I finally understand, Whittemore Peterson Institute. I get it. You exist to torment me. (video NSFW if you will get in trouble for throwing up at your desk)


There are a couple things people have been asking me to write about re: WPI & XMRV.

1– The new paper
The lead PI on the “XMRV–>CFS” paper is a woman named Judy Mikovits. She is a nutbar. Everyone is out to get her, everyone is part of conspiracies to discredit her research, she consorts with anti-vaxers and snake-oil peddlers– aka, nutbar. One of her many claims of persecution was that she has allllllllll these papers written but no one will ‘let’ her publish. Well, they have finally published their sequel to the “XMRV–>CFS” paper, and like all non-’Empire Strikes Back’ sequels, it sucks. If this paper is representative of what they have been submitting to journals/meetings, it is painfully obvious why they are not being accepted, and it has nothing to do with the *DRAMA!!!!* (jazzhands) of XMRV. But at least she has to stop bitching about how no one will let her publish. So, theres a win after reading a shit paper:

Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-related Virus-associated Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Reveals a Distinct Inflammatory Signature

They looked at cytokine profiles of people who had CFS and people who didnt have CFS. They were different. Therefore, the differences were due to XMRV, to the point where you can use the phrase “XMRV/CFS”, you know, like “HIV/AIDS”, LOL. *blink*

This paper would be rejected, universally, from normal journals for numerous reasons. The most obvious, is that the conclusions (even the title) grossly overstretch the actual data presented. They cannot make the conclusions (even the title) they made from what is in that paper. Let me make this clear: They could have gotten the data they needed to investigate what they said they investigated in this paper (but didnt). They did not. Your guess is as good as mine as to why they chose not to. What they need are the following patient populations:
1– CFS, XMRV+
2– CFS, XMRV-
3– Healthy, XMRV+
4– Healthy, XMRV-

Theyve got a ‘test’ for XMRV, right? Super awesome test no one else can do but them? So they could have gotten these four populations, easy. Then you get all four groups cytokine profiles, compare em, and you have a ‘Journal of Immunology’ paper or higher.

They did not do that.

They declared they had a cytokine profile associated with ‘XMRV/CFS’ anyway (even though they didnt test their healthy controls for XMRV, LOL. *blink*) and published in ‘in vivo’.

The *data* contained within the paper, if addressed critically and honestly, could have been accepted into a normal journal. Similar data has been accepted before (impact factor 5 vs ‘in vivos’ 1). But they overstretched and made asses of themselves, because they just had to connect it to XMRV, even though they had no reason to (the whole paper could have been written without mentioning XMRV once. they mentioned it ~50 times).

Let me give you an example, from my own work:
I have isolated viruses from a patient at various time points. I have done lots of biochemical assays to measure this, that, the other. What I cannot do is say “I STUDIED THESE 20 VIRUSES AND THEY DID X SO ALL HIV DOES X!” or “I SAW X IN THIS PATIENT SO X IN ALL HIV PATIENTS!”. What I can do is say “While we have a limited sample set, we did observe X, and can explain Observation X with Data A, B, C. While Observation X might not hold true within the entirety of HIV-1, other labs have also made Observation X within their own limited sampling, with different cohorts of patients with different Subtypes of HIV-1. Furthermore, Data A, B, and C could putatively biochemically explain Observation X, something no one has investigated before.” You explain your data, you explain someone elses data, you say something new. This is how the field moves forward.

If I am being generous, I would say that they did not start with the right populations of patients and grossly overstated their data because they are mind blowingly incompetent.

On the other end of the spectrum is the assumption that they know damn well what they are doing, and just wanted to publish ‘something’ to justify selling CFS patients another expensive-say-nothing ‘diagnostic test’. They mentioned in the paper they wanted to use this ‘cytokine test’ to assess whether antiretrovirals are working. So they could sell this test to a CFS patient, 2, 3, 4, more times a year? If I were evil, thats how I would do it.

*blink*

2– The new sequences
I have no idea what the hell they think they are doing. They uploaded 11 sequences. Guess what these ‘totally new clearly unique’ sequences are.

Guess.

Guess.

Youll never guess.

VP62

SURPRISE!!!!

They isolated VP62 over and over and over and over and over! HURRAY!!!!

……

*blink*

You want a conspiracy? These people only exist to torment *me*.

Comments

  1. #1 Smurfette
    May 27, 2011

    I’m guessing the exact replication they want to see means including the part that introduced the contamination.

    On a certain forum someone stated the following in regards to a BLAST query

    Surprise, it’s Gerwyn on mecfsforums!

  2. #2 Mike
    May 27, 2011

    I’m guessing the exact replication they want to see means including the part that introduced the contamination.

    LOL, yes, Singh added a safeguard against contamination in the latest “negative study” so it wasn’t a “true replication” And she calls herself a scientist? …the audacity!

  3. #3 RRM
    May 27, 2011

    @the virologystudent

    Let’s illustrate with a simple example.

    Suppose some scientist likes yoghurt very much. He likes it so much, that’s it all over the place in his lab. One day, he contaminates his blood samples with yoghurt and erronously reports that he has found yoghurt in his patients’ samples.

    ERV recognizes the problems with this study and concludes: ‘yoghurt = contamination’, while Coffin also states that ‘yoghurt is all contamination’ in Sciencemag.

    Now someone decides to inject monkeys with an enormous dose of yoghurt to see what happens. Using a test, it detects the yoghurt in the monkeys’ blood.

    Now along comes person at an internet blog that proposes that this finding proves or at least implies that the assertion that ‘youghurt is contamination’ false.

    What would you think of this person?

  4. #4 daedalus2u
    May 27, 2011

    “Replication” in a scientific sense means doing “the same” thing and getting “the same” results. Where “the same” means equivalent within a margin of error. Scientific experiments are not supposed to be like magic spells where unknown and seemingly unrelated things have large effects.

    If you reduce the margin of error, by using purer reagents, by using more controls, by using more careful technique, by using more sensitive reagents, by using blinded sample coding, it still counts as a “replication” in science even if the exact steps were not exactly the same. It is actually a better replication than the first test was.

    That is how science progresses by doing things better and eliminating sources of error and thereby reducing the margin of error in experiments. If effects go away when the margin of error is reduced, it is likely that the effects were due to error in the first place.

