A few days ago I wrote about the surprising simultaneous release of four research papers that seemed to say that the connection between myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and retroviruses had been disproven. It certainly got reported in the press that way.
I don't know much about retroviruses and certainly don't know whether XMRV causes ME/CFS. But I have thought quite a bit about how the machinery of U.S. medicine works. The story of four research papers being simultaneously released on the same day, frankly, stunk. It sounded more like politics than science. The four papers were reported in the press as pretty much rewrites of a press release. Actually, in some cases, the way they were reported was much worse. So here is an update...
The Chicago Tribune pretty much reported the story in the standard way: prestigious, sober-minded scientists had disproved the XMRV connection to ME/CFS. A prominent virologist, Vincent Racaniello of Columbia University Medical Center, was quoted:
These four papers are probably the beginning of the end of XMRV and CFS.
Well, that sounds pretty convincing. Except for one thing. The next day Racaniello looked at the four papers a little closer. It seems they did not do anything more than propose theoretical possibilities, supported by self-conducted experiments, as to why the original studies possibly could be wrong. Even then, they do not do a good job of it. The four papers are a long way from disproving anything. The denialist's experiments had no direct connection to the original research. That original research, published in Science, shows evidence of the XMRV-ME/CFS connection. It seems the four new papers did not even apply directly to the original research, except loosely, in a general way.
Racaniello, realizing his mistake, quickly issued a retraction:
In other words, these four papers are NOT the beginning of the end of XMRV and CFS. Rather, research on the role of this virus in human disease must proceed, with large, case-controlled epidemiological studies, as suggested by others.
I would like to apologize to anyone who was offended, angered, or disappointed in any way by my statement to the Chicago Tribune. It is my goal to educate the public about virology, and clearly I did not do that very well.
He is to be commended for being ready to say he was wrong. Unfortunately, his blog won't be as well read as the original Tribune story. And, this illustrates how deceptive medical research can be. Racaniello, an expert in the field, had read all four papers when he made his comment to The Tribune. It took a close reading, consultation with colleagues, and some extra work to correctly assess what the four papers really said.
Bottom line: Racaniello says the four studies
do not imply that previously published studies are compromised
In other words, the four papers don't do much to refute the XMRV-ME/CFS connection.
Which brings me to what needs to be said about the DKos community. I first started reading diaries here when informed of the reactionary way medical subjects were treated by many members. I have never commented much because, well, the level and tone of the conversation was pretty base. I saw the typical knee-jerk in my last diary. The first comments went right down the road of accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist. I detected the oh-my-god-how-can-you-believe-anything-except-what-the-hardnosed-scientists-tell-you attitude. Big time.
Well, shame on those of you that go down that road. You can't be part of a community that claims to be reality-based on political and social issues and then go into reactionary, reflexive chants on medical issues. Particularly, when you haven't done the research to know what you are talking about. You should take the same critical, reality-based approach to medical subjects that you take to other areas. You should not uncritically believe the prestigious, mainstream experts on medical questions any more than you should uncritically believe prestigious, mainstream experts saying there are WMDs in Iraq.
It may make you feel good, even superior, to agree with MD researchers at Johns Hopkins, the NIH, or Yale. It makes a lot of people feel good, even superior, to agree with the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Hoover Institute, too.
There are a lot of sick and dying people not getting help because of rigid, close-minded, self-serving thinking. So, don't be rigid, close-minded, and self-serving on medical issues. There are many reasoned, logical views on medical subjects that do not fit the U.S. medical school/insurance industry model.
And, yes this medical stuff is political. The kind of thing that should get fixed if more progressives, Democrats or other, get elected. That's what the the DKos community is supposed to be working on.