Why would groups try to replicate XMRV study NOT using WPI techniques?

[Martlet]

Flex - Yes, sifting flour, never peeking. I'm just the IC of cake making.:Retro redface:

 

[Lily]

Flex - Yes, sifting flour, never peeking. I'm just the IC of cake making.:Retro redface:

Martlet, it seems to me that you are in need of CBT due to your belief that your cakes are not light and fluffy. Perhaps a little a graded exercise of eating your own cakes would be in helpful as well.

 

[starryeyes]

I'd love to, Flex, but I've never been able to replicate or validate a fluffy cake recipe, which could mean they don't really exist and are just figments of our imaginations. On the other hand, if you ever need ballast, landfill or little stepping-stones for your garden, just give me a shout and I'll start baking.

Oh Martlet! Thank you for the laugh!

Lily, your suggestions are a riot!

I know, instead of chocolate, we'll use carob. That won't make any difference, will it?

 

[Robin]

Replication is a precise duplication of a test, validation is using multiple different test designs to prove that the object found really was what was believed. Validation is very important even if it is difficult, because without validation studies there is no way to prove that the initial findings were not false positives. Even if a study can be replicated the findings can be invalid. Also, validation studies can help narrow down the populations affected.

Replication of the tests used in the WPI study was already done, by the NCI and Cleveland clinic. Others might try to replicate, but the more important issue at this point is whether the finding can be validated. For that, different tests and procedures and even different cohort groups are acceptable. All that the IC study proves is that the tests and cohort they used did not validate the WPI finding.

I think my understanding (and others, too) is that independent replication would just be step #1, and since the NCI/Cleveland clinic study was sort of packaged into the Science study. So, this study comes out quickly on the heels of the WPI study that it's confusing to us non-scientific folks about what they were trying to do. They haven't validated the WPI but they really haven't proven it to be a huge scientific blunder either. If several studies using different techniques to find XMRV in CFS fail then we can start talking about coffin nails.

We know from the disparate results of the prostate cancer studies that XMRV is dodgy and there is no standard way to test it. So, this venture is about two frontiers: the unknown etiology of CFS and the best way to detect a newly discovered retrovirus.

And, since this thread is all about cake? If you're in the US, live near a Wegman's, and free from dietary restrictions you must try this cake. Seriously. I don't even like chocolate cake and this is the best f'ing I've ever had!

 

[Robin]

Martlet, it seems to me that you are in need of CBT due to your belief that your cakes are not light and fluffy. Perhaps a little a graded exercise of eating your own cakes would be in helpful as well.

That's a kind of graded exercise I would happily volunteer for!

 

[Lily]

That's a kind of graded exercise I would happily volunteer for!

Me too!! They can't possibly be as bad as she says they are - can they?

And that chocolate cake looks yummy, Robin. I think I'm hungry for a little late night snack:Retro smile:

 

[fds66]

Loving all the cake metaphors.

Seriously though, part of the scientific process is that when someone finds something new then as well as repeating what they did to see if you can do it too it is important that they see if they can find it other ways. If WPI found XMRV then it's not unreasonable for other researchers to use any method that they've used before to see if that works too. It is part of finding out all you can about it. It's also an important part of narrowing down the best tests to do on people. It's very early in the research and so everyone hasn't agreed yet on the best way to find and test for XMRV. I have tried to work out how the culture test works and it seems that WPI have a particular recipe that works with it and it is that that they are licencing to other labs. It doesn't seem to me like a standardised test yet that everyone has faith in so it is also important to question and find out more about test methods.

The UK researchers then found that they didn't see it. Maybe their tools don't work with XMRV? Maybe they were looking in the wrong place? The fact that researchers aren't finding XMRV with those tools is important and should be investigated - it all adds to the information that is available to everyone about this new finding. What I have a problem with is the statement that the UK team made that because they couldn't find it with their different tools then it can't exist. That is a leap too far for me. If I had tested all those samples and come up with zero results I would be a lot more cautious in my conclusions. OK to say that the test I did didn't find XMRV but to extrapolate from that to WPI must have made a mistake and there is no XMRV in the UK was too much for me.

 

[Gerwyn]

I think my understanding (and others, too) is that independent replication would just be step #1, and since the NCI/Cleveland clinic study was sort of packaged into the Science study. So, this study comes out quickly on the heels of the WPI study that it's confusing to us non-scientific folks about what they were trying to do. They haven't validated the WPI but they really haven't proven it to be a huge scientific blunder either. If several studies using different techniques to find XMRV in CFS fail then we can start talking about coffin nails.

We know from the disparate results of the prostate cancer studies that XMRV is dodgy and there is no standard way to test it. So, this venture is about two frontiers: the unknown etiology of CFS and the best way to detect a newly discovered retrovirus.

