WPI har postet XMRV Testing Facts på sine Facebook sider:
«What are some of the reasons that scientists looking for XMRV would fail to detect the virus in their patient samples?
1) Use of a test on cells which don’t contain XMRV
2) Use of a test which has not been clinically validated or proven that it can detect XMRV in a positive patient sample
3) Use reagents not validated to detect XMRV
5) Use of clinically validated tests on a patient sample that is truly negative for XMRV
6)Testing patients which don’t satisfy rigorous clinical definition of XMRV such as is required in the Canadian Consensus Criteria.
As illustrated above, there are many ways to produce false negative results. The failure to detect XMRV in a patient sample taken at one time, using one method, does not prove that a patient sample is negative for XMRV.
Why did WPI grant a license to a clinical laboratory (VIP Dx) to offer XMRV testing?
1) WPI felt a responsibility to offer a clinically validated test to doctors who wanted to know if their patients were positive for XMRV, but only after another lab began offering a non-clinically validated blood spot test for XMRV.
2) Because VIP Dx is a locally operated CLIA certified laboratory, WPI can better assure quality control.
3) The non-exclusive license to VIP Dx supports the work of WPI.
Questions about the Science study.
Why did scientists have to use four methods to detect XMRV in the Science study to be absolutely sure that a sample was positive or negative for XMRV?
If one carefully studies the data presented in the Science paper one would see that patients can be negative by some methods and positive by others.
Where did the patient samples used in the Science study come from?
Samples used in the study came from several medical practices and from patients who became ill while living in many different locations around the United States.
Did all of the samples come from patients who were physician-diagnosed with CFS?
Did any of the samples used in the original study come from patients who ultimately developed cancer?
How were the samples chosen?
All of the patients/samples used in the study were chosen randomly on the basis of a CFS diagnosis from more than 200 patient samples stored in the WPI repository since 2006. No one knew the status of the patients as all samples were blinded. None of the samples came from the original repository of samples owned by Dr. Peterson.
What work was done after the May 2009 submission of the Science paper?
After the study was submitted, samples from CFS patients who also developed cancer were tested and found to be positive for XMRV. These results were reported at a private meeting of cancer researchers interested in XMRV. (A positive finding was not surprising, since retroviruses are known to cause cancer.).
Similarly, samples from families with autism and CFS were tested and XMRV was detected in samples from autistic children. Research on immune defects in XMRV infected patients have also been studied and reported at scientific meetings.
Can CFS patients develop serious complications after years of being ill?
Yes, doctors have reported that CFS patients have developed serious complications after being ill for many years, but a formal epidemiological study still needs to be completed.
Why is it important to do research on patients with a chronic disease who later develop complications from that illness?
Such research is necessary to prevent disease progression and complications of having the original disease.»