ME + me : Links about the 1st XMRV-conference
-- sep 11, 2010: I mistakenly called dr. Stoye "dr. Boyle" and have undone my mistake and some other typos, incidentally typical for my disease as the interested neurologist can also find on PR-F: On my hypothesis e.g. one's ability to speak and write grammatically depends on there being "above" the sentences and terms one writes several simultaneously ongoing "control threads" one isn't consciously aware of - some of which fall out or work intermittently only, in my case, and depending on how miserable I feel, possibly because of hypoperfusion. (Or such is my own hypothesis of some twenty years standing on my own cognitive failings with spellings and programming, that I do quite well if not PEM'd, as I usually am.)
P.S. I'm sorry, but I do find the above sketched nonsense annoying or disquieting (rather like I find loudly drunk "playful" persons in my neighbourhood the same), also having visited disturbed persons in asylums. And this is one of the things that annoys me: Having to wade through this rather mad sounding highly contrived in the end very childish "writing style", for months on end, by somebody who is supposedly adult and who claims, implicitly at least, to be scientifically quite knowledgeable, and who is treated on the PR-forums as if she (or he or it, viz. George the doggie) is someone to be taken serious in matters of science and policy.
Could you please write as if you are sane and a human, and not as if you are a dog, if you know in your mind that you are not, at least?! And since this also struck my mind: if you are a cynic - cave canem! - please have the guts for once to speak up as a human being, and explain the cynical cause(s) for this very tiresome ongoing and ongoing childishness, "slurp, slobber (grins, four paws up)".
And since I raised the topic: Do I agree to such conspiracy theories? Not at all without good evidence - and if the supposedly good evidence were presented by someone who for months has pretended in writing to be a dog, without any rational reason that I can see, and without this being humorous, funny, or witty in any way (I exclude the braindead), I could not take it serious even it were.
But perhaps I should make one serious point, having seen all of the videos about the Q&A session, in which the chairman Stoye at a certain point answers a fairly urgently phrased question by Mindy Kitei, namely to the effect that "nobody" whose research into XMRV ended with finding nothing "wanted to find a negative".
I care to differ, but I will explain in a moment why I think dr. Stoye said what he said:
It seems to me that the CDC-study, the KCL-study and the Radboud-study were set up to find negatives, and indeed each of these studies was - presumably - headed (in practice if not in theory) by main proponents of the psychiatric pseudoscience about ME/CFS, namely resp. Reeves, Wessely and Van der Meer - of which, moreover, at least the last two had declared publicly their bias (or certain-sure knowledge about their own "research") that nothing would be found. See e.g. my On the postmodern falsifications in Wessely & McClures BMJ-editorial that shows quite clearly and conclusively that professors McClure and Wessely were lying, spinning and misleading that editorial, and far from forthright, honest or scientific, as also argued in my Wessely's Cargo Cult "Science".
Now why did dr. Stoye say this, and indeed why did dr. Stoye do his best to prevent that there was in that public Q&A-session any discussion about what may be very fairly called "the politics of ME/CFS", that I addressed e.g. in Williams vs White + Feynman vs Wessely?
I think because he wanted to prevent public quarreling, and indeed possibly court cases, e.g. about reputations and future careers, between what do seem to me to be opposing groups of scientists, namely the real bio-medical ones and the psychiatric pseudo-scientists, including some psychiatrically tamed or conned retrovirologists, of far lesser reputation than e.g. dr. Alter.
And it seems to me very wise, for working scientists interested in research funding, not to quarrel in public, not even with persons they can prove, eventually, in a court, that they are scientific frauds: A real scientist - who does want to remain a real scientist - proves that real frauds are real frauds by real research, and then lets the deserved implications for reputations be drawn by others.
All that seems to me to be true and also wisely done by dr. Stoye, with one proviso:
While I admit that he could in rational fairness say little other than he said, whatever he really thought, people like me, who are scientifically qualified and have been ill too long to make a chance on a scientific career, are much more free to say publicly what they really think.
Which is the reason I did so again - while I also again reiterate that for bio-medical research scientists on the side of the WPI, or simply on the side of real science, it is quite impossible to fully and honestly discuss the politics of ME/CFS in public, and they shouldn't asked to do so either.
But for patients it is different, althought they should be aware of the situation: Only professors Reeves, Wessely, McClure, Bleijenberg etc. have an interest in provoking Dr. Mikovits or dr. Alter into saying what they really think, deep down inside, about the persons, politics or morals of the Reevesians and Wesselytes and their associates.
Dr. Mikovits and dr. Alter simply can't publicly say the things thtat I can publicly say e.g. about professor and Mrs Wessely or professor McClure, even if they were to agree with me: It is both in their interests, and indeed in my interests and the interests of anyone with ME/CFS, that the real bio-medical scientists on the side of persons with ME don't speak their minds about the persons and policies of their opponents, but instead refute their pseudoscience by real bio-medical science.
|home - index - top - mail|