Let the lawyer games begin. My blog “Square One”, of October 1, was unfortunately prophetic. The WPI is in fact using money donated by patients to pay lawyers to sue Dr. Mikovits. One more in a very long line of horrible decisions. I am truly incredulous. This entire fiasco is doing great harm to the patient community, the extent of which is unknowable at this time. The research is destroyed. The notebooks and specimens are potentially compromised.
As I finished that last paragraph, a friend sent me Annette Whittemore’s blog just posted. I really don’t know how she keeps a straight face. She’s suing her chief scientist and the principle investigator on the institute’s grants, after termination without cause, to obtain notebooks and flash drives that Dr. Mikovits apparently does not have, since she was locked out of her lab suddenly and unexpectedly. I would say that as the “the guardian of this property”, Mrs. Whittemore has failed pretty miserably. And now she is using a little of the millions of unaccounted for dollars to sue Dr. Mikovits. I thought I understood the depth of the incompetence, but it just keeps getting worse. She thinks the patient community is going to be OK with this? Business as usual? Wait for the WPI to figure out a cure, without a chief scientist, and oh, please send more money? Who is she kidding? Sorry Annette, now we have to think about a legal defense fund for Judy!
I was going to write some good news, to follow the bad news, but I think I’ll write that when I’m not feeling like I’ve been slimed.
>If they have Gerwyn,s e mail address that is a criminal offence as he has never posted there
as for the rest of your comments grow up you disgusting troll
>Anonymous 3:40 PM — I believe IP address was mentioned not email address. Everytime you go on a forum, blog etc, your IP address is recorded which is how forums etc figure out who is using sockpuppets etc. Except some people use proxy addresses to get around this but even these can be traced back to the original user.
Gerwyn is not a virologist. Gerwyn has never performed a PCR in his whole life. Gerwyn posts a lot of erroneous information about many things. Gerwyn is using the name GJO here.
Trollishness is in the eye of the beholder.
>Its obvious to anyone with any knowledge of science that the coffin cabal are not applying the scientific method
They are pretending to but they are not.They are the ones harming patients
The anonymous comedian above thinks that replication means changing all independent variables rather than keeping them constant .Apart from demonstrating his ignorance he is quite happy for a member of his family to be tested for HIV using an assay whose clinical sensitivity has not been established. Neither his mind or his morality appear to be up to much
>The work of a closed group of retrovirologists and co is actually based on belief and not fact
They believe that gammaretroviruses cannot possibly infect humans and treat that belief as though it was fact
They ask you to believe that the only possible xenotropic murine related retrovirus is the vp-62 strain despite this being unique in the entire history of retrovirology
They ask you to believe that a PCR assay that can detect a low copy number of the vp-62 strain can detect the vp-62 strain in a clinically infected person. In short they ask you to believe that determining the analytical sensitivity of an assay guarantees that the assay will detect a target sequence in a clinically infected person if the target is present. This is despite numerous papers which report high analytical sensitivity but zero clinical sensitivity
They have deliberately set their PCR conditions so that the assay could only detect the VP-62 strain even though they know that this sequence is nothing to do with the retroviruses found in the blood of people with ME
They expect you to believe that this is good scientific practice
They know that the Vp-62 strain becomes undetectable in blood by PCR after the acute phase of infection.Yet they continue to produce papers pointing out the absence of the vp-62 strain in blood.They expect you to believe that this is the work of competent unbiased scientists
They know that the antibody response to the vp-62 strain disappears after the acute phase of infection. Yet they continue to produce papers that point to the absence of VP-62 antibodies in blood.They expect you to believe that this is the work of competent unbiased scientists
They know that gammaretroviruses in general and the vp-62 strain specifically rapidly establishes latency. this means that the viruses dont make proteins.Yet they repeatedly produce papers reporting the lack of viral proteins in the blood of people with "CFS" when they are really patients with idiopathic chronic fatigue
They then ask you to believe that this is correct scientific practice and the work is produced by honest competent scientists
They even ask you to believe that an astronomically unlikely event is a better explanation for a set of observations than the failure of unvalidated assays to detect very low copy number of the vp-62 strain of xmrv
I think the honest posters and per users of this forum are quite capable of recognizing friend from foe
>So let's make a plan what are we going to do, we can't let them bury this?