  5. #5 T gardener
    May 27, 2011

    MYRA MACCLUR WAS IN MY OPINION A NUTBAR .She is a researcher the UK. the first to come up with the contamination idea for XMRV .Later she said nothing on God’s Earth could persuade me to do more research on CFS; blaming ME CFS sufferers sounds professional? She obviously didn’t mean it when The NIH in the USA appointed Myra McClure to review grant applications by the WPI.
    Luckily she was found out and ME CFS sufferers in the USA got her removed. Which is very good news. And shows common sense over dubious motives. Lately she has been popping up at psychiatric conferences in the UK to spread her message about XMRV being contamination. A good idea as everyone who has ME in the UK needs to know that researchers here doctors and psychiatrist are working hard to shove ME CFS into the psychiatric dustbin. Maybe they suspect a virus is the cause of ME CFS and are trying to stop the WPI and other organizations from finding out? I agree with virologystudent The WPI spent years formulating its theory’s which might be or might not be right but the UK Rushed out dubious research from every corner institution or university it could find to destroy the XMRV theory and burry ME CFS . Most of the institutions in the UK have put their trust and funding into the psychiatrists
    . Professor McClure was a co-author of the paper published in Plus One in January 2010 titled, “Failure to Detect the Novel Retrovirus XMRV in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

  6. #6 RRM
    May 27, 2011

    Suppose that one group would do an exact replication, following the Lombardi study to the letter, and found nothing (0/0). What would that then prove in the eyes of the loony forums?

    Nothing.

    It would in fact be the easiest study to ignore. You would then have two studies with the exact same methodology, with different findings. Which finding would you then trust? Of course, the ‘Lombardi’ scientists: they have been doing this for years and know how to do their own methodology, while it would be a completely ‘new’ methodology for these other ‘replication scientists’ to master.

    I guess a negative ‘true replication study’ would only prove that these other people must have done something wrong in trying to replicate the Lombardi methodology.

    As an aside, if it were some vast conspiracy as quite a lot of people on the loony forums now seem to ‘know’, why wouldn’t all these conspirators just act like they did an exact replication? I mean, just report that you’ve done exactly the same as Mikovits and found nothing instead of all these ‘unreplication studies’? Why ‘bury’ this finding with incorrect, unscientific and unprecedented methodology that is really to easy to spot, even by mere patients?

  7. #7 Jack
    May 27, 2011

    Thanks chaps for the enlightenment, its’ kind of what I figured. Had always been a niggle about why no one had ‘replicated’ and not so much from the point of view of those ‘loony forums’ as RRM refers to them above – but more from the science angle.

    Am supposing then that what we have seen is simply a matter of watching how science operates. Approaching the ‘problem’ from all possible angles, trying different techniques to discover if ‘it’ is really there and functioning as has been originally ‘proven’.

    Totally get your points about contaminated ‘XMRV’ and the monkeys. Though the mention of possible sexual transmission has inevitably ‘proved’ to some monkeys a confirmation of their belief. Such a shame.

    Though if you believe what you are told, if you have ‘tested positive’, if you hold a single scientist aloft on a mighty pedestal, let alone a single institution – who incidentally is now reaching out to others I notice – then in the face of all this overwhelming evidence, I think I would go cuckoo too.

    I doubt if heads will roll over all this – hopefully reputations might and people will learn. 9,000 votes in the Chase competition! 9,000! Then only, what, 4,000 ‘tests’ were made on individuals blood hmmm… maybe people are not as blinkered as some might like to suppose.

    Loony forums and their facebook friends could be the only ones out of the millions affected who really give a damn at this point anyway.

  8. #8 herr doktor bimler
    May 28, 2011

    everyone who has ME in the UK needs to know that researchers here doctors and psychiatrist are working hard to shove ME CFS into the psychiatric dustbin

    Hard to imagine why anyone would see a psychiatric component in some cases of ME / CFS.

  9. #9 T gardener
    May 28, 2011

    It happens a lot in the UK that patients end up in a psychiatric wards.As an example of several known cases Lynn Gilderdale was put into a psychiatric ward in Guys hospital London she was placed in a windowless room and abused by the staff and other children. This case was reported widely in the UK as Kay assisted her daughter to commit suiside after a long battle with ME CFS made worse by her abusive treatment at the hands of psychiatrists. Lynn’s mother Kay gilderdale has written a book called One Last Goodbye’ – Kay Gilderdale’s memoir on life with Lynn …
    ‘One Last Goodbye’ – Kay Gilderdale’s memoir on life with Lynn. by tonybritton
    Most of the media cothered the story in the UK but it has made little difference to the abusive treatment that ME CFS patients have come to expect
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1379005/Kay-Gilderdale-The-deeply-moving-story-mother-accused-murdering-sick-child.html

  10. #10 T gardener
    May 28, 2011

    ‘One Last Goodbye’might not be avalible in bookshops or shops in the USA

  11. #11 Jack
    May 28, 2011

    ‘It happens a lot in the UK that patients end up in a psychiatric wards’ Hmmm…

    Whilst no one can doubt the appalling way in which Miss Gilderdale and her mother were treated, or doubt that some patients may indeed end up in ‘psychiatric wards’, I am reluctant to accept that ‘It happens a lot’.

    You imply that it happens because patients have been diagnosed with ME/CFS and as a direct result they are signposted to psychiatry.

    This is not the case in reality though for everyone is it? It is a portrait that is painted to demonstrate the struggle for a validated recognition of a biological illness with an identifiable cause.

    You know people with CFS/ME do have mental health problems too and the two are not mutually exclusive – neither are they in any other long term neurological condition either for that matter.

  12. #12 T gardener
    May 28, 2011

    I totally disagree
    I did not say it happens with everyone. I said it happened a lot!
    It is very real threat used by psychiatrists to threaten ME CFS patients here in the UK.
    Many like LYNN guilder dale are children who are being taken into care http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Children-with-ME-wrongly-taken.2516332.jp
    Your argument that ME patients do have other mental health problems too and should not have proper treatment does not make any sense to me
    .You could say that because cancer patients or patients with HIV also have a mental illnesses that they should be refused treatment and sent to a psychiatric ward ,Given only psychological therapies or pressurized into therapy’s they don’t want. After all HIV in the early days was also seen as hysteria ,Multiple sclerosis was seen as psychological .Psychiatrists have been fighting over sick vulnerable people for years .
    Written by JOHN diamond a former psychiatrist
    “I am no longer a psychiatrist. I renounce it because I believe cruelty is at the core of the profession (and) I believe that there is something inherent in the profession that tends to bring out any cruelty lurking within. I have long wondered why this profession — which ought to be so compassionate – has, it seems to me, turned its back on humanity”. – Dr John Diamond, a founding member of The Royal College of Psychiatrists.

