I continue being not well, and otherwise also as before,
so I cannot do much. I have meanwhile gone through the translation of
My father tells about concentration camps,
also with the help of a native English speaker, and it should be more or
less as it will correct by now, and ready for my end, which indeed is
doing a Godwin on my Amsterdam eager narco-fascist terrorist torturors
But those are joys and passtimes
for later. For today, my title sums up adequately
1. Three documents P.S.
2. XMRV in Norway
3. Scientists' personalities
1. Three documents P.S.
I am quite serious about what I wrote above: I do believe
in the existence of human beasts, and in there prominence in modern Dutch
Amsterdam and modern Dutch politics.
Meanwhile, the Three Documents should be mostly correct,
although there may be a little more finicking later. The last corrections
were made today, at 12.50 local time.
2. XMRV in Norway
I have lived for some years in Norway and was sent the
following about Norwegian research:
Dr. Mette Johnsgaard of The
Lillestrom Health Clinic tested 24 patients and
3 healthy controls for XMRV using the culture test and found that 14
Of the negative tests, 11 were then retested with
serology tests and 5 more positive results were found, bringing the
total to 19 of 27. One of the positive serology samples was from a
The Lillestrom Health Clinic has now tested 80 patients and
50 are positive by either culture or serology test – a total of 62%.
This is very close to the 67% of positive patient results reported by
Mikovits, Lombardi, et al., in Science in Oct. 2009.
The tests were done in cooperation with VIPdx labs
in the USA.
information about these results will be given on the 28th of November
in Oslo at the XMRV/MLV seminar with Dr. Judy Mikovits. Details of the
seminar can been seen here:
Register by writing to:
The Lillestrom Health Clinic
is currently cooperating with
many international ME experts
in order to share knowledge about testing, treatment and research. Dr.
Johnsgaard is also cooperating with international experts who
specialize in infectious diseases (Borna virus), retrovirology and
biotoxic illnesses (Shoemaker), a probable secondary phenomenon in ME.
2010, the clinic will launch a large international research project on
Human Gammaretrovirus and ME.
In Aug. 2010, Dr. Johnsgaard
was interviewed by NRK (Norwegian National Broadcasting) where she
confirmed the two first positive XMRV patients in Norway. With that
interview Dr. Johnsgaard opened the public debate about ME and XMRV in
the Norwegian medical and political environment. The same day,
Norwegian politicians and doctors reacted positively in a follow-up
interview on NRK (see links below)
gir nytt håp for ME-pasienter: http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7257026
Another link with health minister
Laila Dåvøy - Regjeringen bør gjøre mer for ME-pasienter : http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/norge/1.7259180
Helseklinikken is situated
just outside of Oslo, Norway and specializes in the treatment of ME and
other chronic diseases. They have recently begun treating
patients from outside of Scandinavia.
Society for ME is a non-profit group, operated entirely by volunteers.
You can support ESME with a donation by visiting:
will go directly to our goals of educating doctors and helping
scientists to solve the puzzle of ME/CFS:
I have also looked at the Norwegian links provided, but
they do not contribute much, that is: unless you are well informed about
Norway and Norwegian politics. But I will translate the Norwegian in the
Virusfunn gir nytt håp for ME =
The finding of a virus gives new hope for ME
Regjeringen bør gjøre mer for
ME-pasienter = The goverment should do more for patients with ME.
Also, indeed "Lillestrom
Helseklinikken" = "The
Lillestrom Health Clinic",
and personally I am quite interested to learn that "They
have recently begun treating patients from outside of Scandinavia".
3. Scientists' personalities
There is an ongoing debate, at least on the
Phoenix-Rising Forums, about XMRV etc. One problem is that most anonymous
contributors at least write as if they know little or nothing about real
science, which is OK with me, although I fail to see why those who freely
admit, anonymously, they don't know science, write so much about it, also
as if they do know.
