XMRV and Transmission: The Big Question

Cloud · Dec 23, 2009

Levi said:

LOL, I didn't even know there was a conflict over the posts about Post Vaccine ME/CFS. But I'm not surprised to miss that since I only receive a fraction of the email notifications on my subscribed threads anyhow. I rarely return to threads without those notifications because there are just too many to follow that way. So, if anyone truly needs to get a message to me, send it private or I may never see it.

In general, I don't understand the phobia over discussion on Post Vaccine ME/CFS. Several top ME/CFS researchers acknowledge this fact of Post Vaccine ME/CFS, especially with the HepB Vaccine. My ME/CFS was "triggered" by Hep B Vaccine...that's just as much a fact as the "infectious onset" claimed by so many. "Avoid unproven inferences"? LOL, I think it would get pretty quiet around here. There are many cases of Post Hep B Vaccine ME/CFS out there and, I agree with froufox that just like everyone else, we are just looking at onset attempting to find etiology (not quoting). Everyone knows there are many "triggers" for ME/CFS and, I learn a lot from these discussions whether it's theory, hypothesis, or proven fact. Also, I think talk of xmrv is much more a yell of FIRE (than vaccines) in a theater because of being similar to HIV and it's possible modes of transmission. A "provable fire"? What is there about ME/CFS that IS provable? Can anyone "Prove" their trigger for ME/CFS? Everyone knows there are many "triggers" for ME/CFS...so what's the big problem with discussing ours? I understand the need for threads to stay on topic, and I will make every effort to do just that. But somehow, this seems more than that.

Katie · Dec 24, 2009

Eric Johnson from I&I said:

I'm in the same boat Eric, except I'm married and he's got ME too. I heard Dr klimas talking as if all partnerships had only one half with ME and that the chances of passing it one were 1 in 4, I don't know how that would change statistically if both partners are postive. As for childbirth, the highest risk of passing on HIV apart from the placenta which can be controlled with viral load reducing drugs, is the blood during birth. This risk can be substantially reduced by having a planned c-section. From what I've read from George's blog, if you were to have IVF with an XMRV- negative woman (sperm washing, now ain't that a romantic idea) your child should be fine. I guess we'll get more advice in the future but I can't say I'm not worried as much as I push it to the back of my mind.

As for unsupported vaccine links there was a very famous study in the UK which linked autism to the MMR which was readily debunked but many remain unconvinced due to vested interests and the apparent fact that a few dozen kids with autism is better than epidemics of mumps, measels and rubella. Many now choose to have the MMR in three separate jabs which has seen a reduction in post-vac autism. Child Vaccine Linked To Autism Considering I feel my rubella vaccination had a hand in the development of my ME (along with GF and puberty, all stressors on the body, I was immunologically overwhelmed) I don't see that logical reasoning as wild speculation, even Mikovits made an argument for how XMRV balance could be tipped.

I promised myself I wouldn't come on here today as I didn't want to think about XMRV etc over Christmas but considering all my dreams last night featured me being told I couldn't, or rather shouldn't, have children and my husband choosing to have a child with someone else (He wouldn't in a million years, we're in this together with or without little ones) and seeing my child struggle to get out of bed because we'd given her ME. I may be good at not thinking consciously about it but my dreams show what's really on my mind. It's bloomin' torture having so many unanswered questions and having to be patient even with years of fertility left to play with.

froufox · Dec 24, 2009

I'm sorry but I think you're getting this a bit out of proportion and you are making a lot of presumptions about where I am coming from. I am NOT trying to prove anything, and neither am I trying to leapfrog between 2 theories. This is why it was suggested and why I agreed that the thread should be split up, to separate out the 2 issues.

If you go back and read the posts it is quite clear as you will see that I was sharing my own experience and then someone else asked about any evidence linking CFS to vaccines and I posted some relevant links. I was NOT trying to insinuate that this is how XMRV is transmitted and neither was I trying to imply that vaccines cause XMRV, as I already pointed out I went off topic. Neither am I saying that vaccines cause CFS because there hasnt been enough research carried out in this area but there IS evidence that vaccines have triggered some peoples ME/CFS as some researchers and doctors have noted, that is a fact and it doesnt help matters to ignore it, even if the process by which it might occur is not fully understood yet. It is certainly a very interesting and worthwhile avenue to explore for some of us. Even Judy Mikovits has speculated herself as to why this might occur and seems to recognise that vaccines can trigger the illness by overstimulating one part of the immune system.

