Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

retrovirus "causes" XMRV

I've reworded the intro because they don't claim this. They only claim association at this present time. TerryE (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The WH Edits and General Accuracy

Sw, I understand what you say about WP:COI and the reversion of the HW edits. Keepcalmandcarryon has done a good first-start framework. Nonetheless, the article at this early version is riddled with factual inaccuracies. I will do some research tomorrow and come up with some reasonable evidence / RS based corrections. However, it's now bedtime for me, so this is a job for tomorrow. :-) Terry 01:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There may have been some useful edits in there, I just didn't have time to go through them all in detail. I think you or someone else should definitely have a look if you have time. --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking more about Keepcalmandcarryon's recent comments on the XMRV Discussion, and I would like to try maintain a positive / consensus approach to developing this article. As some of you are a lot more experienced as Wikipedia editors, I want to seek your guidance. I propose that we discuss and agree an approach that is consistent with WP:COI, WP:RS (and WP:MEDRS when referencing technical content), etc. If you want to point to other specific guidelines that should inform this then please post back.

• I will be honest and declare a POV on journalist sources (having been misquoted myself in the past). I have very little confidence in their accuracy. OK attributed quotes (that is in quotes) are usually accurate but they do have a habit of paraphrasing and context shifting comments to spice up the reader interest (usually = controversy).
• I would personally prefer to use alternative sources e.g. public statements (including blogs) by reputable domain experts, which do fall within the WP:RS guidelines; also in the case of reporting controversy statements and analysis by qualified third party sources (and third party is usually a valid description where we have controversy).
• My last point is that I would prefer to omit contentious points / claims unless they add materially to the value of this article, simply because we could waste our time discussing and debating points which add no value when we should be focusing on adding value for the general readership.

End of my pompous bit, and I guess that I owe Sw and Kcaco one free pop at me :-) I will leave off making any material changes until I've got some feedback one this. TerryE (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and honesty, Terry. I appreciate your position on journalistic sources and agree on the tendency to sensationalise. However, Wikipedia does give weight to such sources. Although judicious use of blogs is allowed, my impression is that such blogs are usually those associated with reputable news organizations. If you have specific blog-type sources in mind, let's discuss them, and if necessary consult the reliable sources discussions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of high profile scientists don't have blogs - they tend to just comment in newspaper and magazine articles (e.g. Simon Wessely). I think WP:RS basically says that we can trust that the NY Times and similar quality publications aren't lying. Also see the point that (I think) Ward20 brought up in the XMRV discussion page - Imperial College had a story on their website, but it wasn't terribly accurate in places. I would much prefer to use Science or NY Times as a source. But I guess that if we are just quoting a prominent scientist as saying a particular thing, then if he or she says it on their blog then that should be as good as it being printed in Science or whatever. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes the accuracy is what I was referring to. To expand, I think it would be wise to be careful about controversial issue sources to see if they correspond with the other sources and/or note where they differ. Ward20 (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I did not notice this section until after I posted a separate response in a "Mass reversion" section below, although the content is still valid. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a CoatRack

I am a little worried about the relative size of the XMRV/CFS controversy section. This article is shaping up to be a coathanger. Goodnight. -- TerryE (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Science article could have it's own section (it has more press so should have more weight) and the contradicting follow-up studies and results arguments could go into a XMRV/CFS controversy section. That would structure the article better and reduce the controversy section somewhat. Ward20 (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this and the guidelines do allow for a "single dominant even" justification, so I think that we can cover this section so long as the article isn't simply a vehicle to have an article on this topic. -- TerryE (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need somewhere to put this info, so either we put it here or we create another article for the XMRV/CFS controversy (which I think might be overkill). --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that here can work for now as long as we don't forget that the main purpose of this article is to cover WPI. Also a PS: I've corrected the title of this section as the WP term is Coat Rack and not CoatHanger (one of this EngUK vs. EngUS things). -- TerryE (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We probably do not need two articles. We could just as easily have called this article XMRV/CFS controversy, as WPI is known only in relation to this issue. I can find only two RS mentioning WPI prior to the Science article, although there are certainly many more internet sources that probably don't qualify. Thus, the XMRV issue will necessarily make up most of the article, at least for the moment. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My idea was to structure like this:

XMRV study

Describe Science article.

XMRV/CFS controversy

Describe PLoS ONE article and the fallout. Ward20 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I propose a slightly different interpretation to Keepcalmandcarryon's "WPI is known only in relation to this issue" based on the following.

1. WPI has been founded as a research centre for the study of "Neuro-Immune Disease" and has already one high profile (XMRV) paper in Science.
2. There are technical details relating to this XMRV study.
3. There is a degree of controversy reported in the press over this study especially after the Erlwein...Wessely study.

Given the Google number of hits on WPI and and its profile in the CFS community, there is a sound argument that (1) now merits its own article. (2) relates to medical content (that is under WP:MEDRS et al). (3) is summarising a controversy largely whipped up by the press. So my vote for now is to leave (2) where it is under the XMRV article but do as Keepcalmandcarryon has proposed and put (3) as a subordinate to (1) for now. In terms of the controversy, probably the two items that you want to detail are (i) the decision of WPI to endorse a publicly available XMRV test outside the scope of a specific research project and (ii) that the Erlwein team and the WPI team have publicly criticised each other's work, rather than leaving such comparisons to independent secondary review. I don't think that we can get into the science here as we aren't really qualified to assess its relative merits. How does this sound? -- TerryE (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Ward20 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass reversion

The first version [1] and current version [2] of this article states that WPI is "dedicated to the study of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)".

User:Harvey_whittemore performed a series of edits [3] all of which User:Sciencewatcher mass reverted [4]. One of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits [5] had replaced "chronic fatgue syndrome (CFS)" with "neuro-immune disease" and "laboratory" with "institute" (which as previously stated, was reverted).

However (emphasis added):

• The official website's logo [6] is Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease;
• On the "About WPI" webpage, there are large letters at the top, "The first institute in the world dedicated to neuro-immune disease;
• Below on the same page, under "Our Mission": "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease exists to bring discovery, knowledge, and effective treatments to patients with illnesses that are caused by acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system [...] Our goals include: Research the pathophysiology of neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism.
• The PDF file about the institute states "The WPI institute was uniquely developed to serve those with neuroimmune diseases, ..."
• The website shows up on Google search [WPI CFS] as "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease".

Perhaps having 5 examples above was overkill, and I realise that some people won't like the idea of CFS as a "neuro-immune disease", but that is what the official website states and ME/CFS is not the institute's only focus (but probably their main focus).

Now back to "laboratory" vs "institute", another one of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits [7] had changed "pathology laboratory in Reno" to "charitable 501 (c)(3)clinical research institute located at the University of Nevada in Reno", but this was later reverted. However, the above mentioned PDF states "The Whittemore Peterson Institute, (WPI), is a comprehensive translational research institute located on the University of Nevada’s medical school campus in Reno, Nevada." [Post update] Someone pointed out this page from the website, which states "WPI is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. All contributions are deductible as provided by law, but since individual circumstances vary, please contact your tax professional about the deductibility of your gift." The source [8] does not use the phrase "pathology laboratory" nor does it contradict the above text that it is located at the University of Nevada. Therefore, I am going to restore some of User:Harvey_whittemore's edits which were reverted.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. We can assume that the local paper knows where it is - "the Whittemore-Peterson Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno" [9] WPI website does not say they only research (i.e. 'dedicated') to CFS, but mentions other diseases at the same time. Sam Weller (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done.[10] I have run out of time for now, and I'm still not sure how appropriate it is to use several references from the website. - Tekaphor (TALK) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly important to include the WPI's statements about itself; many thanks to Tekaphor for the excellent work on these sources. However, I would also consider it important to include what third parties say about WPI. I might like to call myself a "respected science journalist", but The Guardian might go with "chronically under-employed college dropout"; a Wikipedia biography of me should probably include both. Not that "pathology laboratory" is a particularly shameful appellation, in any case... Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything can be made to sound shameful. The Guardian didn't bother to report the Science story, but featured the PlosOne rebuttal.[11] Note the comparison between 'Scientists at Imperial and King's universities in London' and 'Lombardi and colleagues at a small private pathology laboratory in Reno' (no mention of the NCI or Cleveland Clinic). Sam Weller (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am also unhappy about Keepcalmandcarryon's reversion of the intro. "Pathology laboratory" isn't a particularly shameful appellation, but neither is car mechanic. The point is that it isn't a complete description of the WPI scope or mission. It calls itself a research institute, and just because a UK paper calls it a "pathology laboratory" to make a simplify a story for its readership doesn't mean that we can retitle it. A recent Nevada State Appropriations request "Project:Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro Immune Disease, Construction" identified funding: "The purpose of this project is to build and equip a comprehensive research and clinical outpatient facility to serve patients with Neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, atypical MS, Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and Autism, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of new knowledge to effective patient treatment and physician education through the combined efforts of researchers, clinicians and educators at the medical school campus of the University of Nevada, Reno." or Senator Ensign's description [12] "The University of Nevada School of Medicine, Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease- Whittemore Peterson Institute is a comprehensive outpatient medical center and translational research center, dedicated to patient care, basic research, education and drug development for a spectrum of neuro-immune diseases including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, atypical multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and Gulf War Illness. They plan to add other neuro-inflammatory diseases, such as autism, to their clinical practice.". Or is a UK Newspaper reference more reliable then US government documents? The attendees at the recent CFASC who are domain specialists referred to it as the "WPI" or "the Institute".

I also dislike the padding of this intro section with unnecessarily controversial detail. For this short of article we should keep the intro short and to the point. Historical points if supported belong in the #History section. Daniel Peterson has his own page, but if we need to include a sentence of explanation then do it in the history section. IMHO, the recent changes have resulted in a introduction that is significantly poorer than that in the 19:19, 10 January 2010 version. I propose that we reinstate this version but ask for the other contributors views here first. -- TerryE (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why material from a source that appears to be inaccurate should be used in preference to mutiple RS's that corroborate each other. Trim down as you see fit. Ward20 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TerryE and Ward20. Sciencewatcher's claim that "Keepcalmandcarryon is the most NPOV editor on this page," is looking pretty thin, after KCCO's work here and at Harvey Whittemore. Sam Weller (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a little concerned that Keepcalmandcarryon is not joining in this debate but is instead quietly backing out changes that we have made. However, since three of the four active editors on this page agree with this recommendation and the fourth hasn't commented, I will now implement them, but convert the HW reference to his new page. TerryE (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is not defined as the will of the majority, but rather as the verifiable information provided with proper weight. As reliable sources go, an article in The New York Times trumps any and all of the sources listed above. Deleting The Guardian and The New York Times in favour of what an organisation states about itself is unlikely to advance NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

??? When I check the NYT article it refers to "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease, a nonprofit in Reno, Nev" and doesn't mention a "private pathology laboratory" anywhere. -- TerryE (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement is sourced to The Guardian, which calls WPI a "small private pathology laboratory". This would appear to be an accurate statement considering the independence of the source and the number of employees; it's certainly more informative than giving the group's tax status as the first descriptor. The New York Times states that WPI is a center for chronic fatigue syndrome, as do other sources. The sources also make clear the Whittemore's reasons for founding WPI. WPI has published no research on autism, MS, fibromyalgia or Gulf War and with the exception of MS none of these is generally recognised to be an neuroimmune disease. I have no objection whatever to mentioning WPI's plans for its future in subsequent sections of the article. To place this in the lead, however, while excluding information from third-party sources like The Guardian and NYT is not at all NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

More sources for Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease: Science mag,University of Nevada, The National Cancer Institute,The Reno Gazette-Journal. Ward20 (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate 'pathology laboratory' is. Research institute seems to be more accurate, based on what they are doing. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is called the Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease. That's not in question. What it is, what it studies and why it was founded are the questions, and while it's certainly appropriate to give WPI's view of itself, that shouldn't displace the views of independent sources. I have no objection whatever to calling it a research center, which is what the NYT uses. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is/was that you put 'pathology lab' in the very first sentence, right after giving their name. So while we definitely should give other people's comments about the lab, we don't necessarily want to put them practically in the title especially if most other sources say 'a research institute' (which seems more correct anyway at describing what exactly they are). Anyway, I think the first sentence in the current version of the article is good. - sciencewatcher

WP:SYNTH and WP:OR

There are several sections where material is original research or synthesis of published material that advances a new position. I am removing the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR material to this section for discussion. Ward20 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

History

The Whittemores and Peterson shared a conviction that government agencies were ignoring CFS patients and that the disorder must have an infectious cause. They also felt that the syndrome should be renamed "myalgic encephalomyelitis". WP:OR not in any reference given.

Harvey Whittemore, who is a lawyer, lobbyist and multimillionaire land developer in Nevada, also assisted in securing political support and funding from Nevada. WP:SYNTH of published material that advances a new position

XMRV/CFS controversy

CFS patients reportedly began to buy a diagnostic test offered by a WPI-associated clinic and to ask for antiretroviral drugs. WP:OR not in reference given.

Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients. The subject of financial incentives for WPI was mentioned in several subsequent publications, including an article in ScienceNOW. The lead author for WPI, Vince Lombardi, was in talks with WPI over intellectual property for XMRV diagnostics. Soon after publication of the Science paper, Lombardi and his clinic began selling the diagnostic kit for $650. Virologist John Coffin and Myra McClure, corresponding author for the British team, expressed concerns that Lombardi's team were taking advantage of patients. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH of published material that advances a new position

Please indicate how this material doesn't violate the outlined policy with reliable sources that support the specific material before re-adding to the article. Thank you.

Ward20 (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Whittemores and Peterson, as covered by several of the sources here, have at least a decade-long relationship and share the opinions that CFS is underfunded by the government (hence, "government agencies were ignoring"), that the likely cause of CFS is viral, and that CFS is an inappropriate name (unless they have changed their minds to XAND, and I haven't found evidence for it, their preferred name is myalgic encephalopathy). I believe that all of this is in the ProHealth source, but I have read numerous corroborating sources. Are these statements controversial? If so, I will gladly search out the additional sources or work with you on refining the language.

Whittemore as lawyer, etc. This statement is verifiable and accurate; sources are given. If there's something you disagree with, please ask for clarification or another source before deleting.

Tests and drugs. The given source mentions the test kits, but a better source for both testing and antiretrovirals is The Guardian, a source in the original article but deleted by Ward20 as a "dup ref".

As for the putative OR and SYNTH, every statement in the disputed text has a reference. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick look, and all of the statements seem to have refs. Ward20 removed the Guardian ref himself, so that is why the statementx funding and support. I don't see any synthesis. Putting two statements about a person beside each other isn't synthesis, it's just giving two bits of info.

Why do you want to remove the info about WPI and Lombardi's lab making money off the tests, Ward20? Surely you must see that is a very important point and something that people should know? --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WPI put out a press release coincident with the lab announcement (that is before the media reporting of this (IIRC, I gave it's URI in the XMRV discussion page but here it is again [13]), which stated that “Tests conducted for XMRV, and other tests that support the diagnostic process in this field, will support the continuation of vital work at WPI through our donation of all of our net proceeds.”. WPI is a Not-for-Profit foundation. Charging licence fees which will contribute to research is reasonable, I think and "Making money off" is an unreasonable way of saying this but making a non-controversial statement along these lines would be fair because people are, as you say, interested.

The fact that Vincent Lombardi is both Director of Operations for VIP Dx [14] and the WIP leader of the XMRV study is a point that I feel could be introduced in the controversy section. -- TerryE (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

also rereading the cited sciencenow reference, it talks of "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" and "Lombardi's clinic" in different terms and in the context "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test, 300 of which have been administered so far." seems to be a criticism of VIP Dx rather than WIP. -- TerryE (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 issues with the test. First of all, WPI have made the test public before it has been validated. Second, Lombardi's lab (vipdx), which is a for-profit company as far as I can tell, is making money off the test, so you have a potential conflict of interest. So both vipdx and WPI (and Lombardi himself) are all fair game for criticism as far as I can see. As for what we say in the article, of course it has to come from a reliable source. You'd need to see what the other criticisms say - I don't have time to look right now. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian was never actually sourced in the article. The original edit shows the source was labeled Guardian but indicated the material was from the Reno Gazette-Journal. It was still that way a day and a half later when I was adding URL's to sources so I could check content. It appeared at that time the reference was a duplicate so I combined it. I probably could have caught the error. I'm sorry I didn't, eliminating a source was not my intention.

"The Whittemores and Peterson shared a conviction that government agencies were ignoring CFS patients and that the disorder must have an infectious cause. They also felt that the syndrome should be renamed "myalgic encephalomyelitis". This is a distortion of any source I've read. What RS says this?

Proheath states,[15] "Annette's husband Harvey Whittemore, an attorney and real estate developer, had been active in Nevada's political circles for many years. Harvey signed on to the project, and the three began the long odyssey of gathering the necessary financial and political support."

The article states, "Harvey Whittemore is a lawyer,[7] lobbyist[8] and multimillionaire land developer in Nevada.[7] He also secured political support and funding from Nevada."

The reader, looking a synthesis from a number of articles is lead to assume Harvey Whittemore alone used his influence which is contradicted by the Proheath article. Additionally, most reliable sources state Annette Whittemore was founder and instrumental[16][17][18][19] in getting the project going, not Harvey Whittemore. That is why the material is WP:SYNTH of published material.

"conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients." is a distortion of material in the source.[20]

I don't want to eliminate material that Lombardi's lab makes money off tests. But synthesis of material from different sources leads the reader to believe VIP Dx is taking advantage of patients by profiting off them. The source says, "All of this leaves doctors and patients in a muddle. There's no doubt they're hungry for information.".... "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test," Conspicuously absent is, VIP Dx states "that it is donating all profits from XMRV testing to the Whittemore Peterson Institute."[21]

Cherry picked material from different sources used to bolster editorial interpretations of sourced material is WP:SYNTH or not NPOV. Ward20 (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that vipdx is donating the profits could probably be added, although it would be nice if they fixed the spelling in the article so it makes sense ("VIP Dx has states that it is donating all profits from XMRV testing to the Whittemore Peterson Institute") --sciencewatcher (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I just re-read the WPI press release . It isn't entirely clear, but now that I have read it carefully it does seem to say that vipdx will be donating the proceeds to the WPI. Previously when I read it I assumed it meant the WPI would be donating the proceeds, which didn't really make sense. The press release also implies that the Whittemore family are funding vipdx, and I think I read this somewhere else.

As for the synthesis, I think it's just a matter of tweaking the text so that it matches what the sources say. Harvey's political influence was undoubtedly important, so that fact should be mentioned. --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of "cherry picking" is unlikely to be productive. No editorial interpretations are given, and every statement is sourced. Ward20's view of synthesis seems to depart significantly from the actual Wikipedia policy.

sciencewatcher: Correct. Viral Immune Pathology Diagnostics, sometimes referred to as VIP dx, was formerly known as RedLabs USA and is owned by the Whittemores. Reliable sources state that Vincent Lombardi is the director. It would thus appear that WPI and VIP dx are separate in a legal/tax sense, but that they share the same funding sources and oversight. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ward20 states that the impetus for founding WPI is incorrect: "This is a distortion of any source I've read. What RS says this?"

The New York Times: "Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease, but that scientists had rejected the idea. She finally decided, she said, “if there was a place of our own where we could find the answers, we could do it more quickly.”" Also stated is the Whittemore opinion that government researchers marginalise patients.