Ideas anyone?
>"Since Gerwyn is the only knonwn world renown retrovirolist capable of knowing how to conduct via the scientific method the ability to conduct validated assays capable of detecting this retrovirus"
Frank Ruscetti is another reteovirologist, who unlike Coffin, Stoye, McClure, Towers and other wannabes, has discovered a human retrovirus. He would not ever conduct research without using clinically validated assays.
Simple question would a person not be insane if they aloud themselves to be given blood from a person who may have HIV, but was screened using assays that were not clinically validated. Yes, with that human retrovirus to do that would result in a jail sentence and righly so.
>These people are happy to put their lives on the line for what? Nothing is worth having ME or any other disease that HGRVs may be responsible for. How many decades do you think you could avoid them before your family and friends are infected? Don't live to regret what you could have changed now. The discovery will change many things, but ignoring it will be disaster you may never get the chance to change again.
>The continued claims that all these other world class researchers "are not applying the scientific method" is pretty amusing given that the people making the claim appear to be unfamiliar with both science and the scientific method.
>If the Coffin cabal continues to dominate, retrovirology will cease to be a science.
>I'm supposed to get notified of how to get a video of the Nov. 20 seminar at Mount Sinai on ME/CFS. Will post it here.
>One has to wonder what the agenda is of the anon that thinks that I am a Welshman when I am most definitely female. He does protest too much. Full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing. Got the facts wrong too.
@kathy d. Yes please!
>The publications produced by a group of virologits is based on their preexisting belief that gammaretroviruses cannot infect humans and thus any detected replicating in humans must be a laboratory artifact or some sort of contamination
They have designed all their studies in an attempt to confirm this and interpreted all the data so it is in line with this belief and ignored all other possible explanations
They ask you to believe that this represents sound scientific practice and the convlusions presented are unbiased and the work of competent scientists
They ask you to believe that the VP-62 strain is the only possible strain of xenotropic murine related retroviruses found replicating in the human population.This is despite the fact that no retrovirus in history has been limited to one strain
They ask you to believe that their PCR assays that can detect the DNA of the vp-62 strain in a spiked sample ( analytical sensitivity) would be able to detect the vp-62 strain in an infected person(Clinical sensitivity).This is despite numerous papers demonstrating that PCR assays with excellent analytical sensitivity have zero clinical sensitivity
They ask you to believe that this is good scientific practice and the work of unbiased scientists
They set their PCR conditions so that the assay could only detect the vp-62 stain in people with ME and no other even one very closely related.They ask you to believe that this is the work of unbiased competent scientists
They know that after the initial stages of infection the vp-62 strain becomes impossible to detect in blood using PCR.Yet they continue to report that they were unable to detect the vp-62 strain of xmrv in the blood of people with chronic fatigue.They ask you to believe that this is the work of unbiased competent scientists
They know that the vp-62 strain of XMRV is readily detected in tissues when it is not detectable in blood.Yet they continue to conduct studies looking for the vp-62 strain in blood.They ask you to believe that these are the actions of competent unbiased scientists
They know that the host antibody response to the vp-62 strain of xmrv fades and disappears after the acute infectious phase.Yet they continue to present papers highlighting the absence of an antibody response to the vp-62 strain in people with ME as evidence of absence of the vp-62 strain in the blood of people studied.They ask you to believe that this is the behaviour of unbiased competent scientists
They know that the vp-62 strain rapidly establishes latency and is highly unlikely to produce proteins.Yet they continue to produce papers highlighting the absence of vp-62 proteins as evidence that the people studies are not infected with the vp-62 strain.They ask you to believe that this is the work of unbiased competent scientists
They ask you to accept such practices without complaint because they are carried out by reputable scientists
This post is aimed at the honest posters and readers of this forum
>Well, apparently my IP is the same as Gerwyn's, anon @ 3:27. Since I and others know for a fact this is untrue, your information can no longer be regarded as reliable.
Gerwyn is a very sick person. He has the same illness that I and most others here have. So saying he should get his arse into a lab is a cruel taunt, asking him to do the impossible.
Did you know that just standing for any length of time is dangerous for many of us? Do you know how much we have to forgo because of this illness? About the one way we can communicate with the outside world is via the web, writing on our laptops laying on the sofa.
Get a life, go do something positive. Attacking disabled people is a crime, you know.
>If people want to pretend they have a scientific argument can they provide evidence. Saying someone posts erroneous information means nothing. The fact is assays have to be clinically validated or results are useless. Hence all negative studies are now irrelevant and should be retracted for seeking an unrelated, unintergrated synthetic strain of virus. The viruses discovered by Dr Mikovits and world renown Dr Ruscetti are not VP62, but zoonosed gamma retroviruses.
>What can be done.
Stop the Lipkin study.
Stop the WPI civil suit against Dr Mikovits.
>Assays must be clinically validated said Dr Racaniello.
“In my view the CDC paper should not have been published without a proper positive control, eg patient samples known to contain XMRV. If I had reviewed the CDC paper that's what I would have asked for.”
http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/content.php?187-Dr-Mikovits-and-Dr-Racaniello-on-XMRV
>Assays must be clinically validated said Ila Singh.
"It’s just not sufficient to show that something can detect something in a plasmid template. It’s hard to know if it’s going to detect something in a matrix that’s as complicated as blood or cellular DNA. So I think that’s probably one of the biggest reasons for why people find different results.."
TWiV 94: XMRV with Dr. Ila Singh' (8 August 2010)
>Without clinical validation it is unknown whether any assay can detect virus when present.
As we also know VP62/XMRV is not the zoonosed gamma retroviruses in people with ME and all negative papers FAILED to clinically validate and used VP62, there are NO negative ZMRV papers.
The Lipkin study will now answer nothing as the assays those labs use are unvalidated and we know why the negative studies found nothing as they were looking for nothing, ie VP62 with clinically unvalidated assays.
>Just wondering GJO, if the Myers Cocktail helped you so much, why don't you spread the news. It's so simple:
Ingredient Dose Nutrient
Magnesium chloride hexahydrate 20% 2-5 mL Magnesium
Calcium gluconate 10% 1-3 mL Calcium
Hydroxocobalamin 1,000 mcg/mL 1 mL Vitamin B12
Pyridoxine hydrochloride 100 mg/mL 1 mL Vitamin B6
Dexpanthenol 250 mg/mL 1 mL Vitamin B5
B complex 100 1 mL Vitamin B complex
Vitamin C 222 mg/mL 4-20 mL Vitamin C
Maybe the WPI could provide these injections. Such a simple solution for such symptoms.
>Jace — are you saying you were posting as Kipper7 on Bad Science. Oh my, well you were getting your information straight from Gerwyn then, were you not. You do understand that Gerwyn really has made a lot of erroneous comments regarding XMRV and related testing. Now it all makes sense, why Kipper7 would not post their qualifications and could not really answer any scientific questions without directly regurgitating all the crap posted by Gerwyn elsewhere.
>He has spread the news before.
>@Anon 8:05AM, isn't it amazing how all these esteemed researchers go from honest and reputable to dishonest and disreputable as soon as they publish negative findings? And isn't it funny how all these other studies and their methods go from validated to invalidated as soon as they come up negative? Poor Dr. Lipkin seems to be the latest to suffer the same fate.
>Isn't it more amazing that they are not using clinically validated assays, when they know they must do or they have no evidence at all that people are negative. Singh has no excuse.
The Lipkin study does not have Ruscetti or Mikovits taking part and no one is using the assays that were proven to work in Lombardi or Lo et al.
It is a lie to claim studies have clinically validated assays when they have not been shown to detect a clinical positive. If you want to argue that any have, when in fact they have not, then quote a negative paper and where they showed the assays used were clinically validated. No you cannot. You failed.
As for poor Dr Lipkin, you must be joking. It is poor patients and anyone else who will be infected. Who would allow such a study to take place when it is not even needed. Check your facts next time. The Lipkin study is dead in the water already. No purpose and no scientific basis. Let science progress unhindered!