I dont understand why people accuse others of trying to blame the whole of CFS on vaccines just because the vaccine issue is relevant to some of us. That is clearly not true. There is not one cause yet of CFS. People can have different triggers and just because for the majority of people vaccines are not an issue that doesnt mean they are not an issue and perhaps causal issue for some of us. We are not all the same. For others it might be too much exposure to a pesticide or other toxic chemicals that caused a breakdown in their immune system.

As regards to the safety of vaccines well there is plenty of evidence out there already, anecdotal and otherwise that suggests that vaccines are not as safe as claimed and have been linked to various illnesses like MS, diabetes autism and I think the point you make about something having to be 'proven' before we should discuss it is disingenuous - nobody has to prove anything and there is nothing wrong with speculation, open debate and discussion. To compare it to shouting 'fire' in a theatre is an exaggeration of what occurred on this thread.

Those who think we are just somatising obviously believe that about us already and its not going to make any difference to them what we talk about because they have already made up their minds that it is all in our heads anyway and we not suffering from a true organic illness. I dont agree with you at all that we should keep quiet for fear of our words being used against us.. Nobody is making wild claims and no-one is being irrational. Anyway I think that is just pandering to them. As others have pointed out in the end science will prove the disbelievers wrong anyway.

Levi said:

starcycle · Dec 24, 2009

froufox said:

The point is that the truth doesn't really matter. If you start linking vaccines to CFS/ME in any way, for any reason whatsoever, they are going to shut you down faster than you can say "don't immunize me." You can't say anything bad about vaccines, it's not allowed. It's like being in the middle of this christian culture and saying jesus christ was a gay child molester or something like that -- you're just not allowed to. People take it seriously and get very vicious and defensive when you start saying stuff like that. They have to protect their cultural icons, and that usually means some violent attack in some form against the ones who are threatening their belief systems.

Even if it were ever definitively proved that vaccines can trigger CFS (and I don't know how you would ever be able to establish that causation) you wouldn't be allowed to say it. They would at best just write it off as a "possible side effect" and the cost of doing business and continue with the vaccinations. In case you haven't noticed, white western european culture historically has been very polluted/dirty/infectious, and we have needed something to counter that, which turns out to be vaccines. Otherwise the entire culture would be dead from polio or smallpox by now. If 0.02 percent or whatever get CFS/ME from vaccines, that's just part of the cost/benefit equation for protecting the rest of the culture. Vaccines are off-limits, so you might as well just get over it and move on to looking at the other possible causes (not trying to sound harsh, just realistic).

Katie · Dec 24, 2009

starcycle said:

But one aspect of vaccinations to be discussed is how many at a time, what time in life and how it might effect immune suppressed people. For example, the MMR might be more appropriate split up. I was exempt from vaccines during most of my childhood due to the nasty side effects and actually catching the disease I was being protected from in the case of measels. I also had whopping cough and mumps. It was obvious something was up with my immune system but I thought I knew better and went for rubella. I think I was a case waiting to be triggered so I don't feel too much hate towards my decision. My doctor was certainly ameniable to accepting something was up with me personally with vaccines. If I had a healthy child I would vaccinate them, but only one jab at a time with space inbetween. With any luck XMRV will become a vaccination risk factor and give parents a chance to make an informed decision, but with latent XMRV potentially at close to four percent, you can't wholly rely on herd immunity to protect children no vaccinated.

It's a tricky topic but I feel it's going to be up for discussion a lot more soon. It is a marginal topic, but certainly not taboo in the press over here after the autism scare.

Right, enough seriousness, I'm going to play scrabble with my folks!

garcia · Dec 24, 2009

starcycle said:

Who is this "they" you are referring to?

Who says it's not allowed? Actually it is allowed. There is nothing in the forum rules or the law which says you can't discuss vaccines.

I've blanked out your example because its extremely offensive. It is offensive because you are deliberately insulting someone's religious belief. The last time I looked vaccines were not part of anyone's religious beliefs. Unless you believe in the "Born again religion of Merck"? "In thimerosal we trust" and all that? Nothing in science should be beyond question.

There is some truth in this. But people do the same when you point out the illegality & immorality of their colonialist genocidal wars. Doesn't mean we should stop speaking the truth. Just that the truth will always be violently opposed (C.F. Schopenhauer's famous quote: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.").

This is complete nonsense.

_Kim_ · Dec 24, 2009

After re-reading this entire thread one more time, it seems that the leap from speculation about XMRV transmission to etiology took a natural course of conversation. The two topics are interwoven and froufox, Ross, I (and others) were only conveying personal experiences.

This board does not have a strict off-topic policy and I like it that way. I have read many many threads where veering off-topic has produced some of the most interesting and enlightening bits of information to discuss. For example, I started a thread about a new movie and wondered if it was a conspiracy theory. In my first post, I mentioned running after the mosquito truck when I was a kid. This brought up the topic of organophosphates and, other than a review on the movie that I posted later, the whole thread took a turn - funny and sad and informative - about chemical exposure and ME/CFS.

So, I don't think the issue is about threads going off-topic here. It's about what the rest of the world will think of us if we discuss "taboo" topics, of which vaccines are one.

Levi has suggested to move the topic of vaccines & ME/CFS to a new thread, yet in the same breath has warned that the militant somatasizers are watching and will use what we post against us. Having a new thread with vaccines in the title would surely broadcast our concerns and musings about the role of vaccines in this disease even more loudly than having a few posts buried in this thread. It would be on the main page - much easier to find by all.

For the time being, I'm leaving the posts in this thread intact. Sorry starcycle and Levi, I don't agree that what froufox or Ross posted here could be construed as anything but personal experience. No one here is required to back up their thoughts with links to research as was requested. This site is here for patients to get support, learn from each other, and "talk out loud". It is not a science blog. It's a community forum.

starcycle · Dec 24, 2009

garcia said:

The mainstream "scientific"/medical establishment and culture.

I'm not talking about on the forum, I'm talking about in the culture.

Offended? Good. That was my point. Now you know how the vaccine proponents feel when you attack vaccines. So just take how you are feeling toward me right now and remember that that's how the vaccine culture feels toward you when you try to question or discredit vaccines in any way. That's why you harm the CFS/ME cause when you try to link it to vaccines. Because you are wrong that their "scientific" beliefs don't function as a religion for them. That's what we're fighting: superstition masquerading as "science."

garcia · Dec 24, 2009

_Kim_ said:

Kim, I don't think anyone here objects to the thread being split. I can understand Levi's point about that, and even Froufox agreed with that point. To me its not a big deal either way.

But there is absolutely no evidence to show "militant somatasizers are watching and will use what we post against us". The one blog post Levi linked to actually showed a somatasizer linking to Mike Dessin's story (not a forum post) and using that as an example of how debilitating this disease can be! He absolutely did not use anything posted here (or even in Mike Dessin's story) against us. And even if he had, that shouldn't dictate what we can and cannot discuss on this forum.

Robin · Dec 24, 2009

Hi everyone!

I know we're all passionate about our feelings but the thread is getting personal. We generally don't care what you say, as long as it's not directed at others. Calling someone's thoughts "daft" or intending to offend is not how we roll here.

If you find yourself getting angry, just walk away from the computer for a few hours and then craft your response once you settle down.

So, let's keep the discussion on the matter at hand and not direct anger toward other members. OK?

Eric Johnson from I&I · Dec 24, 2009

Its possibly true that westerners had poorer hygiene relative to east asians, back in the days. According to Greg Clark, before the industrial revolution populations were at ecological carrying capacity and therefore existed at equilibrium. If his claim is true, poorer hygiene in europe may have made europeans richer than east asians, because due to greater exposure to infection, the population was less dense at equilibrium; there was more land and more resources per person. This may have even favored the development of the scientific and industrial revolutions in the west rather than in China, because more guys had more material property to tinker with (particularly metals). Other than lacking alphabetic writing, China was a little bit more advanced than europe in the centuries around 1500. When europeans were exploring and trading in their first oceangoing ships, China was exploring and trading, as far as the E. coast of Africa, in bigger better ships. Some medieval inventions like guns/cannon probably came (only) from China, and spread to europe via islamic civilization, which at times made quite major military inroads into Mediterranean europe.

The great medieval training for the industrial revolution though, was the mechanical clockwork, plus ringing bells and visual displays that were run mechanically off of the clock in fine public clock towers, as a centerpiece of civic pride. I'm not sure if this was practiced in China. Other mechanical contrivances such as siege weaponry had long been made, but with the exception of the mysterious archeological find called the Antikythra mechanism, did not have such a level of complexity.

