What Doctor’s Don’t Tell You: Has Dr Mikovits found the cause of chronic fatigue?

E

Eagles

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Posting this doesn’t mean agreeing with it!

What Doctor’s Don’t Tell You: Has Dr Mikovits found the cause of chronic fatigue?

https://www.wddty.com/magazine/2018...ovits-found-the-cause-of-chronic-fatigue.html

September 2018 (Vol. 3 Issue 7)

Judy Mikovits is a scientist who is sure she's found the cause of chronic fatigue. But, if true, her discovery cuts to the heart of modern medicine.

Judy Mikovits describes herself as a "rock star scientist." It's not a great way to endear yourself to other scientists, perhaps, but it typifies her style—and she does have a point. She is a biochemist who worked for more than 20 years at the US National Cancer Institute and had been at the forefront of HIV/AIDS research. She's published more than 50 papers in respected science journals, the achievement by which scientists measure their peers…
 
Last edited:
adambeyoncelowe said:
Like Young Einstein?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Einstein
Click to expand...
1200x630bb.jpg
 
What an odd article. OK so Mikovits seems to have had lab contamination and no one could replicate her work. So forget XMRV.

But where does this come from:
Scientists now accept that Mikovits was probably on the right path, and that a retrovirus is behind chronic fatigue, even though it's not XMRV. For Mikovits, the stakes have just gotten much higher: not only is XMRV the cause of chronic fatigue, it's also infected millions of others who are unwitting carriers, she maintains. And, more devastating still, if a mouse retrovirus really has entered the human race via vaccines, we truly are in "a doomsday scenario," as one of her supporters put it.
Click to expand...

I haven't come across any scientists who now believe it is a retrovirus... Where are they hiding? Where are their published papers with evidence?
 
I suspect few dare say “retrovirus” out loud in the context of ME now. And I’m guessing that as with other areas of ME research, funding is hard to come by.

XMRV all happened before I came down with ME, so I’m probably not fully up to speed, but one thing that struck me in the aftermath, was that ALL retroviral possibilities seemed to be chucked out, once it was decided XMRV was a dead end. That seems a bit illogical.

I’m not sure why Judy Mikovits would continue with the idea of a retrovirus being behind ME, unless she was convinced it was worthy of further investigation.

It doesn’t seem likely that she has a big conflict of interest, in the sense that following the retrovirus direction is earning her neither fame nor fortune.

Having taken an antiretroviral drug myself, with lasting benefit (not a cure), I feel the need to reserve judgement on this for a while. Of course, it is true that something else may changed the course of my ill-health. I don’t deny that.

I’m still reserving judgement. Who knows where the truth of our miserable situation will eventually be found.
 
And this should not be about the character of the researcher. We don’t tolerate ad hominem towards favoured scientists, likewise we should not indulge in such against those who are currently out of favour.

And, about the article using “chronic fatigue” instead of CFS or ME - can we be sure who chose that? We all have experience of media misrepresentation.
 
Mikovits failed to find XMRV in her own double blinded study.

Science is not in absolutes. It could be that Mikovits is right. However she requires extraordinary evidence at this point.

One of the really great things about good scientists is they are very persistent even after failed hypotheses and experiments. Most hypotheses fail ... scientists who are not persistent will drop out of their careers. One of the bad things is some scientists are really persistent in the face of failed experiments. Many scientists never give up their pet theories, they cannot.

Science is actually helped by scientists not giving up. Every stone needs to be looked under. However the odds of success are very remote when the level of experimental results are this dismal. Could it turn around? Yes. How likely is that? Extremely remote.

I do think there is a question here I have never seen a good answer to. Decades back there were some findings of reverse transcriptase in ME. To my knowledge this was never replicated, nor were there attempts to replicate. I suspect that this might have been done, and as a non-result was never published, but I cannot be sure. If we have a retrovirus then we most likely have reverse transcriptase. One experiment is all it takes to show that. Nobody has done it and published that I am aware of. If someone has a link to those published results, especially from different researchers, then I would love to see it.
 
Keela Too said:
Having taken an antiretroviral drug myself, with lasting benefit (not a cure), I feel the need to reserve judgement on this for a while. Of course, it is true that something else may changed the course of my ill-health. I don’t deny that.
Click to expand...

I thought of you and your experience when I read the article. I guess it's possible some of us have a retrovirus. We have at present no way of knowing whether it's a few or a lot. And it's also possible that, as I'm sure you will agree, one case doesn't prove anything.
 
Keela Too said:
I’m not sure why Judy Mikovits would continue with the idea of a retrovirus being behind ME, unless she was convinced it was worthy of further investigation.
Click to expand...

One thing that struck me about the whole XMRV thing was how 'real' researchers' findings seemed to them, even when it was clear that the totality of evidence showed that there must have been problems with some groups' findings. Back when it really wasn't clear whether or not there was an association between XMRV and CFS, but the discordant results showed that there must be some problem with testing, the researchers involved all seem strangely confident in their results.

That whole experience left me feeling much more sceptical about researchers' ability to think critically about their own work.
 
Last edited:
I do wish they would state what the evidence is for early polio vaccine having been trialled on the hospital staff in 1934. There is properly recorded evidence for the use of "convalescent serum" and two alternative forms, the names of which I have forgotten, but these do not seem to be in any way associated with the vaccine. There were accounts written up before it could have been apparent that there would be a long term problem.

I could be persuaded on this, but not without the evidence.

ETA Prophylactic serum was one of the other sera tried.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
I haven't come across any scientists who now believe it is a retrovirus... Where are they hiding? Where are their published papers with evidence?
Click to expand...

(Caution - attitude) The scientific evidence and the publication of it, like the retrovirus', are in hiding. Only discernible to those "in the know".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom