In reality the scientist that found it made an assumption that a retro-virus was the primary cause and then found the exact one she postulated would be apparent. Science doesnt work that way - it seems pretty unlikely in my opinion.
It doesnt explain the apparent orthostatic intolerance and neurological problems that are apparent in CFS - other than suggesting they are immune mediated which has never been even close to proven.
The answers in life ARE complex - if they werent we'd know what causes essential hypertension - which we dont and trust me that one has been OVER studied.
The connection between CFS is not UNDENIABLE until more than one study demonstrates the connection. So from one study you cant make any generalisations. There are studies about CFS that show all sorts of often quite laughable contentions.
You are excepting the XMRV connection primarily BECAUSE it fits your preconceived view of what will be the cause of CFS not because of the science behind it which is questionable thus far.
The study and much of the work of the institute involved is based on assumption rather than science - they didnt just go in and start studying CFS - they went in with a preconceived view that a retro virus caused CFS, then surprise surprise they found the first retrovirus they looked for in nearly all patients - too good to be true for mine.
Dont get me wrong - I want the answers as much as any one else, but false hope has happened too many times already in CFS patients. Ill believe it when its replicated. Until then your clinging to straws.
Comment Reply
In reality the scientist that found it made an assumption that a retro-virus was the primary cause and then found the exact one she postulated would be apparent. Science doesnt work that way - it seems pretty unlikely in my opinion.
November 24, 2009 - 2:33amIt doesnt explain the apparent orthostatic intolerance and neurological problems that are apparent in CFS - other than suggesting they are immune mediated which has never been even close to proven.
The answers in life ARE complex - if they werent we'd know what causes essential hypertension - which we dont and trust me that one has been OVER studied.
The connection between CFS is not UNDENIABLE until more than one study demonstrates the connection. So from one study you cant make any generalisations. There are studies about CFS that show all sorts of often quite laughable contentions.
You are excepting the XMRV connection primarily BECAUSE it fits your preconceived view of what will be the cause of CFS not because of the science behind it which is questionable thus far.
The study and much of the work of the institute involved is based on assumption rather than science - they didnt just go in and start studying CFS - they went in with a preconceived view that a retro virus caused CFS, then surprise surprise they found the first retrovirus they looked for in nearly all patients - too good to be true for mine.
Dont get me wrong - I want the answers as much as any one else, but false hope has happened too many times already in CFS patients. Ill believe it when its replicated. Until then your clinging to straws.
This Comment
Reply