Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by GFK, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. GFK

    GFK New Member

    Dr William Reeves says he is attempting to replicate the WPI 'Science' paper findings. He was quoted in the New York Times as saying "...If we validate it, great. My expectation is that we will not." No proper scientist should be going into an experimental situation, particularly one where there is a lot at stake, with any preconceived notions about the data. Furthermore, should Reeves be allowed to waste taxpayers' money in this way? He will doubtless use the CDC's own ridiculously broad criteria to define his sample group, and will therefore be testing samples from people with any number of medical conditions which include fatigue. This will give a much lower percentage of so-called "CFS" patients showing positive for XMRV. So what will this actually prove? It will hopefully indicate to good quality scientists - as it should - that the CDC's criteria are virtually useless for any serious research. Should he be allowed to waste his budget in this manner?
  2. QuayMan

    QuayMan Member

    Good points, GFK.

    Normally it'd be good if the CDC were trying to replicate biological research. In nearly all other countries, all the money goes to questionnaire research generally.

    If you haven't done it already, you could sign the petition at:

    You could also copy and paste what you said above as a comment. Although sometimes the comments don't come out for some reason.
    [This Message was Edited on 10/14/2009]
  3. AuntTammie

    AuntTammie New Member

    It might not hurt to send some comments along these lines to the CFSAC meeting

    I worry about this attempt to replicate for the reasons that you have stated, and bc historically their supposed attempts to replicate have in reality been horribly skewed unscientific "research" studies which have, of course, failed (as they were designed to do), and then the CDC went on to vastly publicize their results and to try to discredit and ruin the reputations of the researchers, even to try to get at least one well-known researcher fired