Science does its job with regard to XMRV

by Johnny Jet

Searching for the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome: XMRV turns out to be another blind alley
[Via Field of Science Combined Feed]

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) causes severe fatigue that can last for months at a time. CFS is difficult to diagnose and even more difficult to treat, and its cause has long been a mystery. In 2009, in an apparent breakthrough, scientists reported that a virus found in mice, called XMRV, might be the long-sought cause of chronic fatigue. Their results were reported, with great fanfare, by Judy Mikovits and colleagues in the journal Science (Lombardi et al., Science 2009;326:585), with reports in respected outlets such as the New York Times making it seem that the answer had been found.

Now it turns out that, like many initially exciting reports, this one has a much more mundane explanation: contamination.
As happens all too often when a “surprising” discovery is announced, the result turns out to be an experimental error. Contamination is a common type of error in modern molecular genetics, because nothing is actually visible to the naked eye, and we have to rely on very sensitive methods (such as PCR) to detect what is present. In this case, the experimenters had a common mouse cell line in their lab (not unusual), and it turns out these mouse cells were contaminated with a virus called MLV, which looks a lot like XMRV.
The new study by Hue et al. from University College London (Retrovirology 2010, 7:111) is titled “Disease-associated XMRV sequences are consistent with laboratory contamination.” The title pretty much tells the story, but here’s a brief synopsis.
[More]

The first report that a retrovirus might be the cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome came out about a year and a half ago. But very quickly came conflicting reports that the retrovirus was not involved.

Now comes what appears to be the definitive answer – the supposedly specific tags used to identify the retrovirus actually cross reacted with another similar virus. And this other virus was found to contaminate cells in the labs doing the work.

The original paper presented some data that they interpreted as signifying that XMRV could be a cause of disease. Others then went out to verify this and showed that the original interpretation was wrong.

This is how science works. The thing that Feynman talked about was that scientists need to be aware of how easily they can be fooled and to strive to make sure that all controls have been done.

Here, we have a case of a lab that did not seem to fully perform this self-examination. They should have been the ones to find the contamination, rather than have others do it.

But whether done by the original scientists or by others, science works towards finding out what is really happening.

Now if only the media would realize the tentative nature of most science.

Women have no Consitituional protections from discrimination, according to Scalia

by methTICALman

Scalia: What rights for women?
[Via Why Evolution Is True]

It’s a damn good thing that there aren’t five Scalias on the Supreme Court (there are 3.5 Scalia-equivalents: Scalia himself, Thomas, Roberts, and 0.5 Alito). Unlike Scalia, Thomas at least has the virtue of keeping his yap shut (his wife does the dirty work).

This month’s California Lawyer has an interview with Scalia that is surprising even by his stone-age standards. Remember that Scalia is an “originalist”, who believes that no rights inhere in Americans except those explicitly outlined in the Constitution or obviously intended by its authors. In the interview, The Great Originalist shows the audacity of a dope, asserting that the Constitution doesn’t protect women against gender discrimination. Here are a couple questions (in bold) posted to Scalia along with his answers (plain type).

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don’t think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we’ve gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?
Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that’s fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don’t need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don’t like the death penalty anymore, that’s fine. You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law. That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

And what if some states don’t pass laws allowing those rights? And what about gays? If the Framers thought anything about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it was that they were meant to guarantee certain rights that were universal and could not be touched by state law.

[More]

Yep, when the Amendment uses the word ‘persons’ it really only means men. So if the Legislature passed a law stating that no woman could hold credit in her own name, there is no Constitutional barrier. Or if the Legislature passed a law saying women could receive no federal money for education, there is no Constitutional barrier. Women’s rights are granted purely on the whim of Congress.

What this shows is that there is a very strong philosophy held by many people that actually believe that the 14th Amendment only applies to freed slaves who were men. It does not apply to anyone else, such a women. Thus they do not believe there are Constitutional safeguards regarding discrimination against women.

While we have legislation protecting women from certain forms of discrimination, since these are laws, they can be easily overturned by new laws.

Part of the Bill of Rights is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Yet Scalia obviously thinks that minority rights should be solely determined by Congress.

Great.This from a Supreme Court that is the most repulsive for individual rights since the Lochner Court 100 years ago and from a Supreme Court Judge whose corruption by outside influences certainly hampers his ability to judge cases. But then, his in ability to be much more than a sneering jackanapes has been in evidence for quite some time. I expect that the dissents from Supreme Court cases will continue to be much better reading.

Mac App Store is too much fun

There is one thing I am thankful for – that the Mac App Store did not come out before Christmas. I’d have a much bigger hole in my pocket.

What will it be like when there are 10,000 apps instead of 1000?

Oh, Apple does something so very cute but really quite elegant. When you confirm the sale, the icon from the Mac App Store page that represents the program leaps off the page, slowly shrinking as it arcs across the screen and ends up on dock. Thus you know it is now yours and you only have to wait for the down load.

So, I looked in the program for something to tell me how the download was goingand failed. Then I noticed that the little icon on the dock has a progress bar under it showing the download. Really cool!

A really neat, creative and useful way to give all the information needed and to show off Apple/s wonderful graphics. I bet no other OS could do something similar with such panache.

Highlighting someone who did the right thing

BBC News – Gabrielle Giffords ‘was alert’ after shooting, says intern
[Via BBC]

An intern working with Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, said she responded to him while he administered first aid, after she was shot in the head at a Tucson supermarket.

Daniel Hernandez told Christiane Amanpour on ABC’s This Week programme, “she was able to hold my hand when I asked her if she could hear me” but continued that he “wasn’t able to get any words from her”.

[More]

Daniel Hernandez ran towards the shots instead of away. He used some training in triage to help the Congresswoman and stayed with her all the way to the hospital, holding her hand to let her communicate.
In times of danger, most of us think only about our own safety and run away from the source of trouble but we are all often saved by the small percentage of people who run towards the trouble.
You should listen to the interview at the BBC