>The priciples underlying the scientific mode of investigation are really very simple.Many people are put off by the apparent complexity inherent in published studies
the scientific method contains a system of checks and balances to minimise the greatest scourge involved when human beings are involved namely bias
This bias need not be concious but it can be
this is why all scientific endevour begins with empirically measureable observations( objective observations)
the next step is to form an explanatory hypothesis which explains all the observations
as a guide this needs to be the simplest explanation and an explanation which explains all other observations in the field of investigation
now the next step is crucial. This is to test the hypothesis either experimentally of predicively by actively trying to disprove it
if the hypothesis survives repeated attempts at disproving it then it attains the status of a theory
Scientific knowledge is a measure of the probability of truth and does not attempt the level of certainty
so when you see a group of researchers with a preconcieved position designing a study to provide evidence in support of their pet theory then you know that they are not engaging in a scientific mode of investigation even though it might appear to the uninitiated that they are
Now in lombardi et al a specific response to the monoclonal antibody to sffv env ewas observed
In the history of science this response has only been observed when mlv class gammaretroviruses have been present
now remember science is based onobjectively measureable observations
So when someone stands up in front of an audience as John Coffin did and claimed that that response could have been caused by something else he is not behaving as a scientist
If he wants to claim that this antibody response was caused by something else he has to provide experimental evidence that this response can be caused by something else other than the presence of a mlv class gammaretrovirus.Otherwise despite is reputation he is engaging in pseudo science
I would invite all people with ME to look at the behaviour of these so called world class scientists( whatever that means) and decide whether their mode of investigation is scientific or not
>I'd like to say that I have never observed Gerwyn posting on badscience.net. Like I said on badscience, it is much more likely to be a sock puppet of V99 that posted there. Because she uses exactly the same (non-)arguments as Gerwyn does, the two are sometimes hard to seperate, except of course for the Gerwynian interpunction errors.
Seeing as both V99 and Gerwyn have mistaken me for other persons, I guess it can happen to the smartest of people.
I must add that I am in awe of both, as they have seemingly convinced a few people of some very weird and clearly incorrect things. Must feel great to gain the respect of some very sick and desperate people in such a way. Hat's off to you, Sir and Madam.
Oh, on a side note….I have seen the CEO of the IMEA posting here (and if she is not reading this, I am sure that somebody will be able to communicate this to her): on your IMEA site (where all "scientific analysis" by Gerwyn seems to have been removed BTW), when somebody checks the Q&A section (which consists of an impressive four questions), under question two, the answer reads:
"We do ask that if people wish to donate to an ME charity, that you consider a donation to the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease."
In light of your recent comments about the Whittemores ("cowardly"), I think you might want to change that….
>"Since Gerwyn is the only knonwn world renown retrovirolist capable of knowing how to conduct via the scientific method the ability to conduct validated assays capable of detecting this retrovirus, then he does everyone a disservice by not putting on a white coat and getting his arse into a lab to find this cause. If he knows how to do this and does not, than he harms the entire ME/CFS community and is an enemy of this patient community. So until he does that, he is full of crap and is a liar."
perhaps if he wasnt riddled with HGRVs he would.
and how disgusting it is that you say this.
I imagine he would love to have just a smidgen of the health that that would require.
do you even have a clue about the diasbling effects of this disease ? !
fly
>Anon @ 10:25
What an inane, misleading comment. Aside from the murky peer review process, patients have been the only ones thus far to offer any analysis of the negative studies whatsoever, despite deep empirical flaws. The response from the vocal scientific community has consisted almost exclusively of the slavish acceptance that you would presumably and erroneously accuse these same patients of harboring toward Lombardi et al.
Where is the replication of Paprotka et al? Where is the insistance or even suggestion from the scientific community that it be replicated? Nowhere, of course, because conforming bias needs no confirmation within a biased community.
Despite your attempt to invert characterizations, a cold hard look shows clearly that the blind orthodoxy you so diligently belittle actually roosts not with patients but with these very researchers that they have called to task. Rhetoric and mockery and fallacious reasoning cannot hide the putrid stench of the politics employed in place of sound science.
And naturally, any such analysis/criticism of the negative studies by patients must temporally transpire after publication, given that they are not privy to pre-publication details.
Thus, "esteemed" and "reputable" researchers have become regarded as disreputable precisely because they have abandoned sound methodology. Precisely because they have actively sought to "disprove" the inconvenient data while taking contrary data at face value. Precisely because they have acted and spoken politically in erecting a false facade of "consensus" that we have watched them build one flimsy cardboard piece at a time.