  13. #13 T gardener
    May 28, 2011

    They are indeed signposted to psychiatry.I was also trying to explain that ME is being treated in a way BY psychiatrists and doctors that would cause a lot of protest if was treated in the same way or HIV or cancer.

  14. #14 John
    May 28, 2011

    #107- “Hard to imagine why anyone would see a psychiatric component in some cases of ME / CFS.”

    This is one of either the laziest and/or most ignorant red herrings that get pulled out again and again in the discussion on CFS. As has been stated too many times to count, the issue is not whether some individuals with ME/CFS have a co-morbid psychiatric condition, as can be the case with anyone suffering from any organic disease process, the issue is whether CFS is a primary behavorial disorder as suggested by what is known in the patient community as the ‘psych lobby’ vs. CFS being an organic disease process as put forth by CFS patients and biomedical CFS researchers.

    The issue is quite significant and absolutely not a manifestation of ‘Cartesian dualism’, since the behavorial model of CFS posits that CFS has no underlying pathophysiology whatsoever but rather is characterized by an individual having ‘abnormal illness beliefs’, ie the belief that one has an organic disease as opposed to the pre-assumed behavorial disorder as suggested by the phrenologist- err astrologist- err psychiatrist, please excuse me, with this proposed ‘abnormal illness belief’ being accompanied by a phobic avoidance of exercise and which should be entirely reversable by talk therapy and increased exercise.

    The biomedical model for CFS puts forth that there is absolutely an underlying pathophysiological abnormality/abnormalities which is causing the patient to be ill and which no amount of talk therapy and/or graded exercise could even hope to cure, with biomedical research and treatments being desperately needed instead. The two models are as different as the heliocentric and geocentric models of the universe yet still get compared in posts like the one above in a similar fashion to someone comparing the heliocentric vs. geocentric universe as ‘well both of them involve planetary bodies revolving around a central mass so they’re really both the same thing, innit’?

  15. #15 daedalus2u
    May 28, 2011

    Jack, if it happens once, it is too much.

    Reading the literature, there are many CFS researchers and clinicians who do subscribe to a large psychogenic component in CFS. If you look carefully at their research, you can see how that bias has colored their interpretation of their own data.

    That XMRV is almost certainly a contaminant has nothing to do with CFS being a real disorder caused by pathophysiology and not psychogenic.

  16. #16 Jack
    May 28, 2011

    Thanks chaps.

    My point was ‘It happens a lot in the UK that patients end up in a psychiatric wards’.

    The concern you have with the prevalence of psycho-research in this field is a shared one. The dominance of psychiatrists and the history of beliefs that CFS/ME is a mental illness – are a given.

    Personally, I have been assessed repeatedly for mental health issues and on occasion warranted such intervention as a direct result of trying to cope with a misunderstood and inapropriately treated condition.

    Yes it necessitated assessment and yes there was a time when I could easily have been admitted on said ‘psychiatric ward’ but for mental health issues and not ever for CFS/ME – these were recognised as two distinct things.

    That it does happen as a result of misplaced beliefs by the greater prevalence of psychiatric medical professionals in the field, is again something I do not dispute, as a generalisation.

    However, misdiagnosis of primary cause is not something confined to CFS/ME patients. And psychology and mental health do indeed play a role in any and all long term neurological conditions.

    Am I happy when I see ‘research’ conducted by ‘psychiatrists’ into a physiological disease, or to hear that inflammation within the brain may be responsible for associated psychiatric disorders like depression – at a time when inflammation in general is being debated as a consequence of neurological conditions like my own? No – it makes me uncomfortable.

    But it is in this respect I think necessary, and any research into my illness is on the whole welcomed. I do not share the belief that something performed in this respect by a ‘psychiatrist’ rather than a physiologist is something to be condemned.

    The balance between psychological and physiological research and illness management, has been out of kilter for a long time and this balance does, and I think is, being redressed.

    The shrinks have had their chance and you know who I ‘blame’ for giving over the field to ‘them’? The biomedical lot and physiologists in general. They dropped the ball big-time – but are they ‘blamed’? No. We have to keep them sweet. Funny old world.

  17. #17 daedalus2u
    May 28, 2011

    No Jack, “blaming” anyone is counterproductive. No one (except me ;) has the correct answer to what causes CFS. Everyone who is working on the “wrong” causation hypothesis is to “blame”.

    If you “blame” honest scientists for making honest mistakes, then you drive them away from the most difficult fields, exactly the fields where good science and out-of-the-box thinking is needed. Some of those hypotheses will be wrong, but the only way to test to see if they are wrong is to bring them up and then test them which requires research funding.

    This is the only way that science progresses, people have ideas, they test ideas and then write them up, other people look at them and have more ideas.

  18. #18 herr doktor bimler
    May 28, 2011

    After all HIV in the early days was also seen as hysteria ,Multiple sclerosis was seen as psychological

    This ill-informed, easily-refuted piece of bullshit has become such an article of faith among the whackos that I’m tired of arguing with it. Suffice to link to the Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit song.

  19. #19 herr doktor bimler
    May 28, 2011

    This is one of either the laziest and/or most ignorant red herrings that get pulled out again and again in the discussion on CFS.

    I plead guilty to laziness. Always willing to become better-informed.

    My target was T gardener’s comment @104, in which he or she emerged into lucidity just long enough to gloat about successfully lobbying to exclude a well-regarded virologist from a research-grant panel. The lobbying was retaliation for that virologist’s role in showing that XMRV research is an utter waste of money. All this in the background of complaining that CFS research should consume more public money and the careers of more researchers.
    This did not strike me as particularly rational.

  20. #20 The Analyst
    May 28, 2011

    This ill-informed, easily-refuted piece of bullshit has become such an article of faith among the whackos that I’m tired of arguing with it. Suffice to link to the Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit song.

    How about a link to media claiming this group of patients weren’t suffering from something real?

    idiot.

