G
George
Guest
Kim not to worry I've just checked and 'methodological exactitude' and 'skulduggery' are covered under creative commons! (grins)
XMRV CFS UK study #II
- Thread starter Orla
- Start date
Just a non-technical point about the science. The fun and kudos in science goes to those who find stuff and those who build on the new findings! Although systematic failure to replicate a finding that eventually is taken to be false is part of the mechanism of science, there's no much glory in it. A year or so down the line, no-one remembers the names of the non-replicators. The scientists currently looking for XMRV in relation to ME/CFS will know this; and quite apart from their motivation to try to help patients, they will genuinely be wanting to replicate the Mikovits finding and start down the exciting new roads that it would open up. I'm sure they'll be looking at the two UK failures to replicate and trying to learn from them to avoid any differences in method from the original Science study that might have caused the failures.
I realise that many on this board believe that there are some scientists with vested interests in the other direction but any such scientists willl be in the minority. Reputations are made on finding stuff and that's where the vast majority will be headed.
I realise that many on this board believe that there are some scientists with vested interests in the other direction but any such scientists willl be in the minority. Reputations are made on finding stuff and that's where the vast majority will be headed.
Scientists are humans with all the failings thereof. Scientists chose every day not to interrogate for any number of reasons. The history of science is jam-packed with the blind, foolish, and biased.
This is nothing less than the first tenet of modernity. It's absolutely true.
Thank god we have professional historians and philosophers of science historicizing and critiquing science every day and fighting society's tendency to deify it. Science is a human process subject to all the follies of any other human endeavor. All we can hope for is to have human scientists duke it with other scientists in fierce debate--somewhere in that arena we can hope that something useful will emerge. But no one has the right to claim objectivity. That History and Philosophy of Science 101.
creekfeet
Sockfeet
- Messages
- 553
- Location
- Eastern High Sierra
I would not even tentatively diagnose until the patient had answered one more question: Is this condition improved, or worsened, by activity?
I totally agree Kim. We were looking for someone to represent our new hypothetical UK CFS charity, and Malcolm Hooper fits the bill perfectly. If anyone wants to see/hear more of him, he is the guy who interviews Judy Mikovits & Hilary Johnson on the Invest in ME DVD 2009.
P.S. are you sure you are't British?
Abraxas
Senior Member
- Messages
- 129
G
Gerwyn
Guest
Absolutely correct but our psychos would not
Bob
Senior Member
- Messages
- 16,455
- Location
- England (south coast)
Professor Hooper is on our side big-time...
He's been a long-time advocate for the biomedical science of ME.
"Professor Malcolm Hooper will be the chairman for the 5th Invest in ME International ME/CFS Conference 2010"
The Invest in ME conference is always really interesting, and very scientific, and Judy Mikovits will be speaking at this year's conference.
Here's the website link for the Invest in ME London conference in case anyone is interested:
http://www.investinme.org/IIME Conference 2010/IiME 2010 International ME Conference Home.htm
Thanks Sasha, like your thinking on this
Thanks, Abraxas! I forgot to mention, in the excitement of posting, that another big motivator for scientists to replicate a novel finding is money. Anyone who fails to find XMRV has much less chance of getting a grant to look for it again and ultimately, no grants, no job. But if you find it, off you go! Funding! Grants! Publications! Up the career ladder! Increased funding for your entire department because you've made the whole place look good! A kingdom, possibly (oh hang on, I've gone a bit mad there).
Dr. Yes
Shame on You
- Messages
- 868
George! Do ya nae ken this threade?!
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...ical-Medicine-How-to-make-a-disease-disappear
The guy has written REAMS about the politics surrounding this disease in the UK. He's been up to no good for quite some time. Here are vids of his lecture "Engaging with ME", etc on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_playlists&search_query=Malcolm+Hooper&uni=1
This has been a wonderful thread!! :victory: I have had ME/CFS for 35 years, so it is hard for me to keep up and post in appropriate places, but I can understand the posts. I feel like I have found an ME/CFS home.And George, I am married, but I want to be in the bidding for a good dog like you!!
Vickie
P. S. I haven't figured out how to edit my replies. Can anyone give me some instructions?
Oh, nevermind. I see that I can edit in certain circumstances, but not others
G
Gerwyn
Guest
The limit of The PCR test used in this study is about 16 viruses per cell Xmrv expresses about 2 viruses per cell which is theoretically below this tests threshold.If you add the variables of infectivity half life and the effect of thawing the actual concentration of XMRV in the samples would be even lower(perhaps by an order of magnitude).Now the levels of expression of endogenous retroviruses in the control group would be many times normal- because high numbers of endogenous retroviruses are expressed in the illnesses the control group suffered from.Because of all these factors the most reasonable conclusion is that the assay was not sensitive enough to pick up xmrv levels in uncultured samples even if CFS was accurately diagnosed (confounding variable).It was however sensitive enough to pick up endogenous retros expressed at levels much higher than in a normal population. That is my honest opinion
R
Robin
Guest
Moderator note: Just to be clear, the reason I bolded the first two sentences was the use of the word "you". I took it to be specific to the poster you were reprimanding, not a general "you" as in "one can't keep science and politics seperate..." The bolding was not intended to moderate the opinion about the politics of ME/CFS science, rather the tone and statement toward another poster.