The Wall Street Journal: "They were frustrated by the lack of government funding for scientific research into the disease."

The ProHealth source: "ME or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis is the correct name for the illness that my daughter has"

If any of these sources are missing from the article, they should be added. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note I did not accuse or talk about editors above. I discussed material. "Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease"[22] is in the source, "but government agencies have ignored CFS patients and doctors have marginalised them." is not. "frustrated by the lack of government funding"[23] is not "stalling research progress". "Researchers have not pursued the infection theory seriously enough, in her opinion,[24] is not "charging scientists and doctors with unfairly rejecting the virus theory". The Mikovits story is out of context. The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI. I will attach the appropriate tags. Please do not remove them unless consensus is reached on the talk page that material is NPOV. Ward20 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear, based upon the examples you have given, that you oppose any attempts to summarise source information.

Before you begin placing tags, please consider proposing alternative language, as per the NPOV tag guidelines. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I oppose summarizing source information that mis-states sources. Please link to the NPOV tag guidelines. Ward20 (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[25]Please state material in source, "government agencies have ignored CFS patients and doctors have marginalised them" thank you. Ward20 (talk)

[26]"seems to be in the source I'm looking at. putting two things in the same sentence isn't automatically synthesis. what is being synthesized??". "as stated by the Whittemores, was intended to find the infectious cause of chronic fatigue syndrome that they felt government scientists and agencies were ignoring," First "government scientists and agencies were ignoring an infectious cause" isn't in the source that I could find. In other sources Annette Wittemore simply says not enough research was being done in infectious causes. The source simply doesn't state WPI was intended to find the infectious cause of chronic fatigue syndrome.

The source says:

"Frustration with the lack of answers led Annette and Harvey Whittemore, whose 31-year-old daughter has had the syndrome for 20 years, to spend several million dollars to set up a research institute at the University of Nevada in Reno in 2004, and to hire Dr. Mikovits to direct it.

Mrs. Whittemore said she had long believed that the syndrome was an infectious disease, but that scientists had rejected the idea.

She finally decided, she said, “if there was a place of our own where we could find the answers, we could do it more quickly.”"

She said she wanted answers but not that the answer had to be what she believed. The other material that was from the WPI website and removed contradicts what is there now, "states it is dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism."[27] The synthesis is putting disorted material with the initial name from another source to encourage the reader to think WPI's goals are different than what WPI states. Ward20 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, Ward20. I have just wasted an hour of my time checking through refs to find that the information is actually there, or just needs a slight tweak. And I have no idea why you think there is too much emphasis on Harry as his name appears EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF TIMES as Annette's in the article! You give the distinct impression of being a POV warrior and the impression I had of you as an unbiased editor has been seriously dented. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The NPOV guidelines Ward20 requested are linked in the very tag Ward20 placed: WP:NPOVD. It's not enough to complain about an article and riddle it with tags; NPOVD states "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article." Given the clarity with which the Whittemores describe their motivations and the lucidity in the many third-party reports, I quite frankly cannot understand what the problem could be. "Ignoring" versus "neglecting" or "not spending enough money" is not a POV problem. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I started this section on 06:25, 11 January 2010 giving specific examples and details of what I believe are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. From WP:NPOVD, "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research". Two days later, the issues were still there and I tagged the article with POV. I further explained why I tagged it but didn't make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute", sorry about that. I have also asked for sources for specific material, which is a separate issue, and many were indeed lacking and IMO still are. I have asked specifically where in the sources the material came from and have still not received a decent response. In some instances I have received no response, or sources that don't appear to mention WPI. Harvy Whittemore is a minor figure in his role at WPI as the sources indicate. I have tried to explain that twice before in this section and have been ignored. Mrs. Whittemore is the founder, president, and major fundraiser in most sources yet Harvy is portrayed as a major player. Hello, it's Mrs. Whittemore's alma mater too.[28] The story about Judy Mikovits omits the fact she moved to CA to get married and was working at a drug development company that failed before tending bar. IMO there are many other parts in the article that are biased. I have not edit warred on anything to push any point of view. I am trying to get NPOV information in the article from the best sources available. Asking for specific passages that verify the material from the sources helps assure material is directly and explicitly supported by the source.[29]Ward20 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, many of your taggings were not valid. Only two of them I agree with - the Harry Reid one, and the 'government agencies have ignored CFS patients' one (although it may be a summary, but my brain hurt from trying to figure it out). And this second one certainly isn't inserting anything NPOV into the article anyway. So I don't see any reason for marking the entire article as NPOV. It looks like you are just clutching at straws. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the political support: there are two refs there, but neither seems to mention WPI. They only support the fact that Whittemore is friends with the two senators.

So if this is the only issue with the article, I think we should remove the npov tag from the top of the article. If there are still issues, please list what they are. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added sources for Ensign and Reid, who have both secured earmarks for WPI. We should probably also add Berkley's request for over $2 million in earmarks for 2010. I am completely receptive to any proposed alternative language for "ignoring CFS patients"; I'm not at all bound to these words, which I wrote as what I thought was an accurate summary. I could well be wrong. I would encourage editors to follow NPOVD in this regard. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the summary. Mrs Whittemore certainly discusses the CDC and other researchers in the article, so it's not as if you are deliberately trying to insert your own POV or mislead people. It seems a reasonable summary. If Ward20 has an issue with it, perhaps he can offer an alternative. --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There are still many problems. The weight of HW has not been addressed. The primary sources for the earmarks do not indicate if: Ensign's earmark was passed, or Reid's funding was an earmark or if WPI was the recipient of Reid's funding. The POV in the article still includes WP:SYNTH ie. the history section contains too much weight on the motivation of the Whittemores and their personal story. Events are put together out of order to advance a POV. What is this doing in the mission section instead of the history section? I brought this up earlier about SYNTH, "The Whittemores envisioned WPI as an integrated facility for dedicated CFS treatment, education and research.[6] WPI has been known as "The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue"[10] and the "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute".[11]" There was NPOV context material added today from RS that that Keepcalmandcarryon deleted or changed for various reasons. I disagree the article is close to NPOV. I have other things to do right now. Ward20 (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The weight of HW has been addressed, both by sciencewatcher and by me. Ward20 has accused editors of pushing Annette Whittemore to the side; in fact, I was simply unaware that UNR was the alma mater of both H and AW. I corrected the text accordingly. How was this a POV violation? Where else is Harvey Whittemore emphasised over Annette? Was the New York Times wrong to report that Harvey and Annette Whittemore founded WPI?

How is the Ensign and Reid sentence a POV violation? Does Ward20 dispute that both Senators requested and received funding for WPI? Or that Reid and Ensign have close personal and financial relations with the Whittemore family? If so, on the basis of which reliable sources?

Ward20 states that "the history section contains too much weight on the motivation of the Whittemores and their personal story." How so? Was this not the main reason behind the WPI, as stated by the Whittemores and reporters in reliable sources? Did the New York Times and other prominent sources not devote large portions of their articles to the personal story?

"Events are put together out of order to advance a POV." For example? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Please supply a diff where Ward20 has accused any editors of pushing Annette Whittemore to the side.

There are a least a couple of NYT articles, which one are you refering to.

Earmark carries a connotation. I explained, "The primary sources for the earmarks do not indicate if: Ensign's earmark was passed, or Reid's funding was an earmark or if WPI was the recipient of Reid's funding."

It's a history of the WPI not the Whittemores. An enclopedia is not a newpaper.

"Harvey Whittemore is also prominent lawyer[13] and influential lobbyist.[14][15] The Whittemores successfully lobbied the Nevada legislature for support and arranged an affiliation with the University of Nevada, Reno, the Whittemores' alma mater." This presupposes HW was the driving force in lobbying the Nevada legislature for support and arranging an affiliation with UNR. The sources don't state that. Ward20 (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Out) Responses:

Ward20 wrote, "The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI." Shoving and constructing are done by thinking humans, editors.

Both New York Times articles mention that Harvey and Annette Whittemore founded the institute. Additional sources, RS and not, are a mouse click away, from a CFS blog I found several days ago to The Las Vegas Sun.

I'm not familiar with the connotations of "earmark", but I will look them up. What alternative wording would you propose? And, again, how does the level of accuracy of the word "earmark" affect the NPOV status of the article?

The WPI would not exist without the Whittemores, their personal experience, their money and influence. An encyclopaedia is not a newspaper, but newspaper articles are often the best RS.

The article does not state that HW was the primary driving force behind the lobbying. It's quite possible that his ties and experience were important, but the sources say that the Whittemores lobbied, raised money, etc., and that is precisely what the article states. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote, "The Mikovits story is out of context. The roll of Mrs. Whittemore is shoved aside to emphasize Harvy Whittemore. Material is constructed to marginalize WPI. I will attach the appropriate tags. Please do not remove them unless consensus is reached on the talk page that material is NPOV." I was obviously talking about material not an editor. Ward20 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious, rather, that content does not "cherry pick" itself, nor do words randomly assemble to marginalise institutions or "shove aside" the contributions of living persons. But I'm not concerned so much with the antagonistic tone you've chosen to adopt as with your silence on all of the article-related responses above. Please address the article-related issues so that we can make progress on NPOV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ward20's comments about the political support. It seems a bit of a stretch to go into the senate earmark documents - that looks like WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. As Ward20 says, this is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. Can we not just say he had political support/connections (or whatever it says in the prohealth source) and leave it at that?

As for Ward20's comment about Harvey's wife being shoved aside: I've already pointed out above that Harvey and his wife have equal number of mentions, so why do you think that? If you have a suggestion for changing anything, please post it rather than just adding tags. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree on all points. I've added a news programme to complement the primary sources from the Senators' offices. I also changed the "earmark" language since this word is not in my dictionary and it might have negative connotations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only been one day. Sorry I have other things to do right now than this one WP article. I will get around to your questions. By the way there are many many questions I have asked on this page that have never been addressed either. Ward20 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

VIP Dx and drug tests.

We've had this conversion in an earlier section. At the moment we've got two references to this:

1. In Funding and support: "Supplemental funding for WPI comes from the sale of XMRV diagnostic tests by Viral Immune Pathology Diagnostics (VIP Dx), a company owned by the Whittemores and co-founded by one of WPI's lead investigators" using the CFIDS article Testing for XMRV
2. In XMRV/CFS controversy: "CFS patients reportedly began to buy the VIP Dx diagnostic kit and to ask for antiretroviral drugs." referencing the Sciencenow commentary and Guardian articles.

What I would suggest is that we keep the controversy to do with VIP Dx in the controversy section -- that is move the "a company owned by the Whittemores and co-founded by one of WPI's lead investigators". In the current second reference the wording again doesn't reflect the references.

• The Guardian article is the only one mentioning patient demand: "The study in Science ... sent many patients hurrying to doctors for tests and antiretroviral drugs." though the Sciencenow article does include the sentence "All of this leaves doctors and patients in a muddle. There's no doubt they're hungry for information."
• IMHO, The best article for the WPI announcement of the test is its own press release.http://www.wpinstitute.org/WPI%20Release%20Diagnostic%20Test.pdf]
• There is the science community reaction to this which is reported in the Sciencenow piece "But some scientists, including Coffin and McClure, fear that Lombardi's clinic took advantage of that hunger by offering the $650 diagnostic test, 300 of which have been administered so far."
• There is the potential conflict of interest WP/Lombardi over WPI vs VIP Dx. The Lombardi conflict is clear in there are a number of RS (including the VIP Dx website) which state that he is the operations director. A couple of editors have mentioned that the WPs own VIP Dx (and this is mentioned in the CFIDS article), but if we are going to state this in the article here then I would prefer it is we included a RS in respect of company ownership. I don't think that a CFS Association website is really suitable for this claim.

The last issue which only really came up last night (as far as I can see) is that the VIP Dx and RedLabs USA sites seem to have vanished and the WIP press announcement has been pulled from the WPI site, even though the WPI entry page still has the wording "WPI Announces Availability of XMRV Testing. See our press release or visit VIP Diagnostics (VipDX)." on it with the dead links. I wonder if WPI is rethinking the wisdom of offering this test. However, I don't think that we can comment on this until some independent RS does as this would constitute OR.

My view on this is that there is a controversy on this drug test and therefore the article should reflect this, but let's do it in one spot and keep to a NPOV middle line. -- TerryE (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The CFS association would not be a reliable source on a scientific topic. For reporting on a specialist topic such as the ownership of a CFS diagnostic lab, it may or may not be acceptable. I am more inclined to accept the reporting of the association on an institute or a lab that shares their views on CFS. However, it may be best to attribute the statement directly. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

An Indefatigable Debate Over Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Sam Kean Science 15 January 2010: Vol. 327. no. 5963, pp. 254 - 255 DOI: 10.1126/science.327.5963.254

However, VIP Dx developed its XMRV test only after a different company began offering one; VIP Dx officials saw their test as a more expert alternative. What's more, Lombardi—an unpaid consultant for VIP Dx who helped set up and manage the testing program—argues that the test is useful. Patients could in theory avoid infecting other people with XMRV and can have their diagnoses validated, if nothing else. His test results also bolster the science in the original paper; he says 36% of tests have detected XMRV, including a few from the United Kingdom. (Test proceeds roll back into research and development at Whittemore, which licenses the test to VIP Dx. VIP Dx has also received financial support from the Whittemore family in the past.)

Full text [http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?2304-An-Indefatigable-Debate-Over-Chronic-Fatigue-Syndrome-Science-Virology-2010-01-15&p=35188#post35188

Sam Weller (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WPI press release. "We structured the licensing contract to be sure that any and all profits that might emerge at VIPDx from XMRV testing come directly back to WPI to benefit the research program” said Whittemore. Dr. Lombardi is an employee of WPI, and has no personal financial interest in VIP Dx. Likewise, the Whittemore family put their interest in VIP Dx into a trust to benefit WPI." Ward20 (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The PR is also reference on the front page of the WPI website in a lot more readable format [30]. -- TerryE (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for discussion on triggering Edit War Process

We seem to have triggered a ping pong edit war on a number of sections in this article. We (and I mean us as a collective, and that includes me) are adopting positions where edits are being made where we know that these will be rejected by other editors. This article is going nowhere healthy, and I think that the situation has gotten to the point that we seem to be unable to reach consensus amongst ourselves and such a war is the most likely outcome without arbitration. However, I would like to request the view of the other contributors to this discussion their views on this specific subject before (and preferably as an alternative to) initiating this arbitration process.

I think that the situation become unacceptable. I will now notify all active participants of this discussion and invite them to participate. -- TerryE (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A WP:RFC with respect to article content might be in order to pull more editors into the discussion. Ward20 (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Ward20. Can a WP:RFC on Harvey Whittemore be coordinated as part of the same problem? Sam Weller (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

University of Nevada article on Mikovits

http://www.unr.edu/silverandblue/

http://www.unr.edu/silverandblue/archive/2010/winter/Pages%20from%20NSB_Winter_2010_12-13.pdf

In less than three years since she was hired as the research director at the Whittemore Peterson Institute, Mikovits and her team have identified a genetic susceptibility marker to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, developed a cytokine signature describing Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as an inflammatory disease, produced a sensitive and accurate test for coinfections, and described an abnormal number of pathogens in this population.

Formally trained as a cell biologist, molecular biologist and virologist, Mikovits has studied the immune response to retroviruses and herpes viruses. In addition, she has coauthored more than 40 peer-reviewed publications that address fundamental issues of viral pathogenesis, the production of blood cells and cytokine biology.

Sam Weller (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Neurologists Intrigued, But Not Convinced, by Study Linking Retrovirus to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2009/12030/Neurologists_Intrigued,_But_Not_Convinced,_by.11.aspx

"It's been one virus after another, said Thomas D. Sabin, MD, professor of neurology at Tufts Medical Center and co-editor of a 1993 book Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins). Each time, there's been great excitement, and then it's faded. Right now we should await confirmatory evidence from other laboratories."

"The authors did not describe the characteristics of the patients or controls, said Karen Roos, MD, the John and Nancy Nelson Professor of Neurology at Indiana University, where she specializes in the study of CNS infections. I am surprised that Science published it. It is far too premature to comment on the significance of this."

--sciencewatcher (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"But Dr. Mikovits, who spent more than 20 years at the NCI before joining the Whittemore Institute, strongly defended the integrity of her study, noting that all patients defined as having CFS had been diagnosed with it by a physician and met the CDC criteria."

"For all his doubts, Dr. Berger pointed out that the recent history of medicine has been studded with examples of diseases thought by doctors to be primarily psychosomatic or caused by stress, until evidence established an organic cause."

"I'm not ready to sign onto the bandwagon yet, he said. But they seem to be onto something. Remember, we viewed Helicobacter pylori as a cause of peptic ulcers with great skepticism, until it turned out to be irrefutable."

Sam Weller (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

and Dr. Berger (that is Joseph R. Berger, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky) was the main neurologist being interviewed in this article so if we want to remain neutral perhaps we should include both the critical and supportive comments. -- TerryE (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

I've added the "controversial" tag, as this article is being used as a surrogate for CFS controversy. Sam Weller (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of this controversial status and the Wikipedia rules for working on thus flagged articles, can I ask all editors who are introducing new references to include the include URIs for references which are also online to assist other editors in validating references? This is just a matter of courtesy to colleagues. Also if you are reviewing an existing reference and locate an online copy, can you please do likewise. Limiting RS to paper versions prevents those editors, who do not have the necessary financial resources or geographic access, from validating such references. -- TerryE (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Annette Whittemore suggestion

Annette Whittemore is probably notable and does not currently have a Wikipedia biography. Some of our contributors appear to be quite knowledgeable about her and interested in representing her accomplishments; I would suggest biography creation as a useful and constructive project for these editors. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of edits

I would like to remind all editors that, following Sam Weller's controversy tag, any potentially controversial changes should be discussed on the talk page. If compromises cannot be agreed within a reasonable time, we should pursue dispute resolution.

I have reverted several recent edits, made without the required discussion:

• "The WPI was known well before the XMRV findings- it's the only translational research facility with an emphasis on CFS in the world". This assertion is not verified by reliable sources. With very few exceptions, all WPI coverage has been printed after the Science publication appeared. The WPI may have been known previously to various CFS organisations, but for Wikipedia, its notability began with the Science publication.
• "Just because the name is misquoted or abbreviated doesn't mean it has been known as". Of the few WPI sources appearing before the XMRV report, several use a different name. That is, WPI was known as...
• "Article never says intended to find infectious cause of CFS, WPI was created with the intent of finding cause of CFS, whatever the cause may be. Maybe with an emphasis on viral research?" I'm certainly open to discussion on this point. The Whittemores have made quite clear, however, at least as early as 2003, that they consider a virus to be the cause of CFS, and that this cause is what scientists were, in their opinion, ignoring.
• "CFS patients testified before the Nevada legislature on the need for an institute as well" They may well have testified, but the article states that the Whittemores lobbied for the money.
• "That reference was to the Center for Molecular Medicine. The article simplifies, the Whittemores were by no means the source of funding for that building" Again, Wikipedia uses reliable sources. What is your source for contradicting the article? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in lead

The sentence "The institute is dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism" is inaccurate and inconsistent with reliable sources. None of these disorders is generally accepted as "acquired" (i.e., infectious), and with the possible exception of MS, none is accepted as caused by either immune or nervous system dysregulation, much less immune and nervous system dysregulation. It's acceptable to quote WPI, but it's also our obligation to emphasise that this is WPI's opinion, one that's not supported by scientifically reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in quotes, which is a start, but people will likely take it at face value so perhaps it should be changed. We know that WPI were primarily set up to study CFS, and that is all they have studied so far, so perhaps we should just change it to CFS. If they have a reference for their theory about those other illnesses being linked, perhaps that could be put into the main section, along with a note saying something about it going against current scientific opinion about those illnesses. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[31] Please give the place in the source where is says "dedicated to the study of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)." I could not find it. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "WIP's opinion" I gave a couple quotes above. e.g.

