All that is irrelevant. She comes across as hysterical, and that damages her credibility. That's the only relevant point here.
XMRV Article in Chicago Tribune and other papers
- Thread starter kurt
- Start date
All that is irrelevant. She comes across as hysterical, and that damages her credibility. That's the only relevant point here.
redo
Senior Member
- Messages
- 874
The reason why she "comes across as that", is because the journalist has chosen to portray her like that. One might argue that it would be more tactical of her to just work with CFS until that's accepted, and then reveal other findings later, but that's not what she's done.
No, it has nothing to do with the journalist. The email comments on their own about "epidemics worse than AIDS in Africa if we don't ACT NOW!" are hysterical on their face. Unfortunately, if her goal is to get other researchers interested and involved and increase funding, she is only having the opposite effect with a hysterical approach like that. She is only hurting the cause. Scientists tend to be very conservative, and no one wants to be associated with a possibly career-killing issue that has the reputation of hysterical and hyperbolic statements around it. It kills credibility.
Whether or not someone comes across as hysterical in media depends on two factors: one is the way the journalist choses to paint the picture. The other is the subjective perception of the reader.
Some commentators on this thread appear rather hysterical to me. But HEY, that could be just my subjective perception ...
Some commentators on this thread appear rather hysterical to me. But HEY, that could be just my subjective perception ...
Saying we're going to have an AIDS-like epidemic "worse than Africa!" if we don't "Act now!" when nothing has even been definitively proven scientifically yet about XMRV and CFS let alone route of transmission sounds completely hysterical and non-rigorous to the scientific community, believe me. Turning this issue into a circus of hysteria over an unproven pathogen doesn't help anyone.
Why do you keep insisting on this "style of presentation" issue when I've already demonstrated a number of times that the statements are hysterical IN AND OF THEMSELVES, regardless of the "presentation?" It's not like someone took completely neutral and dispassionate statements and spun them merely to appear hysterical. The original email statements are hysterical in and of themselves, regardless of the presentation. Your point is refuted, do you understand that?
I don't think that Dr Mikovits was hysterical in any way and none of her comments in the article are hysterical.
It's all down to our personal opinions. No one can determine that for all readers. It's personal. We will all think our own opinions when we read the article.
Dr Mikovits was commenting with her own knowledge and beliefs and with her own opinions.
It's all down to our personal opinions. No one can determine that for all readers. It's personal. We will all think our own opinions when we read the article.
Dr Mikovits was commenting with her own knowledge and beliefs and with her own opinions.
Often hysterical people project their hysteria onto others and rant about them being "hysterical".
P.S. I think we are going to need a bigger plunger.
Trine Tsouderos, Chicago Tribune reporter POOR, BIASED REPORTING
I put three comments out on this article and none were posted. They were negative and stated that the reporter was biased and had a strong demeaning undercurrent. Apparently Trine doesn't want those negative comments out there for others to read. What a great reporter! I told her to go get a job at the CDC Marketing/PR department since she would do well there and had already gotten money from them for that fake award.
Trine: Stop writing anything on medicine or health. Stick to fashion or something that doesn't require real research and allows for bias.
I put three comments out on this article and none were posted. They were negative and stated that the reporter was biased and had a strong demeaning undercurrent. Apparently Trine doesn't want those negative comments out there for others to read. What a great reporter! I told her to go get a job at the CDC Marketing/PR department since she would do well there and had already gotten money from them for that fake award.
Trine: Stop writing anything on medicine or health. Stick to fashion or something that doesn't require real research and allows for bias.
free at last
Senior Member
- Messages
- 697
Its not Hysterical if shes right though is it ? because the evidence isnt there YET does not make it a non possibillity. Some may argue there is a liitle circumstantial evidence there already, maybe enough to speak up early before the world waits for a time that it becomes too late.
If the price one pays is jumping the gun, i put it to everyone is that not the safest thing to be doing ? should we just do what the world always does with early research suggesting a potential threat, Global warming for example, also seen as hysteria by many, but we wont be saying that when the climate starts changing in a way that becomes unstoppable when the evidence is now staring us in the face. Will we ?
The threat of global extinction with a asteriod or comet strike is seen as ridiculouse by many, ( by many experts too ) yet so far in the last 20 years we saw comet shoemaker Levy strike the planet jupiter with such force ( all recorded by hubble ) that the scars left behind on the planet were as large as the planet earth, then another asteriod strike on july 19th 2009 leaving a scar as large as the pacific ocean, then just the last two weeks another asteriod impact recorded, though on this occassion no scar was seen possibly because the explosion happened high in the atmosphere.
Some scientists asked for funding to look for near earth asteriods, ones that are a potentiall threat, in some countrys they were denied that funding, yet jupiter has shown us in modern times that the threat is not only real, but possibly a disaster waiting to happen. All Hysteria possibly but what if its not, great gamble to be playing eh
4% Of the healthy population with XMRV will become 8% 16% and 32% as the years trickle by. So while some may think we have plenty of time to dither around and debate if a danger exists.
Some may argue, we may not have that time, and its safer to take steps now.
Even if one is wrong, at least steps were being taken before a situation arises that there will be no turning around, no quick fix.
