XMRV testing PART 2: Blood doesn't come cheap (the butchers bill)

[In Vitro Infidelium]

I am by no means making a "broad cultural critique." I am concretely describing how the claim that "all HGRV evidence to date is due to contamination" is logically and empirically unsubstantiated, and furthermore how rhetorical sleight of hand (conflating questions, substituting assumptions for the null hypothesis) is being used to distract from this chasm between evidence and conclusion. Even in the context of the BWG, while there is some indirect evidence of contamination, there is no direct evidence that could be used to support the positive claim that every single positive found in the study is the result of contamination. What is being perpetrated is "contamination until proven otherwise" while logically it should be "unknown until proven to be contamination, infection, or something else." (I'm using the word "prove" loosely here to mean essentially "empirically supported.")

I am well aware of the realities and limitations of real-world science. The point is that these limitations must be acknowledged as such when and where they contribute to unsubstantiated conclusions, especially when they require the substitution of assumption for missing data. However, you seem to be arguing that the existence of these limitations means we can alter the essence of what empirical rationality demands in order to accommodate them. If, e.g., virology were conducted by having John Coffin consult his magic eight ball, the reality of this situation doesn't miraculously make the conclusions rationally sound. Yet this seems to be what you would suggest: truth defined by convention, not truth defined by reason.

The fact that so many virologists are reaching the "everything is contamination" conclusion on the basis of so much assumption, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the role or even existence of this assumption, is why many people have become suspicious. Such conspicuous professional disingenuousness is unacceptable when so much is on the line.

I don't understand how this is in any way 'particular' to the BWG - all of the points you make are explicable in terms of of a disatisfaction with (in shorthand) Popperian science. Where in practice is there a paragon of the science of 'proof' (as empiricism) and 'truth' that you affirm is the ideal ? I don't think such a thing exists, there are whole volumes of debate (Karl Popper on the empirical base of science ) but science as practised primarily follows a utilitarian application of Popper's basic propositions. Criticising the BWG because it proceded in the way that all other science procedes hardly seems useful. Personally I have a lot of time for Kuhne's critique of Popper, but that can't tell us anything useful about any single scientific project. Though in any event I'm not in anyway interested in 'truth' as a scientific issue, whether such were to be arrived at by convention or reason. Science can give us probabilities, and those probabilities can be reassessed in the light of new data, but this is not truth, and while reason is certainy required to make sense of probabalistic answers, I don't see how inductive reasoning can provide useful conclusions of 'fact' in the absence of measurable phenomena.

IVI

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

'Broad cultural issue' or not - it is nevertheless relevant to this thread - because you are using a broad cultural issue to argue against people critiquing the science on this issue, including the 'single study' here. The parameters of this particular discussion were introduced by you - I am merely responding to your own argument. My argument is therefore not fallacious. But your retort above was. You backtracked on your own argument in order to try to win the point against my objection.

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are writing about. At no point have I ever argued (I think it is true to say - anywhere, ever in the last forty years) that anyone should be disuaded from engaging in critique of anything (or indeed everything). To be effective though any critique has to follow from establishable, truths (philosophy) facts (in general conditions) and data (science). I respnded to Jace's posting of a pseudonymous article by pointing out deficiencies of data in the article. So far there's been a number of 'defences' of the article on the basis of counters regarding the deficiencies of the BWG - but like the article, the absence of data remains a barrier to any effective critique being made. In fact in the end it sort seems to boil down to 'we don't like it'.

IVI

 

[Firestormm]

I would like to get back to the BWG (although I think debate of this one has been done to death previously), but I'm also kind of enjoying the broader arguments and philosophising (when I can understand it)

For the sake of the thread though, when I have some more time, I'll have a crack at some of the specific points that were raised in Jace's original post. Maybe.

 

[Adamskitutu]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you are writing about. At no point have I ever argued (I think it is true to say - anywhere, ever in the last forty years) that anyone should be disuaded from engaging in critique of anything (or indeed everything). To be effective though any critique has to follow from establishable, truths (philosophy) facts (in general conditions) and data (science). I respnded to Jace's posting of a pseudonymous article by pointing out deficiencies of data in the article. So far there's been a number of 'defences' of the article on the basis of counters regarding the deficiencies of the BWG - but like the article, the absence of data remains a barrier to any effective critique being made. In fact in the end it sort seems to boil down to 'we don't like it'.

IVI

Go back and re-read your posts. You manage to argue both against specific critiques by patients AND against critiquing by patients of science per se, though done in a back and forth manner, hence my responding to the issue of patients critiquing scientists brought up in your assertions. One core of your oft-repeated argument is about how powerless patients are and therefore scientists can ride roughshod over patient communities, and that's ok because that's how science is, and only deference and inside voices has any hope of enabling patients to be occasionally listened to, at best.

And your assessment of the arguments above is not accurate either. You are not even following your own demands for effective argument here. And you sometimes cut off important contexts in order to manage your argument against others, which is even more frustrating. I'm also talking about other arguments you have made since you've been around on the forums - since you brought up the last forty years yourself here.

 

[In Vitro Infidelium]

I'm also talking about other arguments you have made since you've been around on the forums -

If you really want to read over what I’ve written then go to http://cfsmirror.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/profit-and-loss.html where I’ve covered the ground relevant to this thread (at least where the thread started) – be aware though I won’t publish comments that are stuck on the ad hominem fallacy. Or if you are concerned over my perspective on how M.E/CFS advocacy is most effectively pursued, there are two blog posts (now a year old) dealing with the issue: When PR means Public Relations, not a mythical rebirth part oneand When PR means Public Relations, not a mythical rebirth part two.

I’ve already written that I can’t follow your reasoning, and you’ve given no explication other than to repeat that I’m guilty of some unidentified inconsistencies.

IVI

 

[Undisclosed]

Please note, please refrain from making negative comments about each other and stick to the topic of the thread.

Thank you.

 

[Adamskitutu]

Thank you IVI, but I wish to discuss the issues about this thread on this thread, not your blog.

I have already identified the points you make on this thread which I take issue with.

 

[Firestormm]

Hi Adam,

So what did you make of the original posting from Jace? Maybe we can now get back to that. If I were to critique it I would need to return to the paper itself, let alone refresh my memory as to what did happen, and check all her references.

I'm simply not able to do that today. But I'd be interested to hear what you and others might think, either specifically in relation to each issue (or selected parts) or generally.

Thanks.

 

[Adamskitutu]

I don't know Firestormm. I'm trying to understand it. There's a lot to take on board and work through.

 

[Mula]

This is strongly favoring full disclosure from Redlabs if they believe this to be clinical validation and is probably damaging to the WPI if they think that this is sufficient.

“Andy thank you for your kind words of support for the Whittemore Peterson Institute. As we understand it VIPdx is no longer offering XMRV testing due to recent developments. The clinical laboratory of WPI has also decided not to begin testing. There is a misconception regarding what a clinically validated test is. In order for a test to be clinically validated its performance characteristics are determined regarding precision,linearity, and interference. Therefore, a clinically validated test can in fact be validated with plasmid,or recombinant construct or even an actual virus such as 22Rv1. We have high regards for the Miller lab. If you have futher questions please contact Vincent Lombardi Interim Research Director at the WPI and please say hello to Dr. Miller.”

(Whittemore Peterson Institute comment on Facebook, 14 October 2011) (19)