Anyway, even if diseases were a bit more intense in west eurasia, pretty much the same ones were found in the east. The west was largely cut off from the east by deserts and high plateaux occupied sparsely by well-adapted peoples (lowland women have a hard time gestating well in Tibet or the high Andes). But separation was quite incomplete. See Marco Polo, the Mongol Empire, etc. The Romans at the height of their civilization were aware that China existed. Clark's claim is not so much that disease was more intense in the west, but rather that it *would* have been, due to poorer hygiene, *if* the west had been as densely populous as the east. And thus, such a density would not have been stable.

Africa had the worst infection burden, though this was largely because of the unique destructiveness of falciparum malaria. Like many a major infectious disease, it probably did not exist, at least not in a high-virulence form, until agriculture brought human population densities about 10-100x higher. In africa this occurred about three millennia ago.

Judging by (inter alia) their lack of diversity at the all important MHC loci, the most important molecules in the immune system, it appears that Amerindians suffered almost no infectious disease. The americas were an eden that way. On the other hand, that meant they had to starve more and kill each other more once both continents became crowded. Agriculture, the great host of infectious disease, certainly never existed at the high Kamchatkan latitudes where the Amerindians came from in asia (probaby in multiple different migrations). It helped that the aleutian land bridge was destroyed after the last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. In australia, something similar appears to be true, and there was probably never a land bridge to eurasia at all. This is the reason why the Americas and Australia were depopulated (accidentally, in fact) after contact with explorers bearing the killer diseases of the afro-eurasian land mass, and repopulated with europeans and euro-amerindian mestizos. In sub-saharan africa quite the opposite was true. Caucasians and surely also medieval Chinese who landed in africa died of tropical diseases at a calamitous rate; most of them within one to three years. Until anti-disease technology advanced a bit, the only exceptions were temperate South Africa and low-disease highlands such as those in Kenya. Some of these african tropical diseases were accidentally transported to meso-america, and made it a bear to dig the Panama canal.

starcycle · Dec 24, 2009

Eric Johnson from I&I said:

Very interesting and informative post, thanks. Although I might disagree with the comment that as a result of being relatively buffered from infectious disease the Amerindians had to kill each other more - definitely territorial disputes were common, but *more* killing of each other than the europeans? or some of the Asians? Maybe, I just have never heard that or thought of it that way. thanks again.

starcycle · Dec 24, 2009

Robin said:

Just to clarify, I wasn't intending to offend anyone, only to make the comparison between the two with an example to illustrate how the pro-vaccine people feel when vaccines are questioned. Sorry if that came across differently.

froufox · Dec 24, 2009

This is my last post on this topic for now but just to address some of the points made by starcycle. Many of us are very well aware of the power of the pharmaceutical companies and how much vaccines are an accepted part of our medical culture but to suggest that we should not speak about the problems associated with them is in my opinion not a productive or valuable contribution to the debate. On the contrary I find it a rather negative and defeatist and it is also an overreaction to the posts on this thread.

We are having a discussion on a forum not starting a revolution so I dont know what you mean by being "shut down" either. In fact the discussion was over weeks ago until you resurrected it again recently. And there are plenty of people who do good research into vaccines and speak out honestly on their websites and in their books about the negative effects and conflicts of interests so I take issue with your point about not being allowed to speak about this or challenge it in any way. We dont live in a totalitarian state and we can say what we like as long as it is backed up by evidence and rational debate.

I dont appreciate being told to 'get over it' either I found that a rather patronising and another unproductive comment and again contributes nothing of value to the discussion. It is also quite an insensitive thing to say as I have said in my previous posts I believe that my ME/CFS was triggered by a course of Hep B vaccines so this is a personal issue for me. Would you say to a parent who's autistic child was made ill by vaccines to 'get over it'?

You might be interested to know that in France in 1998 1000s of French citizens filed a lawsuit against the French Govt regarding the numerous adverse effects associated the Hepatitis B vaccine linking it to autoimmune and neurological conditions. As a result the Minister of Health in France stopped the Hep B vaccine requirements for entry into school. So things can and do change and its good to know that the French dont take the same position of acquiescence.

Regarding the efficacy of vaccines well actually the rates of many illnesses reduced drastically BEFORE vaccines were even introduced, it is thought largely down to better hygiene conditions, so it is a myth that we would all be dead without vaccines. You mention smallpox & polio, well official statistics for smallpox in England and Wales between 1881 and 1941 showed that the rates of this illness fell drastically for people who refused the vaccine and reached its highest levels after inoculation was introduced.