>@Asleep, you state "patients have been the only ones thus far to offer any analysis of the negative studies whatsoever, despite deep empirical flaws." No, plenty of other researchers, scientists and physicians have also analyzed these studies, but because they have concluded that most were well designed and conducted, you immediately dismiss their analyses. The other problem you have is that very very few patients actually know enough to analyze and opine on the quality of the studies themselves. Yes, I realize that CFS patients are very motivated and all, but that doesn't give you the equivalent of a PhD in virology. You are simply deluding yourselves if you think otherwise, which is why so many of these patient "analyses" simply regurgitate the same silly comments over and over again like trained parrots. Finally, there is no such thing as a "clinical positive" if a virus does not in fact exist. Continued use of this silly premise, now aimed at Lipkin's study, just shows that you have reached a conclusion already before the study is even done.
>@Anonymos 3:27 PM
It's actually a very simple formula:
1. Make up scientific "methodology", so silly that no scientist has or will use(d) it.
2. Trick desperate patients into believing that this is actually how it should be done.
3. Use it to attack any study with good scientific methodology.
4. ??????
5. PROFIT!!!
>rrm now confirms that he is a total idiot the details of the scientific mode of investigation can be accessed by any one
RRM does not like the scientific mode of investigation but I did not realise that he didnt understand it either
someone mentioned above that there was no such thing as a clinical positive because the vp-62 strain did not exist
That is exactly the sort of pseudo scientific claptrap that I,ve being talking about
even coffin admits that the vp-62 strain of xmrv exists!
it must be very difficult to get anyone with any intelligence on Bad science forum these days
>the scientific method in summary
measured obsrvations
form explanatory model
test explanatory model predictively or experimentally always with the aim of disproving the model
if model survives repeated challenge then hypothesis becomes accepted as scientific theory
research method favoured bt RRM
start with a pet theory or intrangigent belief then try and prove that the belief is fact
twist all data to fit the belief and then state opinion as fact and ignore all other explanations for the data
make sure all assays are unvalidated so when no evidence of retrovirus found claim that the assay would have detected such retrovoirus if there
I will leave others to judge which version of the scientific mode of investiagtion is true
bearing in mind that RRM said that using the scientific approach was far too demanding and silly
>@anon 3.11PM
You would never accept blood from a person tested negative for HIV with a clinically unvalidated assay, so why would you accept one for ZMRVs? Why do you disagree with Singh, Mikovits and Racaniello?
>Anon @ 3:11
It doesn't take a PhD to understand that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It doesn't take a PhD to understand the difference between analytical and diagnostic validation. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that the complex chemistry of PCR, the number of variables involved, and the exponential nature of the process can render minute differences into extraordinarily divergent outcomes. It doesn't take a PhD to note the resurfacing of the same flawed arguments proffered in the early days of HIV. It doesn't take a PhD to understand that the the obeisant consumption by the virology community of the highly improbable, *merely possible* recombination event as hardened fact is purely political.
And that says nothing about the necessary question of how much value a PhD in virology even carries, seeing as they are potentially awarded to the likes of ERV.
The reason that these "silly" arguments keep being repeated is because they pertain to such basic and catastrophic flaws. Why focus on the ugly window shades when the whole foundation is crumbled?
Also, if you're having trouble finding a clinical positive, you could contact Dr. Singh who has numerous tissue samples with IHC and PCR evidence of HGRV infection. Or you could contact the Lombardi co-author who took an EMG of a retrovirus particle in a patient sample. Or you could contact Dr. Ruscetti who has found viral proteins in numerous patient samples.
>G, from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
For the open minded readers, I note that we are experiencing a slight variation on the formula above (note step three):
1. Make up scientific "methodology", so silly that no scientist has or will use(d) it.
2. Trick desperate patients into believing that this is actually how it should be done.
3. Use it to "ridicule" any person that recognizes it is silly scientific methodology.
4. ??????
5. PROFIT!!!
>Quiet right VP62 does exist, but has not been found in nature and is not the viruses detected in people with ME.
So why continue with a study looking for VP62 in people with ME and never clinically validated? The outcome is fixed.
>this is what RRM and his ilk are afraid of
The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.
Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
>Confirmation bias
It works!
