Saturday, July 3, 2010

Everything reverberates and gains value

I worry about the patients with this disease and that they will get discouraged with the CDC publication this week. I take seriously the idea that the stress of this week's news will drag the patients down. I would like to do my best to reassure them that this week is a small blip on the screen, and that the situation will turn upwards in the near future. The momentum is on the side of serious scientific research.

The situation in the past few days is convoluted. The CDC is playing a losing hand and are going to get rung up. There are so many flaws in their study and, by the way, who publishes studies with no results? These CDC people are demented - and desperate. As far as I know, the CDC and NIH are parallel organizations, both under the HHS. How the CDC was able to muscle the NIH I do not understand. It must have been in conjunction with someone higher up. Regardless, what they have done is unprecedented. The CDC obviously have intimidated Dr. Alter and his publisher into not releasing his paper. There is no logical reason why this paper should not be released. In blocking the NIH paper, the CDC has stepped in a big cowpie - and they are going to have their little noses (and other parts) pinched hard. A confrontation is going to happen. In the meantime, the CDC somehow has gotten the NIH to agree to test the lousy CDC samples with the NIH protocol. What else could they be testing? - this is so obvious. Most likely Dr. Alter was forced into this position. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Dr. Alter himself obviously also "has never seen anything like this". This phrase is becoming repetitive. This is not science, this is shit. Who in their right mind would trust the CDC with anything? Even Suzanne Vernon, one of their own in the good old days, says they deliberately cooked the books. Amazingly Reeves' dirty fingerprints are all over this one, even from beyond the grave (or wherever he is). All this is immensely bizarre and indicates that the CDC is playing hardball, even if they are not very successful at it. We live in the Age of Stupidity and these folks at the CDC are in the vanguard. As reported today by the WPI, the CDC was given 20 positive samples by the WPI prior to the Science paper. Obviously, the CDC got zero positives with their test, zero for twenty. At this point the CDC did not question their methods and plunged ahead, blindfolded, over the cliff. Someday, and let us hope it is soon, this is going to make an unbelievable and incomprehensible story. In this instance real life trumps imagination. No one could think up such absurdities.

Meanwhile it has to be made clear that nothing has changed at the WPI. They are continuing their research, their new and better XMRV test will be validated soon (within days if not sooner), the evidence is overwhelming that XMRV is implicated in CFS, in six weeks, the Center for Molecular Medicine and the WPI will be dedicated, and various other entities and countries are interested in the XMRV/CFS connection. This is not going to be a repeat of 1992.

Mikovits and the Ruscettis applied for a patent on July 1, 2010: http://www.faqs.org/patents/inv/1017833

There is one thing that I could never quite understand about the October study. The results in this study were reported by three independent labs. I always thought that this study in itself included a "confirmation" - in that it was undertaken and reported by three separate labs. No one ever does this in studies. Perhaps someone can explain to me why the October study, in itself, was not a confirmation? (Did the WPI make a tactical mistake by not having the study only include themselves and the NCI and let the Cleveland Clinic report a second "confirmation" study?)

Chris

7 comments:

  1. I thought Science held the WPI back from stating in the October article that they had confirmation that XMRV caused CFS. Not sure where I saw/heard that, but pretty sure Annette and/or Judy talked about Science asking them to re-word their article several times on this issue, basically not allowing them to state that XMRV caused CFS. Seems to me that having 3 independent labs having the same results pretty much includes replication of the findings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Amy,

    I was not thinking so much of confirmation of causality, which is a long way off, but confirmation of the association of XMRV with CFS/ME

    Chris

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you so much for this word of encouragement and update. Twenty years + I have been waiting for something, anything...

    I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very encouraging. Thank you, Chris.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for your article...

    "The situation in the past few days is impossible to figure out"

    it really isn't. See my newest post CDC Boilerplating 101. yes, It's just an analysis, but it explains why the CDC might be up to, espeicially with Bill Reeves.

    http://toadlily-gamer.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think the reason for using different labs is to rule lab contamination.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you for these words of encouragement. I'm trying not to let all the absurd mad events become too personally upsetting, but after 30 years I really want some answers. It seems obvious the CDC will duck any responsibility by divorcing CFS from any association with XMRV. Hence the irresponsible selection criteria. Well so be it, although I worry about those who do not test positive for XMRV. They will be even more abandoned.

    ReplyDelete