"The purpose of this project is to build and equip a comprehensive research and clinical outpatient facility to serve patients with Neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, atypical MS, Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and Autism, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of new knowledge to effective patient treatment and physician education through the combined efforts of researchers, clinicians and educators at the medical school campus of the University of Nevada, Reno." [my ital]

And sorry, I deleted the change Ward20 commented on above. I've learnt from experiences that your refs sometimes don't support your wording. Or is Congresswoman Berkley not a WP:RS? TerryE (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WPI's opinion of itself, or that opinion as repeated by a Congressperson, is of secondary relevance to the article. Of over 100 reliable sources, third-party news reports, mentioning WPI, all but a few have appeared since and in response to the XMRV/CFS report. WPI, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, is XMRV/CFS. It was founded by the parents of a patient and a doctor who treats that patient. Its first reported names indicated a dedication to CFS. Its sole published research has involved CFS. We can report the WPI mission statement, but it's probably inappropriate for the lead, and we are obliged (since it contains scientific claims) to remind readers of the accuracy of those claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

KCOC, The purpose of the intro para is to introduce the subject of the article. Keep it short and to the point. We had a discussion about this and there was a consensus between myself, Ward20 and Sam Weller on this which is why I restored the previous version. Sw didn't joint this discussion and you didn't give a specific "no", so I make this change. You've since changed it and I've backed out your change because the change wasn't supported by the reference that you gave. The institute is for a purpose. The fact that Congresswoman Berkley and Senator Ensign's have both quoted this purpose on State government websites. I would normally back this out, but I think that if I could up I would slide into WP:3RR. Your rewrites add no value other than to push controversy into the opening agenda. I ask you to revert this otherwise, I am sorry to say that we will need move to the next phase of WP:DR. I'll leave you to explain why the statement from one of the top government officers in the State of Nevada is not a WP:RS for the purposes of this intro and purpose. -- TerryE (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead must "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and summarise the article briefly. At the moment, WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy. The WPI's mission statement, although worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article and in appropriate scientific context, does not contribute to the subject's notability and contains scientific inaccuracies. We unpack this mess later in the article; it's too detailed and POV for the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we get to the nub. My interest in WPI is because it seems to be the first serious research centre that has been founded to look into possible biological causes of a class of illness where this argument applies. The XMRV study is simply the first such to be published and a stark example of the difference that such funding can make into progress for the understanding of potential biological causes. These funding requests make it clear that its scope is larger than you imply. You clain my intro is POV, but it is also the POV of the US State government officers who are sponsoring the part funding the institute as well as the founders. You say my intro is too detailed, but it is shorter than your replacement.

On the other hand, your statement "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" is your assumption and POV, and you seems to refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints. You unilaterally back out any changes that run counter to this without being willing to debate them and reaching consensus before acting thus. -- TerryE (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a RS for the version TerryE, myself, and Sam Weller favors, there is not a rs for the material Keepcalmandcarryon and sciencewatcher favors. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which RS states that WPI is notable for its belief that autism is caused by infection-induced neurological and immune dysfunction? And how do you balance that RS, if it exists, against greater than 100 RS covering the XMRV/CFS story? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing that WPI main exposure to the public is because of the XMRV paper in Science, however notability is not the same as public exposure. By this argument an institution such as CERN is only notable because "it's got that big machine to make the God particle" because if you go to the blogspace or popular papers, that all the coverage there is about CERN at the moment.

Your position is "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" and you are assessing all other judgements by this axiom, but it is your personal axiom; it isn't shared by me and is probably not shared by other editors. It does remind me of the sort of circular argument that proponents of Intelligent Design make: I believe in X and therefore I reject A,B,C because they are works of evil and therefore not RS; golly-gosh, the only true evidence supports my case!

The fact that the State of Nevada is intending to allocate funds to enable WPI do autism studies is notable, and source is an RS in this context. This isn't solely a medical article. If and when WPI publishes such studies, then these will be medically notable. -- TerryE (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not equipped to predict the future, nor to conclude from the size of Congressperson Berkley's funding request that WPI is notable, for now, for anything beyond what has been reported in third-party publications. Have I overlooked several hundred articles on WPI's autism, fibromyalgia and MS research? As for debate, I have offered cogent arguments for every edit I have made or proposed, in edit summaries and here on the talk page. And consensus is not majority rule; it is adherence to Wikipedia policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your logic completely escapes me. We have the first major independent Research Institute into this class of illness and you are the final arbiter that the decision by a US senator and US congresswoman to support the funding of it by the State of Nevada is not sufficiently notable and therefore excluded. You've lost the plot. -- TerryE (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article currently mentions the funds secured through the political support of John Ensign and Harry Reid. I stated previously that we should include the Berkley appropriations request. Berkley is not, however, a reliable source for the assertion that autism, etc., are caused by infection, which is scientifically inaccurate and is what you have been trying to add to the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Terry: there is no class of illness called 'Neuro-Immune Disease'. It's a category made up by WPI and so far they haven't done any research. Your CERN example isn't valid because CERN have done lots of research into various things. WPI haven't, therefore they are only notable for this one study. As KKCO says, we can certainly mention that WPI thinks these diseases are linked and they plan to research them, as long as we say that this is not a recognised category. Oh wait, we already do say that! -sciencewatcher

About Berkley as a reliable source: I do not at all oppose inclusion of her funding proposal. However, consider what she's said (or misread from WPI copy) on the record in the US House. She has called CFS "chronic disease syndrome" and states that WPI's CFS research will save the lives of millions of Americans. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

@sw, are you now saying this article falls solely under MEDRS in which case we had better start deleting a lot of content? We are talking about a research institute which is set up for a purpose that is research on a group of illnesses which it defines as a class. The US gov't funding agencies have adopted this very same wording to allocate funds so whether it is a recognised medical class in a formal sense, it is still what this clinic is dedicated to. Also the claim that "so far they haven't done any research." is your POV which to my knowledge isn't specifically made in any POV. The haven't as yet published such the results of any such research which is an entirely different matter.

@KCCO no one is claiming that Berkley is an RS for discussions that autism is caused by infection. You are the only one raising such claims. She is supporting the funding of a research institute to have a scope which includes the investigation of autism which is a subtly (but still nonetheless entirely) different issue. TerryE (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not saying the article should be subject to MEDRS. I'm just saying we should have common sense - this is an encyclopedia after all, not a newspaper or a US government document. We already have info on the made-up illness class "neuro immune disease" with appopriate caveats, so we should just leave it at that. And perhaps they have done a whole load of research into autism, but there is no WP:RS saying that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If an institute says it has been founded to do X,Y,Z and we have US gov't sites referencing its proposal to fund X,Y,Z then it does make sense to refuse to put in the intro that the institute was founded to do X,Y,Z because it is your opinion / OR that X doesn't exist or the institute hasn't published any results for Y yet. In this case the concept "neuro immune disease" makes sense to me (and this exact phrase has some 130,000 google hits so I am not alone). However if you can find an RS which says that is a made up illness class then of course it makes sense to put this in the article somewhere such as a controversy section. It's not our job to censor content based on our own OR. -- TerryE (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take a WP:RS to conclude that it's a made up illness group, and number of google hits on its own doesn't mean anything. If you search for 'homeopathy works' you get 150,000 hits (whereas searching for 'homeopathy doesn't work' only gets 115,000 hits). As well as relying on reliable sources, we also have to use our common sense. And we're not censoring - we already discuss this so-called "neuro-immune disease" in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just playing a spin on your analogy back: let's say (for the sake of this argument) that WPI had been set up to research the effects of homoeopathy (or sheep turds for that matter) on a class of illnesses and received government funding on that basis. Whether you think that homoeopathy is bogus or a recognised medical discipline, it was still set up to study homoeopathy. The fact that you can't find a medical treatment called homoeopathy doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned in the intro. Whether or not the number of hits includes "doesn't work or not" is also irrelevant. The point is it in common use, as is "neuro immune disease". The purpose and scope of its charter is what it is. Whether this is widely accepted by the medical profession can be discussed in the controversy section(s). -- TerryE (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though homeopathy doesn't work, it is a technique that is used by millions of people around the world. As far as I know, 'neuro-immune disease' was invented by WPI and the only reason there are 130,000 references is because people are talking about WPI. So if you want to mention it in the lead I suppose that's fine, but you would need to include some caveats. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS does not apply to the article in general (that's why I created this article), but it does apply to any statements within the article regarding science and medicine. As for why WPI is notable, we've discussed this already. WPI is notable for the reasons it is covered in reliable sources. To this date, WPI's XMRV report and subsequent controversy are covered in RS. The WPI's founders' view of the institute and its future can be mentioned, although, in my opinion, preferably not in the lead, along with reliable information to place it in context. Which, as sciencewatcher noted, we've done. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinion held by you and sciencewatcher. Three other editors dissent from this opinion. So this version is still in dispute. -- TerryE (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead on 14 January 2010 stated, "and dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism." [32][33]. Now it states, "and known for a controversial 2009 report that xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), a retrovirus, is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)[no source]." The present version must have a source to verify the content. It's not negotiable, it's Wikipedia policy. How can there be meaningful discussion of the merits of content from different sources when no sources are given for one of the contested statements? If it's obvious, supply a source so it can be compared with the sourced material. Ward20 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Organisation

I have just reread this section in its entirety. I do think that we have lost our way here. Surely a section on the "Organisation" of a research institute should actually discuss its organisation -- that is the main players, their roles, how many staff of what types etc., and not act as a WP:COATRACK to make sideways innuendo about the staff. In terms of the organisation I think that its possibly worth briefly summarising the following members:

• Annette Whittemore, Founder and President ...
• Daniel L. Peterson, MD, Medical Director ...
• Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, Director of Research ...
• Michael D. Hillerby, Vice President ...

together with its Science advisory board, the core XMRV team, plus perhaps information staff numbers, locations, associations with other organisations. OK we need to include RSs for these, but in this regard isn't the organisational announcements that WPI itself puts out suitably RS, e.g. [34][35][36]; though I would agree that any contentious medical claims about the staff or the WPI itself should be validated by independent RS. This is entirely consistent with the guidelines in the relevant section in WP:RS. I mentioned a CERN analogy in an earlier discussion and in case other editors state the position that this is unreasonable, I would point out that CERN references provide the bulk of RS in this regard.

My proposal here is also that the following specific points should be removed:

• Re Mikovits. This "bartender" sojourn is an interesting anecdote for a Judy A. Mikovit should she ever become sufficiently notable in her own right to merit an article. However this article is about WPI. Only details relevant to her role and qualifications to fulfil this role should be included. The fact that she lost a job in a biotechnology company because it failed is dubiously relevant (since there is no referenced RS that would implicate her as having a causal part in that failure), but the fact that she worked as a barman whilst looking for another role to match her qualifications and experience is totally irrelevant to an article about WPI.
• Re 'Lombardi' we have a statement "The second lead investigator is a biochemist who completed PhD training in protein chemistry at the University of Nevada, Reno, in 2006. Prior to receiving his degree, he co-founded RedLabs USA, Inc., now VIP Dx, which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics." referencing a CFIDS article [37] which doesn't even mention Lombardi let alone his background or the VIP Dx controversy. Even if this source did discuss this, I don't think that the clause "which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics" is appropriate here. If we want to raise this point then the correct place is the VIP Dx para in the controversy section. (Oh yes, a good ref for his bio is a WIP page [38]).

Comments before I work up a proposed draft? -- TerryE (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely. The article on Mikovits and the WPI published by the University of Nevada looks reliable. Sam Weller (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming individuals who are not notable in their own right is generally discouraged. Peterson, the Whittemores, Mikovits, and probably Lombardi are notable or nearly so, as is at least one past or present member of the WPI board, Billy Vassiliadis. Naming every member of WPI with WPI as the only source would be unencyclopaedic.

On Mikovits, the "bartender sojourn" illustrates how and why Mikovits got the job: she was available, she was interested in viruses and she knew a friend of a friend of the Whittemores. It's reliably sourced. In contrast, although I would not oppose linking the University of Nevada article, we must consider the relative value of the New York Times and UNR, a publication of the Whittemore's 'alma mater', WPI's host institution, and the recipient of millions of dollars as a result of the Whittemore's WPI lobbying: that is, perhaps not an independent, third-party source.

As for Lombardi, the WPI research profiles page, at least as it existed in early January, included any information you couldn't find in the CFIDS article. In my notes, I had used this page as a source, but I may not have transferred it to the article. I will do so now.

Efforts to assume good faith of other editors are strongly encouraged. I created this article specifically so that CFS interest editors could have a place other than the inappropriate XMRV to portray the ongoing controversy, and I have spent a moderate amount of time collecting sources, researching and writing. I apologise for omitting some of the URLs and leaving some sentences with only one source rather than two or more. I have made such mistakes of omission not because of any ill intent or participation in a POV-pushing conspiracy, as some editors have implied here and on other talk pages. Please, let's work together in a collegial and polite manner, discuss all changes as Sam Weller has suggested and pursue dispute resolution when we cannot agree compromises here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

However, this article is entitled "Whittemore Peterson Institute" and not "Keepcalmandcarryon's view of the CFS controversies around XMRV". The primary test of content inclusion is its appropriateness to the subject of the article, the WPI. I agree that the current XMRV related controversy relating to CFS is an appropriate section in article Nonetheless, I will resist any efforts to restrict or bias the content solely to this controversy. -- TerryE (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal

Our policy on NPOV disputes states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." We also know that tags are meant to be a temporary measure.

Since the tag was added by Ward20, the user's objections have been discussed extensively on the talk page and even dismissed as "getting ridiculous" by one editor (not I). We've had an uninvolved editor respond to the RfC, characterising the article as "fairly NPOV" whilst giving several suggestions for improvement. It's now been over a week since Ward20 last commented here. In no instance has Ward20 suggested alternative wording to specific passages he or she considers POV. The NPOV tag is no longer appropriate, if indeed it ever was. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the bartender anecdote being removed if you want. I'd suggest Ward20 makes some suggestions here and/or just makes some changes to the article to fix the perceived problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, why the accusations? The NPOV tag was added here after much objection [39][40] about issues actionable within content policies; neutrality, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and specific wording not supported by sources. Examine the history of the article and discussion page. I and at other editors discussed specific problems and non NPOV wording throughout the article and edited the article to try and correct the issues before and after the NPOV tag was added. Many of the edits to address NPOV have been reverted. Many of the original NPOV issues discussed are still in the article.

:I'll start with two large issues. These aren't the only ones, but let's keep it simple for now.

The lead on 14 January 2010 stated, "and dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism." [41][42]. Now it states, "and known for a controversial 2009 report that xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), a retrovirus, is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)[no source]." The present version must have a source to verify the content. It's not negotiable, it's Wikipedia policy. How can there be meaningful discussion of the merits of content from different sources when no sources are given for one of the contested statements? If it's obvious, supply a source so it can be compared with the sourced material.

The Whittemore Peterson Institute#Mission section should at least start out simply by stating the present mission statement of the institute. Instead it's a mishmash from various sources, "The Whittemores envisioned", "has been known as", "As stated by the Whittemores", "The institute's research has involved". It shouldn't be a description from a patchwork of material from many different sources, that's a recipe for original research which is exactly what it is. I will also slowly make some changes as sciencewatcher suggested. Ward20 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, can I ask that you avoid using the possessive article to refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, unless of course you wish to make explicit and specific claims of role over the other editors active on this page?

There is a general dispute which litters the content of this talk page between the views and editing actions of yourself on the one side, and ward20 and myself on the other. In my opinion, sciencewatch seems to aligned to your position in some aspects, as does Sam Weller to ours, but there does seem to be a broad 2:3 split amongst the active editors. The NPOV tag is a reasonable reflection of this state of affairs. Any comparisons to "Drive by tagging" simply do not apply as there is active continuing discussion between the editors concerned. Disputes do not time out after a week. They are closed by agreement or by arbitration. We've achieve neither.-- TerryE (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mission

The Whittemore Peterson Institute#Mission section should at least start out simply by stating the present mission statement of the institute. Instead it's a mishmash from various sources, "The Whittemores envisioned", "has been known as", "As stated by the Whittemores", "The institute's research has involved". It shouldn't be a description from a patchwork of material from many different sources, that's a recipe for original research which is exactly what it is. Ward20 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in lead

The sentence "The institute is dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism" is inaccurate and inconsistent with reliable sources. None of these disorders is generally accepted as "acquired" (i.e., infectious), and with the possible exception of MS, none is accepted as caused by either immune or nervous system dysregulation, much less immune and nervous system dysregulation. It's acceptable to quote WPI, but it's also our obligation to emphasise that this is WPI's opinion, one that's not supported by scientifically reliable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's in quotes, which is a start, but people will likely take it at face value so perhaps it should be changed. We know that WPI were primarily set up to study CFS, and that is all they have studied so far, so perhaps we should just change it to CFS. If they have a reference for their theory about those other illnesses being linked, perhaps that could be put into the main section, along with a note saying something about it going against current scientific opinion about those illnesses. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[43] Please give the place in the source where is says "dedicated to the study of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)." I could not find it. Ward20 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "WIP's opinion" I gave a couple quotes above. e.g.

"The purpose of this project is to build and equip a comprehensive research and clinical outpatient facility to serve patients with Neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, atypical MS, Fibromyalgia, Gulf War Illness and Autism, and to facilitate the immediate transfer of new knowledge to effective patient treatment and physician education through the combined efforts of researchers, clinicians and educators at the medical school campus of the University of Nevada, Reno." [my ital]

And sorry, I deleted the change Ward20 commented on above. I've learnt from experiences that your refs sometimes don't support your wording. Or is Congresswoman Berkley not a WP:RS? TerryE (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WPI's opinion of itself, or that opinion as repeated by a Congressperson, is of secondary relevance to the article. Of over 100 reliable sources, third-party news reports, mentioning WPI, all but a few have appeared since and in response to the XMRV/CFS report. WPI, for the purposes of an encyclopaedia, is XMRV/CFS. It was founded by the parents of a patient and a doctor who treats that patient. Its first reported names indicated a dedication to CFS. Its sole published research has involved CFS. We can report the WPI mission statement, but it's probably inappropriate for the lead, and we are obliged (since it contains scientific claims) to remind readers of the accuracy of those claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

KCOC, The purpose of the intro para is to introduce the subject of the article. Keep it short and to the point. We had a discussion about this and there was a consensus between myself, Ward20 and Sam Weller on this which is why I restored the previous version. Sw didn't joint this discussion and you didn't give a specific "no", so I make this change. You've since changed it and I've backed out your change because the change wasn't supported by the reference that you gave. The institute is for a purpose. The fact that Congresswoman Berkley and Senator Ensign's have both quoted this purpose on State government websites. I would normally back this out, but I think that if I could up I would slide into WP:3RR. Your rewrites add no value other than to push controversy into the opening agenda. I ask you to revert this otherwise, I am sorry to say that we will need move to the next phase of WP:DR. I'll leave you to explain why the statement from one of the top government officers in the State of Nevada is not a WP:RS for the purposes of this intro and purpose. -- TerryE (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead must "explain why the subject is interesting or notable" and summarise the article briefly. At the moment, WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy. The WPI's mission statement, although worthy of inclusion somewhere in the article and in appropriate scientific context, does not contribute to the subject's notability and contains scientific inaccuracies. We unpack this mess later in the article; it's too detailed and POV for the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Now we get to the nub. My interest in WPI is because it seems to be the first serious research centre that has been founded to look into possible biological causes of a class of illness where this argument applies. The XMRV study is simply the first such to be published and a stark example of the difference that such funding can make into progress for the understanding of potential biological causes. These funding requests make it clear that its scope is larger than you imply. You clain my intro is POV, but it is also the POV of the US State government officers who are sponsoring the part funding the institute as well as the founders. You say my intro is too detailed, but it is shorter than your replacement.

On the other hand, your statement "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" is your assumption and POV, and you seems to refuse to consider any alternative viewpoints. You unilaterally back out any changes that run counter to this without being willing to debate them and reaching consensus before acting thus. -- TerryE (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a RS for the version TerryE, myself, and Sam Weller favors, there is not a rs for the material Keepcalmandcarryon and sciencewatcher favors. Ward20 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which RS states that WPI is notable for its belief that autism is caused by infection-induced neurological and immune dysfunction? And how do you balance that RS, if it exists, against greater than 100 RS covering the XMRV/CFS story? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not disputing that WPI main exposure to the public is because of the XMRV paper in Science, however notability is not the same as public exposure. By this argument an institution such as CERN is only notable because "it's got that big machine to make the God particle" because if you go to the blogspace or popular papers, that all the coverage there is about CERN at the moment.

Your position is "WPI is interesting or notable only because of the XMRV/CFS report and subsequent controversy" and you are assessing all other judgements by this axiom, but it is your personal axiom; it isn't shared by me and is probably not shared by other editors. It does remind me of the sort of circular argument that proponents of Intelligent Design make: I believe in X and therefore I reject A,B,C because they are works of evil and therefore not RS; golly-gosh, the only true evidence supports my case!

The fact that the State of Nevada is intending to allocate funds to enable WPI do autism studies is notable, and source is an RS in this context. This isn't solely a medical article. If and when WPI publishes such studies, then these will be medically notable. -- TerryE (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not equipped to predict the future, nor to conclude from the size of Congressperson Berkley's funding request that WPI is notable, for now, for anything beyond what has been reported in third-party publications. Have I overlooked several hundred articles on WPI's autism, fibromyalgia and MS research? As for debate, I have offered cogent arguments for every edit I have made or proposed, in edit summaries and here on the talk page. And consensus is not majority rule; it is adherence to Wikipedia policies. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but your logic completely escapes me. We have the first major independent Research Institute into this class of illness and you are the final arbiter that the decision by a US senator and US congresswoman to support the funding of it by the State of Nevada is not sufficiently notable and therefore excluded. You've lost the plot. -- TerryE (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The article currently mentions the funds secured through the political support of John Ensign and Harry Reid. I stated previously that we should include the Berkley appropriations request. Berkley is not, however, a reliable source for the assertion that autism, etc., are caused by infection, which is scientifically inaccurate and is what you have been trying to add to the lead. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Terry: there is no class of illness called 'Neuro-Immune Disease'. It's a category made up by WPI and so far they haven't done any research. Your CERN example isn't valid because CERN have done lots of research into various things. WPI haven't, therefore they are only notable for this one study. As KKCO says, we can certainly mention that WPI thinks these diseases are linked and they plan to research them, as long as we say that this is not a recognised category. Oh wait, we already do say that! -sciencewatcher

About Berkley as a reliable source: I do not at all oppose inclusion of her funding proposal. However, consider what she's said (or misread from WPI copy) on the record in the US House. She has called CFS "chronic disease syndrome" and states that WPI's CFS research will save the lives of millions of Americans. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

@sw, are you now saying this article falls solely under MEDRS in which case we had better start deleting a lot of content? We are talking about a research institute which is set up for a purpose that is research on a group of illnesses which it defines as a class. The US gov't funding agencies have adopted this very same wording to allocate funds so whether it is a recognised medical class in a formal sense, it is still what this clinic is dedicated to. Also the claim that "so far they haven't done any research." is your POV which to my knowledge isn't specifically made in any POV. The haven't as yet published such the results of any such research which is an entirely different matter.

@KCCO no one is claiming that Berkley is an RS for discussions that autism is caused by infection. You are the only one raising such claims. She is supporting the funding of a research institute to have a scope which includes the investigation of autism which is a subtly (but still nonetheless entirely) different issue. TerryE (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not saying the article should be subject to MEDRS. I'm just saying we should have common sense - this is an encyclopedia after all, not a newspaper or a US government document. We already have info on the made-up illness class "neuro immune disease" with appopriate caveats, so we should just leave it at that. And perhaps they have done a whole load of research into autism, but there is no WP:RS saying that. --sciencewatcher (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If an institute says it has been founded to do X,Y,Z and we have US gov't sites referencing its proposal to fund X,Y,Z then it does make sense to refuse to put in the intro that the institute was founded to do X,Y,Z because it is your opinion / OR that X doesn't exist or the institute hasn't published any results for Y yet. In this case the concept "neuro immune disease" makes sense to me (and this exact phrase has some 130,000 google hits so I am not alone). However if you can find an RS which says that is a made up illness class then of course it makes sense to put this in the article somewhere such as a controversy section. It's not our job to censor content based on our own OR. -- TerryE (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take a WP:RS to conclude that it's a made up illness group, and number of google hits on its own doesn't mean anything. If you search for 'homeopathy works' you get 150,000 hits (whereas searching for 'homeopathy doesn't work' only gets 115,000 hits). As well as relying on reliable sources, we also have to use our common sense. And we're not censoring - we already discuss this so-called "neuro-immune disease" in the article. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just playing a spin on your analogy back: let's say (for the sake of this argument) that WPI had been set up to research the effects of homoeopathy (or sheep turds for that matter) on a class of illnesses and received government funding on that basis. Whether you think that homoeopathy is bogus or a recognised medical discipline, it was still set up to study homoeopathy. The fact that you can't find a medical treatment called homoeopathy doesn't mean that it can't be mentioned in the intro. Whether or not the number of hits includes "doesn't work or not" is also irrelevant. The point is it in common use, as is "neuro immune disease". The purpose and scope of its charter is what it is. Whether this is widely accepted by the medical profession can be discussed in the controversy section(s). -- TerryE (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Even though homeopathy doesn't work, it is a technique that is used by millions of people around the world. As far as I know, 'neuro-immune disease' was invented by WPI and the only reason there are 130,000 references is because people are talking about WPI. So if you want to mention it in the lead I suppose that's fine, but you would need to include some caveats. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS does not apply to the article in general (that's why I created this article), but it does apply to any statements within the article regarding science and medicine. As for why WPI is notable, we've discussed this already. WPI is notable for the reasons it is covered in reliable sources. To this date, WPI's XMRV report and subsequent controversy are covered in RS. The WPI's founders' view of the institute and its future can be mentioned, although, in my opinion, preferably not in the lead, along with reliable information to place it in context. Which, as sciencewatcher noted, we've done. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an opinion held by you and sciencewatcher. Three other editors dissent from this opinion. So this version is still in dispute. -- TerryE (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The lead on 14 January 2010 stated, "and dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism." [44][45]. Now it states, "and known for a controversial 2009 report that xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), a retrovirus, is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)[no source]." The present version must have a source to verify the content. It's not negotiable, it's Wikipedia policy. How can there be meaningful discussion of the merits of content from different sources when no sources are given for one of the contested statements? If it's obvious, supply a source so it can be compared with the sourced material. Ward20 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Organisation

I have just reread this section in its entirety. I do think that we have lost our way here. Surely a section on the "Organisation" of a research institute should actually discuss its organisation -- that is the main players, their roles, how many staff of what types etc., and not act as a WP:COATRACK to make sideways innuendo about the staff. In terms of the organisation I think that its possibly worth briefly summarising the following members:

• Annette Whittemore, Founder and President ...
• Daniel L. Peterson, MD, Medical Director ...
• Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, Director of Research ...
• Michael D. Hillerby, Vice President ...

together with its Science advisory board, the core XMRV team, plus perhaps information staff numbers, locations, associations with other organisations. OK we need to include RSs for these, but in this regard isn't the organisational announcements that WPI itself puts out suitably RS, e.g. [46][47][48]; though I would agree that any contentious medical claims about the staff or the WPI itself should be validated by independent RS. This is entirely consistent with the guidelines in the relevant section in WP:RS. I mentioned a CERN analogy in an earlier discussion and in case other editors state the position that this is unreasonable, I would point out that CERN references provide the bulk of RS in this regard.

My proposal here is also that the following specific points should be removed:

• Re Mikovits. This "bartender" sojourn is an interesting anecdote for a Judy A. Mikovit should she ever become sufficiently notable in her own right to merit an article. However this article is about WPI. Only details relevant to her role and qualifications to fulfil this role should be included. The fact that she lost a job in a biotechnology company because it failed is dubiously relevant (since there is no referenced RS that would implicate her as having a causal part in that failure), but the fact that she worked as a barman whilst looking for another role to match her qualifications and experience is totally irrelevant to an article about WPI.
• Re 'Lombardi' we have a statement "The second lead investigator is a biochemist who completed PhD training in protein chemistry at the University of Nevada, Reno, in 2006. Prior to receiving his degree, he co-founded RedLabs USA, Inc., now VIP Dx, which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics." referencing a CFIDS article [49] which doesn't even mention Lombardi let alone his background or the VIP Dx controversy. Even if this source did discuss this, I don't think that the clause "which is owned by the Whittemores and sells XMRV diagnostics" is appropriate here. If we want to raise this point then the correct place is the VIP Dx para in the controversy section. (Oh yes, a good ref for his bio is a WIP page [50]).

Comments before I work up a proposed draft? -- TerryE (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely. The article on Mikovits and the WPI published by the University of Nevada looks reliable. Sam Weller (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming individuals who are not notable in their own right is generally discouraged. Peterson, the Whittemores, Mikovits, and probably Lombardi are notable or nearly so, as is at least one past or present member of the WPI board, Billy Vassiliadis. Naming every member of WPI with WPI as the only source would be unencyclopaedic.

On Mikovits, the "bartender sojourn" illustrates how and why Mikovits got the job: she was available, she was interested in viruses and she knew a friend of a friend of the Whittemores. It's reliably sourced. In contrast, although I would not oppose linking the University of Nevada article, we must consider the relative value of the New York Times and UNR, a publication of the Whittemore's 'alma mater', WPI's host institution, and the recipient of millions of dollars as a result of the Whittemore's WPI lobbying: that is, perhaps not an independent, third-party source.

As for Lombardi, the WPI research profiles page, at least as it existed in early January, included any information you couldn't find in the CFIDS article. In my notes, I had used this page as a source, but I may not have transferred it to the article. I will do so now.

Efforts to assume good faith of other editors are strongly encouraged. I created this article specifically so that CFS interest editors could have a place other than the inappropriate XMRV to portray the ongoing controversy, and I have spent a moderate amount of time collecting sources, researching and writing. I apologise for omitting some of the URLs and leaving some sentences with only one source rather than two or more. I have made such mistakes of omission not because of any ill intent or participation in a POV-pushing conspiracy, as some editors have implied here and on other talk pages. Please, let's work together in a collegial and polite manner, discuss all changes as Sam Weller has suggested and pursue dispute resolution when we cannot agree compromises here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

However, this article is entitled "Whittemore Peterson Institute" and not "Keepcalmandcarryon's view of the CFS controversies around XMRV". The primary test of content inclusion is its appropriateness to the subject of the article, the WPI. I agree that the current XMRV related controversy relating to CFS is an appropriate section in article Nonetheless, I will resist any efforts to restrict or bias the content solely to this controversy. -- TerryE (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal

Our policy on NPOV disputes states that "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." We also know that tags are meant to be a temporary measure.

Since the tag was added by Ward20, the user's objections have been discussed extensively on the talk page and even dismissed as "getting ridiculous" by one editor (not I). We've had an uninvolved editor respond to the RfC, characterising the article as "fairly NPOV" whilst giving several suggestions for improvement. It's now been over a week since Ward20 last commented here. In no instance has Ward20 suggested alternative wording to specific passages he or she considers POV. The NPOV tag is no longer appropriate, if indeed it ever was. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the bartender anecdote being removed if you want. I'd suggest Ward20 makes some suggestions here and/or just makes some changes to the article to fix the perceived problems. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, why the accusations? The NPOV tag was added here after much objection [51][52] about issues actionable within content policies; neutrality, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and specific wording not supported by sources. Examine the history of the article and discussion page. I and at other editors discussed specific problems and non NPOV wording throughout the article and edited the article to try and correct the issues before and after the NPOV tag was added. Many of the edits to address NPOV have been reverted. Many of the original NPOV issues discussed are still in the article.

:I'll start with two large issues. These aren't the only ones, but let's keep it simple for now.

The lead on 14 January 2010 stated, "and dedicated to researching illnesses that are caused by "acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system", such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism." [53][54]. Now it states, "and known for a controversial 2009 report that xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV), a retrovirus, is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)[no source]." The present version must have a source to verify the content. It's not negotiable, it's Wikipedia policy. How can there be meaningful discussion of the merits of content from different sources when no sources are given for one of the contested statements? If it's obvious, supply a source so it can be compared with the sourced material.

The Whittemore Peterson Institute#Mission section should at least start out simply by stating the present mission statement of the institute. Instead it's a mishmash from various sources, "The Whittemores envisioned", "has been known as", "As stated by the Whittemores", "The institute's research has involved". It shouldn't be a description from a patchwork of material from many different sources, that's a recipe for original research which is exactly what it is. I will also slowly make some changes as sciencewatcher suggested. Ward20 (talk) 07:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, can I ask that you avoid using the possessive article to refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, unless of course you wish to make explicit and specific claims of role over the other editors active on this page?

There is a general dispute which litters the content of this talk page between the views and editing actions of yourself on the one side, and ward20 and myself on the other. In my opinion, sciencewatch seems to aligned to your position in some aspects, as does Sam Weller to ours, but there does seem to be a broad 2:3 split amongst the active editors. The NPOV tag is a reasonable reflection of this state of affairs. Any comparisons to "Drive by tagging" simply do not apply as there is active continuing discussion between the editors concerned. Disputes do not time out after a week. They are closed by agreement or by arbitration. We've achieve neither.-- TerryE (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mission

The Whittemore Peterson Institute#Mission section should at least start out simply by stating the present mission statement of the institute. Instead it's a mishmash from various sources, "The Whittemores envisioned", "has been known as", "As stated by the Whittemores", "The institute's research has involved". It shouldn't be a description from a patchwork of material from many different sources, that's a recipe for original research which is exactly what it is. Ward20 (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bartender

I disagree with the removal of the bartender and failed company references, which are taken directly from The New York Times. Institutes usually hire their heads of research away from tenured faculty positions, etc. WPI hired its research head from a bar. She had been a technician, got her PhD, and did a post doc at NCI, and she had worked for a failed biotech company. She was not employed in science at the time of her hiring. How is that not relevant to this article? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Note, as well, that Labongo did not say the bartender reference should be removed. Labongo remarked, "I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the institute is lead by a "former bartender" and then get's a publication in Science". Labongo is not the only individual who is confused, judging from the current internet controversy. Nor did sciencewatcher ask for removal. This is clearly a well sourced and interesting anecdote that places WPI in perspective as an underdog, so to speak, a champion of the little guy, in the scientific world. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading Lobongo's comment, I see what you mean. Lobongo is puzzled at a former bartender being hired to lead a research institute and then getting published in Science - but that is precisely what happened. And now that I think about it, it does seem a bit puzzling! However we should maybe add some more info about what she did before becoming a bartender --sciencewatcher (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. I agree. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

@KCACO, sw, please read my earlier edit [55] which already discussed this point and which both Sam Weller and now Ward20 also endorse re the Bartender quote. I feel that you are acting unreasonably in reverting this edit. My idea of discussion and compromise is not that we always have to accept your edits and actions -- TerryE (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Employment in a failed company, and as a bartender at the time of her hiring has nothing to do with Mikovits as WPI's scientific director. Please provide a RS that states explicitly what bearing Mikovits' employment in a failed company and as a bartender has on WPI. Since Lobongo's comment was placed in an RFC section about NPOV and weight to a particular viewpoint, I believe the common interpetation would be that the bartender comment is about NPOV and weight, not chat about puzzlement she had been a bartender. Using trivia from various sources about a staff member to place "WPI in perspective as an underdog, so to speak, a champion of the little guy, in the scientific world" is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR. Ward20 (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read all comments on this page, and find no compelling reason to exclude this reliably sourced, interesting and relevant information. If the New York Times found it to be relevant, who are we to say it's not? That WPI hired a bartender, albeit one with previous experience in laboratories, is of no interest to you or to Wikipedia readers?

My interpretation of the Labongo comment is that it's strange for a bartender to get a Science paper; nothing was stated or implied about NPOV.

Let's be clear about one thing: I have no interest in the Whittemore Peterson Institute other than portraying it accurately, in a verifiable, encyclopaedic manner, and, if need be, over the objections of individuals who support or oppose WPI for whatever personal, emotional or ideological reason. It has become rather apparent that we could not truthfully say as much of several other editors contributing here, editors who, I would suggest, should recognise that their apparently deeply personal, emotional involvement with the subject could be affecting their objectivity here. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ward20: SYNTH and OR don't apply to talk pages. KKCO was simply giving a 'big picture' reason why we should include certain things. It's our job as editors to decide what is important, and the 'big picture' is the way we do this. We obviously don't put this into the article, but all of us need to have a big picture idea in order to do any kind of editing on wikipedia. And that brings us to another issue: some editors here seem to have a very skewed 'big picture' of WPI, and that is affecting their editing. There is clearly a lot of fishiness about WPI - although we never explicitly say that in the article we certainly should be putting in reliable sources giving the fishy facts (e.g. Mikovits' ridiculous conspiracy theories). If you don't see this obvious fishiness, perhaps you are not in a good position to be editing this article.

Like KKCO, I have no emotional attachment to WPI or XMRV. It wouldn't bother me one way or the other if XMRV was or was not linked to CFS - my interest is only in the facts. Unfortunately I can't say the same for any of the other editors here, most of whom seem to desperately want XMRV to be linked to CFS. I would call that a WP:COI. --sciencewatcher (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether on not there is an RS on Dr Mikovits and this bartender anecdote is irrelevant. This is pure muck racking. This article is about WPI. Any discussion of Mikovits should be entirely within her role within WPI and her previous academic and work experience which qualifies her for this role. This anecdote is no more relevant than her religion, ethnicity, or private hobbies. As both KCACO have stated she was in between jobs because her previous employer failed, which we must assume unless there is a solid RS to the contrary, was no reflection on her professional ability. IMHO, the fact that she was willing to accept this type of gainful employment is a positive reflection on her character, but again this also has no place in an article about WPI. -- TerryE (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why the employment history of the lead researcher is not relevant. I'm not desperate to keep it in or leave it out, but it just strikes me as strange that you think it is 'muck raking'. Was the NY Times muck raking? --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The bartender anecdote has questionable relevance and would be better suited for an article on Dr Mikovits herself, but I am not going to get involved. - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am puzzled that Keepcalmandcarryon and Sciencewatcher interpreted "I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the institute is lead by a 'former bartender' and then gets a publication in Science." (emphasis added) as "I was puzzled that the institute is lead by a 'former bartender' and then gets a publication in Science." Seems like a distortion of Lobongo's actual statement. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I read it correctly. It's like saying "I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the sun rises in the east and then sets in the west". If you are puzzled by a fact in an article, then the article isn't at fault. But if you think Lobongo's comment is unclear, perhaps you should ask him/her to clarify it. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Set em up Judy... Sam Weller (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did a google of "+mikovits NEAR +bartender" and excepting this article, the only other relevant hit was this [56] which probably used Wikipedia as its source. I guess that I am not used to this level of obscenity and profanity in a "science blog". Let's hope that we all now accept that this quote has no place in the WPI article. -- TerryE (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to wonder where KCCO's interest in inserting and defending trivia like this is coming from. I thought WP was an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The link I posted just above shows a serious, hardworking, innovative and productive scientist. You would think her HIV research would be more interesting to KCCO. I haven't been following events at Harvey Whittemore, but a quick look suggests more of the same. Sam Weller (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Post moved from Personal Interests? below )Re my post on K's talk page, can I give another current example of K's morphing of RS which I only realised last night: the Bartender debate. K introduced the wording "Mikovits ... was working as a bartender when a patron introduced her to the Whittemores through a mutual friend" [57] citing the NYT. It was hard to verify at the time because this was a non-URI reference, however all of our discussions were in the context of her working as a full time bar worker. The URI was added later, so you can now read the article [58]. What it actually says is "She was tending bar at a yacht club when a patron said her constant talk about viruses reminded him of someone he knew in Nevada. That person was a friend of Annette Whittemore’s. Dr. Mikovits soon found herself at a conference on chronic fatigue syndrome."

So what's difference? People can serve at a bar without "working as a bartender"; I have, but I was never paid for it. My point is we actually don't know if JM was employed as a bartender or not. (Incidentally, what I find difficult to reconcile with this inference was that Mikovits stated on her recent Pro Health presentation that "it was Kristen Loomis who put us together by asking me to attend that meeting in Barcelona, Spain", and she knew Loomis from her previous HHV6 interest and research). However, the NYT article mentioned a personal interest anecdote within a wider story. OK, it was framed to lay down an implicit assumption for the reader to make, but it stopped short of what might be a potentially libellous statement. On the other hand our wording singled out this one point and transformed it into the simple claim that she "was working as a bartender". It was our wording that was quoted on the internet.

So my problem with K is that when I review her content there are often instances where the RS wording has been transformed and in my view changing the meaning in the process. Every time that I challenge such an example, the whole thing becomes a gruelling debate. Just look at this Bartender case: some 1,500 words of discussion not counting this post, with <edit, undo, redo, undo, redo, undo> on the article for an unverified comment that really doesn't belong in the WPI anyway. What a waste of everyone's time. -- TerryE (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (End of post moved)

Judy Mikovits is the director of the institute, is its highest-paid employee, represents WPI in public and is the senior investigator on its only notable scientific article to date. Biographical details about Mikovits are thus quite germane to an article on WPI. Such details are currently in short supply in reliable, independent sources, i.e., media sources that are not CFS interest publications. The New York Times is one of the few such sources to cover Mikovits at all, as compared with simply quoting her; this paper is also considered, according to Wikipedia policy, to be one of the most reliable sources available. What the New York Times reports about Mikovits's employment history is reliable and does not exclude or deny her status as a "serious, hardworking, innovative and productive scientist". That CFS patients and advocates view this information as threatening, to be deleted at all cost, further establishes its significance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Which other scientists have also worked as bar-tenders (or other such time-filling jobs?) Would we expect this information to be included with wikipedia references to them? Or is this an unusual addition? gf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.177.29 (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When any notable scientist is described by the New York Times as working in a bar at the time of their hiring to a prominent position, and when the bar is further described by the New York Times as the setting in which the job placement was initiated, then, yes, we should certainly include that information, as unusual and quite possibly unique in the hiring history of Institute directors as that information might be. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's my point below, K. She's had an eminent history of related reseach work with 42 Pubmed papers to her name covering covering a range of viral (mostly retroviral and cancer related) research. The most recent RS indicates that she was hired by the WPI after an intro by an ex-associate, the president of the HHV-6 foundation. However, none of this is relevant in your view. The NYT didn't describe her as "working in a bar". You did, and you haven't produced a verifiable source that supports your claim that she was in full time employment as a bartender, for how long and what the context is. This all just smoke and mirrors smear, but you just won't let go will you? -- TerryE (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to clarify the length of Mikovits's employment at the bar, contact the New York Times and ask them to expand their story or to run a new article on Mikovits. Until further information emerges, all we know about this episode is that Mikovits worked in a bar and came to be employed at WPI as a result of the good offices of a customer she met there. The NYT states that Mikovits was tending bar in a yacht club, and that, in doing so, she met an individual who introduced her to the Whittemores because of their mutual interest in viruses. That's all. I never claimed that bartending was her only job, her full-time job or the only skill she has. I have never claimed that her employment history at the NCI was irrelevant. This article should describe RS aspects of the Institute director's employment history without regard to whether you or I consider them flattering. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No K, you misunderstand how this process works. The NYJ journalist said she was "tending bar" [at a specific point in time]. I've tended a bar, but I've never "worked as a bartender". The two aren't necessarily the same. If you choose to rephrase an RS then the onus is on you, the rephraser, to justify why you've done this and to substantiate it. It isn't my job to prove that your wording is flawed. Mikovits has since gone on record [59] giving a far more realistic background to her introduction to AW.

But why do you keep coming back to this silly point anyway. Even if your interpretation was 100% true and she was at full time work as a bartender for a period of what -- a day? a week? a year? -- what on earth has that got to do with her qualifications to do her role in WPI? Why not respond instead to my point about her papers in Pubmed or Sam's about her strong bio. I am sorry but unless you come up with a constructive response, I am done talking on this issue. -- TerryE (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal Interest ?

(Split off this point of KCACOs into a separate section. It's nothing to do with the bartender debate.) -- TerryE (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that at least one of the editors here is involved personally in the scientific debate over the WPI vs. McClure results, intervening to attack McClure over patient selection. I, too, would call that a conflict of interest. When editors are deleting information that doesn't resonate with their own view of the subject, even when that information comes from the New York Times (who, if anything, have been rather generous in their coverage of WPI), there's a conflict issue that isn't good for the project. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't about talk pages, It's specifically about material in the article supporting a POV that has not been advanced by a RS, that's SYNTH.

'big picture'? "There is clearly a lot of fishiness about WPI"? How is this "obvious fishiness" a way to objectively approach an article?

Isn't this personal attacks, "my interest is only in the facts. Unfortunately I can't say the same for any of the other editors here". What? Is there proof, "Many of the other editors here have publicly stated that they desperately want XMRV to be linked to CFS"? Ward20 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How can someone "attack McClure over patient selection"? McClure wasn't involved in patient selection of the study This statement doesn't make sense. Ward20 (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've edited my comment about other editors - see above. Regarding the fishiness: I stand by that. Anyone with an objective view has to see the fishiness. If you don't, you aren't being objective and you shouldn't be editing here - it is as simple as that. To give just a few examples: what kind of reputable scientist engages in ridiculous conspiracy theories to trash anyone who fails to replicate their experiment? And then there is the inconvenient fact that they are selling $650 tests to patients even before the test is validated. --sciencewatcher (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record I confirm that I am the TerryE who submitted this comment on PLoS ONE using the standard open review process. As I explained on my talk page it was a specific technical review comment relating to the introduction of selection bias into the trial design of the KCH/Imperial study. There was no personal attack on any authors of the study. I had no intention of citing this as an RS in any discussion as I do not consider my academic qualifications in this area sufficient to qualify under Wikipedia criteria. By Keepcalmandcarryon's argument, anyone involved with this page who has also reviewed articles, published articles or other Internet content relating to CFS, XMRV, WPI or any academic source indirectly related to these should recluse themselves also.

However if the consensus amongst editors here is that by giving this comment on PLoS ONE I have disqualified myself from contribution then I will accept that consensus -- TerryE (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC).

The fact that TerryE posted criticisms at PLoS ONE about the patient selection of the UK study, is not really relevant to the issue at hand. I could be wrong, but I am now suspicious that speculations about motivations and hypothetical COI are being used to undermine TerryE's edits. Also, Sciencewatcher's claim of having "no emotional attachment to WPI or XMRV" is dubious, considering that it was only 2 months ago that discussing XMRV research made him angry for personal reasons.[60] He believes that CFS is a psychosomatic illness and has effectively admitted a grudge against biomedical proponents, but so what, we are all entitled to our views and experiences, so can we please focus on the edits rather than the editors?

As far as I know or can confirm, the claim about insurance companies is not something that has clear evidence to support it, but it is indeed possible because there is huge amounts of money at stake for insurance companies, governments and researchers depending on whether CFS becomes universally recognised as an organic disease or as primarily a mental health issue. Regardless of the validity of that claim, I believe Sciencewatcher is engaging in character assassination and showering doubt on one research group over something that is rather common (CFS researchers standing to make money indirectly from their research). - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read TerryE's signed comment at Plos One. It was a fair technical point about possible selection bias. I fail to see why that should prevent him editing here. It's not like he's doing anything fishy - such as running a website promoting his pet theory on the cause and cure of CFS, while editing here incognito. Then I really would be worried about COI. Sam Weller (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Tek: re. your suspicion "hypothetical COI are being used to undermine TerryE's edits." Also bear in mind the behaviour towards TerryE on his talk page: [61][62][63] and most recently [64]. What do you suggest? Sam Weller (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We are starting to stray off relevance here, and I admit it was mostly my fault. But let me just clarify my that 'outburst' that I made on my talk page a while ago: it's not the fact of physical vs psychosomatic that makes me angry, it is people twisting the facts and the science. I get just as mad at people who try to say that MSG causes health problems or that homeopathy works. The fact is, most CFS patients want the illness to be caused by a virus, and WPI's founders believed that the illness must be an infectious disease before they set up the institute. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't think Terry's comment on PlosOne should stop him editing. It's not as if he is publishing research - he's just making a comment. I actually wrote a long comment myself on the PlosOne site, but due to their technical problems my comment never appeared (and afterwards I decided it was probably better not to post it anyway, but not for wikipedia reasons). --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've neither stated nor implied that TerryE should "recluse" himself from editing. I encouraged TerryE to "consider your motivations for editing Whittemore Peterson Institute and related articles" and stated that his personal involvement in the XMRV CFS debate "may" interfere with "objective participation in encyclopaedia editing on this subject". A common recommendation to individuals involved in controversies covered by Wikipedia is to limit involvement to the talk page. I have attempted always to remain polite and civil with TerryE, despite the constant sarcasm, personal attacks, accusations of harming his health and even an intimation that Harvey Whittemore might sue me. I have praised TerryE's abilities and have encouraged TerryE to make constructive contributions to the project.

Since I created this article, TerryE and other individuals with a decided POV on this issue have attacked me, the article and other contributions I've made. This article was decried on WPI's Facebook site almost immediately: a WPI fan wrote, "Already a Wikipedia page has been set up on WPI that erroneously claims ... ". Facebook WPI friends also discussed an ongoing "experiment" with Wikipedia (the XMRV article specifically) and concluded that there was, indeed, a government conspiracy when their edits were reverted. They thanked each other for their "work". In late December, a WPI Facebook fan known as "Xand Xmrv" asked, "Somebody knows how to edit in the wikipedia? I have the feeling that there is a "black government hand" editing it..."

I'm not sure why sinister government hands are supposed to be black, but this statement gives us insight into the mindset behind the behaviour we've observed round the XMRV debate on this page and others. Certain CFS patients, advocates and researchers are notorious for their strident views and actions, and have recently, admittedly with a great deal of hyperbole, been called "The terrorists of health" by one patently annoyed professional in Psychology Today. I feel this characterisation is unfair, but I also recognise that the intransigent POV of certain individuals does not lend itself to objective editing and has caused numerous problems in the past. The lack of civility towards Sciencewatcher is just the latest issue. I am one individual. I can't stop a deluge of illness advocates from overrunning this and related articles. I can only appeal to whatever respect they might have for this collaborative project: put Wikipedia, the sources, the science first, not your ideology. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, your statement at the beginning of this section was "It would appear that at least one of the editors here is involved personally in the scientific debate over the WPI vs. McClure results, intervening to attack McClure over patient selection. I, too, would call that a conflict of interest." Perhaps with the exception of this direct and personal criticism, what I try to discuss on these pages are those of your contributions which I believe fall outside the appropriate WP guidelines and polices, together with the process by which we reach consensus.

As to other sites, I am always open about acknowledging my sourcing of contribution just as here: the OpenOffice.org, VirtualBox, phpBB forums, their companion wikis and wherever else I work (and I try to use the name TerryE if available). I had nothing to do with the WPI's Facebook site and I wasn't even aware that it existed. Your next paragraph is also nothing to do with me or my proposed "Personal interest?". Certainly as far as my relationship with Sciencewatcher goes, we know we have different POVs and often spar on these discussion pages, but we keep this amicable because this sparring is about the content and not personal issues; if I have been unwittingly uncivil to him, then I apologise. -- TerryE (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has been uncivil, but we are certainly skirting it. It's good that we have cleared the air, but now I think everyone needs to chill out (including me). My suggestion would be for us to try and get a few experienced but neutral editors to have a look at this page and see what they think. I don't think we are going to get anywhere by continuing this discussion. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keepcalmandcarryon. For historical context, some of the editors here (including me) have had previous issues with User:RetroS1mone, who IMHO would often attempt to undermine other editors' work with speculations about their motives, be hypersensitive to perceived "incivility", issue distorted claims about "threats", claim neutrality while twisting the wording, and conceive conspiracy theories about editors. That pseudo-saga has prompted me to become very suspicious about similar tactics, and despite your relative politeness, I am concerned that some of your talk comments may be bordering similarities with these tactics.

Your claim of TerryE's "personal involvement" COI would make more sense if TerryE was a co-author in the US study or an employee at WPI, not just a CFS patient critical of the UK study for methodological reasons. I do not see convincing evidence that TerryE has expressed "constant sarcasm, personal attacks, accusations of harming his health and even an intimation that Harvey Whittemore might sue me", perhaps an exaggeration? Although you did not directly accuse TerryE and others here of being "the terrorists of health", guilt by association seems to be implied. And what "incivility towards Sciencewatcher " is there?

NPOV policy allows people of differing opinions to collaborate on a consensus. Having a declared interest in CFS does not preclude someone from practical or rational involvement. At least a declared interest is known, compared to no declaration. Unless you know what their beliefs are and can demonstrate that their edits are putting their ideology first over the science, there is no point bringing it up. If you feel like you are the vanguard against POV warriors, I do not know what the best course of action is. There are current RfCs for the "Harvey Whittemore" and "Whittemore Peterson Institute" articles. I have no interest in the former and only a minor interest in the latter, but I would like to see a cessation of trivial accusations and a refocus on actual edits. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference to "even an intimation that HW ..." refers to this incident Perceived legal threat. The administrator's summary in dismissing the claim was "Definitely not a legal threat. He's saying that the editor should be careful, and humorously pointed out that the subject is a lawyer!" which was certainly my intent at the time.

The accusation of "accusations of harming his health" relates to a post that made on Keepcalmandcarryon's talk page [65] which she deleted as a "rant"; I guess it could be called that and it was her talk page, but in that case why cite it now in various talk pages? It's just that the discussions on the AW-G article where getting heated; the stress of this was starting to effect my CFS symptoms and my wife asked me to stop posting on Wikipedia. (Yes, sw, I do agree that stress effects CFS suffers). On reflection I could have expressed it better, but please read what I wrote; I was trying to explain why I decided to take a sabbatical not attacking K personally. One of the BPLN reviewers asked me to keep up my efforts and not leave so I decided to stay but make a particular effect to stick to discussing the content and contributions, and avoid negative criticism of individuals. I only bring this up now with you because I feel that I need to explain the context.

Like sw, I feel that we should just move on, so I repeat my previous statement: I did not personally attack any of the contributors to the KCH/Imperial paper, and I have not intentionally mounted attacks on K here on Wikipedia or on any other public website. However, since these issues seem to re-emerge after "closure", I would really appreciate her confirmation that she accepts my statements, so that we can genuinely move on -- TerryE (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have decided to move a previous post of mine [66] to the correct point Bartender section since this was its subject. It wasn't about my "Personal Interests?" or moving on. -- TerryE (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Comment requested on the following: Is the article NPOV? Does it lend too much weight to a particular viewpoint? Are sources misrepresented? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you KCACO, but I did ask that we discuss next steps before requesting arbitration, so that we could agree the wording of the request. This page is about a chartered charitable institute and therefore the RFC should also fall under the econ category. -- TerryE (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved person: article seemed to be fairly NPOV. It may have an undue weight in being to paranoid about the institutes funding and mission. For example it seems out of place to criticize in the "Mission" section the feasibility of the research goals (the critique should be in a separate section). Also, I was puzzled that the article gives an impression that the institute is lead by a "former bartender" and then get's a publication in Science. I would suggest you reorganize the article to first present the institute (mission, funding, staff, etc), and then have a separate section about the controversy that apparently surrounds the institute. Finally, I am not going to check all sources so if someone believes a source is misrepresented they need to identify the source and what misrepresentation. Labongo (talk) 05:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It is certainly not NPOV to use the unexplained adjective "controversial" in the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph should not seek to cast a pall over the remainder of the article. If the subject's work is controversial, explain why using sourced material, but that's not the role of the descriptive outline. In addition, the heavy use of in-line citations throughout the article is distracting. Uncontroversial statements like "this person is this official" don't need to be individually cited, as long as it's easy to find them using the article's sources. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• From #08 February 2010 edit summaries section, "Is it correct to note that the Science article is controversial?" No, after examining the the sources,[67][68][69][70] they do not state the Science article is controversial. They state that the cause of the illness is still controversial and that the two papers have not clarified the issue. What the papers are mostly discussing are claims or theories the virus causes the illness; something the Science article never did, and the sources don't state it did. This was discusssed on February 6th also.[71][72] A NPOV problem is discussed above by AtSwimTwoBirds. Four editors (AtSwimTwoBirds) (TerryE) (Sam Weller) (Ward20) do not believe the controversial wording belongs in the lead. Ward20 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't vote on what's in a source. The Economist describes this as a fight, complete with battle sound-effects...and it's not controversial? We have any number of sources underlining the controversial nature of the report, starting with the accompanying editorial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The Economist[73] may add sound effects for reader interest, but they also say:

"Frustrating though this may be for sufferers from CFS, it is discussions like these, as one group of researchers tries to replicate the results of another, that lead to scientific progress. In the meantime, one of the companies licensed to do the American XMRV test claims that of the 300 patients, including some from Britain, who have sent samples in for testing, 36% have tested positive for XMRV. It seems likely that the causes of CFS will continue to be a subject of controversy for a while yet." (emphasis added).

Asking again for the wording from the sources that verify the claim. I don't know what "accompanying editorial" is being referenced. Ward20 (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not a battle or a fight, then, if somewhere in some article the word "discussion" is found? When conflicting claims are present, there is controversy, discussion or not. Do you maintain that the WPI article has been universally accepted, that scientists are in complete harmony that XMRV is associated with CFS? If so, what are your sources? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As for your requested sources, even before the UK study appeared, scientists from the skeptical reviewers (as emphasised by WPI) to the contamination-suspecting De Risi (and many others) questioned the results and the methods. See W. Reeves, too. There is no conceivable way to pretend this article is not controversial. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the Economist piece, the word discussion is used to specifically describe and put in perspective the summary statement of the "fight" (as you described it), "As scientific punch-ups go, this is shaping up to be a good one, with blows (albeit polite ones) being thrown across the Atlantic." If all research had to be "universally accepted", and scientists had to be "in complete harmony" everything would be controversial. Your argument is a straw man. Sorry. Putting the word controversial in the lead to make the rest of the article suspect is not NPOV. Specific wording from sources that verify the claim still haven't been produced by the way. Ward20 (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

XMRV and prostate cancer is a similar situation, yet XMRV article never uses controversial when describing prostate cancer research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.82.241 (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ampligen

A well-sourced sentence about a formerly experimental drug was deleted by Terry E with the explanation that it constituted synthesis and "We don't know when and why AH stopped this drug so this RS quote is irrelevant." In fact, the New York Times states that side effects forced the individual to stop taking the drug. We also know that she stopped taking it before the rejection by the FDA.

Ampligen is not a drug with proven efficacy for CFS, nor is it free of reactions, as evidenced by the FDA rejection. An encyclopaedia can't introduce the drug without explaining this. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am going senile, but I've found it wise to check your references for your claimed content. In this case the referenced article [74] (pages 1 and 2) doesn't even contain the word Ampligen so I missed the quote at the bottom of the page "For a while, Ms. Whittemore-Goad had improved on an antiviral drug, but she had to stop taking it because she had a reaction to it." However, since this isn't specific about which drug, to state "she was treated with an experimental antiviral drug, Ampligen, by Daniel Peterson. Side effects have since forced her to discontinue use of the drug" citing this sentence is WP:SYNTH so my decision was correct. Please find explicit RS reference, and then you can reinstate the text.

It would greatly help future discussions if you provided the verbatim extracts which support your case, so we can understand what you are taking about. Thanks. -- TerryE (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the URI of the Philadelphia Business Journal. What I am slightly confused about is that I found this by doing a search on Ampligen in the PBJ website. When I did this I found an article published on the 14th Jan [75] which provides some follow-up clarification.

OK we already have the following coatrack chain (forgive the mixed metaphor)

• Article about WPI
  • whose President is AW
    • her daughter
      • who took drug which absolutely nothing to do with WPI or its scope of research
        • which was withdrawn from experimental use by FDA after she had stopped taking it.

Surely, this is piece of information is totally irrelevant to WPI. Nonetheless if the consensus of the editors is that this fact should go in then we should be saying stating something that actually are a more unbiased reflection of the content of these two references, for example:

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration has rejected an application for Ampligen as an experimental treatment for CFS and recommended at least one additional clinical study, involving a minimum of 300 patients taking the drug for six months, “which shows convincing effect and confirms safety in the target population.” In Jan 2010, the makers of Ampligen submitted reports of new preclinical data, which it believes should be sufficient to address certain preclinical issues raised by the federal agency".

However, this really does underscore my original point: what on earth has this got to do with the WPI? And why therefore does one editor include it then reinstate it twice into the article when other editors have queried its inclusion? -- TerryE (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it's OT. I merely ungarbled the OR/SYN, without thereby endorsing it. Sam Weller (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

When I read the article, this part stood out as strange to me too. I'm not sure why it's been included. - gf1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.177.29 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the above discussion, I feel that it is entirely reasonable to remove this fourth indirect reference here. I will leave the reference to Ampligen given our agreement to merge the relevant content on AW-G after the agreed deletion of her article. -- TerryE (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In her bulk revert below, Keepcalmandcarryon has stated "That Ampligen was rejected by the FDA as a CFS treatment deserves and in fact demands mention per our policies on medicine-related claims. It's unfair to our readers to give the impression of drug efficacy without also mentioning that the FDA has not found it efficacious." She has not chosen to respond to my coatrack chain: WPI->its president->her daughter->took drug which absolutely nothing to do with WPI->which was withdrawn from experimental use by FDA after she had stopped taking it. Moreover, yes AWG took Ampligen as part an FDA approved trial some years ago, and yes, its makers applied for approval to market and the FDA turned this down, asking for more approved trials to take place, so there are people like AWG taking part in FDA approved trial today.

I am quite happy for K to try to attempt to raise this point on the Ampligen or Daniel Peterson pages where there is at least some relevance, but what on earth what has this got to do with WPI? If she's feels that it's "unfair to our readers to give the impression of drug efficacy without also mentioning that the FDA has not found it efficacious." then the obvious compromise is to drop all references to Ampligen. -- TerryE (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All This Has Happened Before: The XMRV Imbroglio, Act II

IMO, this blog All This Has Happened Before: The XMRV Imbroglio, Act II is better written and referenced than any of the newspaper and magazine articles cited in the controversy section - as you would expect from a highly regarded science encyclopedist and editor. It contextualises the XMRV controversy within a pattern of predictable behaviour towards other 'unwelcome' scientific findings. Should we use it? Sam Weller (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, his blog is incredibly POV towards XMRV causing CFS. Secondly he gives a completely unrelated example. I'm sure any of us here could think of another 10 examples where the exact opposite happened. Also, it's nowhere near a reliable source, but it's interesting that you should suggest it as one. --sciencewatcher (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for this; it makes very interesting reading and I need to ponder. The first question to me is that this is a blog and the WP:RS guidelines indicate that a blog can be cited as a RS if the author is a "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Whilst Gilman is a reputable science writer[76], his expertise in this field probably falls short of this test, but then again he is making no specific claims about the findings themselves, but focusing on the controversy.

sw, I am not sure what you mean by "incredibly POV towards XMRV causing CFS" since on careful reading it makes absolutely no claims about XMRV being the causal agent for CFS, so I would disagree with this statement. What is does to is to present a secondary analysis of the two main XMRV / CFS studies. It also introduces an analogy with the GM transgene controversy, the introduction of which wouldn't enrich this article, IMHO. I would be inclined to wait until we have further MEDRS sources before extending the content. What I feel that we should focus on in the meantime is tidying up the core article. -- TerryE (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Terry, it is pretty clear on reading the article that he believes that XMRV does cause CFS - that is the whole thrust of his argument. And I don't see how the GM controversy has anything remotely to do with XMRV. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sciencewatcher, I agree that the GM controversy has anything remotely to do with XMRV, and that was a point that I was trying to make. Sorry if I didn't spell it out clearly. His thrust is that the WPI has gone through a more rigorous review process and that "his money is on" the WPI paper. Given that this WPI paper explicitly states that its findings do not prove a causal link between CFS and XMRV, I feel that the "it is pretty clear" is your reading. However, whether we agree or not on this point doesn't effect the content of this WPI article :-) -- TerryE (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Strong correlation" is what Gilman said, echoing "highly significant association" in Science. It was Coffin who wrote (in Science) that XMRV is "a virus whose pathogenic potential for humans is still unknown. However, it is clear that closely related viruses cause a variety of major diseases, including cancer, in many other mammals. Further study may reveal XMRV as a cause of more than one well-known 'old' disease, with potentially important implications for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy."

Gilman quotes PlosOne as stating their peer review took 3 days. Shouldn't that be mentioned? Presently it looks like Mikovits's sour grapes, but the journal says that. Also, why is it absolutely vital to mention the sensitivity of the PlosOne test, but delete any mention of the differences between the two studies (Canadian vs Oxford, fresh WBC vs frozen whole blood, different DNA sequence, PCR and culture vs PCR only, too many to list)? Sam Weller (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But did the 'peer review' take 3 days? It was 3 days from submission to acceptance, but then another month until publication.

I don't have any objection to removing the sensitivity of the PlosOne test, but it wasn't me who added that.

I've copied the talk about Plos One sensitivity to Talk:Xenotropic_murine_leukemia_virus-related_virus#PCR_sensitivity Sam Weller (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the differences in the two studies: are they significant? AFAIK the UK team used Fukuda, not Oxford. And if we mention that, we perhaps should mention that the Canadian criteria aren't suitable for research. For example: the Mikovits team tested RnaseL, but that is not a recognised test for distinguishing CFS from controls. By using that as part of their patient selection, they are using a less reliable criteria than the UK team. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The blog is obviously not MEDRS but arguably is RS. It seems that Gilman believes XMRV is important to CFS and will be vindicated, drawing parallels between the XMRV-CFS and GM controversies. However, he does not actually say that it "causes" CFS in such a simplistic sense. I do not remember which news article it was, but in one of them the UK team (or someone from it) accuses the US team of "rushing" the results, which I find odd considering that the US team used 3 different laboratories and the peer-review took 3 months (vs 3 days to 1 month). The US team also used the Fukuda definition, and whether or not the Canadian definition is "suitable for research" is a matter of opinion; it has a diagnostic criteria that can be followed, so why would it be so difficult to use it for research? - Tekaphor (TALK) 02:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Canadian criteria, it says things like 'show diagnostic promise' (for brain scanning). As for RNaseL (which the US team used), the research clearly shows that it does not clearly distinguish between CFS patients and controls. They use an arbitrary cut-off, which catches 28% of controls and 88% of patients (according to one study). Also, if you read the Canadian criteria it says 'most positive findings of immune system involvement in a physical examination are usually only present in the acute stage and then diminish or become recurrent'. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What the authors of the Canadian consensus document speculate about testing 7 years ago has nothing to do with applying the Canadian criteria to patient selection. - Tekaphor (TALK) 04:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Tek. I was mistaken about the Plos One sensitivity test - it keeps being reverted in XMRV, not here. We should not be arguing whether one study or the other is right. Coffin says they both might be right. But failing to describe important differences between the two studies leaves the impression that the same test got done twice with different results. Which is how the media reported it. Sam Weller (talk) 09:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

So, if the 7 year old Canadian criteria can't be used for patient selection, why are you saying that the US study is better than the UK one because it used the Canadian creteria to select their patients? Surely the opposite is the case. The fact is, serious researchers don't use the Canadian criteria - it is simply used by patient groups and their supporters (such as WPI) because they believe it makes CFS a more 'physical' condition. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Under "Further Laboratory Testing", the Canadian definition [77] does recommend testing " ... NK cell activity, flow cytometry for lymphocyte activity [...] , 37-kDa 2-5A RNase L immunoassay ...". It indeed states that brain scans (qEEG, SPECT and PET) "show diagnostic promise" and that "most promising findings of immune system involvement ..." become unreliable over time. In the "Supporting Online Materials and Methods" for the US (Lombardi et al 2009) XMRV study [78], it states: " ... diagnosis of CFS is based upon prolonged disabling fatigue and the presence of cognitive deficits and reproducible immunological abnormalities. These included but were not limited to perturbations of the 2-5A synthetase/RNase L antiviral pathway, low natural killer cell cytotoxicity (as measured by standard diagnostic assays), and elevated cytokines particularly interleukin-6 and interleukin-8. ... ".

I never said "Canadian criteria can't be used for patient selection". When I said that the unsuitability of the Canadian definition is a matter of opinion, you raised the issue of the unreliability of brain scans and immune system testing. But this is not the same as selecting patients, based on symptoms, who meet the multiple major criteria (chronic fatigue, post-exertional malaise, chronic pain, sleep dysfunction) and minor criteria ("neurological/cognitive", "autonomic", "neuroendocrine" and "immune" manifestations/symptoms). You are criticising Lombardi et al for using, and the Canadian definition for recommending, objective tests; a common claim is that there are no reliable tests or biomarkers for CFS because they are not found in all patients, however such tests do not need to have perfect sensitivity and specificity to guide diagnosis.

As for your question, "why are you saying that the US study is better than the UK one because it used the Canadian criteria", I am guessing this is in response to something I said elsewhere, because I never said that above. All studies which are large enough should use multiple definitions for comparison. Researchers use CDC-1994 because it is authoritative, but research suggests it is inadequate and selects heterogeneous patient cohorts (which helps to explain the lack of universal findings). The Canadian definition was developed to better distinguish ME/CFS from other fatigue states, so perhaps it is more homogeneous; no one is saying it is perfect, but many patients and advocates endorse it because it is a much better reflection of their illness experience. And yes, a comparative study with the Canadian definition (Jason et al [79]) does suggest that it is "more physical" (more physical functional impairment, more fatigue/weakness, neuropsychiatric, neurologic symptoms) with less psychiatric comorbidity. Remember your failed attempt to discredit that? - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"patient-derived XMRV is infectious"

Apologies for posting this here and at Talk:Xenotropic_murine_leukemia_virus-related_virus#PCR_sensitivity.

Can we address the important post-PCR findings reported in Science that AFAIK have not been addressed or cited here, or at XMRV?

Cell culture experiments revealed that patient-derived XMRV is infectious and that both cell-associated and cell-free transmission of the virus are possible. Secondary viral infections were established in uninfected primary lymphocytes and indicator cell lines after their exposure to activated PBMCs, B cells, T cells, or plasma derived from CFS patients. PMID 19815723

1. WPI's pathogenic findings followed on from, and are potentially more important than, their original PCR detection. 2. The London team only tried to validate/replicate WPI's PCR work. What level of detail is appropriate, here and at XMRV? Sam Weller (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam, this a more general point as this is only one point covered, but Judy Mikovits did an absolutely fascinating and extremely detailed presentation of the WPI findings cohosted by the HHV-6 foundation on the 22nd. [80]. I strongly urge all active editors of this page to download these videos and watch them. The best way is to register for a vimeo and then you can download them in MOV/M4V formats to watch offline. The URLs that I used for download are [81] and [82]. These are recorded presentation of the WPI director of research and therefore qualify as RS (though falling short of MEDRS). However, given the presentation date 22 Jan it does represent the latest and best RS for issues to do with timelimes, WPI's perspective on the various controversies, etc. The links that I've given are for the hi-res (853 x 480) versions. There is a lower res version of the presentation [83], but it's well worth the extra 400Mb or so download if you want to read the slides.

As I said, fascinating viewing and highly recommended. I think that we should introduce some of this content into the article. -- TerryE (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC) + hires tweaks -- TerryE (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Terry. The quote I gave above is from the original Science abstract, not from later press releases or conferences. It's remarkable that there has been no mention of it in CFS, XMRV or here at WPI. Only the PCR detection has registered. Sam Weller (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

yes I know. I recognised it :-) It's just that JW goes into a bit more detail in her video presentation as well as a lot of other stuff, such as the protracted interaction with the Science review committee and the active involvement of other research teams as well some detailed technical and evidence based discussion of the particular issues that they had to overcome which were'nt really covered by the Imperial team. They did say that they were going to release the slide deck, but they haven't done so yet. Having watched this my views about that flaws in the KCH cohort selection are underlined in my view. Maybe we should open a talk topic on this when a few more have seen it. So lets leave this if and until we decide to have that discussion. -- TerryE (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sam Weller's opinion that the WPI's infection results are more important than PCR is certainly interesting, but without supporting statements from third parties, it can't well be discussed here. In any case, the contamination hypothesis (which is presented by independent sources but curiously has not made an appearance here), could explain WPI's results, both PCR and culture.

I would caution WPI's supporters here on Wikipedia not to turn this article into an ancillary wing of the organisation's self-advertising, but, instead, to derive the content as far as possible from third party sources. The desire of CFS patients such as TerryE to discuss and debate Mikovits's Q&A session is understandable and praiseworthy; Wikipedia, however, is not the proper location for such a discussion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating infectivity after detection is an important step in fulfilling Koch's postulates. Science emphasized that by including infection in the study title, but that part of their findings has been omitted here. Why? The contamination theory remains completely unproven. Does WP have a policy on using unproven objections to censor reported findings? Sam Weller (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

K, The WP:RS does not limit RS to third-party sources, as this RS falls into its "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Have you watched these videos yet or is your position just an abstract one about self-published sources? If you are suggesting that we should not discuss inclusion here first but simple add referenced content to the article, then I am happy to proceed on this basis.

BTW, I am seeking to build an informed and balanced article about WPI on the basis of RS. If you infering that I am acting as "WPI's supporters ... self-advertising", can you please avoid making unsubstantiated personal accusations and just stick to the content herein. -- TerryE (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Name

Isn't the proper name for the article The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease? Ward20 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Most people refer to it as the Whittemore Peterson Institute or the WPI, and there is only one institute. I would have added a redir for WPI, but the acronym has already been bagged by Worcester Polytechnic Institute so I have already added an entry in WPI (disambiguation). If we request a move of this article to the the full name we would still want to leave a the redir from the shortened form. Perhaps the easiest thing for now is to add a #Redirect for the full title to this article. It might save another potentially heated debate :) -- TerryE (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A redirect sounds good, for now, although Ward20 has a point. - Tekaphor (TALK) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We should refer to the institute by its official name. I failed to use the full title and would not object to a redirect or a new name. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would suggest that a new article be created on the XMRV controversy, which is not/no longer defined only by WPI's results and actions. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment we have one paper published in Science from a joint team made up from the WPI, Silverman's LRI and three separate departments of the NCI reporting over 2 years work. We also have a paper published in PLoS ONE from a joint team made up from Wessely's KCH and McClure's Jefferiss Research Trust team reporting 2 months work which gives contradictory findings to the first. So at the moment it does make sense to hang this controversy off the article on the lead authors of the first paper. We have a lot of general (that is non-expert) press comment and scant independent expert comment on the record. I suspect that what everyone is actually waiting for are the follow-up papers to be published. I suggest that we do likewise: wait for follow up papers to be published. It makes a lot more sense to do this split as part the work needed to integrate the third ... sources. -- TerryE (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with TerryE, if XMRV controversy means "XMRV and CFS". Is there a controversy about prostate cancer? "Aids controversy" only crops under World Bank, fwiw. Sam Weller (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Aetiology of CFS

I think this one is for sw, though I haven't trawled the history to confirm this. I was just checking the RS for the text "However, although associations of infection and immune dysfunction with disease have been reported at times, the disorders the WPI includes in this category, including CFS, are not yet generally accepted to have an infectious ('acquired') aetiology or to be caused consistently by immune or neurological dysfunction".

The RS itself is a good secondary review which makes good reading (I prefer it to the NICE quidelines version). However, it doesn't actually state its conclusion in this negative form. It states that "the aetiology and the pathogenic mechanisms of CFS are not fully understood, several hypotheses have been postulated" It then lists the main hypotheses: "Infectious theory", "Immunological theory" and "Neuroendocrinological theory" saying that the results are inconsistent for the first two, and the third (sw's favourite HPA hypothesis) is currently supported by more evidence. So it talks about published evidence rather than levels of acceptance amongst the expert or patient communities. Another, and I think more accurate way of combining the context of this RS in the context of the WPI mission would be:

There are three main hypotheses for the aetiology of CFS: Infectious theory, Immunological theory and Neuroendocrinological theory. The published findings for the first two are inconsistent, with the best evidence for the third [ref]. The Institutes's mission is to focus on research into these first two.

Comments? -- TerryE (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as far as it goes, but what about the other illnesses they believe are caused by neuro-immune disorder, such as autism? At the moment we don't even mention those in the article. As I understand it, we don't even need a RS to say that autism isn't believed to be caused by immune dysfunction. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in that the [ref] reviews CFS, but that the WPI mission statement does include the text (my ital for highlighting):

Our goals include:

• To facilitate and advance patient care
• Research the pathophysiology of neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism
• Develop therapeutics, diagnostics and prevention strategies for this spectrum of diseases
• To advance and support medical education and physician training

How would you suggest that we handle this? If we include this text in this section, then we have introduced WPI claims about atypical MS, and autism, and therefore it is entirely reasonable to cite secondary RS which puts this into MED context. I'll have a look in the Autism and the Multiple sclerosis articles, for suitable references on the medical consensus. On a superficial scan, the MS article only includes a passing reference to the atypical variant and two MEDRS(PMID 16446632 and PMID 9229127 which are not free access).

If I recall correctly, JM did describe in the 22nd presentation some examples of what she called cluster families which had incidents of atypical MS and autism as well as CFS. These atypical MS and autistic family members had tested positive for XMRV, but this is only an RS for WPI claims and not MED consensus. It is quite possible that we won't find a sutiable RS for atypical MS, and autism, and I would be uneasy about repeating this claim without caveats -- or at least explicitly stating that it was a WPI claim. -- TerryE (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is covered by WP:Fringe. If there aren't any WP:MEDRS sources linking these disorders (and I don't believe there are), then we don't need any reliable sources to refute it. We can just say something like 'not recognised by scientists" or similar NPOV language (we're not trashing it, just saying it isn't a currently accepted theory). --sciencewatcher (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found any MEDRS sources linking these disorders either. How about echoing the wording from WP:RS and avoiding absolute black & white, e.g. "not generally recognised by experts in these fields". I think that this is sufficiently non-contentious that we don't need an RS -- though of course we would need to update this if and when any published in this areas. -- TerryE (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) How about:

The institute is now known as the "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" to reflect its stated goals[ref]:

• To facilitate and advance patient care
• Research the pathophysiology of neuro-immune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism
• Develop therapeutics, diagnostics and prevention strategies for this spectrum of diseases
• To advance and support medical education and physician training.

The Institute is novel in its of grouping of these diseases into a single "neuro-immune" class, which it asserts may be "caused by acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system". The main hypotheses for the aetiology of CFS include Infectious theory, Immunological theory and Neuroendocrinological theory, with the best evidence for the third; the published findings for the first two are inconsistent[ref]. Any such associations of atypical MS and autism are not generally recognised by experts in these fields.

How does this sound? -- TerryE (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me. --sciencewatcher (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, too, in general. Two smallish objections: I would prefer a summary to copying the WPI website, and the aetiology discussion should include the hypothesised role of psychological factors (all the more so as WPI specifically attacks the psychological involvement hypothesis). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you give examples of where and how WPI specifically attacks the psychological involvement hypothesis? I have seen where they want to, "look at ME/CFS from a neuro-immune perspective"[84], but that's not quite the same as attacking the psychological involvement hypothesis. What they specifically say about the psychological involvement hypothesis is important to tailor the weight of the counterpoint argument. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

@K, I've already précised the WPI web page to the 4 main bullets. I am not really sure how you could summarise further, apart from arbitrarily leaving bullets out (It would be arbitrary since WPIs wider material indicates that they are doing all four, and I do make explicit "their stated goals ...". As to the omission of the psychological element, I've précised the aetiology section from the reference which has been authored by an cross-discipline team and published in BMC Psychiatry. It contains quite a lot of discussion of the psychological and psychiatric aspects in diagnosis, management/treatment, etc., but not in this aetiology section. -- TerryE (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.wpinstitute.org/xmrv/xmrv_qa.html

Q: "Does this latest information prove once and for all that ME/CFS is not a psychological or psychosomatic illness as described by those who don’t understand the disease?"

A: "Absolutely! Actually, there are thousands of research articles showing the very real biological problems that ME/CFS patient’s experience such as low NK cell count and function, MRI and SPEC scan changes, and repeated chronic infections, to mention just a few. Only the most stubborn and misinformed individuals refuse to believe that this disease is real and serious. The process of placing poorly understood illnesses into a psychological category is very similar to what happened in the early days of MS and epilepsy before the advent of technologies which proved the illnesses were “real.” Unfortunately, many in the scientific and medical fields have not learned from their past mistakes."

This is an obvious dismissal of the notion that ME/CFS is a "psychological or psychosomatic illness", or an illness which should be placed within a "psychological category". However, this is not a direct attack on the notion of "psychological involvement/factors" and should not be misconstrued as such, although I would not be surprised if they dismissed that too.

This article is about WPI, why are we getting into "etiological discussion" and hypothetical psychological factors? If you dispute WPI's notion of ME/CFS as a neuro-immune disease and you want a caveat for the article, saying "the etiology is unknown" is enough, with maybe a link to the CFS_pathophysiology article.

_Tekaphor (TALK) 01:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Ward20 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So what you are suggesting for this last para is something like:

The Institute is novel in its of grouping of these diseases into a single "neuro-immune" class, which it asserts may be "caused by acquired dysregulation of both the immune system and the nervous system". However, there is no expert consensus on the pathophysiology of chronic fatigue syndrome, and any such associations of atypical MS and autism are not generally recognised by experts in these fields.

Taking up Ks point if we try summarising this discussion here we will just explode references, why not just link to the page which specifically addresses this topic instead? Or is a Main Article format more appropriate? -- TerryE (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is better than going into the nitty gritty of the various CFS etiology theories. --sciencewatcher (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I, too, support TerryE's proposed wording. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've implemented this change and on reading the complete text, remove some duplicated wording to make the reading a little smoother. Post back here if you thing that I've changed the meaning from what we've discussed above. -- TerryE (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a clarification of the association of atypical MS and autism. Do you mean the association of virus with the diseases, or the categorisation of the diseases as neuroimmune? MS is the canonical neuroimmune disease, with both immune-mediated demyelination and inflammation. (Come to think of it, I'm not at all sure why WPI mentions "atypical MS" and not just "MS".) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)The last sentence arose from my attempt create a consensus statement to address Sciencewatcher's (and I though your) concerns that WPI were collectively grouping ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, atypical MS, and autism into a single "neuro-immune": a grouping that isn't, AFAIK, generally currently endorsed by field experts. Why atypical MS? because WPI limit themselves to the atypical form (JM spends a few minutes discussing this on her 22nd Jan presentation). This sentence was a qualification to the previous. I have make the linkage explicit by separating them by a scolon. -- TerryE (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unclear: "any such associations of atypical MS and autism". Associations of atypical MS and autism with what? Neuroimmune disease, infection or both? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The semi-colon links the two sentence so the context is the novelty of 'grouping of these diseases into a single "neuro-immune" class', but given the confusion over this wording maybe Tekaphor's earlier suggestion is easier. -- TerryE (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good solution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Coatracking

Sam Weller, who affixed the controversy tag to the top of this talk page to encourage discussion, has made substantial changes (see also [85]) to the article with out discussion. This information, derived entirely from primary sources, is about an Imperial College assay (or, more accurately, about an advocacy organisation's response to it) and properly belongs in a new XMRV/CFS controversy article as I have previously proposed. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In an article devoted to XMRV/CFS controversy, this assay (and notable criticism of it) could potentially be discussed, although, one would hope, with better sources. Any criticism of one assay, though, should be balanced properly with information on other available assays. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Either the Imperial college work is part of the controversy or it's not: we can't be selective about inclusion. KCACO gave no clear argument for her removal of data provided by the Imperial team on the efficacy of the test, so I will reinstate this aspect, pending resolution of this discussion.

However, there is an argument that criticism by a non-expert 3rd party, the ME association, about the efficacy of this test isn't relevant. However, what is more relevant are Mikowits' own comments on this class of simple PCR test given at her 22nd presentation. I will dig them out. Also for ease of reading I would prefer to juxtapose the discussions on the tests but imposing a sub-section structure on this section: "Published Papers", "XMRV Tests", "Criticisms by the research teams". -- TerryE (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The justification for the removal of information on a putative test from Imperial College was described in detail above: there are no third-party sources, and, if there were, this test has no relation (unlike Whittemore's political ties and funding sources) with the Whittemore Peterson Institute. As I've stated repeatedly, please write an article on the XMRV/CFS controversy if you would like inclusion of this information on Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

By this argument we should remove all reference to Imperial and any of its outputs or comment. This is the only XMRV/CFS controversy section. We had a discussion above about when to split off the article in #Name where the position that 3 editors including myself took was that it wasn't sensible to split the article now. You chose not to respond and it is therefore reasonable to assume that you accepted this consensus.

You did a unlateral removal of the basis of your your earlier position. I proposed a sensible midway interim text whilst we come to the consensus on this point. And you have now done a second deletion, a second unilateral actions ignoring all the above discusion. This is not a reasonable position to take. -- TerryE (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that you've posted to this talk page, but not responded to my previous post. WP:RS states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The fact that it is a primary source is not a valid reason on its own to remove this content. The text is reporting Imperial's decision to introduce a test and this is relevant to the XMRV/CFS controversy, and is therefore valid in this context.

We thought that we had already agreed that the Imperial publications are in scope for the purposes of the controversy section. If you now wish to challenge this then please do so explicitly, so that we can continue this discussion. If and when there is a consensus on this them we will need to cull this section of all reference to the Imperial output. -- TerryE (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

1. KC proposed an 'article be created on the XMRV controversy'.[86] I asked whether KC meant '"XMRV and CFS". Is there a controversy about prostate cancer?' KC did not reply, but now claims to have made 'repeated' requests for a XMRV/CFS controversy article. Thanks for clarifying that, KC.

2. KC's accusations (a. coatracking, b. in order to criticize the IC test) cannot be taken seriously. McClure accused WPI of taking advantage of patients, and 4 weeks later offers a rival test of her own. That is clearly part of the same controversy, so I added it the same day. The next day, Dr Charles Shepherd of the ME Association issued a position statement on the test's utility: it's non-diagnostic and there is no therapy. I added that accordingly. Can you both note that he did not offer any comment on the test's efficacy, and that the utility of the WPI test has already been commented on.

I'm replacing the material pending instructions on how a putative XMRV/CFS controversy article ought to be modelled. I would need better examples than AIDS controversy, which is currently merely a paragraph in the World Bank. Sam Weller (talk) 09:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note two editors in the section Talk:Whittemore Peterson Institute#Name already discussed why a XMRV/CFS controversy article would not be appropriate with one editor for it. I will add my reasoning why it is not. IMO a XMRV/CFS controversy article would be a Content fork to theWhittemore Peterson Institute and to XMRV. The description of the science article and the plosone article should not be in a controversy section. The journal articles are just descriptions of what scientists found. The magazines and newspapers made a controversy by publishing sensationalist claims the journal articles didn't and framed the aftermath as a controversy. That material can be in a controversy section. WP should not indulge in sensational journalism. There will probably be more journal articles that differ from each other in any case.

There is almost exactly the same relationship between the Imperial College XMRV test and the Imperial College scientists reporting the plosone study to the relationship between VIP XMRV test to the WPI scientists that reported in the Science article. Primary sources may be used with care about descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. This is what Sam's descriptions were.[87] If it doesn't belong in this article it should belong in the XMRV article.

Lastly, the note on the talk page says, "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them". Please means please, not have to. This note should not be used like a club to revert good faith edits. Ward20 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're probably right on all counts, Ward20. I've separated the research and the controversy into separate sections.

Sam Weller (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

K has reverted the work on the Imperial Test repeating the statement "Rm coatrack section on Imperial College test, as it has nothing to do with WPI." without responding to the content of the discussion below. So K, please respond to this discussion with constructive reasons for your actions.

In parallel to K's 3rd unliateral removal of this content, I was also preparing an update to this section following Imperial's withdrawal of the test. My wording had an update clash so I give now. The ME Association has subsquenty reported a dialogue with Prof Wessely[88]. Imperial has subsequently withdrawn the Test page and put out a statement that this testing is "only available as part of an ethically approved research project" [89]. I'll add this last reference and trim the discussion accordingly. I also reformatted the ref to the original announcement since it was first posted on 27 Jan, according to google archive [90] -- TerryE (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If a third party source were to make a connection between what Sam Weller is calling McClure's test and her criticism of WPI, that would establish the information's claim to space here. Without it, it appears to be coatracking. As TerryE has correctly noted, this test is not being offered to patients directly; thus, Sam Weller's insistence on a qualifying relation appears to be rooted in synthesis.

As for the controversy article, yes, I meant XMRV/CFS controversy. There's a minor scientific controversy over the prostate cancer results that's probably not notable; the XMRV results have sparked a scientific controversy and a social controversy that's quite notable and includes many aspects in which WPI does not figure prominently. I'll create the article myself if others have no interest. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In that case, the appropriate article is here: Controversies_related_to_chronic_fatigue_syndrome. Sam Weller (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Misc. changes

Ref material:[91] "The Whittemores are trying to raise more money, and have received donations as large as $50,000 from friend down to a few dollars from patients who are sick, out of work and broke, but eager to support any research that may one day help them."

Changed "The Whittemores have solicited contributions as large as $50,000 from family friends, as well as smaller amounts from individual CFS patients". to "The Whittemores have obtained contributions as large as $50,000 from friends, to as little as a few dollars from individuals with CFS who are ill, unemployed, and poor, but passionate to help". I removed word solicited, it was not used in source and often has a negative connotation (for example in prostitution), and added material from the source. Ward20 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The interleaving of coverage on the research and on the testing makes the reading of the Press Coverage very confusing. I've split these into two separate sub-sections and this now reads better. -- TerryE (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed text on Mikowits detailed rebuttal of the McClure paper, as this gives unbalanced emphasis to the WPI responses. This all falls into the previous crisp summary "Supporters of the two teams traded accusations of conflicts of interest, technical sloppiness and failure to care about patients." anyway, so I have rolled up these references. What I propose to add here are some comparative statements from Keen's secondary review in Science. -- TerryE (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, following my comments about about replacing the references to Kean's ScienceNow article with his more detailed Science one the following week[92], I have now done this. It's difficult to get the right balance and here is a copy of the article if anyone wants to check my summary or tweak the wording. I've focused on the test discussion in the article for this section. I've currently dropped the issue of "widely discussed in the press" as well as the WPI response. We may want to reintroduce this point but if we do then we will also need to include the Science article's or the WPI's statements that licence fees fund further research to maintain NPOV. Also note that the reason that I've kept the bare references to "Coffin" and "McClure" because the Science article has some informed comparison of the research that we should include, and here is the point to set the context for Coffin and McClure. However, it's now way past my bedtime so that's me done for the night. -- TerryE (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is my first cut précis of Kean's content in the Science review on the clinical pros and cons. I guess I am too edit fatigued to trust my own inclusion of this text. It just goes into two much detail.

Strangely, XMRV, a rodent retrovirus, had previously been implicated in an aggressive prostate cancer. No one knows how XMRV might contribute to either or both diseases, but the [Science paper's] authors argued that the link made some sense: XMRV ravishes natural killer blood cells, which attack both tumors and cells infected by viruses. Other scientists thought the link dubious, criticizing the [authors] for not explaining enough about the demographics of their patients or the procedures to prevent contamination. Several virologists around the world practically sprinted to their labs to redo the experiments. A U.K. team already exploring the XMRV–prostate cancer link won the race, submitting a paper to PLoS ONE challenging the claim on 1 December 2009. It was accepted for publication after 3 days of review.

The British team, led by retrovirologist Myra McClure of Imperial College London used PCR to search for two viral sequences, one from XMRV and the other from a closely related virus. They discovered nothing. At a press conference discussing the results, published online 6 January in PLoS ONE, McClure was blunt and confident: "If there was one copy of the virus in those samples, we would have detected it."

This null result prompts the question of what—if anything—was wrong with the original paper. The PLoS ONE authors seem to suggest that contamination was at fault, stating that they were careful to work in labs that had never handled XMRV and use PCR machines that analyze no mouse tissues. But McClure says her group merely wanted to make that explicit, not accuse anyone. The U.S. team followed the same procedures, retorts Lombardi, a biochemist. He also expressed bewilderment that the McClure group didn't search its CFS samples for the same DNA sequence as his team had, raising the possibility that they had different results because they searched for different things. The McClure team, however, looked for not only an XMRV sequence but also a sequence in a closely related virus, MLV. That MLV sequence, highly conserved among viruses of its class, would presumably have been found if XMRV was present, they said.

One distinct possibility, says John Coffin, a microbiologist at Tufts University in Boston who studies retroviruses and wrote a separate analysis for Science when the original paper was published, is that both papers are right. He called the PLoS ONE paper too "preliminary" to settle the debate and said XMRV could show more genetic variety, and thus be harder to detect, than anyone assumed. It's also possible that distinct strains of XMRV appear in different parts of the world, as do the retroviruses HIV and HTLV (a leukemia virus). Coffin says one more possibility, raised by many scientists, is that CFS is actually a suite of diseases that present the same symptoms and so might have many causes. Lombardi agrees.

so I yield to other editors. -- TerryE (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The History of the full name of WPI

I was a little concerned that we had implicitly removed the text "WPI has been known as 'The Whittemore Peterson Institute for Chronic Fatigue"[3] and the "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute"[4]' with Ward's recent implementation of our #Mission proposed changes proposed changes, so I went back to the cited RS. I also looked at the cited RS for the comments "their motive for founding the CFS research institute"[1][2] in the #History and the comment "The Whittemores envisioned WPI as an integrated facility for dedicated CFS treatment, education and research[3]" and "The institute is now known as the "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" to reflect its wider stated goals:[5]" in the #Mission section. I have local copies of all the cited references including the ones cited for these:

1. The WSJ "Cancer-Causing Virus Linked to Chronic Fatigue" article
2. The Prohealth "Annette Whittemore and the Making of the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno" Article
3. The RGJ "Washoe projects receive funding" article
4. The Davidson Academy Annette Whittemore profile.
5. The WPI Mission statement

My only problem is on detailed reading supports none of this thesis that the name and scope of the institute has evolved. For example

1. uses the text "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease" in its body.
2. does discuss the goals an aims of AW+DP mentioning AWGs CF as a driver but it also includes the text "they envisioned something that had never been done before...an Institute that would: Provide cutting edge treatments, Stimulate research into neuro-immune issues, And provide outreach to a new generation of physicians and researchers."
3. does include the text "Whittemore-Peterson Institute for chronic fatigue at UNR received $3 million", but note the capitalisation of WPI and the lower case for "chronic fatigue" as opposed to article test which is all capital case. This usage is descriptive rather than a formal title
4. does use the headline "National Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Institute", but in the body of the article it later refers to the "Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease"
5. clearly only talks about the WPI for Neuro-Immune Disease.

Hence none of the cited references provide any evidence that the intent of AW has ever been anything other than to set up a "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease". Yes they use convenient descriptive alternatives to describe the WPI such as the "national chronic fatigue syndrome institute" (since this is a title it would be in title case), but in the body of the text they refer to WPI by its short or full title.

So in short, none of the references provide any evidence that the Whittemores' intended to found anything other than the "Whittemore Peterson Institute for Neuro-Immune Disease". Yes, it has been referred to by other shorthands, but so what? A convenient description is not the same as the assertion of a formal title.