Ok lets just do what the world does best wait untill the situation is so dire that were all up s ? ? ? creek, Just because some cant see, early action is preferable to no or little action, incase its seen as hysteria, The hysteria card has been played so many times, and often it can be our downfall, its certainly a way of saving money, But we will all pay the penalty if Judy is right.
A potential threat should always be treated as such. Its not hysteria if its looked at like concerned educated guessing, only others make it hysteria, when the danger doesnt pan out. with a see told you so approach. One day that lack of forsight will be our downfall, and mostly because of wishfull thinking and money. Mostly money
Im full of hysteria me, but not bothered the slightest by it.
If the price one pays is jumping the gun, i put it to everyone is that not the safest thing to be doing ? should we just do what the world always does with early research suggesting a potential threat, Global warming for example, also seen as hysteria by many, but we wont be saying that when the climate starts changing in a way that becomes unstoppable when the evidence is now staring us in the face. Will we ?
The threat of global extinction with a asteriod or comet strike is seen as ridiculouse by many, ( by many experts too ) yet so far in the last 20 years we saw comet shoemaker Levy strike the planet jupiter with such force ( all recorded by hubble ) that the scars left behind on the planet were as large as the planet earth, then another asteriod strike on july 19th 2009 leaving a scar as large as the pacific ocean, then just the last two weeks another asteriod impact recorded, though on this occassion no scar was seen possibly because the explosion happened high in the atmosphere.
Some scientists asked for funding to look for near earth asteriods, ones that are a potentiall threat, in some countrys they were denied that funding, yet jupiter has shown us in modern times that the threat is not only real, but possibly a disaster waiting to happen. All Hysteria possibly but what if its not, great gamble to be playing eh
4% Of the healthy population with XMRV will become 8% 16% and 32% as the years trickle by. So while some may think we have plenty of time to dither around and debate if a danger exists.
Some may argue, we may not have that time, and its safer to take steps now.
Even if one is wrong, at least steps were being taken before a situation arises that there will be no turning around, no quick fix.
Ok lets just do what the world does best wait untill the situation is so dire that were all up s ? ? ? creek, Just because some cant see, early action is preferable to no or little action, incase its seen as hysteria, The hysteria card has been played so many times, and often it can be our downfall, its certainly a way of saving money, But we will all pay the penalty if Judy is right.
A potential threat should always be treated as such. Its not hysteria if its looked at like concerned educated guessing, only others make it hysteria, when the danger doesnt pan out. with a see told you so approach. One day that lack of forsight will be our downfall, and mostly because of wishfull thinking and money. Mostly money
Im full of hysteria me, but not bothered the slightest by it.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Equally, some hysterical people feel forced to claim others description of their hysetria is only a projection of the hysteria their mothers had inclucated due to a... too many layers now.
re the 'worse than Africa' stuff - that could be described as hysterical if there were no provisos or explanation provided in Mikovits e-mail. V99 mentioned that they thought Mikovits was talking about the numbers of people infected, rather than the overall impact. This would not be a hysterical claim, and it could well be that this is what Mikovits meant. We can't really judge fairly based only upon this article - but we can say that the WPI and Mikovits have been needlessly giving ammo to their opponents.
And often they don't, too. I think with a Master's degree in Communication I'm well qualified to assess the rhetorical content of discourse appearing in a news article.
What are your qualifications for assessing discourse? Or is making childish plunger jokes the extent of your verbal and analytical ability?
Roy S
former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
- Messages
- 1,376
- Location
- Illinois, USA
I guess it might help if anyone who does think Dr Mikovits comes across as "hysterical" to explain their feelings to others such as I myself who cannot see it? I have read the article.
Anyone care to explain why they think that "hysterical" would be an appropriate term to use?
Then maybe we might have some better understanding here. I ask this as a respectful way forward. It would help me to understand.
If it's not important or people don't feel comfortable please ignore.
Anyone care to explain why they think that "hysterical" would be an appropriate term to use?
Then maybe we might have some better understanding here. I ask this as a respectful way forward. It would help me to understand.
If it's not important or people don't feel comfortable please ignore.
That's already been addressed. Within the framework of scientific inquiry, Mikovits' responses are inappropriate. She admits that herself, when she acknowledges that her participation in the autism conference to present unverified information could end her career.
The problem is that when we have a group of people who are not scientifically minded or trained and/or who are heavily emotionally invested in an outcome, we tend to see that group want to have their unfounded beliefs confirmed regardless of the truth. On the other hand, researchers and members of the CFS community with a more rigorous and analytical approach to the issue would prefer the truth to come out regardless of what it turns out to be.
The latter is a more responsible and useful approach from a scientific perspective, and premature, scientifically unfounded statements about "epidemics worse than AIDS in Africa" do not fit into that perspective. Statements and positions like that are rightly perceived as hysterical and alarmist.
Truth always helps everyone. Pushing an agenda consisting of unverified beliefs because you are emotionally invested in a particular outcome typically helps no one.
redo
Senior Member
- Messages
- 874
I am not sure if I'd use the word hysterical, because it's so derogatory. But anyway, if this quote is not taken out of context (which I think it is), then I think you have some valid points. "Our continent will be like HIV Africa only worse!".
That said, the journalist has a history of misquoting (just google her name).
And I agree with you M.Kite that the discussion should remain on topic.