Sunday, January 15, 2012

WPI's World of Woo – why anything from the WPI is suspect

This is something older from the FaceBook page of the WPI, a world were woo can live peacefull… I repost it here for documentation reasons and to show how fucking moronic and stupid the WPI is.
XMRV Testing Facts
by Whittemore Peterson Institute on Monday, March 29, 2010 at 4:16pm
They forgot to put "Facts" in quotation marks.
What are some of the reasons that scientists looking for XMRV would fail to detect the virus in their patient samples?

1) Use of a test on cells which don't contain XMRV
A bit no-no! Don't ever use a test on cells that don't contain XMRV! Better look first at the patient sheet belonging to the sample before testing –  and add XMRV plasmid if necessary. Be careful though to add XMRV plasmid only to patient samples you need to be positive.
2) Use of a test which has not been clinically validated or proven that it can detect XMRV in a positive patient sample
The WPI does not have a "clinically validated" test – because there is no such thing as validating "clinically" a test for a virus. Even if there were such a thing who validated this test for the WPI, when and how? Or did they "validate" themselves for themselves?
3) Use reagents not validated to detect XMRV
There is no rationale for validation of reagents with an unknown validation method. Even if it were done like the WPI says, then who validated the reagents for the WPI, when and how? Or did they "validate" themselves for themselves? And everybody should buy their "validated" reagents at the WPI?
5) Use of clinically validated tests on a patient sample that is truly negative for XMRV
Truly negativ? There is no such thing, you always have false negatives at such a early stage.

And what the fuck happened to #4  ???? Got it shot in some lonely alley in Reno?
6)Testing patients which don’t satisfy rigorous clinical definition of XMRV such as is required in the Canadian Consensus Criteria.
There is no "clinical" "definition" of XMRV. There never was. This is total fucking cuckoo woo. The Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC) are a definition for the diagnose of CFS – claiming it is a definition for XMRV is getting it ass-backwards.
As illustrated above, there are many ways to produce false negative results.
As illustrated above, there are many ways to disseminate false "facts" from a world of woo.
The failure to detect XMRV in a patient sample taken at one time, using one method, does not prove that a patient sample is negative for XMRV.
Adding XMRV VP62 plasmid does not prove that a patient is positive for XMRV.
Why did WPI grant a license to a clinical laboratory (VIP Dx) to offer XMRV testing?

1) WPI felt a responsibility to offer a clinically validated test to doctors who wanted to know if their patients were positive for XMRV, but only after another lab began offering a non-clinically validated blood spot test for XMRV.
As I have shown above, what you call "clinically" validated is nothing but woo – and so in the real world we live in (vs. the world of woo the WPI lives in) it turned out to be worthless expensive woo. And responsibility? What responsibility? The VIP Dx offered this bogus test for over a year and you didn't notice? I see no responsible behaviour by the WPI, only a world of woo.
2) Because VIP Dx is a locally operated CLIA certified laboratory, WPI can better assure quality control.
WHAT FUCKING "QUALITY CONTROL"? The tests of the VIP Dx fell apart quite spectacular.
3) The non-exclusive license to VIP Dx supports the work of WPI.
So you got money for this woo test? And you wanted to sell this woo-license to others?
Questions about the Science study.
Yes, the science study is questionable.
Why did scientists have to use four methods to detect XMRV in the Science study to be absolutely sure that a sample was positive or negative for XMRV?
Already the question is loaded to indicate the study was done to somehow higher standards to be somehow "absolute sure". What a piece bollocks PR bullshit.
If one carefully studies the data presented in the Science paper one would see that patients can be negative by some methods and positive by others.
Yes, it looks more legit this way and there are more ways to throw sand in the eyes of science.
Where did the patient samples used in the Science study come from?

Samples used in the study came from several medical practices and from patients who became ill while living in many different locations around the United States.

Did all of the samples come from patients who were physician-diagnosed with CFS?


Did any of the samples used in the original study come from patients who ultimately developed cancer?

Yes, one.
Yes, there were claims that more people in the study had cancer, or were diagnosed with cancer after the study.
How were the samples chosen?

All of the patients/samples used in the study were chosen randomly on the basis of a CFS diagnosis from more than 200 patient samples stored in the WPI repository since 2006. No one knew the status of the patients as all samples were blinded. None of the samples came from the original repository of samples owned by Dr. Peterson.
Why did only 101 patients out of these 200 patient samples end up in the study?
What work was done after the May 2009 submission of the Science paper?

After the study was submitted, samples from CFS patients who also developed cancer were tested and found to be positive for XMRV. These results were reported at a private meeting of cancer researchers interested in XMRV. (A positive finding was not surprising, since retroviruses are known to cause cancer.).
What a amazing coincidence. I never cease to be amazed of what chance can do. One cancer before the study and several afterwards in patients that were ill for a long time. Truly amazing.