With polio US govt statistics show that the number of reported cases of polio was significantly greater since inoculation began in the 1950s compared to before inoculation.
(Ref Neil Z Miller - Vaccines, Are They Really Safe and Effective? and the Vaccine Safety Manual)

As with everything else it depends on where you source your information, and who you read and who you believe.

Anyway Happy Christmas to everyone who celebrates.

starcycle said:

Eric Johnson from I&I · Dec 24, 2009

It depends on what time you mean. Tribal life based on hunter-gathering or herding domestic grazing animals tended to be more or less stateless. Agrarian life tends to have cities and states. The latter has more concentrated populations that support nastier diseases, and herders do too.

If you are a microbe infecting a hunter-gatherer person, you might need to wait a year before that person comes close to people outside his own group of 50-300 people. It doesnt pay to multiply to high concentrations that will mess up your host. But if there are plenty of people all contacting each other from Paris to Belgrade and Moscow, you might as well just "go for it".

At the same time states reduced violence using policing, and execution of the guilty (typically, torture-execution). Before that, there was only "vandetta law", and nearly the most immoral thing was to fail to take bloody revenge when wronged, thus showing that your family or group could be harmed with impunity. States could not project force very far, and they typically did not have enough wealth to form large professional armies, so the amount of carnage from war was rather limited. Or, if they used citizen militia instead of professionals, as seen in classical Greece, those citizens could not spend very much *time* fighting, so that also limited killing.

Thus, more disease, less violence. This was probably the way of things in europe once grain agriculture spread there from the middle east. This took kind of a long time. SE europe was doing this 11,000 years ago, but my ancestors in the northwest were hunter-gathering until more like 5000 years ago. It is not clear to what degree those hunters were replaced by my grain growing ancestors, or rather *were* the ancestors and adopted farming themselves.

In tribal life there was probably far more violence, with 20-60% of all males dying in violence, which is far bloodier on a per-person basis than even europe in the 20th century was. At least that was the case in Yanomamo and New Guinea and other tribes studied by outsiders. A few scholars like Brian Ferguson think this started only after agriculture and states introduced these people to war-like practices, crowded them onto remnant territories, etc. I suspect he is romanticizing hopelessly, but I have to admit I am not closely familiar with the dispute.

Most amerindians lived tribally, and as mentioned before, had almost no infectious diseases. The only ways to die, when you have no predators, are to fight, or starve, or die of virulent diseases. Most people start fighting rather than starve. There were of course a few very interesting amerind civilations in meso and south america. The Inca empire collapsed mysteriously long before 1492. I think(?) the Mayans were the only literate state in the americas. Three or so of their books now exist. Tragically, there were hundreds or thousands of other books, but almost all were burned by conquering europeans, because they were considered a possible focus of opposition to christian proselytization. (Sadly the great Library of Alexandria was often damaged in war and then may have been similarly destroyed by muslim conquerers. And protestant europeans destroyed some of the incomparable sacral art of the Roman church. It happens a lot.)

Tribal violence tended to consist not of battles, but of you and me and some other guys hiking over to the next town, killing some guy that we find working or foraging by himself, and then clearing out. Or we might kill multiple people in a twilight massacre at dawn. The first of those two modes is also done by chimps, and its possible there has been this kind of war the entire time since we diverged from them 5 million years ago. Guys like Ferguson tend to say that this started only because humans disturbed and crowded the chimps. Chimps also kidnap fertile females, like tribal humans do, and state-dwelling humans also do the same thing.

Chimps do this because 5 chimps can kill one enemy without risk to themselves, because three of them can hold the victim down. In general, almost all animal species refrain from fighting brutally. They fight lightly, and the one who can see he is inferior will then submit. It is not worth the risk of being wounded by serious fighting. Suppose one robin kills another, getting wounded in the process, which probably does happen very, very rarely. The dead bird's territory will be carved up by adjoining birds. But the bird that did the work and took a mortal risk will probably get the least benefit; being wounded, he wont be able to contend well with other males. At a cost to himself, he handed a benefit to his competition. Thus, animals fight "for real" mainly in those species in which a harem of multiple females is available to the victor. Only then does such behavior increase their fitness, making a "profit". One female is not worth the fight. For example, elephant seals routinely fight lethally against other adults, as do gorillas. Chimps, in addition to war against enemy groups, also carry out violent coups in which a new coalition of three or so males takes over. The top three chimps in a social group of 100 or so father almost all the offspring. But they tend to be executed by the new up and comers, a few years later.

