XMRV CFS UK study #II

[Gerwyn]

Well, Gerwyn, if I was a GP I would diagnose it as depression. And I'd prescribe SSRI's, because that would bring me one step closer to my all expense paid trip to the Bahamas (thank you pfizer).

But, if I wasn't a GP and I actually gave a sh*t, I would start testing for any of a dozen or so possibilities (see exclusion list for CFS).

good point even if you exclude everything you could still end up with this and oxford does not exclude depression but on the surface it corresponds with cdc and of course depression can be caused by cfs or at least a result of

 

[Quilp]

This is becoming surreal. I am reading these threads with a sense of detachment; that this is part of a fictional plot involving some other people some other place. Is it me ? This is bizarre, though I could be forgiven for using stronger language.
I went to bed last night thinking about Judy Mikovits' talk on the 22nd January 2010. I am certain that she knew about the results about to be published from Dr Kerr and Gow, and yet I have watched her body language, her enthusiasm; she even comes across as being so relaxed. What a dichotomy. Two years of research that made news all around the world, about to be 'rejected' yet again and she still maintained an air of inevitablity in this talk.
What can be concluded from this ? The email I received from her was so knowing, so certain, that every lingering doubt I had vapourised. I began to feed the fate and starve the doubt yet again, but then this second study has taken those doubts off the life support machine and given them life.
There is so much at stake here. If I didn't have this bas888d illness it would make for exciting reading. Just imagine the political machinations at work at the higher echelons of the scientific community. Some of the protagonists involved will never work in front line research again dependent on which side of truth they land. Reputations will fall, and then some.
At what stage does doubt begin to gain the upper hand ? If you are reading this and you are honest with yourself, you will begin to feel more than a little uneasy. I certainly do.
I can only give you the facts, and the fact is that XMRV is being found all over the world. I was particularly interested in the fact that it was found in 1.9% of healthy controls in Japan. I think we need to ask for more details about this study, and indeed those for other countries too. I refuse to believe that XMRV doesn't have a passport; XMRV is an equal opportunities retrovirus. If it's found in the USA it has to exist all over the world. Afterall this isn't the 14th century.
I remember Judy saying that there 'can't be false positives'. If you test positive you have XMRV. Can we really be sure of this ? I myself have discounted the posssiblity of this being a contaminant after the virologist at the CDC confirmed that this was so. Who was this virologist and what did he say exactly ?
Dr Kerr has been at the forefront of research in gene dysfunction amongst ME patients, perhaps there is bias ? I don't believe this, and the fact that he and Judy have been awarded a grant to work together marginalises this thesis. Given Kerr's long track recorded in denouncing the psychiatric lobby, when few others would in this country leaves me in no doubt that he tried everything to find this virus. We could extentuate the realms of possibility and talk of conspiracy theories, but really, at this stage I have nothing to suggest that this wasn't a valid attempt to find the truth. I also find it difficult to believe that he wasn't in touch with Judy during the trial and as such this leaves a question mark over those that believe the testing procedures were suspect. I really hope they were, but I do believe they weren't.
Where does this leave the NCI, not to mention the journal Science ? Where is the CDC in all of this ? Was Reeves removed because they the CDC have found XMRV or was he removed because the CDC are not finding XMRV and when they publish their results in the coming weeks they can say, 'hey look, no XMRV and Dr Reeves has nothing to do with it'. I suspect that this is the likely scenario at this stage, though I have absolutely no evidence to support these fears. What I do know is this; the CDC will want to nail this once and for all before millions of tax payers dollars are thrown at finding XMRV in the general public.
What do I think now ? I believe there is a lot that us as patients and advocates are not being told. I believe that the next few months could be life changing, but we all said that in October 8th 2009 didn't we.
They say that the darkest part of the night is just before dawn. I have questioned my motives, detached myself from the politics. Yes I am biased against Wessely et al, and that is plain for all to see, but these words, perhaps misguided are said in all honesty.
I believe with something deep inside that we are at the end of the beginning not the beginning of the end. I really believe that answers will be found; but sadly, belief and science don't always sit well together. Each one of you will have to make up your own mind. I have made up my mind; we're getting there, we'll get there, but when ? How many more weeks, months, years can we take ? If we've waited this long perhaps we can wait a little longer ? True, but only if we know that the truth will reveal itself. That leaves our eternal friend hope, to guide us on our way. Maybe, I really hope so.