Science
Icon science.svg
Major disciplines
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
Science articles
Artificial intelligence
Biology
Diffraction
Impact factor
Infrasound
Lepton
Proof
Unscientific America
Philosophy of science
Philosophy of science
Empiricism
Falsifiability
Evidence
Theory
v – t – e
Confirmation bias is the tendency for people to only seek out information that conforms to their pre-existing view points, and subsequently ignore information that goes against them. It is a type of cognitive bias and a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. Avoiding confirmation bias is an important part of rationalism and in science in general. This is achieved by setting up problems so that you must find ways of disproving your hypothesis (see falsifiability).
Contents
1 We all do it…
2 Intelligent design
3 Wason card problem
3.1 Solution
4 See also
5 External links
6 Footnotes
[edit] We all do it…
Confirmation bias is one of the traits that just comes with the human condition. There is a human tendency to favour testing the predictions of a hypothesis that only confirm or prove it, at the expense of testing any predictions that would disprove a hypothesis. This is a problem because attempts to disprove an hypothesis are the most effective ways of comparing two or more hypotheses, and are also the most informative methods for acquiring evidence (see the Wason Card problem, below). However, even practicing scientists often miss these examples and the scientific method has basically "evolved" to try and counteract it.
>just to correct rrm he actually said that the use of the scientific method was too demanding and silly
when this is pointed out he resorts to his normal ad hominem attacks
>@Anoymous 4:45 PM
That's actually another logical error by Gerwyn et al.
No study has been looking for "just' VP62. Using VP62 as a positive control DOES NOT MEAN you have calibrated your assays to just detect VP62. This does not change if you choose to repeat this 1346 time on the forums BTW.
Consider this pretty basic example:
Compare two studies A and B. These two studies are done by the exact same scientists, using the exact same samples and doing the exact same experiments. These two studies are exactly identical, except for one thing: study A uses no postitive control, while study B uses VP62 as a positive control. Which study is superior?
Now, even if you argue that using VP62 is absolutely worthless, then still the studies' results would be equal in value as adding the control can really not detract anything from the study (i.e. it's still identical to study A if you completely dismiss the VP62 part).
But, as is it, adding VP62 isn't worthless: for instance, amplifying the XMRV in that control sample shows you that during the experiment you haven't messed up the target DNA. If the VP62 control would turn up negative, you'd know you've done something wrong and, thus, by reliably amplifying it, you've eliminated certain errors.
Incidentally, the man who co-discovered Hepatitis C with Harevy Alter, Michael Houghton, has today published his (negative) XMRV/CFS study (using CCC patients and Mikovits's' primers BTW, but I am sure he didn't use 5-aza so I guess it wasn't a proper replication) and he wrote an interesting sentence with regard to Gerwyn's calibration fallacy (note that he used 22Rv1 instead of VP62 plasmid).
"Whereas XMRV gag sequences were readily detectable in diluted 22Rv1 cell supernatants, XMRV and MLV were not detected in any of the patient plasma samples"
He clearly indicates that the fact that one can demonstrate that an assay can amplify "just" 22Rv1, does not mean that this assay is not designed to detect more than that. That is why no study using VP62 (or 22Rv1) should be retracted, and why it is silly to keep repeating that meme.
>RRM, surely you can misconstrue the point with fewer words.
The issue is only partially about "calibration." The primary issue is about logical claims of absence. Finding VP62 in spiked samples is not the same thing as finding (unknown sequences) of HGRVs in clinical specimens. Being able to find the former does not magically confer empirical proof that you can find the latter, regardless of any theoretical claims. If you didn't show you can find it (clinical HGRV), you cannot assume you are able to find it. Doing so, even with theoretical grounding, is pure and utter speculation.
>RRM, assays optimised to a synthetic non integrated virus does mean they are not optimised to a wild type virus. Do you know nothing about the the viral titre of gamma retroviruses and how they like to integrate? RRM I am waiting for you to now dazzle everyone with your explanation of why you would lower the annealing temperature of a PCR assay to detect low copy virus in blood and an explanation for the problems that then present due to preference for integration into high CG content. All evidence indicates that 22Rv1 is contaminated with VP62 as created by Silverman, can you explain why? No didn't expect one single answer from you.
>Rather than responding to any argument or claim made by Gerwyn, the anons use Ad Hominem attacks on him. Do you really believe any thinking person takes this as a sign that they should believe you?