And, since this thread is all about cake? If you're in the US, live near a Wegman's, and free from dietary restrictions you must try this cake. Seriously. I don't even like chocolate cake and this is the best f'ing I've ever had!

You can neither replicate or validate another study using different methodology a first year science student is taught that -perhaps we should argue about the definition of the word cake! Thats what IC are in effect doing

 

[Alice Band]

IC heard about this new thing a "chocolate cake". They had never seen a chocolate cake and didn't think that it existed in the UK.

They had however seen a fruit cake and baked it themselves. Up to now there had only ever been fruits cake to them. They had never seen another cake. Because the fruit cake had been invented years before they had never developed a recipe for a cake and had only ever followed the recipe from other bakers. The fruit cake recipe hadn't changed much over time but there were several versions of it. They had never written a recipe before though.

IC had baked lots of fruit cake using the other recipes and because the chocolate and the fruit cake were both called "cakes" they decided they were the same.

They had a photo of what a chocolate cake looked like but no recipe and no cake to compare it to.

So, they took their recipe for a fruit cake and added something brown to it that sounded like chocolate. That nice Prof Wessely gave them the brown stuff and told them it was chocolate. They didn't know - they had never seen chocolate before.

The cake was produced and it didn't look the same as the one in the photo they had by the WPI.

They therefore determined that there were no chocolate cakes in the UK. The one that the WPI baked was either a fruit cake with some nice icing on (to make it look like a chocolate cake) or that chocolate cakes were only found in the USA.

 

[flex]

I had a dream last night that we had Wessely in a TV studio. We were about to prove to the world the etiology behind ME and his years of deception. He was a dead man walking. Top laywers had presented the case. As the world looked on I had been briefed by the best scientists and advocates in the world. I had the job of presenting the closing statement and this was going to be it as I pulled out the trump card.

Everyone from the WPI was there, they had invested their lifes work in this issue. I was permitted no more than twenty words..

I stepped up to the mic, opened my mouth and all I could say was....

CHOCOLATE CAKE.... CHOCOLATE CAKE .... OOHH ME LOVA THAT CHOCOLATE CAKE
CHOCOLATE CAKE.... CHOCOLATE CAKE .... OOHH ME LOVA THAT CHOCOLATE CAKE

 

[Gerwyn]

spot on they werent very good cooks either

IC heard about this new thing a "chocolate cake". They had never seen a chocolate cake and didn't think that it existed in the UK.

They had however seen a fruit cake and baked it themselves. Up to now there had only ever been fruits cake to them. They had never seen another cake. Because the fruit cake had been invented years before they had never developed a recipe for a cake and had only ever followed the recipe from other bakers. The fruit cake recipe hadn't changed much over time but there were several versions of it. They had never written a recipe before though.

IC had baked lots of fruit cake using the other recipes and because the chocolate and the fruit cake were both called "cakes" they decided they were the same.

They had a photo of what a chocolate cake looked like but no recipe and no cake to compare it to.

So, they took their recipe for a fruit cake and added something brown to it that sounded like chocolate. That nice Prof Wessely gave them the brown stuff and told them it was chocolate. They didn't know - they had never seen chocolate before.

The cake was produced and it didn't look the same as the one in the photo they had by the WPI.

They therefore determined that there were no chocolate cakes in the UK. The one that the WPI baked was either a fruit cake with some nice icing on (to make it look like a chocolate cake) or that chocolate cakes were only found in the USA.

excellent the best analysis of a study I,ve ever heard

 

[bullybeef]

I agree, a good analogy for Wessley is a fruitcake! And if XMRV is proved beyond any doubt, he'll be eating lots of humble pie!!

 

[Lily]

IC heard about this new thing a "chocolate cake". They had never seen a chocolate cake and didn't think that it existed in the UK.

So, they took their recipe for a fruit cake and added something brown to it that sounded like chocolate. That nice Prof Wessely gave them the brown stuff and told them it was chocolate. They didn't know - they had never seen chocolate before.
The cake was produced and it didn't look the same as the one in the photo they had by the WPI.

They therefore determined that there were no chocolate cakes in the UK. The one that the WPI baked was either a fruit cake with some nice icing on (to make it look like a chocolate cake) or that chocolate cakes were only found in the USA.

Ahhaaaaaaaahah, hehehehehhhehe, lol ROFL - Sure...... Weasely is full of the brown stuff - has been spreading around for ages.....:Retro tongue::Retro tongue::tongue:

 

[Martlet]

Martlet, it seems to me that you are in need of CBT due to your belief that your cakes are not light and fluffy. Perhaps a little a graded exercise of eating your own cakes would be in helpful as well.

My husband has tried the CBT on me and has even managed to persuade me to try them. Several crowned teeth later, he now accepts that eating my cakes is neither good for me, nor for our budget and we finally agreed that we will buy cakes.

