Trevor Marshall on XMRV shows his colors

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by Elisa, Oct 10, 2009.

  1. Elisa

    Elisa Member

    Hi all,

    Keep in mind this is another researcher that must feel that the recent events have stolen his fire. It is a VERY negative response so please dont read it if you're sensitive.

    In many ways, his remarks are uninformed and typical i.e., bad science, cutting, unkind and unprofessional comments about Dr. Mikovits etc.

    However, some of the links on XMRV are pretty good. And I think it's important to hear what other ME/CFS researchers think/feel about the XMRV news - even if it is contrary to most.

    He does want to stir the pot, though...

    God Bless,


    [This Message was Edited on 10/10/2009]
    [This Message was Edited on 10/10/2009]
  2. Grad Student

    Grad Student New Member

    First he says Suzzanna from CFIDS discovered this and published it in science, BS Lombardi et al did! And the part he says about how to piss science off, his comments are off base, he says bad science I see he is a jack ass. Lets use our brains went from 67 to 95% of patients infected....hmmmmm a retrovirus is it possible that maybe the virus is dormant therefore it can't always be detected and that maybe the WPI figured out a way to stimulate the virus to become active and are therefore able to detect the virus, as I recall CFS patients go through cycles of feeling good and bad. I am thinking maybe there is a correlation between being able to detect the virus when patients feel bad and not detecting it when they are feeling good? As a researcher myself in RETROVIROLOGY, I can tell you that either he didnt read the article or really is a dipshit. Each comment he made, and there were a few can be explained, and I know will be explained in the coming months by more major papers!
  3. aftermath

    aftermath New Member

    Like Wessley and Reeves, Marshall has painted himself into a corner.

    Once someone does this, there's pretty much no way out.

    These guys can only continue to lash out while they go down with the ships that they sailed directly into the iceberg.

    If the WPI research is confirmed, they will be forever known as people who spent their entire lives dedicated to something that was completely and totally WRONG.

    The public embarrassment is one thing--but having to look themselves in the mirror will be the biggest problem for them.
  4. zeowa

    zeowa New Member

    I saw the latest posts on his site--linked from some other site I was on--and TM's comments did have the feeling of lashing out at the science behind the findings itself.

    I hardly think of him as a prominent voice for CFS patients, but it was an interesting reaction nonetheless. It seemed as though a few of his followers (as an MD must prescribe his protocol) were interested in XMRV and how TM might be able to combine his findings with this newest research. I could not gauge his response to their postings.

    For Grad Student, can you be more specific in how you think his comments are misleading and ignorant of facts regarding retroviruses? I have, frankly, always doubted his sincerity and "science" (and, in general, doubt all panaceas), but I would enjoy any specifics you might be able to offer. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will reach those points on my own, but if you just want to point the way to where I might learn more about retroviral studies (other than my old bio and chem texts), I'd be very grateful!

    I am terribly interested in watching how this plays out and seeing if those who have called themselves advocates for CFS patients will end up attacking this work in an attempt to save their reps--he seems the first to try this tact--but I've been so busy reading posts, I may have missed the others. If XMRV continues to show promise as a causative agent, I seriously look forward to an end of google ads for colon cleanses and the lot whenever I type in CFIDS, etc.

    [This Message was Edited on 10/11/2009]
  5. victoria

    victoria New Member

    we must be reading different things... somehow.

    I read this thread first, then read TM's post referenced above. I don't see anything wrong with his comments at all... he's just re-stating what many have already stated and the journal article itself stated:

    "These findings raise the possibility that XMRV may be a contributing factor in the pathogenesis of CFS."

    TM went on to say:
    ...Anyway, this is an important discovery, as it alerts us to another pathway whereby the VDR could be being knocked out. Of particular interest to me was this statement in the 'dancewithshadows' blog:

    XMRV has also been associated with other diseases like autism, atypical multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia.

    IMO That means we better have a closer look at the XMRV genome, HIV, and the VDR.."
    This is no different than other findings about various viruses like the herpes family showing up in relation to CF/FM/ME and other diseases like lyme, imho.

    (Yes most of you know I've found the MP to be beneficial for me, but I also agree it's not necessarily tolerable for everyone. I also personally believe that there's other things that often have to be addressed even if one knows for sure one has lyme or whatever.)

    all the best,

  6. ulala

    ulala New Member

    sarcoidosis, CFS/FM. I wonder if XMRV can cause sarcoidosis?
  7. slowdreamer

    slowdreamer New Member

    I actually think he is making a few good points and while I am encouraged that there is more money going into viral research I will save my enthusiasm and excitement for later,

    Just because 2 things occur together doesn't necessarily mean there is a causal relationship.
    He appears to have a fairly astute brain.
  8. GFK

    GFK New Member

    What a shocking mess this man has made of his "response". He's talking out of his rear end. I suspect a lot of people involved in "CFS" research - who have a lot to lose personally if the illness is caused by a treatable virus - are going to be making fools of themselves. Very unprofessional behaviour. Call yourself a scientist ?
  9. victoria

    victoria New Member

    hard to believe we all read the same thing, considering the responses here. . . could be an interesting clinical research project on our subjectivity vs objectivity.

    I'm not calling names at all, please understand, I just find it very interesting at our different reactions. So again, I'm not trying to start an argument... but can see why pts can become confused by differing opinions in the medical community, as does the population with political rhetoric, etc.
  10. n.northernlights

    n.northernlights New Member

    I think those did read the paper: it said the full genome was examined in the cfs patients, etc.
    Remember, he is just an electrical engineer.