,
"Whether you like it or not. history (or for us, science) is on our side. We will bury you!"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,867329,00.html#ixzz0bo85wzeg
That's how I feel about science vs the psycholobby. It's just a matter of time... and that's my nerdy brain speaking, based on all the hot research I've read - not my passionate emotive side.
We NEED folks like Wesseley and Reeves to go on record with the kind of scientifically flimsy statements and spurious research that we know them for. The public won't go to PubMed necessarily to dig up Wesseley/Reeves papers, which as we know have scores of scientific, methodological, and conceptual inconsistencies. But they do listen to the BBC, and Wesseley and team are beautifully showcasing what our community has been up against - and what their taxpayers' dollars have been payinig for. The more visible, loud, ludicrous and outrageous the claims of the psycholobby, the better. Mark my words, media organizations such as the BBC who (at the end of the day DO care about their scientific credibility) will drop the Wesseley's of this world in a heartbeat when the balance of evidence convinces them to do so. It's just a matter of time - we have science on our side, and thank heavens, the viral power of the internet.
So yes, I STILL think that Wesseley's bold statements are brilliant - for us! The media includes some hot investigative reporters, chomping at the bit for the kind of scientific/social/financial/scandal/tragedy embodied in ME/CFS history. And of course they also have their fair share of knuckle-dragging kool-aid drinkers, as we've witnessed today. But it doesn't take a scientist or medicolegal expert to recognize the hole Wesseley is so very publicly digging for himself. This IS brilliant!
Perhaps what is most precious in his 2010 article is the following:
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
In the age of the internet, you can only go so long without being ridiculed - or shunned by major media - if your science is shoddy and/or if you are financially benefiting from withholding biologically-based diagnostics/treatment from legions of patients with serious organic illness. This is the frog in the pot - and the water is seriously heating up.Wesseley et al's brazenly flimsy science and buffonery in the media will only help us to illuminate the incompetency and conflict of interest that has railroaded biomedical care for legions of patients losing their lives to ME/CFS. So give it time.
As @Shannah's posting of the Invest in ME statement noted,
Bring on the Kool-aid! :Retro smile:
Well, I guess I'm repeating myself and others now, but I can't get past two things:
1. The Imperial College/Wessely paper was not peer reviewed. (Having the editor simply approve it does not, under any professional academic's definition, equal peer review. And if 2-3 scientists reviewed this thing in three days I'm an orangutan.)
2. The UK newspapers are reporting this pathetic thing as if it's God's own word.
1. The Imperial College/Wessely paper was not peer reviewed. (Having the editor simply approve it does not, under any professional academic's definition, equal peer review. And if 2-3 scientists reviewed this thing in three days I'm an orangutan.)
2. The UK newspapers are reporting this pathetic thing as if it's God's own word.
K
_Kim_
Guest
Is McClure in bed with Nixon, too?
In this 1996 article --->
Interplay of HIV-1 phenotype and neutralizing antibody response in pathogenesis of AIDS
Both Nixon and McClure are cited.
In this 1996 article --->
Interplay of HIV-1 phenotype and neutralizing antibody response in pathogenesis of AIDS
Both Nixon and McClure are cited.
usedtobeperkytina
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,479
- Location
- Clay, Alabama
Finally, I read all the pages to the thread. Now I have been spending far too much time reading this forum, facebook and Prohealth that I decided to cut back. And then this happens and I have to spend an hour just trying to read about it.
My first thought is that maybe the Twilight Zone, or Star Trek has made everything in Europe opposite of reality. You know, like opposite day. That's where everything you say is opposite of what is true. Maybe they found it in all, but we aren't understanding it because Europe is opposite to U.S. ;-)
Well, if that isn't it, then I can't put any faith in a study that didn't test the same samples (that's right, the very ones from WPI) using the exact method. And I agree, this may be worse for them. Zero showed positive? That is not just against the WPI results. But also is against the previous results on prostate cancer (NCI or Cleveland Clinic) that showed 4% of controls have it.
I also think it is ok to publish the study as long as you explain your methods and your cohorts. And if you draw a conclusion, ok, state that. But to ditz the Science journal is going way too far, and in my mind, reflects a bias. I mean, a research scientist should just say, "Well, all I can say is we got these results and so this is what we conclude." But to criticize a journal such as Science for publishing it and for being premature, that is ... well, dangerous to your career and awfully arrogant. There certainly isn't any professional courtesy when it comes to CFS, huh?
I think it is also pretty ironic they complain about the publication in Science, which went through months of review, when this result had four days? Now, that is highly unusual for a peer review study.
Also folks, I may be wrong here, but I think Dr. Vernon knows something she can't tell yet. Isn't she on this new committee working with CDC and doing blood supply tests? Well, I noticed a very optimistic tone in mentioning it. I could be reading too much into her statement. But I would be willing to bet they are finding it. She said they are "hopeful". And I think her definite strong tone against the UK study tells that maybe she knows that it actually is there. She is putting her reputation on the line also by criticizing the UK study. Read that paragraph from Vernon again and see what you think.
As someone else said, seems we have a little bit of a researchers cat fight. Hey, controversy is good because it gets attention. As someone said, there is no such thing as bad press.
I do not think this study will affect other researchers already involved in this. If they are a researcher, they will detect the flaws on their own without CAA or others pointing it out. But CAA still needs to do damage control for public at large, including politicians with research dollar purse strings in their hands. But the scientists, they will see through it.
I remember reading about the DeFreitas study that primers make a BIG difference. But some researchers don't think it does.