 

[Lily]

My husband has tried the CBT on me and has even managed to persuade me to try them. Several crowned teeth later, he now accepts that eating my cakes is neither good for me, nor for our budget and we finally agreed that we will buy cakes.

Ahhhhh, I see.........it is clear that your husband, as well as the dentist who is providing these unnecessary services, are enabling you by reinforcing your flawed belief system. Yes, if we cannot correct this situation, perhaps you should be removed from this enabling environment. Hmmmmm, yes. Not a good situation.

 

[bullybeef]

Or

Wessely heard an institute from USA had discovered a retrovirus (XMRV) in ME/CFS. Wessley was concerned because he told all his friends (the medical research council and the ministry of defence) in the UK that ME (and fibromyalgia and gulf war syndrome) didnt really exist and that they were all mental disorders. But he knew the truth, that ME could be caused by a virus and he had received millions from insurance companies and the UK government to continue to legitimately prove ME was psychosomatic.

So he got a team together, and within 8 weeks had managed to not find XMRV in HIS ME/CFS patients (Kings College patients are ME/CFS diagnosed using the Oxford or London criteria which means they really have Neurasthenia, they dont have ME/CFS).

Knowing that these specific patients dont have ME meant they wouldnt test positive and he could ridicule the WPI study and continue to receive his salary and various governmental and insurance handouts. But there was a stumbling block. What about the 4% of healthy controls. His patients may not clinically have ME/CFS, but they may prove positive for XMRV based on the law of averages. So he devised a new technique to locate XMRV, one that was completely different from the WPIs study. Low and behold, none of his patient had XMRV, ergo, XMRV didnt exist in the UK. He sent his paper off to be published.

But he then hit another roadblock. He knew ME/CFS patients were sending their blood off to the US for testing using the WPIs techniques and they would receive their results after the New Year. How could he get his paper verified and published in time to beat these results. He had a brainstorm: He would pay for his paper to be published. No waiting around for verification and no one could pick the bones out of his dismal attempt to dodge the facts.

And hey presto, his paper was printed and published in record time. Just one week before the first person received their positive results here in the UK.

And there you have it. Would anyone like some fruit cake? :tongue:

 

[calzy]

BRAVO..to all you witty, talented people on this thread!!

 

[Gerwyn]

The IC study was not a true replication effort, it was an attempt to validate the finding. There is a big difference between replication and validation in research, although some researchers use the terms interchangeably (they need to return to their research methods classes). Replication is a precise duplication of a test, validation is using multiple different test designs to prove that the object found really was what was believed. Validation is very important even if it is difficult, because without validation studies there is no way to prove that the initial findings were not false positives. Even if a study can be replicated the findings can be invalid. Also, validation studies can help narrow down the populations affected.

Replication of the tests used in the WPI study was already done, by the NCI and Cleveland clinic. Others might try to replicate, but the more important issue at this point is whether the finding can be validated. For that, different tests and procedures and even different cohort groups are acceptable. All that the IC study proves is that the tests and cohort they used did not validate the WPI finding. No conclusion about replication can be made from the IC study as it was not a replication study (although some people have used the term replication study, incorrectly and there seems to be some confusion even among the IC authors about this point).

So, regarding the cake metaphor, this issue is not whether someone can follow the recipe exactly, that would be replication. The validation issue (which relates to the IC study) is an attempt to answer the question of whether any good tasting cake can be baked under the stated conditions (such as by certain cooks, in a certain kitchen, using a limited set of ingredients, etc.). There are many differing recipes for the same dish that can taste fairly similar, and still satisfy the palate. But if nobody can bake any satisfying cake under the stated conditions, then the hypothesis about the conditions is invalid altogether.

.

you still need to know that your methods can find the cake-----the difference between replication and validation are not that clearcut they are often intertwined The method section of any study is crucial an if not adhered to the cumulative benefit of scientific enquiry is lost---This is the key to scientific progress- a first year life science student in the UK is taught that! - the hypothesis that their method could detect xmrv at all was not tested in anyway-----water is not blood

hence their approach was totally unscientific be it validation or replication you need the same sample cohort or put another way patients diagnosed according to the same criterea.If they were truly interested in validation then they would have subjected their cohort to both tests you cant validate another study using an unvalidated method i would argue that the wpi assay technique had already been validated by the time IC ran its trial .a scientific study is undertaken to test a hypothesis or to verify predictions What exactly were Ic trying to do in scientific terms?

 

[usedtobeperkytina]

fds, ditto.

Ana, seems you said the same thing I said, only in a different way.

And, here is a kicker, are your ready? What do you call it when someone claims their study is a replication study but it really isn't? And what do you call it when someone claims to bake the same kind of cake but used a different recipe?






Answer....





It's called ICing.

Tina

 

[dipic]

opps, please delete this post