Kind regards, Mark

 

[garcia]

Maybe, but why have eight out of fifteen patients at Biolabs in London already test positive ? I think we need more information about Biolabs, and more information about those that have tested positive. What is interesting is that this percentage is exactly the same as the results coming out of VIP Dx; over five hundred tests with around 50% positivity.

The UK bloods were drawn at biolab, but sent to VIP Dx in Reno for testing. Biolab have nothing to do with the testing.

How difficult can it be for him to drive across London, take away those fifteen samples and test them ?

It sounds easy when you say it like that. But biolab don't have any blood on hand (they sent it all to Reno). Also something like that actually takes a lot of effort to organize (e.g. patient consent etc.). Dr Kerr isn't a retrovirologist, so I'm guessing the testing wasn't done at St George's.

We know that it comes down to methodolgical differences. But to actually prove that will take a bit of time. These things always do. I hope that is next on their agenda.

 

[garcia]

I think we all need to take a chill-pill. This is Science.

I thought Suzanne Vernon's statement was very well balanced and worded. I don't think it was intended as overt criticism.

I don't think patient selection is a huge issue, either on the UK side or the WPI side. After all the Japanese found XMRV in almost 2% of healthy donors. It should be out there whatever cohort you come up with. Zero result is a big-red flag screaming "methodological differences". Or as Nancy Klimas said:

And this is going to be difficult because what did I say about the prostate work? Two of them said yes, and two of them said no. Now if you talk to the guys who said yes, they’ll say the guys that said no didn’t use the same method to look. That’s science! We do this all the time. We get into big quibbles over method. Method, method, method!

So right now we need to let/encourage the scientists get together and work this out.

 

[Quilp]

The UK bloods were drawn at biolab, but sent to VIP Dx in Reno for testing. Biolab have nothing to do with the testing.

Apologies to you and others, you are absolutely correct.

In respect of methodology I have to disagree. I am prepared to extend that possibility to the McClure trial given the vested interests at play, but not to this second study. Your argument would carry more weight if we knew for sure that Kerr and Mikovits were not in discussion prior to and during this trial. Given that they are both committed to finding this virus, I think that is unlikely though not impossible.
We do know that Mclure and her team were in contact with Kerr et al at least on some level, because she alluded to their being 'other studies' confirming their own findings.
This is beginning to play out like a Greek tragedy. Sorry, I am just so down at the moment.

Kind regards, Mark

 

[Knackered]

People are getting a bit lost here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Retrovirology study. These were good scientists doing their best to investigate the possibility of XMRV infection in CFS patients. They didn't find it. Let's stop trying to pick apart good science carried out by good people. There is no conspiracy involved with this group. I'm quite sure they felt keen disappointment, as most of us do.

It's not impossible that this virus is behaving in an unusual way. The conflicting Prostate studies suggest this as a possibility. It may be that a very specific test is required to detect it. If that's the case, the assays being developed by NIH and others may clarify this. On the other hand, a new form of contamination may have occured. Again, this will become clear in time. As long as investigation of these and other possibilities is continuing, and it is at present, the truth will be found. The truth is all that matters. Contamination ? Okay - that would be extremely depressing but research in other areas would continue. XMRV-associated illness ? Okay - let's get busy understanding it and looking towards therapy.

All that matters here is the truth. That is what science is all about. That is what the Retrovirology study was about.

When CFS patients start attacking objective scientific research then credibility goes out the window. Keep it real. More data is coming. If the WPI are wrong, they're wrong. If they're right, they're right. It's difficult not to become too emotionally involved but good science isn't done that way.

And finally, before anyone tries to criticise science once again, can I say that Psychiatry is one of the least convincing branches of science - unfortunately ME/CFS has been claimed by this profession, so we have some of the least "scientific" people trampling all over us. Psychiatry is not good science, for the most part. Good scientists will resolve the ME/CFS situation. But boy is it taking a long time.

I'm finding it difficult to think, let alone type today.

A lot of people have been sick for many many years, after being told by Dr Judy she's pretty much positive XMRV is the cause of their illness and they're going to be better very soon, any one saying it isn't true is going to be in the firing line for them. I don't think they mean it, having the chance of getting better taken away from you is a hard thing to take, I understand everyone's frustrations. It's hard for me but I'm hanging in there.

Even with the negative results, XMRV still could be the cause, no need to get upset just yet.

 

[Knackered]

The UK bloods were drawn at biolab, but sent to VIP Dx in Reno for testing. Biolab have nothing to do with the testing.

Apologies to you and others, you are absolutely correct.

In respect of methodology I have to disagree. I am prepared to extend that possibility to the McClure trial given the vested interests at play, but not to this second study. Your argument would carry more weight if we knew for sure that Kerr and Mikovits were not in discussion prior to and during this trial. Given that they are both committed to finding this virus, I think that is unlikely though not impossible.
We do know that Mclure and her team were in contact with Kerr et al at least on some level, because she alluded to their being 'other studies' confirming their own findings.
This is beginning to play out like a Greek tragedy. Sorry, I am just so down at the moment.

Kind regards, Mark

Don't be disheartened yet, WPI have something to say about XMRV later today, let's see what that is first.

 

[Gerwyn]

People are getting a bit lost here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Retrovirology study. These were good scientists doing their best to investigate the possibility of XMRV infection in CFS patients. They didn't find it. Let's stop trying to pick apart good science carried out by good people. There is no conspiracy involved with this group. I'm quite sure they felt keen disappointment, as most of us do.

It's not impossible that this virus is behaving in an unusual way. The conflicting Prostate studies suggest this as a possibility. It may be that a very specific test is required to detect it. If that's the case, the assays being developed by NIH and others may clarify this. On the other hand, a new form of contamination may have occured. Again, this will become clear in time. As long as investigation of these and other possibilities is continuing, and it is at present, the truth will be found. The truth is all that matters. Contamination ? Okay - that would be extremely depressing but research in other areas would continue. XMRV-associated illness ? Okay - let's get busy understanding it and looking towards therapy.

All that matters here is the truth. That is what science is all about. That is what the Retrovirology study was about.

When CFS patients start attacking objective scientific research then credibility goes out the window. Keep it real. More data is coming. If the WPI are wrong, they're wrong. If they're right, they're right. It's difficult not to become too emotionally involved but good science isn't done that way.

And finally, before anyone tries to criticise science once again, can I say that Psychiatry is one of the least convincing branches of science - unfortunately ME/CFS has been claimed by this profession, so we have some of the least "scientific" people trampling all over us. Psychiatry is not good science, for the most part. Good scientists will resolve the ME/CFS situation. But boy is it taking a long time.

I dont agree I,m not impuning their integrity but it is totally unscientific to attempt to replicate a study using different methodology.Science cannot progress if the same methods are not adhered to by following workers.If you are going to use healthy controls they should be healthy.If there is a method known to be able to detect a particular virus--that no one disputes then you as a scientist must use that method to validate yours against a known positive sample.they have adapted a technique used to detect the aids virus

Some differences--The aids titre in infected is about 25,000 virus copies per ml

The titre-at best-of xmrv is 100copies per ml

It takes between 30 days and 3 months following cellular level infection with the aids vitus to detect antibodies in the blood It is at least the same with xmrv yet they did an "antibody" test 18 hours post "infection"

They only use fresh blood to test for aids

It took wpi 42 days of culture to produce high enough concentrations of xmrv to be detectable None of the british studies bothered with this step

To detect latent epstein barr takes a 30 cycle amlification by PCR this study used one cycle other latent viri=uses take 35 cycles or more

 

[Quilp]

Don't be disheartened yet, WPI have something to say about XMRV later today, let's see what that is first.

Thanks Knackered. I go from offering words of encouragement to others, to sinking to the depths of despair in a matter of minutes. Without these boards I would be feeling much worse. I think sometimes we all play devils advocate because we want to be reaasured by others, even at a subconscious level. Then we segway to encouraging others for altruistic reasons but to also reassure ourselves. Yes, like you I will be anxiously awaiting what the WPI have to say.
Haven't we all been through enough already ? It's almost like some unseen force is having a great deal of merriment at our expense. I feel like a character in a play I did not write, for a part I didn't want to play, in a plot I find particularly distasteful.