  21. #21 Jack
    May 29, 2011

    @116 I quite agree. Hence ‘blame’ was inside quote marks :)

    Personally, I don’t care who does the research, just so long as it is done objectively and focuses now on physiological factors – I think the psychological investigations have predominated for long enough, don’t you?

    I don’t view the research to date as a wasted effort. I think to some extent it was necessary, but it should have been accompanied by physiological investigation as well and to a greater extent than it was.

    What I think is important is to recognise that much of this ‘blame’ is directed at state funded research, though I am not able to confirm to what extent scientific research into my condition was or is in whole or in part state funded.

    I mean physiological research has occurred over the years, but the impression and, I think it safe to say, the balance in terms of state funding, has predominantly been towards psychological study.

    But outside of state funding, I think perhaps the situation was different – although not many have been or indeed perhaps are – all that interested in CFS/ME. Of course this might now have changed for good – with the arrival of ‘XMRV’ – and for that at least, I am grateful.

    ‘Blame’ is cool. It gives a direction to one’s anger and frustration. Though I am not always sure any of this ‘blame’ is a) warranted – for the reasons you expressed above, or, b) directed to the ‘right’ place, and c) actually achieves anything in terms of change.

    And ‘blaming’ individuals and not the research itself is also highly counterproductive and wrong – similarly the reverse is true: elevating researchers and all that they do because of what they have purportedly achieved.

    Nothing is personal it is science, yes?

    I don’t ‘blame’ anyone else other than myself for at times not being able to better cope with it all ;)

  22. #22 Smurfette
    May 29, 2011

    Why is Myra McClure publishing her XMRV study in this journal with no impact factor too?

    No evidence of XMRV or MuLV sequences in prostate cancer, diffuse large cell B cell lymphoma or the UK blood donor population
    http://www.hindawi.com/journals/av/aip/782353/

  23. #23 Jack
    May 29, 2011

    I wondered that too Smurfette.

    ‘Noe evidence of XMRV or MuLV sequences in… the UK blood donor population.’

    A rather sweeping claim for a lowly Journal – perhaps as ERV has before said – the quality of the research does not support the claim?

    Also McClure only ‘reviewed’ the research prior to publication and was not a part of it – I believe.

  24. #24 daedalus2u
    May 29, 2011

    Smurfette, it is the nth negative study. Why waste high impact journal space with another negative study?

  25. #25 RRM
    May 29, 2011

    @Jack

    McClure was part of that study. She is also a ‘guest editor’ for that journal (they’re doing a special on XMRV).

  26. #26 RRM
    May 29, 2011

    @daedalus2u

    Word has it that the next negative study (the one by Jay Levy and Daniel Peterson) will be published shortly in Science Magazine.

  27. #27 daedalus2u
    May 29, 2011

    RPM, yes, but Science has the obligation to publish negative studies because they published the first positive study.

  28. #28 herr doktor bimler
    May 29, 2011

    Sadly (and very OT), the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is not aware of that obligation.

  29. #29 Censored Analyst
    May 30, 2011

    I came across this from another source. Please note, I do not claim to know whether XMRV-related retroviruses cause human disease. I have not stated this here or elsewhere. The evidence is against an XMRV association right now, but I found this bit of history interesting.

    While reading a book recently, I came across an anecdote so similar to the current XMRV debate and disagreements, that I felt compelled to type it out:

    In the book Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease (Anchor, 2002, see page xvii), the author Paul W. Ewald talks about the nasty debates that took place, just over 10 years ago, when researchers at Vanderbilt University discovered the bacterium Chlamydia pneumoniae in multiple sclerosis patients.

    This association between multiple sclerosis and Chlamydia pneumoniae was greatly criticized by other researchers at that time, whose experiments did not confirm the association.

    The Vanderbilt group explained the discrepancy by pointing out several features of their own protocol that they had introduced, to make it much more sensitive than previous protocols. The other labs, however, did not replicate the Vanderbilt protocol exactly. Instead, as is often the case in modern medical research, each lab used its own particular variations.

    To resolve the contentious issue, Carolinas Medical Center sent all the labs 22 samples of spinal fluid from multiple sclerosis patients, and 22 samples from healthy controls. The specimens were coded (blinded) so that the labs did not know which was which. The result: the Vanderbilt group detected the Chlamydia pneumoniae in the MS patient samples at a significantly higher rate than the other labs. As Vanderbilt had claimed, their protocol was more sensitive.

  30. #30 Censored Analyst
    May 30, 2011

    Correction: I do think XMRV-related retroviruses cause human disease. I meant to say that the evidence is against XMRV/CFS.

  31. #31 RRM
    May 30, 2011

    @CA

    Finding one ‘suprise success story’ (or two) doesn’t really mean much. Sure, a few scientists have been right ‘against the odds’, but there is actually a very, very, very strong correlation between being perceived as wrong by your scientific peers and actually being wrong.

  32. #32 Mike
    May 30, 2011
  33. #33 PatchUp
    May 30, 2011

    I’m with Herr Doktor. There’s little middle ground with MEtards, it’s either bizarre conspiracies, or “I’M NOT CRAZY I’M NOT ONE OF THOSE NUTS!” and the simultaneous persistent denial of any somatisation and slandering of people with mental illness. See also the morgies, fibro, MCS, going all the way back to neurasthenia.

    I’ve got a cure, a teaspoon of Obecalp every day, and a slap around the face.

    ANALyst – you’ll find that your ‘chronic disease support site’ ends up 100% populated by your ilk. As a sufferer of an actual physical neurological condition, and autoimmune disorders like crohns and others, I only go to disease specific fora now. Every other valuable resource eventually gets taken over by cfs/me/morgellons/chronic lyme/fibro ‘patients’ telling people with cancer, AIDS, crohns and UC, MS and many other serious illnesses how ‘lucky’ they are that they ‘only’ have those problems, and not the psychogenic fad of the week.

  34. #34 Jack
    May 31, 2011

    @ Mike

    Thanks for the heads-up. Cat among pigeons time again then.

    Dr Mikovits I see, says retraction is ‘premature’ hmm..

    Looks like Levy on the 2 June?