Ok, I'm going to bed. See y'all tomorrow. Hold on folks, it's time for the roller coaster ride. It may make us excited sometimes, scared sometimes and scared sometimes. But it won't be boring. Here we go folks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTw9e_MNZeo
Tina
My first thought is that maybe the Twilight Zone, or Star Trek has made everything in Europe opposite of reality. You know, like opposite day. That's where everything you say is opposite of what is true. Maybe they found it in all, but we aren't understanding it because Europe is opposite to U.S. ;-)
Well, if that isn't it, then I can't put any faith in a study that didn't test the same samples (that's right, the very ones from WPI) using the exact method. And I agree, this may be worse for them. Zero showed positive? That is not just against the WPI results. But also is against the previous results on prostate cancer (NCI or Cleveland Clinic) that showed 4% of controls have it.
I also think it is ok to publish the study as long as you explain your methods and your cohorts. And if you draw a conclusion, ok, state that. But to ditz the Science journal is going way too far, and in my mind, reflects a bias. I mean, a research scientist should just say, "Well, all I can say is we got these results and so this is what we conclude." But to criticize a journal such as Science for publishing it and for being premature, that is ... well, dangerous to your career and awfully arrogant. There certainly isn't any professional courtesy when it comes to CFS, huh?
I think it is also pretty ironic they complain about the publication in Science, which went through months of review, when this result had four days? Now, that is highly unusual for a peer review study.
Also folks, I may be wrong here, but I think Dr. Vernon knows something she can't tell yet. Isn't she on this new committee working with CDC and doing blood supply tests? Well, I noticed a very optimistic tone in mentioning it. I could be reading too much into her statement. But I would be willing to bet they are finding it. She said they are "hopeful". And I think her definite strong tone against the UK study tells that maybe she knows that it actually is there. She is putting her reputation on the line also by criticizing the UK study. Read that paragraph from Vernon again and see what you think.
As someone else said, seems we have a little bit of a researchers cat fight. Hey, controversy is good because it gets attention. As someone said, there is no such thing as bad press.
I do not think this study will affect other researchers already involved in this. If they are a researcher, they will detect the flaws on their own without CAA or others pointing it out. But CAA still needs to do damage control for public at large, including politicians with research dollar purse strings in their hands. But the scientists, they will see through it.
I remember reading about the DeFreitas study that primers make a BIG difference. But some researchers don't think it does.
Ok, I'm going to bed. See y'all tomorrow. Hold on folks, it's time for the roller coaster ride. It may make us excited sometimes, scared sometimes and scared sometimes. But it won't be boring. Here we go folks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTw9e_MNZeo
Tina
K
_Kim_
Guest
Another more recent article (2003) where McClure and Nixon are both cited:
Persistence of Extraordinarily Low Levels of Genetically Homogeneous Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Exposed Seronegative Individuals
Notice how they both have published work on HIV in infants. Of course Wessely and McClure chose Nixon as their editor. They go way way back.
Persistence of Extraordinarily Low Levels of Genetically Homogeneous Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 in Exposed Seronegative Individuals
Notice how they both have published work on HIV in infants. Of course Wessely and McClure chose Nixon as their editor. They go way way back.
Dr. Yes
Shame on You
- Messages
- 868
In bed with Nixon... Ewwwwwwww! :scared:
Hey Kim, how are you finding all this stuff??
Total ninja.
Get some SLEEP, Kim!
Oh, I guess I should, too.. :Retro redface:
Hey Kim, how are you finding all this stuff??
Total ninja.
Get some SLEEP, Kim!
Oh, I guess I should, too.. :Retro redface:
A
anne
Guest
Does he have creepy 80's glasses, too?
Given time I am sure Dr Vernon's objections can be addressed. But would you believe the objections? And the arguments could probably go back and forth. But we need more data, not more arguing.
I don't know whether XMRV was present but not found, or simply not present, but I do know that these replication tests get positive hits on prostate cancer controls. So they can find XMRV in every run and so when they do not find it in CFS that is hard to explain away.
I think the negative finding will become stronger when the CDC releases its report next week. If independent researchers can not find XMRV then that is a serious problem. I am an advocate of fair debate in science, so if you are going to criticize the replication studies, then please also look critically at the WPI study. That is all I am saying.
I agree about Wessley's involvement, but science is science and these tests are being run by qualified technicians. You may not like a research team member, but you have to argue about his/her study on its own merits. This not a political study or popularity contest.
K
_Kim_
Guest
I have my ways...
(and it helps that I still have University library privileges ---> full text, baby
)Even Otto Erlwein (1st author) and Nixon get cited in the same works together.
GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CELLULAR IMMUNE
RESPONSE TO A CLOSTRIDIUM PERFRINGENS ANTI-SIV MUCOSAL VACCINE
About getting some sleep...
I took a loooong nap this afternoon. But I am going to :In bed: now.
Goodnight Dr. Yes.
gracenote
All shall be well . . .
- Messages
- 1,537
- Location
- Santa Rosa, CA
a late night thought
I'm thinking that Denise Grady from the New York Times needs all this great info that you all are uncovering ASAP. I'm off to bed, too. Just a thought for someone else to follow up on. :Retro smile:
I'm thinking that Denise Grady from the New York Times needs all this great info that you all are uncovering ASAP. I'm off to bed, too. Just a thought for someone else to follow up on. :Retro smile:
K
_Kim_
Guest
Myra McClure doesn't have creepy 80s glasses
, but she does use too much Maybelline blush vintage 1983 (or is that just rosacea?)
<---- page that this picture comes from shows her cheeks better
K
_Kim_
Guest
I wish it were more damning. Getting cited in the same publications does not = corroboration. But...it sure doesn't make the Imperial Study editor look impartial either.
Okay, really this time....going to bed.