Lots of love to everyone

 

[bullybeef]

If the science and mythology is good and yet they're unable to find XMRV, why do both results say:

Plos One Study: Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Jonathan R Kerr study: Absence of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus in UK patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

Why don't they say something like: We couldn't find XMRV in ME/CFS using our techniques? And then give reasons to why the could locate the virus.

Both studies were more than sure they had done their respective research using 'state of the art' techniques. But again, are these both validation studies or replication studies. And if they're not replicating the WPI techniques, why not? I would assume Dr. Kerr would be privy to Mikovits methodology.

 

[Mithriel]

I am not saying that this study wasn't scientific, that it was a conspiracy or that these researchers are not working for us.

If XMRV had been claimed by a group to be causing migraine and studies like these were done and came out negative it would just be the way things happen. More studies from more groups and the truth would eventually be established - the Scientific Method.

Unfortunately ME/CFS is different. The politics mean that every negative study will be seized upon and used against us. If it was migraine, after a few years of science a consensus would be reached and if a test and treatment became available people would get both.

Wth ME/CFS this may not happen no matter what the science says. We already have good studies that show abnormalities and suggest treatments but the establishment, especially in the UK either ignores or dismisses them.

I worry that even if a test and treatment become available in the rest of the world the NHS "experts" would continually quote these negative studies to prevent us getting access to them.

These studies have been done very quickly and the patient group tested was ill defined. A diagnosis of "CFS" in an NHS clinic is NOT an indication that a patient has either ME or Incline Village CFS. It is not even an indication that they have a physical illness.

This is not to say that they are not all very ill people just that, in the same way that looking at people with "fever" would not find a specific bacterium, looking at "fatigue" which is all that they have in common, is not the best way to find a novel virus.

A large scale trial, once the tests, samples and procedures have been validated for consistency, will give us answers. To say that these studies are not definitive is justified and the authors of this second paper admit that themselves. (It was the arrogance and claims made far, far beyond the evidence that caused the anger at the the PLOS study)

Biological systems are very complex and easily go wrong - think about they way computers are and magnify it:Retro smile: For instance, at the local diagnostic lab Chlamydia PCR suddenly stopped working. It turned out that the urine specimens were being collected in cardboard containers instead of foil ones. Something in the cardboard pulp inhibited the PCR. Back to tin bowls, problem solved.

The kinks need ironed out, but we are vulnerable while they are doing it.

Mithriel

 

[Katie]

If the science and mythology is good and yet they're unable to find XMRV, why do both results say:

Plos One Study: Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

Jonathan R Kerr study: Absence of xenotropic murine leukaemia virus-related virus in UK patients with chronic fatigue syndrome.

Why don't they say something like: We couldn't find XMRV in ME/CFS using our techniques? And then give reasons to why the could locate the virus.

Both studies were more than sure they had done their respective research using 'state of the art' techniques. But again, are these both validation studies or replication studies. And if they're not replicating the WPI techniques, why not? I would assume Dr. Kerr would be privy to Mikovits methodology.

Although Kerr is listed on this study, this isn't his personal study so he'll get his say in which techniques are used when he publishes in the summer. I keep repeating that like a mantra. Either way, we rise and fall on the word from the CDC.

 

[Knackered]

Thanks Knackered. I go from offering words of encouragement to others, to sinking to the depths of despair in a matter of minutes. Without these boards I would be feeling much worse. I think sometimes we all play devils advocate because we want to be reaasured by others, even at a subconscious level. Then we segway to encouraging others for altruistic reasons but to also reassure ourselves. Yes, like you I will be anxiously awaiting what the WPI have to say.
Haven't we all been through enough already ? It's almost like some unseen force is having a great deal of merriment at our expense. I feel like a character in a play I did not write, for a part I didn't want to play, in a plot I find particularly distasteful.

Lots of love to everyone

All the best Mark, chin up mate.

 

[Adam]

All the best Mark, chin up mate.

Quilip Knackered et al. Same here. We got to keep it going. helping each other. Some brillaint science posts on this thread. Excellent debate, leading to further debate and more salient points. If I could do a Rumpel Stiltskin fall asleep until this was through...and sorted...and there were diagnostic tests...and treatment...would I?

No.

Maybe it's not altruism. But that's how it is. We all help each other to help ourselves, which in turn helps everyone else.

Koan's posts are amazing. George too and many others. They remind us to stay with it. Not lose hope. take a breather from the rollercoaster, and coast instead.

Proud to be a member of Phoenix Rising.

take care ALL

Adam

 

[Mithriel]

Both studies were more than sure they had done their respective research using 'state of the art' techniques. But again, are these both validation studies or replication studies. And if they're not replicating the WPI techniques, why not? I would assume Dr. Kerr would be privy to Mikovits methodology.

It's simple Bullybeef, they used what they had to hand, patients and reagents. It is the only way these studies could be done in such a short time.

It's not necessarily wrong. If the had found XMRV that would have said something, but not finding it doesn't carry much information. If I find the car keys on the table I can say for certain that they were there. If I don't find them, it tells me nothing about where they are except the table isn't the place to look.

It will take more money to buy all the things to replicate the WPI study and to gather patient samples chosen to give the best chance of finding XMRV if it is there and it will all take time.

If it turns out that XMRV is not involved in ME/CFS something good will still come out of this. We are now united in a world wide community and we can see how our symptoms, particularly exercise being bad for us, as found everywhere. We OBVIOUSLY have something wrong with us that is not somatisation and the WPI is dedicated to finding out what we do have.

Mithriel

 

[Gerwyn]

A scientific relication study involves using exactly the same methodology as the original study but with different experimenters----ergo the british studies were not replicative studies in scientific terms thus they were unscientific!

 

[Sparklehorse]

People are getting a bit lost here.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Retrovirology study. These were good scientists doing their best to investigate the possibility of XMRV infection in CFS patients. They didn't find it. Let's stop trying to pick apart good science carried out by good people. There is no conspiracy involved with this group. I'm quite sure they felt keen disappointment, as most of us do.

It's not impossible that this virus is behaving in an unusual way. The conflicting Prostate studies suggest this as a possibility. It may be that a very specific test is required to detect it. If that's the case, the assays being developed by NIH and others may clarify this. On the other hand, a new form of contamination may have occured. Again, this will become clear in time. As long as investigation of these and other possibilities is continuing, and it is at present, the truth will be found. The truth is all that matters. Contamination ? Okay - that would be extremely depressing but research in other areas would continue. XMRV-associated illness ? Okay - let's get busy understanding it and looking towards therapy.

All that matters here is the truth. That is what science is all about. That is what the Retrovirology study was about.

When CFS patients start attacking objective scientific research then credibility goes out the window. Keep it real. More data is coming. If the WPI are wrong, they're wrong. If they're right, they're right. It's difficult not to become too emotionally involved but good science isn't done that way.

And finally, before anyone tries to criticise science once again, can I say that Psychiatry is one of the least convincing branches of science - unfortunately ME/CFS has been claimed by this profession, so we have some of the least "scientific" people trampling all over us. Psychiatry is not good science, for the most part. Good scientists will resolve the ME/CFS situation. But boy is it taking a long time.

Wow, thanks for the lecture. By the way, science is all about it being picked apart. That's how progress is made. I don't think anybody on here has been unfairly attacking or criticising the latest study and it's researchers really. All I've seen is quite a few (not me) very well scientifically educated people offering constructive criticism, which to me, seems to be justified most of the time. Why should we sit back and not try to find fault? That would be ridiculous. There are potential problems with this study and it wasn't a replication. That to me is all that people here have been saying. I also think that most people here recognise that the people involved in this latest study do appear to be open to working with the WPI and want to investigate further. So I think your attack on us here was unwarranted and needless.

 

[Sing]

I dont agree I,m not impuning their integrity but it is totally unscientific to attempt to replicate a study using different methodology.Science cannot progress if the same methods are not adhered to by following workers.If you are going to use healthy controls they should be healthy.If there is a method known to be able to detect a particular virus--that no one disputes then you as a scientist must use that method to validate yours against a known positive sample.they have adapted a technique used to detect the aids virus

Some differences--The aids titre in infected is about 25,000 virus copies per ml

The titre-at best-of xmrv is 100copies per ml

It takes between 30 days and 3 months following cellular level infection with the aids vitus to detect antibodies in the blood It is at least the same with xmrv yet they did an "antibody" test 18 hours post "infection"

They only use fresh blood to test for aids

It took wpi 42 days of culture to produce high enough concentrations of xmrv to be detectable None of the british studies bothered with this step

To detect latent epstein barr takes a 30 cycle amlification by PCR this study used one cycle other latent viri=uses take 35 cycles or more

And from Mithriell:

"It's simple Bullybeef, they used what they had to hand, patients and reagents. It is the only way these studies could be done in such a short time.