These must have been the cancer patients people thought were in the Science study.
Similarly, samples from families with autism and CFS were tested and XMRV was detected in samples from autistic children.
Surely these test were done unblinded by the head of lab, as in the Science study? Why wasn't there a follow-up study with larger sample sizes?
Research on immune defects in XMRV infected patients have also been studied and reported at scientific meetings.
CFS research at the WPI, the gift that keeps on giving!
Can CFS patients develop serious complications after years of being ill?

Yes, doctors have reported that CFS patients have developed serious complications after being ill for many years, but a formal epidemiological study still needs to be completed.
No kidding, studies need to be completed? At the rate your patients develop cancer, these will truly be amazing results.
Why is it important to do research on patients with a chronic disease who later develop complications from that illness?
Unfortunately, this piece of steaming dung "facts" ends here, so we will never have an answer to the question why it is important to do research on patients with a chronic disease who later develop complications from that illness. True scientists could learn a lot from that answer alone.

The mind puzzles why anybody believed anything that came from the WPI or their employees.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are most welcome! But please:

- No SPAM whatsoever, no supplements, no pharmaceuticals, no herbs or any other advertisements

- Absolutely no quack-doctors pushing their quack-BS websites (and if you are a quack, I will call you out)

- Be critical if you want to, but try to be coherent

Comments are moderated, because I am tired of Gerwyn-V99-The-Idiot and his moronic sockpuppets, and tired of the story of the two dogs, but I will try to publish everything else.

If you are not Gerwyn (and want to tell me something other than the story of the two dogs), then relax and write something! :-)


5-AZA A. Melvin Ramsay Acne Advocacy Alan Light Alternative medicine is an untested danger Ampligen Andrew Wakefield Anecdote Anthony Komaroff Antibiotics Antibodies Anxiety Aphthous Ulcers Apnea Asthma Autism Autoimmune Disease Behçet’s Ben Katz Bertrand Russell Biology Blood sugar Bruce Carruthers Caffeine Calcium Cancer Capitalism Cardiology Carmen Scheibenbogen CBT/GET CDC Celiac Disease Cereal Grains CFIDS Chagas Charité Charles Lapp Christopher Snell Chronix Clinician Coconut Milk Cognition Common Sense and Confirmation Bias Conversion Disorder Coxiella Burnetii Coxsackie Criteria Crohn's Cushing's Syndrome Cytokine Daniel Peterson Darwinism David Bell Depression Diabetes Diagnostic Differential Disease Diseases of Affluence DNA DNA Sequencing Dog DSM5 EBV EEG Eggs Elaine DeFreitas Elimination Diet Enterovirus Epstein-Barr ERV Etiology Evolution Exercise Challenge Faecal Transplant Fame and Fraud and Medical Science Fatigue Fatty Acids Fibromyalgia Francis Ruscetti Fructose Gene Expression Genetics Giardia Gordon Broderick Gulf War Illness Gut Microbiome Harvey Alter Health Care System Hemispherx Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome Herpesviridae High Blood Pressure Historic Outbreaks HIV HPV Hyperlipid Ian Hickie Ian Lipkin Immune System Infection Intermittent Fasting It's the environment stupid Jacob Teitelbaum Jamie Deckoff-Jones Jo Nijs John Chia John Coffin John Maddox José Montoya Judy Mikovits Karl Popper Kathleen Light Kenny De Meirleir Lactose Lamb Laszlo Mechtler LCMV Lecture Leonard Jason Leukemia Life Liver Loren Cordain Low Carb Low-Dose Naltrexone (LDN) Luc Montagnier Lucinda Bateman Ludicrous Notions Lumpers and Splitters Lyme Mady Hornig Mark Hasslett Martin Lerner Mary Schweitzer MCS ME/CFS Medical Industry Medicine is not based on anecdotes Michael Maes Migraine Milk and Dairy Mitochondria MMR Money and Fame and Fraud MRI Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Multiple Sclerosis Mutton My Symptoms n-1 Nancy Klimas Narcolepsy Neurodermitis Neuroscience NK-Cell Nocebo NSAID Nutrition Obesity On Nutrition Pain Paleo Parathyroid Pathogen Paul Cheney PCR Pharmaceutical Industry Picornavirus Placebo Polio Post Exertional Malaise POTS/OI/NMH PTSD PUFA Q Fever Quote Rare Disease Research Retrovirus Rheumatoid Arthritis Rituximab RNA Robert Gallo Robert Lustig Robert Silverman Robert Suhadolnik Rosario Trifiletti Sarah Myhill Sarcasm Science Sequencing Seth Roberts Shrinks vs. Medicine Shyh-Ching Lo Simon Wessely Sinusitis Sjögren's Somnolence Sonya Marshall-Gradisnik Speculation Stanislaw Burzynski Statins Stefan Duschek Study Sucrose Sugar Supplements Symptoms T1DM T2DM There is no such thing as Chronic Lyme There is no such thing as HGRV Thyroid Tinitus To Do Toni Bernhard Tourette's Treatment Tuberculosis Vaccine Video Vincent Lombardi Vincent Racaniello Virus Vitamin B Vitamin D VP62 When Evidence Based Medicine Isn't Whooping Cough Wolfgang Lutz WPI XMRV You fail science forever