One other comment: I have yet to find any RS which states that Dr P had anything to do with the founding of the WPI. Certainly none of the RSs cited in this article do. Any references that I have found suggest that "Andrea Whittemore" or "the Whittmores" named it in recognition of (the suffering of) their daughter and and (the work of) Dr Peterson. Under WP:V rules, unless K can provide an RS to substantiate this claim, it goes too. -- TerryE (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The founding issue is interesting. I have been listing sources in conjunction with the the weight issues of AW and HW here[93]. It appears Peterson was heavily involved in the conception. Then HW stepped in to help plan and fundraise, but AW is mentioned as the founder in most articles[94] including the official WPI page.[95]

"Over Andrea's bedside, concerned activist mother met frustrated physician/researcher - and a partnership was born that may change the face of ME/CFS research and treatment...Dreaming big, they envisioned something that had never been done before...an Institute", Annette's husband Harvey Whittemore, an attorney and real estate developer, had been active in Nevada's political circles for many years. Harvey signed on to the project, and the three began the long odyssey of gathering the necessary financial and political support.",[96]

As far as the somewhat related issue of article weight on AW and HW and DP, I used Google page hits, specifically, "Annette Whittemore" "Whittemore Peterson Institute" 11,900,[97] "Harvey Whittemore" "Whittemore Peterson Institute" 648,[98] "Annette Whittemore" "Harvey Whittemore" "Whittemore Peterson Institute" 224.[99] AH>HW 18 to 1. "Daniel Peterson" "Whittemore Peterson Institute" 8,220 [100] Ward20 (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Harvey Whittemore prefers to remain out of the spotlight, as he has stated in interviews. Obviously, as a lobbyist and a high-profile businessman, this is often impossible for him. With WPI, it is possible. Annette can take the public presidency, Peterson can serve as medical advisor, Harvey can stay in the background. All three are important to WPI. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

K, please respond on the substance of the WP:V issues above. "Obviously" is not a valid reason for inclusion of content. Verifiable content from RS is. One little example where I has left the text but added a fact tag: please supply an RS that Dr Peterson founded WPI. -- TerryE (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

08 February 2010 edit summaries

1. WPI is described by a reliable source as a small, private pathology laboratory. Typically, an Institute contains multiple laboratories and working groups; without a reliable description of WPI's size, describing it as an Institute is misleading.
2. The report was controversial. It is amongst the most controversial reports in science today, all the more so because its subject matter is at the cutting edge of retrovirology.
3. Science and other journal names should be rendered in italics.
4. That Ampligen was rejected by the FDA as a CFS treatment deserves and in fact demands mention per our policies on medicine-related claims. It's unfair to our readers to give the impression of drug efficacy without also mentioning that the FDA has not found it efficacious.
5. The historical names of WPI should be mentioned in the history section.
6. No valid reason given to exclude the support of John Ensign and Harry Reid, or Whittemore's ties to either.
7. The aims must be represented more clearly as quoted from the website.
8. rm "The scientific director of WPI said that as research progressed they started to realize that diseases with similar etiologies might benefit from their findings". There is no known aetiology for CFS, nor is the aetiology of autism, fibromyalgia or Gulf War Syndrome known. If this sentence is to remain in the article, it must be rewritten as Mikovits's opinion, an opinion inconsistent with current scientific knowledge. I've made an attempt at this.
9. Mikovits/Kerr grant: language is taken from the grant proposal title; application proposes to develop "new strategies to decipher..."
10. The estimate of 95% is in the WPI sample.
11. The name ME/CFS, although used by some, is least of all used in the United States; the Wikipedia article should use the currently accepted name of the condition.
12. The CFSAC information should probably be included elsewhere. CFSAC, whilst important to CFS internet groups, doesn't have much clout, i.e. significance or notability.
13. Minor rewrites for NPOV.
14. Rm coatrack section on Imperial College test, as it has nothing to do with WPI.
15. Restoring Mikovits comments on insurance company conspiracy, etc. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, three editors have worked on this article over the weekend. The history of this work is discussed in detail in the above discussions. All changes were specific reasons as per their change comments or in the relevant discussion sections. It would help up all greatly if you responded correctly in the relevant sections, rather than listing off the changes with your declared position. I don't want to move the discussions here, but I give a simple example: you make the statement "The historical names of WPI should be mentioned in the history section"; well please refer to #The History of the full name of WPI where I analyse the accuracy of your original edits and show that they fail WP:V. The onus is on you to provide verifiable references before you can reinstitute this content and claims, under Wikipedia policies. Unilateral action without doing so is unreasonable. Please work with us on the appropriate discussion sections. -- TerryE (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I've just realised that your made over a dozen separate changes all in a single commit with a reference to this section. I have decided to roll back to the version before your change. This is not because I necessarily reject all changes, but given that we have followed best practice and made one content change per commit with the relevant justification in the talk section (or change log where this is accepted practice). All I ask is that you address each of your proposed changes by first reponding to the relevant issue in the discussion section and only make your change if you feel that your argument supports it. If we keep to one change per commit, it just makes everyone's life a lot easier and there exists a proper audit trail. For your convenience, I have cross-referenced your points to the appropriate section as follows:

1. #The History of the full name of WPI
2. #Request for Comment and article history comment
3. Accepted. Good point and non-controversial
4. #Ampligen
5. #The History of the full name of WPI
6. #Reference Packing
7. #Mission
8. #Mission
9. The wording is taken from the current RS, if you want to propose new wording then please propose a new PS first, then make the change.
10. #Main points from WPI paper in XMRV/CFS controversy section
11. ME/CFS has been an alias in for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome sine 2006
12. #Main points from WPI paper in XMRV/CFS controversy section
13. Please explain what you mean here?
14. #Coatracking
15. #Personal Interest ?

-- TerryE (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that the concept of talk page discussion has become meaningless on this page. Editors ask for discussion, but then proceed to make changes without discussion. There's been no waiting for alternative viewpoints or suggestions. Instead, declaration has improperly taken the place of discussion, and the agreement of two editors has been mistaken for consensus, even to remove reliably sourced information of direct relevance to the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that many of the points related to WP:V where at various points we've all discussed issues. Where for example I lay out as in #The History of the full name of WPI a cross referenced discussion of why this fails WP:V, removing the text pending your response is an reasonable action. A reasonable response is to argue why it not the case or to supply additional RS to support the text. Instead you state an earlier claim that I've refuted by evidence: "The historical names of WPI should be mentioned in the history section." and unilaterally reapply the same changes. So there was discussion, there was presentation of evidence, it's just that you happened to be offline during the weekend. I will repeat for the third time the Wikipedia policy (see here) is that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". You add material; someone points out that it isn't supported by the RS giving evidence; you decline to reply to the substance of the initial objection; then reinstate the content. So yes, there is one editor on this page who makes the bulk of unilateral changes without discussion, and you can easily remedy that by attempting to following Wikipedia best practice and work constructively with the other editors. -- TerryE (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've restored my edits, which were properly described in a detailed fashion above. I have changed the language on the historical (reported) names, as I agree a progression should not be implied. However, these names were used by reliable sources and, in my opinion, should be included. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again:

1. WPI is described by a reliable source as a small, private pathology laboratory. Typically, an Institute contains multiple laboratories and working groups; without a reliable description of WPI's size, describing it as an Institute is misleading. This is found in a reliable source, and it's one of the only factual descriptions of the Institute's size. Or is the Guardian wrong? Does WPI have many, many investigators, post-docs and techs?
2. The report was controversial. It is amongst the most controversial reports in science today, all the more so because its subject matter is at the cutting edge of retrovirology. The controversy is primarily what makes WPI notable: the controversy over the first report and the subsequent failed verification.
3. Science and other journal names should be rendered in italics. This was agreed, but also reverted. Why?
4. That Ampligen was rejected by the FDA as a CFS treatment deserves and in fact demands mention per our policies on medicine-related claims. It's unfair to our readers to give the impression of drug efficacy without also mentioning that the FDA has not found it efficacious. I emphasise again: we can't put out this tantalising claim of a miracle cure without giving the rest of the story; we should also mention that A W-G had to discontinue due to side effects (per NYT, WSJ).
5. The historical names of WPI should be mentioned in the history section. But I agree, no progression should be implied. And I also stated that these names were reported, not necessarily the official name.
6. No valid reason given to exclude the support of John Ensign and Harry Reid, or Whittemore's ties to either. That's still the case. Both appropriated funds, both are beneficiaries of HW's largesse, both are friends, Reid is a close friend. Relevant, well sourced.
7. The aims must be represented more clearly as quoted from the website. These sentences were not "summarised" as TerryE has falsely stated; they were copied. They must be quoted.
8. "The scientific director of WPI said that as research progressed they started to realize that diseases with similar etiologies might benefit from their findings". There is no known aetiology for CFS, nor is the aetiology of autism, fibromyalgia or Gulf War Syndrome known. If this sentence is to remain in the article, it must be rewritten as Mikovits's opinion, an opinion inconsistent with current scientific knowledge. I've made an attempt at this. Yet it was removed without discussion or comment. Wikipedia is not an outlet for the quasi-scientific statements of a single individual; if such a person must be quoted, then let's make it a direct quote or indicate how and why she's wrong.
9. Mikovits/Kerr grant: language is taken from the grant proposal title; application proposes to develop "new strategies to decipher..." Again, this is a direct quote and must be quoted. The previous language is also inaccurate by eliminating the first two words. It's a technology proposal, not a mechanism proposal.
10. The estimate of 95% is in the WPI sample. Why was this reverted?
11. The name ME/CFS, although used by some, is least of all used in the United States; the Wikipedia article should use the currently accepted name of the condition; see WP:MOSMED. CFS is the name to use, here and throughout Wikipedia.
12. The CFSAC information should probably be included elsewhere. CFSAC, whilst important to CFS internet groups, doesn't have much clout, i.e. significance or notability.
13. Minor rewrites for NPOV.
14. Rm coatrack section on Imperial College test, as it has nothing to do with WPI. I've given my position on this repeatedly.
15. Restoring Mikovits comments on insurance company conspiracy, etc: notable (and rather shocking) comment from RS by the research director. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am utterly, utterly at a loss as to how to respond to this. We have a series of detailed discussions ongoing where we've made points and asked for your contribution. I have asked you politely to engage in them. There are some very specific instances where your content fails WP:V based on detailed examination of those very RSs that you cite, yet you sweep all this discussion aside with a statement that "the concept of talk page discussion has become meaningless on this page" and that your edits "were properly described in a detailed fashion above" and you again restore your edits as a single bulk edit. Your position seems to be: edit war or give in. I just feel that to respond in your fashion is demeaning us all to these standards. -- TerryE (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I explained each of my edits in full. I responded, again and with more specificity, to your comments. In my reversion, I acquiesced to your agreement with Ward20 that a progression of names should not be implied and changed the language. Which of my points do you disagree with? Do you suggest that it's good editing to copy and paste information from the internet without quoting it, as you have done? Do you feel that the names of journals should not be italicised? That the name and purpose of a grant should be selectively mangled at will? That Harry Reid and John Ensign did not appropriate money for WPI? That WP:MOSMED does not apply to this article? That comments by the WPI's lead scientist, reported in reliable sources, attacking other scientists by accusing them of outright fraud, are to be glossed over by omission? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This weekend I downloaded all of the RS cited in this article and reconciled all of the contentious statements against this actual copy. Every time I found that the source didn't refer to the text or there was a material reinterpretation, I reported it on this page. The other editors that were active over the weekend were monitoring this and broadly endorsed what I was doing. These points of issue are sufficiently grave that they do merit you detailed response, unless you wish to ignore Wikipedia policies. "Oh no they don't." isn't quite what the policy makers intended when they said, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I could start debating each point, but wait -- that's why we've got all this open discussion sections above. I will quote your responses in the relevant open sections, and continue the discussion there. I refuse to move this discussion to a new section simply because you find previous open thread on these same subjects too inconvenient to responds to.

I urge all editors to do likewise and limit their comments here specifically to any new issues that your raised -- TerryE (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, your edits reverted material back to original research or against consensus. Again, please go back to the sections where the original discussions are and state passages from the sources that support the claims. This I agree with: "Science and other journal names should be rendered in italics". "The aims must be represented more clearly as quoted from the website". The Imperial College test is moot as they appear to have withdrawn it from public access. Some of the "Minor rewrites for NPOV". Ward20 (talk) 09:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When "consensus" is defined as one editor writing, "I concur" after whatever similarly minded editors write, the word has lost its intended meaning. Additionally, when consensus involves editors with intense interest that we all know in some cases borders on or ventures into actual conflict of interest, it's likewise lost any valid meaning.

In any case, a vote of editors does not decide whether or not we will follow WP:MOSMED for the name of an illness; whether we will properly indicate and attribute quotes; or whether reliably-sourced, relevant information will be included in an article. It's become quite apparent that several editors here wish to conceal the history of WPI, namely that the Whittemores established the institute to research chronic fatigue syndrome; to remove verifiably accurate on Ampligen and Daniel Peterson; and to delete any reliably sourced information they feel reflects negatively on Judy Mikovits, Harvey Whittemore or WPI in general. I understand and appreciate why these editors are doing this, and I share their ultimate goals, but these reasons aren't valid on Wikipedia and are harmful to the project. Please, I again implore those of you with a personal interest in this article to reconsider whether your motivations are compatible with objective editing.

There appear to be several issues that remain to be resolved:

• Is it correct to note that the Science article is controversial?
• Are the article's conclusions, particularly as regards antibody testing and culture, presented accurately? (I maintain that they are not).
• Is it improper to refer to past reported names of the institute?
• Is it improper to refer to the employment history of Mikovits?
• Is it wrong to mention US federal support for WPI, or to mention that at least one of the Nevada Senators is a personal friend of Harvey Whittemore?

If we are unable to resolve our differences through compromise, I suggest that we request arbitration. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, where we have already existing discussions ongoing on one of the points that you make here I repeat: you must understand that we can't arbitrarily terminate that discussion and post here for your convenience. Use browser search and the history to track comments. However, for those topics where the discussion section has been archived and there isn't an existing topic in the current talk page, then it makes sense to open a new section per item (otherwise the discussion threads get hopelessly entangled). I suggest that we use a title like 08 Feb Mass Revert #N or equivalent, so that we can track them back, and then we can cross reference the archived discussion at the head of each. -- TerryE (talk) 08:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

09 February restoration of scientific inaccuracies

TerryE] has reverted a scientifically accurate description of the WPI article's results in favour of a misleading summary. TerryE's edit summary was "We are drilling down into technical critique. See talk page". Unfortunately, TerryE has chosen not to explain his reversion on the talk page, nor to respond to my detailed response to his comments in a previous section.

Although I have already explained why TerryE's previous version (the one to which he has now reverted) is wrong, I will do so once more.

• "antibodies to XMVR Env" is incorrect. First, it's XMRV, not XMVR, but more importantly, the assay found antibodies to a murine leukemia virus env. It is not yet known if this antibody is actually to XMRV.
• "immune response to XMRV" is the same thing as in the previous point. It's inaccurate and wrong to describe this as two separate detection assays.
• "and patient-derived XMRV infectivity of activated PBMCs" doesn't make sense. Infectivity is a property of virus; susceptibility is a property of cells. In any case, what the authors measured was the presence of proteins recognised by anti-MuLV (not anti-XMRV) antibodies in cells of a prostate cancer "indicator" line, an immortalised T-cell line, and, using just one patient sample, primary activated T-cell culture.

If editors wish to include details from the paper, they must be presented accurately, not in a slapdash and scientifically inaccurate manner. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, did you not read the summary given by Mikowits herself that I quoted earlier in this very talk page where we originally discussed this proposed change? "Antibodies to XMVR Env" were her words and not mine. Are you now adding an attack on Mikowits, an agreed expert in this field, in this page to the attack that you made on Aubrey de Grey in his talk page?

In terms of your claim "TerryE has reverted ... TerryE has chosen not to explain his reversion on the talk page, nor to respond to my detailed response to his comments in a previous section", please see my post [101] which I posted after immediately the change. I posted this on the thread where we had been discussing this topic. It's not my fault that you ignore active threads and decided unilaterally to start new threads for ongoing discussions after this odd statement [102].

I wanted to keep technical discussion off this page but I feel that I must respond, using some of my post on your talk page:

• Yes tests B-D were based on a set of animal infected MLV antibodies. We both know that antibodies can usually show this type of broad class response. The authors explicitly demonstrated that the these tests were positive to the human VP62 XMRV strain, and therefore demonstrate an antibody reaction to XMRV. (You omit to mention this.) So perhaps more strictly we could might said "a gammaretrovirus class which includes XMRV".

• Of course "patient-derived XMRV infectivity of activated PBMCs" makes sense, though the wording could be improved. Yes, infectivity is a property of virus, but it can be a property of many things such as bacteria and fungi -- and in this case were a PBMC containing an integrated (XMRV) retrovirus, then activating the PBMC could in turn activate the integrated retroviral DNA leading to the production and budding of XMRV virions and the subsequent infection of the human Raji, LNCaP and Sup-T1 cells (these are "immortal" cell lines which have been shown to be very susceptible to gammaretrovirus infection in earlier studies). In other words a PBMC sample, with only a few cells having integrated XMRV, could cause an infection cascade that could then be detected by IFC or WB assay.

But, I repeat. We should not be having this discussion here or using this page to attack the credentials and integrity of a paper (and its authors) that has been widely reviewed by true field experts. We should not be mounting personal attacks on other editors. We should stick to the content. The study details four tests. Do we just say "four tests" without naming them or do we give them short descriptive names from the paper text? I am not saying mine are the best. I do think that we should consider alternatives, such as a better rewording from the RS or by using other brief descriptive names introduced by elsewhere in RS by the authors. However, this must stop short of OR by any of the editors.

Having thought about it perhaps "XMRV infectivity of activated patient PBMCs" might be a better wording. Please suggest alternatives. Please engage constructively, but stick to WP:V, WP:NOR, and leave the vitriol to blogs such as ERVs, eh? -- TerryE (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As a codicil, I do find it amusing that you make such a big issue of my not responding to your change (when in fact I did), when you yourself with a single mass revert [103] backed out the work of three editors made over three days which included some 35 changes to the article with this terse statement [104] as the entire justification and dismissing the some 30 comment posts amounting to some 5,000 words of discussion on this talk page by the same editors, with your explanation "the concept of talk page discussion has become meaningless on this page" !! -- TerryE (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting

Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making. It isn't about being right, it's about having consensus. If you're the only editor with a position and there are two others who disagree, you don't have it. I recommended article WP:RFC. Gerardw (talk) 10:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed 'controversial' from the lead, per RFC, as it is clearly intended to delegitimize the research and the institute. Editors may like to read Talk:Simon_Wessely#Sentence_removed for a discussion of the use of the word 'controversial' in a BLP where the subject himself said in the Lancet that he is controversial, and has frequently been described as such elsewhere, but two admins have blocked the use of the word, and any description of the controversy.

I have also moved the "small path lab" to the context of the building development. If the Whittemores had founded a university, and the first building up and running was the admin, would we say "Whittemore University, consisting of an admin block"?

I have also changed the loaded word "obtained", which has roughly the same meaning as "solicited", and can also be used to describe a offence (Deception_offences#Obtaining_property_by_a_deception) to the neutral source term, "received".

In conclusion, KC insists at all times that her interpretation is a. right, and b. neutral. However, I've seen more than enough examples of OR, SYNTH and POV that cast serious doubt on those contentions. Tekaphor's comparison with ex-editor RetroS1mone is right on the money, afaic. Sam Weller (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)