It's not necessarily wrong. If the had found XMRV that would have said something, but not finding it doesn't carry much information. If I find the car keys on the table I can say for certain that they were there. If I don't find them, it tells me nothing about where they are except the table isn't the place to look.

It will take more money to buy all the things to replicate the WPI study and to gather patient samples chosen to give the best chance of finding XMRV if it is there and it will all take time."

And again, Gerwyn:

"A scientific relication study involves using exactly the same methodology as the original study but with different experimenters----ergo the british studies were not replicative studies in scientific terms thus they were unscientific!"

Thank you for these ideas which help me understand the situation! The highly technical aspects are very useful to express for those who can understand them, but for people without as much scientific background like me, simple, clear versions such as you have offered above WORK!

Sing

 

[oerganix]

Thanks Knackered. I go from offering words of encouragement to others, to sinking to the depths of despair in a matter of minutes. Without these boards I would be feeling much worse. I think sometimes we all play devils advocate because we want to be reaasured by others, even at a subconscious level. Then we segway to encouraging others for altruistic reasons but to also reassure ourselves. Yes, like you I will be anxiously awaiting what the WPI have to say.
Haven't we all been through enough already ? It's almost like some unseen force is having a great deal of merriment at our expense. I feel like a character in a play I did not write, for a part I didn't want to play, in a plot I find particularly distasteful.

Lots of love to everyone

I second that, lots of love to everyone. It might help to try not to take things so personally, and yes, I do know that is difficult, bordering on impossible.

Even IF XMRV is not found to cause this illness, there is still research going on at this very moment to find out what does cause it, so let's not despair at the 'downs' that will inevitably come along with the 'ups'. Even WPI has not put all it's eggs in one basket. They have 10 other studies going on right now:
http://www.wpinstitute.org/research/research_basic.html

Gerwyn's comment: "It took wpi 42 days of culture to produce high enough concentrations of xmrv to be detectable None of the british studies bothered with this step

To detect latent epstein barr takes a 30 cycle amlification by PCR this study used one cycle other latent viri=uses take 35 cycles or more "

This bears looking into also. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on this, but Gerwyn, I find your posts to be masterful, so if you think this could be a flaw in the latest study, I would like to see your concerns addressed. There does seem to be a rush to 'prove' XMRV isn't in UK, for some odd reason. It's in Japan and patients from UK and other European countries have tested positive for it on the test used by WPI, so why the rush to 'prove' it isn't in UK? How convenient that the first study, so obviously bogus, came out so fast and now this second one comes fast, with headlines blaring SECOND UK study, etc, etc. If they can't razzle us with b*llshit, they try to dazzle us with numbers of studies? Is science like some Roman coliseum event where the crowd gets to extend thumbs up or thumbs down?

Anyway, I am not disheartened by this study and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe because I expected there to be days like this. Maybe because critics like Gerwyn are here to shine some light on the mystery.

Again, hugs and love light to everyone.

 

[anne]

Our culture has a tendency to deify science, as if it's some objective process that always leads to truth and good. But it's not. Science isn't a sacred force that moves us to truth. It's a process, done by people, and those people make mistakes and have biases and have bad days and sometimes just get it wrong. Scientists can be good hearted, thorough people and still not find the right answers. Science can lead us to answers, but it can also give a false sheen to things. For a long time, science told us that ulcers are caused by stress and spicy food. Up until very recently, science told us preemies didn't feel pain and didn't need pain modification during procedures. Science shows antivirals don't work in CFS, and exercise does. And because it's "Science," we're to believe it's true.

Someone's wrong here. And that doesn't necessarily mean their intentions weren't good, and that they weren't careful.

Science needs to be interrogated just like anything else. This is not some holy process that people enter where the light shines on them and truth is revealed. We are often exhorted to put our faith in science--that's quite an ironic phrase. We need to put our minds to it. We need to examine everything with rigor.