Happily, also on PR-F, there are some who do know quite a
lot of science (so far as I can judge, but I do think I can), notably
Mithriel and Anciendaze.
a quote from Anciendaze:
Originally Posted by Sean
My suspicion is that there is far more to the politics than we are
every likely to know. From completely unrelated experience, I would
characterize the politics of government-funded research as resembling
the politics of feudal fiefdoms. The main differences are that
scientific dynasties are seldom biological dynasties and bloodshed is
replaced with spilled ink. Silverman, Klein, the Ruscettis, Alter and
Lo all have their own fiefs. Mikovits has created a cadet branch of
the Ruscetti dynasty as an end run on an institutional log jam. It is
not safe to attack a major fief holder directly, but a cadet branch
not under direct control is fair game. She is taking the risks
well-established researchers, even well-intentioned ones, dare not.
Some tactics will not work out, that is the nature of this approach.
It is designed to keep the opposition on the defensive against
sorties while sappers and siege engines are moved into position
against hardened positions.
Naturally, this idiosyncratic interpretation is my own. However,
any reader in medieval history should be able to supply illustrative
Indeed, that is quite true, at least (1) according to me, from my
extensive experiences in the UvA and (2) according to Michael J.
Mahoney's "Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative" and
also (3) according to those who did investigate the politics of science.
In fact this is also why I hardly ever look at psychological research
reports or climate research reports: Most of it stinks
methodologically speaking. Usually, the reason for the stench is more or
less the same: All the data the studies are supposedly based on
have been gathered in completely unclear ways. (Thus, nearly all
psychological experiments are done, as a matter of fact, on first year
students of psychology, who can't refuse participating and who don't know
yet enough of psychology to see through tricks. This is rarely mentioned
in research reports, but it is quite relevant for questions of
It is the same with the psychiatric and psychotherapeutical ME-studies,
for the most part: It is usually totally unclear, and usually seems to
have been kept intentionally completely unclear, precisely how the data
(patients, diagnoses, measurements) have been gathered: Instead, one must
trust the "scientists" who wrote the "scientific study" that indeed those
patients were properly investigated by a well-qualified medical doctor;
that they did get a diagnosis of ME/CFS; and that the measurements and
data reported have been gathered in a methodologically correct way.
In all the published "scientific studies" by psychiatrists and
psychotherapists about ME/CFS that I am aware of, and indeed also in many
nominally medical studies, there is no guarantee whatsoever, other than
faith in the personalities or titles of the researchers.
This I have none of, where psychiatrists and psychotherapists, and
indeed psychologists, sociologists, pedagogy and other soft and
pseudoscience is involved, for I know rather well how this research gets
organized and reported: shoddily, pretentiously, incompletely, and often
falsely also, and not only where ME is involved.
For this there is much reliable evidence to be found on the internet,
and here are two links:
The last quoted paper starts thus, surely also interesting in view
of what happened to Dr. Myhill:
Doctors are fabricating research results to win
grants and advance their careers but the medical establishment is
failing to protect the public from the menace of these scientific
frauds, a committee of medical editors said yesterday
Eighty cases of fraudulent research have been
detected in the past four years, and 30 have been investigated in the
past year. Many individuals and institutions are driven by the need
In some cases, institutions have covered up
wrongdoing to protect reputations but it is patients and, ultimately,
science itself that will be the losers if public trust in research is
undermined, the Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) said.
In a coruscating editorial to be published in the
British Medical Journal this week, the committee, set up to
monitor scientific fraud in 1997, accuses the General Medical Council
(GMC), the Royal Medical Colleges and academic institutions of
reneging on promises made a year ago to improve the investigation and
detection of fraud, and to toughen penalties.
Nothing ever came from that, I
fear, but the problem is very real and very important, precisely because
the scientific frauds, like Wessely, White, Chalder, Crawley, Gerada
etcetera, count upon the fact that very few will have both the scientific
knowledge and the moral courage to say they are frauds and cheats, for
indeed they do have the power to finish almost anyone in England who
wants to make a career in medical or psychological science.
"Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative", which is a
quite interesting book from 1976 by a psychologist then at a prominent
American university, namely Pennsylvania State University. My opening
quote by Mark Twain is its opening quote, and here is a nice bit from
Committed to truth, unbiased by
emotion, open to new ideas, professionally and personally unselfish - the
scientist thus described deserves sainthood! It is little wonder
we have built a shrine to science and canonized its clergy. If the
foregoing attributes are actually displayed by scientists, we have good
reason to place them on a pedestal. Judging from their own reports, these
virtuous accolades are not seen as science fiction. Interviews with
members of a variety of disciplines suggest that this sacrosanct image is
a frequent one among scientists. Although self-awareness of some
fallibility may be increasing, it seems safe to say that the storybook
image is alive and well (and it is certainly not hiding). Scientists
continue to "keep the faith" by nourishing a public and self-image of
As I have already noted, the basic
goal of this book is to critically examine and hopefully refine this
prevalent image. By way of contrast to the previous list of scientific
virtues, I should perhaps preview some of the things we will find:
Superior intelligence is neither a
prerequisite nor a correlate of scientific contribution;
The scientists is often saliently
illogical in his work, particularly when he is defending a preferred view
or attacking a rival one;
In his experimental research, he
is often selective, expedient, and not immune to distorting the data;
The scientist is probably the most
passionate of professionals; his theoretical and professional biases
often color his alleged "openness" to the data;
He is often dogmatically tenacious
in his opinions, even when the contrary evidence is overwhelming;
He is not the paragon of humility
or disinterest but is, instead, often a selfish, ambitious, and petulant
defender of personal recognition and territoriality;
The scientist often behaves in
ways which are diametrically opposite to communal sharing of knowledge -
he is frequently secretive and occasionally suppreses data for personal
Far from being a "suspender of
judgment," the scientist is often an impetuous truth spinner who rushes
to hypotheses and theories long before the data would warrant. (op.cit.
Indeed, but with one addition by
All of this is so for all of
science, but it is far more prevalent in the soft, social,
psychological and psychiatric "sciences", precisely because there often
either are no hard data whatsoever that one can use to reliably
test another's assertions (***) and also because
the soft, social, psychological and
psychiatric "sciences" are these days much interweaved with government
policies (whence also the funding comes, that rarely goes to scientists
with ideas the government is displeased with).
This is also part of the reason
that I am much more interested in the hard sciences: While I do
not believe the personalities there are necessarily more noble than among
- say - clinical psychologists (a group I have learned to detest and
distrust since long, not because they are necessarily mistaken but
because they so very easily lie and deceive and pretend knowledge
they do not and cannot have at all), I do believe it is much more
difficult to falsify a physical or chemical experiment and get away with
it, than to falsify some psychiatric or psychological research and get
away with that, and also because I am quite convinced, on the basis of
much relevant experience and reading, that the average physicist or
mathematician is far more intelligent than the average
psychologist or psychiatrist.
P.S. It is not unlikely I will quote more
later, since the book has rather a lot of quotable text. Meanwhile, as you may
find via the last link and the following link, I found
lived from 1946-2006, and that the edition of
"Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative" I quote
from was followed by a new edition in 2004, that I have never seen. Also, it is
probably fair to remark that while there is much quotable text in the first
edition, I do not agree with all the tenets of Mahoney in the first
edition. (Indeed, one of my qualifications I have mentioned above: Compared with
psychology and psychiatry, physics has real data, while the former two
sciences often only have vague constructs very indirectly connected, and
that often by unfounded statistics, to some sort of "empirical research". This
is also no fault of the psychologist or psychiatrist, as a human brain is many
orders of magnitude more complicated than an atom of Helium, but it becomes an
immoral fault if the psychologist or psychiatrist pretends his data are
sufficient for his main conclusions and theories, for they only are in the case
of very trivial theories, of the Pavlovian kind: 'hungry dogs tend to
drool if they smell meat' or - at its most sophisticated and scientific best, in
psychology - 'those with high IQs are more likely to understand physics than
those with low IQs'.
And what one's personal self, character, abilities to speak and
reason, one's complex feelings and values, one's artistic or scientific talents, and indeed almost everything that
makes one a human being are really based on,
no psychologist or psychiatrist really knows, and all who say they do are liars,
deceivers and cheats who are trying to defraud and con a public of laymen bt
pretending knowledge they do not and cannot have at all, in the present state of
ignorance how the brain manufactures nearly all its marvels.
P.P.S. It may be I have to stop Nederlog for a while. The reason
is that I am physically not well at all. I don't know yet, but if
there is no Nederlog, now you know the reason.