    Watch this space then I suppose…

  35. #35 T gardener
    May 31, 2011

    I understand what it is like to be ill with other conditions as my brother has MS or multiple sclerosis and there is also some Autism in my mum’s family and ADHD as well. These illnesses are not treated in the way that ME CFS is being treated .Also I wish to apologize for being a little to eager in trying to point out Myra maclures unfortunate slip up with the nothing on God’s Earth statement .but I felt it was being a little unfair on Malcovits to keep attacking her and thought this was also not about science. it far easier working with mainstream ideas while watching someone else dodge bullets in the firing line .
    Myra McClure has a lot of friends in high places like Simon wessely who works in Camelford England on water and poisonings hopfully I have that right you may have too check iti mmay have it wrong. He also worked on Gulf war syndrome helping the government in the 1990s so she does not lack support in the scientific world . .Again I apologies everyone has their own views which have to be respected.

  36. #36 T gardener
    May 31, 2011

    I was also not attacking Mental illness OR other conditions Maybe mALCOVITS is wrong about this and is doing reserch for the wrong resons. but i would like to find out some answers to ME CFS.I hope i have not ofended anyone

  37. #37 Censored Analyst
    May 31, 2011

    you’ll find that your ‘chronic disease support site’ ends up 100% populated by your ilk. As a sufferer of an actual physical neurological condition, and autoimmune disorders like crohns and others, I only go to disease specific fora now. Every other valuable resource eventually gets taken over by cfs/me/morgellons/chronic lyme/fibro ‘patients’ telling people with cancer, AIDS, crohns and UC, MS and many other serious illnesses how ‘lucky’ they are that they ‘only’ have those problems, and not the psychogenic fad of the week.

    I do find that people with emerging illnesses and not respected diseases (kind of the same thing) are the ones that are most likely to seek support.

    People with AIDS have treatment, and they are generally given more credibility by doctors and their family. Dr. Nancy Klimas (an AIDS and ME/CFS doctor) has publicly stated that her AIDS patients have a much better quality of life than her ME/CFS patients. She said if she had to have one of the diseases, she would definitely choose AIDS. A pretty bold statement from a doctor that works with both illnesses.

    I am in no way trying to discount AIDS patients. What I am trying to say is that they have treatment and respect and because of that, are generally in a better place.

    I don’t think the same thing could be said for MS. While I am no MS expert, it seems that the treatments are generally poor. I do think they generally have more respect from their family than a sufferer of ME/CFS, but I understand that family support is more likely to fall apart with any illness.

    However, I do believe those with MS are more likely to seek support sites in general than many other chronic illnesses.

    In terms of Morgellon’s, it looks like an emerging disease to me, and since science can’t find the cause (just like these other chronic illnesses) yet or identify what the characteristic fibers, they are all called delusional.

    Quite frankly our audience will have a lot to do with who we cater to and marketing to as well.

    There is somebody else with a chronic illness support site, and he subliminally tries to convince people with MS that they really have chronic Lyme. I do not think this individual is intentionally trying to hurt people, but I do think he is a bit deluded if you ask me.

    I personally think many (if not most or all) patients with chronic Lyme also have ME/CFS, and I have had this opinion before XMRV even appeared and before I heard it from anyone else. In fact, if I were to share my observations in a reasonable manner, people will get angry pr even say things like ME/CFS is not a real (or a trashcan) diagnosis. While I have openly shared my opinion, I don’t try to push things upon anyone else or create subliminal messages.

    I do think perhaps many cases of PLS could ME/CFS, but the PLS diagnosis is so vague and there is really no science to support such a diagnosis right now. It’s a label that hasn’t truly been researched.

    I think it is fair to say that Lyme is famous for triggering the onset of other neurological diseases, and I don’t see why ME/CFS couldn’t make that list. I also think there is a lack of an antibody response when acquiring ME/CFS or the antibody response becomes primarily IgM. Unfortunately, science is excluding patients with such an antibody pattern in patients with chronic complaints is often excluded by researchers, even if their ELISA and Western Blot is positive through mainstream labs. I think it will make the list. I think it will be just a matter of time. I think the reasoning is that if you don’t have a positive IgG response and have been sick for a long time, you must have a false positive. At the same time, these people with so-called false positives may or may not have positive antibodies to the known cross-reactive infections.

    I can go on why people may be missed with two-tiered testing or test methods in general (e.g. seronegative Lyme arthritis), but I’ll stop here.

  38. #38 jack
    May 31, 2011

    Well shit and fan spring to mind today folks.

    WPI respond to ‘Science’ concerns:

    http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/FinalreplytoScienceWPI.pdf

    30th May 2011

    http://www.wpinstitute.org/news/docs/WPI_pressrel_053111.pdf

    31st May 2011

    And here is the Levy piece ahead of the official publication on the 2 June then:

    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-05/uoc–mve052711.php

  39. #39 anonymouse
    May 31, 2011

    @Censored Analyst stated
    “In terms of Morgellon’s, it looks like an emerging disease to me, and since science can’t find the cause (just like these other chronic illnesses) yet or identify what the characteristic fibers, they are all called delusional.”

    Are you serious, you can’t call something an emerging disease when up to this point of time there has not been one single verified case of Morgellon’s syndrome.

    FFS, use some critical thinking, instead of repeating the pseudoscientific rantings that you find on the internet. I could make up a disease, use the internet and a few press releases to get people to take notice and then claim something is an emerging disease too. This is not science, it’s make belief.

  40. #40 Censored Analyst
    May 31, 2011

    FFS, use some critical thinking, instead of repeating the pseudoscientific rantings that you find on the internet. I could make up a disease, use the internet and a few press releases to get people to take notice and then claim something is an emerging disease too. This is not science, it’s make belief.

    Thanks for your opinion. In terms of Morgellon’s I am not basing my beliefs on the lack of mainstream recognition of the syndrome at this point. Non-specific dermal inflammation – what exactly is it? And besides that, there is a hell of a lot more than a skin disease going on.

    So if current science doesn’t answer my questions, what am I supposed to do. I form an opinion. Perhaps I will be wrong, but all the evidence you can find does not prove anything.

    If you look at history, jumping on the “mass hysteria” bandwagon wasn’t a wise choice.

    Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it is a case of mass hysteria this time, but with the limited amount of information, it’s too early to tell from my perspective. When the evidence isn’t strong, I do not need to sway whatever the way the wind blows. My opinion can shift, but I have not seen any strong evidence against the Morgellon’s Syndome yet. Limiting the research to the skin is what bugs me when that is just one symptom.

