Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by doxygirl, Oct 19, 2009.
Thank you for posting this--it is excellent. And, thank Dr. Donnica Moore for an intelligent interview and the journalist for asking good questions.
Thank you so much doxy and good to see you.
This is a great video. Probably one of the best I've ever seen on the mainstream news. Yes this retrovirus has changed the game for us. Finally!!!
[This Message was Edited on 10/19/2009]
Why are they sounding so sure?
quotes from video:
"it is OVER, know we KNOW there is a biological basis for CFS"
Is it because:
"- but we do have a lot more research to do!"
And why didn't they mention that the NIH is the other source of funding?
I just want to suggest caution here folks, we have been sold down the river before. There is nothing solid here yet, just 100 people and 7 controls...
Now on Youtube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFBY8UKMVp0
Thank You doxygirl. You seemed so well informed on alot of things. I myself had never heard of this until I found it on this website, so I am still doing my research.
I hope every relative I've got saw that. It still rings clearly in my head when my aunt told me two years ago that "no one believes you". It's still very frustrating that I can't scream at them. We need more proof that this is it. But this is wonderful news and now they aren't saying we're all nuts.
I thought this was the best explanation I have seen about this matter since the discovery of XMRV!!! It was optimistic but also very realistic that this is just the start of a longer journey which will finally give us some much needed answers.
There were 218 healthy people in the study.
This lady is with a woman's magazine. So look for them to do a story also. So many news reports have focused on "we now know its not psychological". This lady put emphasis on this too. But she mentioned there was already evidence of that. Honestly, at 67% active infections, it isn't as much "biological proof" as 82% enterovirus. Of course, I think the main difference is the small number in the healthy controls.
And yes, I know the later showed 98% with antibodies.
Honestly, I am getting tired of hearing "so now we know it isn't psychological". Hello, that argument was over years ago, even if ignorant people (doctors included) didn't know.
This is the first person interviewed after the XMRV who flat out said the CDC needs to give a lot of research funds into this. She said, it needs to get as much attention from the government as H1N1. That's a pretty bold statement, given the attention given to H1N1.
Hold on folks, things are going to move quickly now, well... compared to the past.
I have sensed in the last couple of years that a big announcement would be coming soon. I didn't exactly know if it would be a biological test announcement or cause or exactly what. But the pieces of the puzzle were coming together with a minor announcement about every year and a half. Each of these made the picture more clear, just like a jigsaw puzzle. And the more pieces you have, the more you can put more pieces in.
great- mainstream media picking up on the story.
i love it that the doctor being interviewed mentioned CDC needed to fund research taking this retroviral finding into account. YES! Reeves has been put on notice to get off Britain's bandwagon of promoting CBT and GET to 'cure' us of cfids.
thank you so much- sascha *very cheering watching this
I don't think that there is anything wrong with being optimistically cautious at the present time. One could argue that this forum is full of "malinformed optimists".
According to the Yorkshire Post one of the molecular biologists who co-discovered XMRV states that they "did NOT do enough to completely rule out contamination". Also, "they have NOT done confirmation of the results by an independent group blinded to whether the samples came from cases or controls".
for sharing this with us. It was a great interview and looking forward to more....
the illegitimacy I have felt as a CFS sufferer all this time. I've been battling naysayers for years about having a disease. I don't want to hear that I still don't know what I'm talking about when I make a best guess at what's going on given the circumstances.
If my intuition tells me they may be on to something, why don't you just say "I sincerely hope you are right" instead of "don't get your hopes up"? That would be the kind thing to do, wouldn't it?
(yes, I have read your comments about dashed hopes.) If this discovery ONLY legitimizes the disease but doesn't cure us, then we have won a great victory)
Separate names with a comma.