If you read this thread it is obvious that there are a variety of opinions put forward by all of our posters. They range from one end of the spectrum to the other and have not been subject to moderation.
Speech is free here within the exception of the mild parameters of the forums rules.
G
George
Guest
I'd put myself up on the doggie auction block but I'm pretty happy fetching Gerwyns pipe and slippers right now. (grin)
opps got to go bring in the paper(snickers)
opps got to go bring in the paper(snickers)
There has been a lot of discussion here about 'science', some of it has been a bit misinformed. Something is 'science' if and only if it follows the scientific method. The scientific method is very straightforward. Although there are some slight variations, this is basically what it is;
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
That's it. If it follows this formula it is science, of not it is not.
Replication vs. Validation
This has also come up a lot.
Neither of the UK studies were a replication study.
Neither of the UK studies claimed to be a replication study.
Neither of the UK studies were under any obligation to be a replication study.
But they did follow the scientific method.
However, the most recent one did make a claim in it's title which was not supported by the data. They reported the absence of XMRV in CFS. The data only suggests that they did not detect it.
Personally I think the WPI paper leads to two lines of investigation;
1) what is the nature of XMRV and how can we find it/study it (ok, that's kind of sloppy)
2) What is the relationship between XMRV and CFS
The first line should involve all kinds of methods. Sticking to only one method here won't move our understanding of the virus forward in any great way.
The second question should stick to the methods which have been shown to find it.
The two UK studies were trying to address the second question. But, by using such different methods, only addressed the first question. The real conclusions of those two studies are
1) you can't find it this way
2) you can't find it that way
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
That's it. If it follows this formula it is science, of not it is not.
Replication vs. Validation
This has also come up a lot.
Neither of the UK studies were a replication study.
Neither of the UK studies claimed to be a replication study.
Neither of the UK studies were under any obligation to be a replication study.
But they did follow the scientific method.
However, the most recent one did make a claim in it's title which was not supported by the data. They reported the absence of XMRV in CFS. The data only suggests that they did not detect it.
Personally I think the WPI paper leads to two lines of investigation;
1) what is the nature of XMRV and how can we find it/study it (ok, that's kind of sloppy)
2) What is the relationship between XMRV and CFS
The first line should involve all kinds of methods. Sticking to only one method here won't move our understanding of the virus forward in any great way.
The second question should stick to the methods which have been shown to find it.
The two UK studies were trying to address the second question. But, by using such different methods, only addressed the first question. The real conclusions of those two studies are
1) you can't find it this way
2) you can't find it that way
G
Gerwyn
Guest
The IC study clearly stated that it was a replication attempt and there is more to scientific protocol than you outlined observations come before a hypothesis which can be tested by its predictive power, models can be symbolic mathematical or liguistic, not neccessarily by experiment If you are attempting to build on anothers work you must use the same methods perhaps applied to a different situation but the same method otherwise science could not progress There may only be one method for detecting this low titre virus anything else at this moment is unvaldated hence a new method must be calibrated and compared to the results constructed at the wpi - otherwise I agree i like the title of the first study Failure to detect
K
Katie
Guest
Thanks for that post Julius, that cleared up a lot of questions in my mind.
I didn't see in the IC study where they said it was a replication. I'll take another look.
And I agree that no two definitions of the scientific method are exactly the same, (I mentioned that in my post), but that is a pretty good basic outline. A lot of people seem to think it is science just because people wear white lab coats when they do it.
But, I'm not so sure about this "...If you are attempting to build on anothers work you must use the same methods...otherwise science could not progress". These studies did progress the science slightly, byt showing that those methods aren't useful in trying to detect XMRV.
And I agree that no two definitions of the scientific method are exactly the same, (I mentioned that in my post), but that is a pretty good basic outline. A lot of people seem to think it is science just because people wear white lab coats when they do it.
But, I'm not so sure about this "...If you are attempting to build on anothers work you must use the same methods...otherwise science could not progress". These studies did progress the science slightly, byt showing that those methods aren't useful in trying to detect XMRV.
np Katie...wrote it between sessions of Bioshock 2. I'm almost done though....any other recommendations?
G
Gerwyn
Guest
Hi Julius its in the introduction unless i,m losing my memory(again) .This is the hypothetico deductive model of post positivistic science
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent
. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
That is the state of things as i was taught The problem with the british studies is that we dont know whether their methods could find anything or not so there is no advance their conclusions may not be appropiate as you quite rightly point out but they are not now falsefyable