    And if you look at the post from Respectful Insolence, the title is:

    Still more evidence that Morgellons disease is most likely delusional parasitosis

    That is not the title that a true skeptic would make.

    At Science Blogs, the title was accurate at reflected what the study authors said:

    No evidence for infestation in new Morgellon’s disease study

    I don’t want to turn this into a Morgellon’s discussion, but my point is, just because you think different or have a different opinion than me doesn’t mean that I am not thinking critically. It means we have a difference in opinion.

  41. #41 Duh
    May 31, 2011

    my point is, just because you think different or have a different opinion than me doesn’t mean that I am not thinking critically. It means we have a difference in opinion.

    I think it’s safe to say, based on The Analyst/Censored Analyst’s posting track record, that said “difference(s) in opinion” can be reliably traced to general scientific ignorance as well as questionable logical skills.

    Just because you have a “difference in opinion” than that of the bulk of the medical research community doesn’t mean you’re thinking more critically than the medical research community.

  42. #42 Censored Analyst
    May 31, 2011

    Just because you have a “difference in opinion” than that of the bulk of the medical research community doesn’t mean you’re thinking more critically than the medical research community.

    You might be right, but I think that statement could be said in reverse as well.

    Just because bulk of the medical community has a “difference in opinion” than that of my own doesn’t mean the medical research community is right.

    I am sure they are thinking critically, but do they really think they can draw such a strong conclusion from a single study? And to be quite honest, they didn’t even draw such a strong conclusion. The study was misinterpreted on almost all outlets.

  43. #43 herr doktor bimler
    May 31, 2011

    If you look at history, jumping on the “mass hysteria” bandwagon wasn’t a wise choice.

    Why not?
    Upstream we had T gardener telling us that “HIV in the early days was also seen as hysteria”… apparently there were all these doctors seeing patients with Karposi’s sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia and immonuodeficiency, and diagnosing these cases as merely hysterical pneumonia and hysterical death. And “Multiple sclerosis was seen as psychological”. Really, I have to ask in passing how people come up with such transparent lies. Do they make this bullshit by themselves? Do they read it on websites and believe it uncritically without a moment’s thought? I don’t know which alternative is scarier.

    But anyway, if you are appealing to history because there are numerous precedents of diseases that were initially ascribed to mass hysteria and later (to everyone’s embarrassment) turned out to have non-psychological causes, then I have to ask for examples.

  44. #44 Censored Analyst
    May 31, 2011

    But anyway, if you are appealing to history because there are numerous precedents of diseases that were initially ascribed to mass hysteria and later (to everyone’s embarrassment) turned out to have non-psychological causes, then I have to ask for examples.

    How about…. ME?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5411596

    Oh yes, it was “mass hysteria” well into the 80s as well.

    After brain scans of patients suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome were shown to an expert scan reader in 1984, he said the punctate lesions he saw looked like the scans of AIDS patients. Months later the CDC issued its verdict. The town of Incline Village NV was suffering from mass hysteria.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6199142/neurological_disease_misdiagnosed_as_pg2.html?cat=58

    If you don’t believe that, call Dr. Peterson and Dr. Cheney and ask them. There is a video on YouTube of Dr. Cheney saying this. dig for it yourself if you’re truly interested.

    You seem to be the one that is misinformed.

    Also pick up the book “And the Band Played On” or “Osler’s Web” if you dare.

  45. #45 herr doktor bimler
    May 31, 2011

    If you don’t believe that, call Dr. Peterson and Dr. Cheney and ask them.

    My request was specifically for “diseases that [...] turned out to have non-psychological causes”.

    Incline Village would be a better example if there were any consensus as to what afflicted its citizens, rather than a long list of negative results (e.g. it wasn’t XMRV!), and an equally long list of theories, in which “mass hysteria” is as good as any.

  46. #46 Censored Analyst
    May 31, 2011

    My request was specifically for “diseases that [...] turned out to have non-psychological causes”.

    Well there doktor – perhaps you should advance your education and avoid being spoon fed.

    What do you need now doktor? Citations and proof of biological abnormalities in ME/CFS.

    Well, you can find that yourself, but if you want me to give you somewhere to start, look up to see if a sed rate of 0 is normal. And then if it’s not come back with a list of diseases that can cause a sed rate of 0.

    And remember doktor – avoid being spoon fed even if this is a challenging task!

  47. #47 W. Kevin Vicklund
    May 31, 2011

    After brain scans of patients suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome were shown to an expert scan reader in 1984, he said the punctate lesions he saw looked like the scans of AIDS patients. Months later the CDC issued its verdict. The town of Incline Village NV was suffering from mass hysteria.

    Wrong. What the CDC actually concluded was that there were 15 patients who had a bona fide fatigue syndrome, which we now call CFS. It also found that the other 119 cases either resolved in less than a month or had a discernible cause. Oh, and months? CDC didn’t even get anything until August 1985, and released their report in May 1987. That’s more like years. The other thing that makes me sceptical of the claim is that prior to 2011, it was Lyndonville, not Incline Village, that was supposedly the place that the CDC dismissed as mass hysteria, despite the fact that about half the patients met the CDCs own criteria.

    But frankly, all that is irrelevant. You were charged to find an example of why jumping on the “mass hysteria” bandwagon for ME/CFS was a bad choice historically, and all you could come up with was an ME/CFS anecdote. Not only is that circular logic, the story appears to be apocryphal!

  48. #48 Censored Analyst
    June 1, 2011

    Also, I would like to mention that those that suffered the “mass hysteria” in incline village didn’t necessarily know of anybody that was ill. It’s a small town, there is a small hospital, but there are not many doctors there. I should know this, because I lived there.

    So, I think “mass hysteria” is an inaccurate term since people suffering didn’t necessarily know what the disease was and didn’t anybody else that was suffering. Perhaps “telepathic mass hysteria” would be more appropriate, or would that be pseudoscience doktor. I am not sure.

    Dr. David Bell who dealt with the Lyndonville outbreak has made the same points in his most recent lectures. He also tracked the health of his patients for 13 years, and his recent follow-up study that used another cohort of patients is very interesting. There are many many people who claim to be perfectly healthy and recovered, but from being ill so long, they actually developed a false perception of health!

    He also had a girl come to him that was delusional. Her boyfriend took her to the doctor because she was having intense grand mal seizures, The girl would tell they doctor, “I don’t know why I am here, there is nothing wrong with me. I did not have a seizure. My doctor reassured me that there is nothing wrong with me.” She didn’t remember having seizures, so she thought her boyfriend was making it up. It turns out that she has a severe case of ME/CFS and a seizure disorder but is not able to accept that she is ill with anything. The medical community made her delusional over the decade or so (if I remember the time frame correctly) when she was seeking help.

    I’m sure you never thought the medical community could actually make a person delusional – did you doktor?

  49. #49 herr doktor bimler
    June 1, 2011

    What do you need now doktor? Citations and proof of biological abnormalities in ME/CFS.

    No; if you know what the non-psychological cause of ME/CFS is, then tell us. You won’t just win an argument with someone on the internet; you’ll make headlines and win prizes.

  50. #50 Censored Analyst
    June 1, 2011

    Wrong. What the CDC actually concluded was that there were 15 patients who had a bona fide fatigue syndrome, which we now call CFS.

    Please.

    Patients in both Incline Village and Lyndonville were declared to have “mass hysteria”.

    I did notice that 1984 date may be wrong after posting, but they used that exact term – informally – when communicating with Dr. Cheney and Dr. Peterson. Dr. Cheney stated that the CDC declared mass hysteria at one point. You can find clips of him saying this in the archives. Then all sorts of erroneous labels started flying around.

  51. #51 Censored Analyst
    June 1, 2011

    No; if you know what the non-psychological cause of ME/CFS is, then tell us. You won’t just win an argument with someone on the internet; you’ll make headlines and win prizes.

    Don’t worry doktor. You are just as knowledgeable as the rest of them. You will not make any headlines or win prizes, but you won’t have to be worried about challenging (or being challenged) by your colleagues. You will integrate into the system beautifully, doktor. Nobody will know who you are and you won’t be famous (unless you find a way to integrate yourself in the UK government and partner with Wessely), but that’s a good thing. It means you are safe.

  52. #52 herr doktor bimler
    June 1, 2011

    Censored Analyst, in comment #142 you referred me to a “Yahoo Community Content” article as a source. I hope you are not putting much credence in that article, since it informs us that

    The idea that physical illnesses were manifestations of feelings and thoughts started with Charcot in the 1880′s.

    This is the same Charcot who recognised multiple sclerosis as a *physical* condition, and delineated its physical signs; along with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and umpteen other diseases. He regarded hysteria as “an organic condition which could be caused by trauma”. In short, it would be hard to be more arse-about-face.

  53. #53 herr doktor bimler
    June 1, 2011

    You will integrate into the system beautifully, doktor.

    If only this were true.

  54. #54 Censored Analyst
    June 1, 2011

    Censored Analyst, in comment #142 you referred me to a “Yahoo Community Content” article as a source. I hope you are not putting much credence in that article, since it informs us that

    Thanks for pointing that out. It was valuable that you did because when I went back and looked, it links to one of the videos where the CDC calls CFS hysteria.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW0x9_Q8qbo&feature=related

    Fast-forward to 10:15. It strengthens my argument, but I am sure it will probably strengthen your false beliefs as well. Isn’t that ironic!

  55. #55 Censored Analyst
    June 1, 2011

    Fast-forward to 4:00 as well.

    I have these lesions. Cool, huh? I used my psychological power to magically generate a fake image.

  56. #56 herr doktor bimler
    June 1, 2011

    Blessed with slow internet access, I cannot watch Youtube videos.

    Have I mentioned my appreciation for Censored Analyst’s willingness to engage, even if we disagree about the value of each other’s sources?

    You seem to be the one that is misinformed.
    INCONCEIVABLE.

  57. #57 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 1, 2011

    The fact that someone from the CDC used the word hysteria wrt the Incline Village cluster does not necessarily mean that the CDC declared CFS to be mass hysteria. Consider the following scenario:

    A doctor notices several patients with extreme, persistent fatigue and other symptoms, without any clear cause. The doctor then starts talking about this mysterious disease. A number of patients start coming in complaining of fatigue. It eventually gets reported to the CDC. The CDC investigates, determines that some of the patients do have CFS, but that most of the patients’ fatigue is not severe nor persistent and would not have been notable except for the hysteria inadvertently caused by the doctor.

  58. #58 W. Kevin Vicklund
    June 1, 2011

    In case my last comment wasn’t clear, it is entirely possible, and I think likely (based on the CDC’s official response) that it was not CFS itself that was called mass hysteria, but rather the over-diagnosis of what we now call CFS was caused by hysteria. This is not uncommon; for example, university clinics generally see a large uptick in visits immediately following a case of bacterial meningitis on campus.

  59. #59 Smurfette
    June 1, 2011

    CA -

    In terms of Morgellon’s, it looks like an emerging disease to me, and since science can’t find the cause (just like these other chronic illnesses) yet or identify what the characteristic fibers, they are all called delusional.

    If as you say, science can’t find the cause, and patients believe their itch to be from parasites, then that is delusional. How do they know it’s parasites if science can’t find the cause? How do they know it’s parasites if they haven’t found the parasite? Keep in mind that delusional parasitosis doesn’t necessarily mean that the itch is delusional, just the attribution to parasites. Although I wouldn’t be surprised if some doctors dismissed a real itch caused by something else based on their patients acting crazy from misinterpretation of their itch.

    Morgellon’s was popularized by a certain quack in SF who often prescribes antipsychotics to relieve itching along with the antibiotics. I suspect this makes it easier to get patients to take antipsychotics under the premise that the prescriptions are for something other than delusions.

  60. #60 Censored Analyst
    June 2, 2011

    How do they know it’s parasites if they haven’t found the parasite?

    I don’t think the informed patients even claim it to be a parasite. They are commonly described as fibers, not parasites, but apparently the lesions hurt a lot (as if it were like some type of parasite).

    If the fiber is inorganic and not of biological nature, and we are dealing with a weird 21st century infection, it’s no wonder that scientists are confused. It’s not their fault. Their training is in biology.

    Yes, I read the study and know they found different types of fibers, but the so-called “identification” of certain fibers just left me with more questions.

    No, the fibers do not appear to be a parasite, but this was already know.

    So perhaps “delusional parisitosis” is the wrong word as well since doctors and patients are not normally making these claims.

    If they want to call it delusional, they need a new label.