If you can read and think through things, you can figure out if what Gerwyn says makes sense, with your simple appeals to authority, (people with degrees), you preclude anyone here from forming an opinion since most don't have the degree you say is required!
There are PLENTY of degreed idiots, and plenty of self taught geniuses. You appeal to the learned then imply that others can't learn if they aren't blessed by letters after their name.
I see you would be quite happy to live in a fascist society run by the 'elites,' no need for democracy or discourse by those who think for themselves.
Patients by necessity have learned MUCH more about their illness than most researchers or doctors have. In fact this is the reason many excellent researchers and doctors talk to patients, it is the insight gained by talking WITH them, not to them. Something you have never learned yourselves.
– Evil Monkey
>@RRM,
"The gammaretroviruses xenotropic murine leukemia virus (MLV)-related virus (XMRV) and MLV have been reported to be more prevalent in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) patients than in healthy controls. Here, we report the complex analysis of whole blood and plasma samples from 58 CFS patients and 57 controls from Canada for the presence of XMRV/MLV nucleic acids, infectious virus, and XMRV/MLV-specific antibodies. Multiple techniques were employed, including nested and qRT-PCR, cell culture, and immunoblotting. We found no evidence of XMRV or MLV in humans and conclude that CFS is not associated with these gammaretroviruses."
>Cleary Gerwyn needs his own blog. It's not hard to do nowadays. From Dr. Deckoff-Jones' blog homepage, there is a link on the upper right corner that will take you to the Blogger.com sign-up page, from which you can sign in, configure, and be underway with one's very own real-life genuine personal blog in minutes. (And if you don't want to go through Google, there's similar offerings from Apple, probably whatever ISP you're using from home, and many other options). The advantages would be many: Gerwyn would have a permanent home on the Intertubes, on an equal footing with his ilk and peers (Dr. Deckoff-Jones, Phoenix Rising, MECSF Forums, Vincent Racinello, and yes, even his archnemesis, ERV); no more polluting others' blogs with incoherent repetitive ramblings and missives, your many friends and foes would know where to find you without having to play the game "is this idiot poster Gerwyn or just another idiot just as annoying as Gerwyn?" on other blogs; you would own it, it would be yours to manage as you see fit, no moderation or pre-moderation or censorship (unless, of course, you wanted it); no more wandering around between sites, no more need to maintain a plethora of noms-de-blog (Gob789, GJO, Kipper, CODA, etc.); you would set the agenda, establish the discourse, and stop being an annoying parasite infesting other people's blogs. I'm sure that one of your many little minions (V99 or Pumpkin or Tango or Jace or whatever) could help you set it up. Try it, it's all the rage. And I'm sure Dr. Deckoff-Jones and Wild Daisy and the Bad Science crew would be glad to be rid of you because, frankly, you take up too much room with bulky, mostly inpenetrable and incomprehensible, albeit unique, drivel.
>@Evil Monkey
If you read back, you'll see that it's Gerwyn who is calling me an idiot, and when I reply by saying that is a compliment, accuses me of an ad hominem.
The intellectual inconsistency really is dazzlig.
@Asleep
"If you didn't show you can find it (clinical HGRV)"
Talk about a logical problem…if there is no clinical HGRV, it's pretty hard to show you can find it when it's there.
That is why no confirmation study in history, has ever used the supposed positives of the study it was trying to confirm in the sense you are referring to.
And it's impossible to prove a negative in the sense we are discussing here, which is why the say 'proof is reserved for math and whiskey'. However, the evidence gathered from follow-up studies overwhelmingly supports the notion that the original Lombardi et al. and Lo et al. studies were wrong.
It's really up to the proponents of HGRV's in humans to come up with evidence. If their initial results, by some incredible chance were actually true, it shouldn't be hard to provide us with said evidence.
This may sound promising, but this really goes for almost every ridiculous claim.