You can see how these sort of facts help lead me to a conservative worldview. While we did get a lot nicer after 1800 when we were no longer hungry, I think that human nature does not automatically produce a well-functioning civilization, and that it can only function well when we give our loyalty to the institutions and traditions that can help correct and guide our not-exactly-divine nature.

Eric Johnson from I&I · Dec 24, 2009

I agree that there seems to be a bias about vaccines. I strongly suspect that that guy Wakefield did bunky research that is misleading. A lot of very disciplined people say so. And I know for a fact that there is a mountain of false medical research published every week. Its not dishonest, just poorly done.

But what I read about him in The Guardian was amusing. They acted like it was a disgrace to medicine that he collected blood from kids at a birthday party and gave them five pounds for it. He had consent from the kids' parents, which appears to me to be the only thing that matters. It certainly appears that they want to attack him on any grounds that they can.

froufox · Dec 24, 2009

Hahaha

garcia said:

starcycle · Dec 24, 2009

froufox said:

Hi froufox - like I said, I didn't intend to offend anyone. Apologies if it came across that way. As someone who has been severely mercury poisoned, I have followed the thimerosal debates with great interest and I saw first hand what happened to those who dared to question vaccines.

There appears to be some semantic difficulties also with the question of what is "allowed." By that I don't mean that a person is not able to do it, only that there will be consequences for doing it. We are not "allowed" to steal, for example. But we still can choose to steal any time we want. But if we do (and get caught) we will be punished for it. The same with questioning vaccines, imho. You can question them all you want, but you will be "punished" for it, believe me.

And I'm not talking about the constraints of this forum, obviously, but in the culture at large. People who question vaccines are considered "cranks" by the culture. That's just the way it is. I don't think anything is likely to change that in the foreseeable future. But you are welcome to try - by all means, go ahead. I'm just saying that CFS/ME people already are considered that way by the mainstream society - or the mainstream medical society at least - so strengthening that false stereotype by acting in a way that they also consider being a crank is not likely to help your credibility much with those people. That's all I'm saying - no offense in anything intended, just sharing my views on the subject. thanks for your thoughtful response, and I'm really sorry if you have been harmed by vaccines. I'm not intending to deny or doubt that at all.

Eric Johnson from I&I · Dec 24, 2009

That is worth noting. But it is also worth noting that rare adverse effects from vaccines, not including autism, are universally acknowledged.

I dont know what data you are referring to. But beware that there is made-up data in this field, concocted by fanatics. I have fallen for it myself in the past, not knowing what the deal was, leading me to concoct a false theory about the Flynn Effect.

Also, the theory that the general decline of infectious disease was not due to medical intervention, is controversial and probably quite false in the main. See

http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/02/21/life-death-pre-vaccination/#comments

And also, including comments by me, here:
http://www.iayork.com/MysteryRays/2009/09/02/measles-deaths-pre-vaccine/

This is totally false. The polio vaccine ended the polio epidemic in north america. Figure 2 here:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&start=20&um=1

Not really. It depends on how you your source your data and whether the methods were sound in the original production of the data. What is Miller's source for his false statements on polio epidemiology? If there isnt a footnote with a source, there is no reason to believe him rather than other sources.

Eric Johnson from I&I · Dec 24, 2009

As you can see, the dudes I linked to cite this book for their data:

Paul JR. History of poliomyelitis. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

So far, they aint lyin. Such a book exists:

http://books.google.com/books?id=CwVmQgAACAAJ&dq=History+of+poliomyelitis&client=firefox-a&cd=1

If I felt like it, I could go find that book. It would have a cite taking me to the actual writings of people from the 50s, who compiled polio reports from doctors and hospitals across the USA, which they held in their own hands. And it would describe how the surveillance and reporting system of that time worked, and how they toted the numbers up. Which you need to know, because in scholarship you "trust no one!"

If you cant trace data like that, what you are reading cannot be called "scholarship". Thats what scholarship is all about.

XMRV and Transmission: The Big Question

Cloud

Guest

Katie

Guest

Senior Member

starcycle

Guest

Katie

Guest

Aristocrat Extraordinaire

_Kim_

Guest

starcycle

Guest

Aristocrat Extraordinaire

Robin

Guest

Senior Member

starcycle

Guest

starcycle

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

starcycle

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member