    “Delusional fiberosis”? Nah, that sounds too much like fibrosis.

    “Delusional I don’t claim to know what the hell this is”? Maybe that’s more accurate.

  61. #61 Smurfette
    June 13, 2011

    Smurfette, it is the nth negative study. Why waste high impact journal space with another negative study?

    (Missed this reply earlier.) Okay, thanks. The concept of space as a limiting factor didn’t really occur to me for the Internet.

  62. #62 mary
    June 13, 2011

    I can see some similarities b/t the me/cfs struggle and the book And the Band Played On. But these similarities are not exclusive to me/cfs, lots of diseases are underfunded, with no resources. BUT linking xmrv to ATBPO is wrong. (IMHO)

    I remember reading a periodical about men coming to the ER, with devestating symptoms, dead before you could get them admitted.. A short time later I saw my 1st patient. This was in 79. I say this to share that I was part of the medical/science/healthcare back then. Once HIV was found, every lab could find it..it didn’t take a secret formula, cooked at a specific temp, using a magic assay..EVERYBODY looking, could find it..so science/medicine was on board and fought right beside the people suffering.

    Obviously this is completely different for xmrv.

    I will have to read the other book suggested….

  63. #63 Tony Mach
    January 19, 2012

    @PatchUp,131
    “I’m with Herr Doktor. There’s little middle ground with MEtards, it’s either bizarre conspiracies, or “I’M NOT CRAZY I’M NOT ONE OF THOSE NUTS!” and the simultaneous persistent denial of any somatisation and slandering of people with mental illness. See also the morgies, fibro, MCS, going all the way back to neurasthenia.”

    Do I need to provide any further evidence that there is a tendency in people to psychologize chronicly ill patients, if current medical knowledge can’t explain the illness as organic? And that this tendency is present in humans that participate in scientific discourses?

    I’d say you single-handedly burned down the argument of Herr Doktor Bimler.

    With regards to the current medical knowledge: You are not up to date, look into the work of Kathleen and Alan Light and tell me how the results of their studies can be explained by “somatisation”. I very much doubt that ME is that strong poster child for the existence of “somatoform disorders” that you seem to make out of it. And may I suggest you question your conviction with regards to the dichotomy that all illnesses currently not explained by a organic process must therefore be somatoform – or whether they just could be currently not explained by a organic process.

  64. #64 Tony Mach
    January 19, 2012

    @herr doktor bimler,147
    “No; if you know what the non-psychological cause of ME/CFS is, then tell us. You won’t just win an argument with someone on the internet; you’ll make headlines and win prizes.”

    That reminds me of those who want atheists to prove that god does not exist.

    I have a better idea: Why don’t you provide evidence that there is a psychological cause of ME/CFS.

    I am sure your sampling of a dozen or more of the most desperate and vocal patients you find on the internet is representative of the around 0.5% of the population that are afflicted by that disease. And your remote diagnosis of psychological problem in these dozen people surely rules out that there is any organic disease process going on.

    I fully understand that you are skeptical to the shit that Mouseovits produced. But to reiterate what others have said to the same effect: I think you are skeptical when it goes agains your bias (XMRV), but not skeptical when it confirms your bias (psychological causes of ME/CFS). I’d call that pseudo-skepticism – but what do I know.

    BTW: I think the people who you use as a proof for the psychological cause of ME/CFS have been denied both proper care and recognition of the reality of their disease for decades. They had to experience over and over again that they are helplessly at the mercy of people with authority who want to prove that these patients don’t have an organic disease. If you have some knowledge about the human mind, you may ask yourself: What can such an experiment do to a person?

  65. #65 Tony Mach
    January 20, 2012

    @herr doktor bimler,141
    “Upstream we had T gardener telling us that “HIV in the early days was also seen as hysteria”… apparently there were all these doctors seeing patients with Karposi’s sarcoma and pneumocystis pneumonia and immonuodeficiency, and diagnosing these cases as merely hysterical pneumonia and hysterical death. And “Multiple sclerosis was seen as psychological”. Really, I have to ask in passing how people come up with such transparent lies. Do they make this bullshit by themselves? Do they read it on websites and believe it uncritically without a moment’s thought? I don’t know which alternative is scarier.”

    Of course there were some specialists treating all the AIDS associated cancers and infections – they were kind of hard to deny, I’d say. But do you honestly deny that a vocal proportion of the public with the help of a few doctors painted AIDS as some kind of gay lifestyle disease, while the position of the majority of the medical profession could be described as “indifferent” at best? Why do you think ACT UP has been necessary? Yeah, HIV/AIDS patients were treated with the openest minds and the biggest hearts by everybody including the NIH back then in the eighties. After all, the gays brought this disease onto themselves with their “lifestyle”.

    Kind of like the “Yuppie flu”, where people seek too much stress and can’t handle it anymore. The media run amok with this while Stephen Straus said nothing and kind of nodded (see Osler’s Web for reference). The “Yuppie Flu” BS, while never officially acknowledged, has to my knowledge never been refuted by the NIH or CDC and that image is still lingering both in society and the medical profession. And to add injury to insult, in 1989 Stephen Straus tested 28 CFS patients, selected by the first CDC criteria (a crime in itself), found psychiatric illness in 10 and closed the case: ME/CFS is an psychiatric illness. And on that basis the majority of ME/CFS research was done for the last 2 decades (which is slowly changing) and on that basis did the medical profession form an opinion about ME/CFS.

    Unfortunately I read about MS as the “malingering disease” some time ago. Alas, I can’t remember where it was, so I can’t help to pin point its source and contribute to its debunking – it seemed both plausible and credible at the time of reading though.

  66. #66 EvilYeti
    January 26, 2012

    I need to stop reading this blog. It’s going to drive me to drink.

    There is nothing trivial about a diagnosis of psychiatric illness. Mental illness can be both deadly and difficult to treat.

    That some suffers deny they are mentally ill should surprise no one. Delusions being a symptom, after all.

    My only real comment at this point is that if those that believe they have CFS are willing to accept the possibly its a psychiatric issue and treat it as such, they *might* get better.

    Otherwise, they are well and truly fucked. And to be honest, I’m not too concerned with the professionally ill.

    Oh, and morgellons? The results are in and official. It’s all in your head.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57366384/federal-study-of-morgellons-yields-no-answers/

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.