Timeline--how many studies have attempted to replicate the Science article since 2009
- Thread starter jenbooks
- Start date
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
I just meant that the specific issue that you raised has been discussed comprehensively in the post (and the thread) that I gave a link to. So if you are interested in reading a response to the issue that you raised then I recommend reading this post:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/show...es-5AZA-matter&p=210834&viewfull=1#post210834
Angela Kennedy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,026
- Location
- Essex, UK
Cohort issues alone make most of those negative studies DEFINITELY not replicated.
The conserved portion of the genome (pol) would be the same for any strain of MLV, including VP62 or any others WPI might have found. The pol gene MUST be present and no mutation survives if it changes, thus it is called the conserved portion... So although WPI focused on gag and env, many of the negative studies also tested the pol gene and they therefore ruled out the entire MLV family. So the VP62 clone issue is probably a non-issue.
I agree, leaving out important information is a scientific sin, and the science community is slow to forgive something like that. However, I don't think the 5AZA issue with the gel images is very important at this point. The XMRV hypothesis has been proven wrong in a scientific process, due to all the PCR testing, and the consensus is in and at this point any further studies will be formalities. Even if a new study found XMRV, it would not be believed by the scientific community, not unless there was some pretty major new development.
That is definitely INCORRECT. Only a few of the negative studies had problem cohorts. Most were cohorts of real ME/CFS patients. Several used fresh samples from very carefully defined cohorts. For example, the second CDC study (Satterfield et al) used the CCC criteria, they included PEM as a cohort requirement. I have seen a list of studies on another form that has that wrong, so I can understand why you might think the cohorts were all bad, whoever made that list did not do their fact-checking.
Angela Kennedy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,026
- Location
- Essex, UK
Kurt, don't assume anything about my methods of sourcing. It's patronising, and inaccurate speculation on your part.
I've checked the negative studies as they came out. Myself! The vast majority of them have NOT used CCC criteria. That makes them NOT replicating studies on the cohort issue alone (let alone the other issues of methodology, I'm focusing on the cohort issue here).
I've checked the negative studies as they came out. Myself! The vast majority of them have NOT used CCC criteria. That makes them NOT replicating studies on the cohort issue alone (let alone the other issues of methodology, I'm focusing on the cohort issue here).
jenbooks
Guest
- Messages
- 1,270
OI VEY IS MIR!!!! SAID WITH A THICK ACCENT.
I leave you all to my thread, and will not return to it.
I leave you all to my thread, and will not return to it.
Angela Kennedy
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,026
- Location
- Essex, UK
If you were just wanting details on the negative studies - you might have asked for those instead. OF COURSE you were going to get comments on the lack of replication in the so-called 'replication' studies. This is a major problem that has dogged this area of research.