>it is actually easy to develop an assay which is capable of determining whether a person is infected with a retrovirus or not,The above argument was one oft repeated by Billy on me/cfs forum
the use of so called logic stemming entirely from the base of an intransigent belief is no substitute for the use of the scientific mode of investigation.This has been developed to avoid the kind of false evidence produced by confirmation bias inherent in the post by the person above
There are those who would have PWME believe that demanding that researchers strictly adhere to the scientific mode of investigation is silly and that the adherence to the scientific method is to demanding for professional researches and ther can be good scientific methodology which does not comply with the scientific method
I would submit that until PWME insist on the strict adherence to the scientific method we will merely to have study designs presented as scientific and hypothetical conclusions presnted as fact when both are nothing but classical examples of confirmation bias in action
good scientific methodology which clearly departs from the scientific mode of investigation is a contradiction in terms
researchers who claim that ZMRVs do not exist in people with ME must prove that their assays could detect them if present.That requires the use of assay parameters which have been shown to detect evidence of the presence of such retroviruses in the past.That would be the scientific approach rather than the continued reliance of novel unvalidated assays. The use of a pre optimised assay would settle the matter one way or another. why do researchers who dismiss the hypothesis that either could cause disease in humans steadfastly refuse to use preoptimised assays
If they are so sure that xmrvs and zmrvs are not the cause of human pathology and are not detected in patients with ME why dont they challenge their hypothesis and use pre optimised assays with a history of being able to detect those retroviruses in th
e pmbcs and plasma of people with ME.What are they afraid of?
>Gerwyn said:
"researchers who claim that ZMRVs do not exist in people with ME must prove that their assays could detect them if present.That requires the use of assay parameters which have been shown to detect evidence of the presence of such retroviruses in the past."
Complete nonsense. When the validity of a finding is in question, you don't use the results of the finding that is in question to determine if your own methodology is correct or not. If you would, it would essentialy stop being an independent validation attempt.
I have oft repeated the request for a simple example of such methodology in the history of validation studies. Have you come up with such an example on your googlodyssey or are you arguing this is some new methodology that you have dreamed up?
The following example is from (I believe) my very first contribution to the XMRV discussion. Let's see if you or anyone else can spot what wrong with the following methodology:
I can detect pink elephant virus in the blood of online commenters. In fact, I have detected this virus using my iPCR assay in 80% of the above comments. Other labs cannot find anything, but their assay just stinks. How can these other frauds claim their method can detect my pink elephant virus if they have never checked to see if it can? Their 0/0 results are clearly a failure to detect the virus, instead of evidence of me being wrong.
It's really easy to see that your proposed methodology is silly when you use a simple, 'out of the XMRV/HGRV/ZMRV box' example like that.
>HIV and HTLV were confirmed with assays optimised to positives. RRM you you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Ila Singh, Vincent Racaniello and Dr Mikovits have all publicly said assays must be clinically validated. Are you suggesting they were lying, having a crazy moment, or can you wrap your head around the scientific facts that you have to prove clinical sensitivity of an assay or an assay has no validity?
The FDA, MRC and others have stated thated gamma retroviruses infected people and have caused disease already. So your continued attempt to dream up new excuses if failing and looking at best an attempt to interfere in the normal progress of scientific discovery. Much in the vain of the useless Lipkin study.
>researchers need to use use assays with a provenace of success in detecting the target sequences they are trying to find. Otherwise they dont know whether the sequence is truly absent or the result is caused by a failure of that assay to detect the target sequence.The argument is that no one wants to use the same assay because someone expresses an opinion that the results produced are in some way not to their liking is a red herring.The way to confirm of deny the findings used by four different assays is to use the same assays and see if the results produced are different
That would be complying with the scientific mode of investigation rather than remaining prisoners of their prejudices and their precoceptions
>@Anon 4:57AM
It's amazing how some people here continue to make wildly exaggerated claims as sweeping statements of fact. For example, "The FDA, MRC and others have stated thated gamma retroviruses infected people and have caused disease already." No, what was stated in the background section of one FDA document on vaccines and biologics safety is that a derivative of a mouse gammaretrovirus used for gene therapy clinical trials in Europe for X-SCID caused some patients to develop a leukemia. Note a derivative, gene therapy, X-SCID. Not wild type, not infected naturally, not normal patients with intact immune systems. All this means is that it is hypothetically possible that gammaretroviruses could infect humans, so someone at the FDA believes it is prudent to look into this as a matter of public safety. Yet people like you cite this as evidence that the FDA supports your whole underlying thesis. Instead of science, this sounds a lot more like a bunch of lawyers striving desperately for reasonable doubt.