@ Flex, Sec. of War for the Gerwyn Cabinet: So, you haven't watched the videos in question, either, have you? Please note that this thread is about diagnosis and testing, not about research into causation. Peterson is educating Swedish physicians in the art and science of diagnosis and treatment in an environment that has presumed the disease to be psychosomatic for decades. For the intellectually curious, his lecture and slides are in English.
1 - Not everyone applies Gerwyn and his Cabinet's litmus test: is the person in question gung ho for the xmrv/hgrv answer; no neutrality permitted; no lack of interest permitted; no looking elsewhere permitted. It's the Nixonian attitude of "if you're not with me, you're against me." Paranoia personified.
2 - By saying "if he is advocating HHRV 6 as the cause..." Gerwyn obliquely accuses him of "advocating" something he isn't. Dr Peterson isn't "advocating" anything as the cause in these videos. He mentions research into that virus and many others, and possible treatments for patients who are found to harbor those viruses. That he includes ARVs and Ampligen as possible treatments infers he believes in the possiblity of retroviral and viral involvement. That's good enough for me at this point.
3 - " the Lombardi virus is implicated as the cause (by association only granted at this stage) then the disease is a that very virus isnt it?
Saying one doesnt know what the cause is is not the same as claiming you know what it isnt. Thats the basic stance of practically every Lombardi 2009 virus naysayer."
Those two statements do not make sense.
What is the "Lombardi virus"?
Yes, of course, saying one doesn't know the cause is not the same as saying one knows what it isn't. That's the point. That reasonable people may say they don't know the cause and mean just that - they don't know the cause. But they are willing to examine the symptoms and treat them anyway, to the degree possible. That is what this thread is about. That this disease isn't the big mystery the UK, much of Europe, the CDC and CAA want to project it as and that all the diagnostics and treatments deemed "experimental" have a scientific basis for being prescribed, based on solid research which Peterson cites.
To leap from that to the logical fallacy that anyone who doesn't follow the parade is a "Lombardi 2009 virus naysayer" is simply paranoia when there a lot of other facts a reasonable person would consider before jumping to that conclusion.
The rest of your rhetorical questions trying to turn this into a debate about Peterson's research, or lack thereof, is just a diversionary tactic and I don't appreciate it in a thread about diagnosis, tests and treatment options. The education any mecfs-naive physician, abroad or in the US, could gain from this series of videos is invaluable to potential patients everywhere. Smearing Peterson isn't helpful for patient/physician relationships anywhere.
I can't claim to know what's in the heart or mind of Peterson or anyone else, but if the vast majority of doctors I've encountered had watched these videos and learned what's in them, I know I'd have been treated more humanely and probably more effectively. If you have a beef with his diagnosis, tests and treatment theories, please enunciate them and say why. If you have a beef with his research or lack thereof, take it somewhere else, please.
