Hentet fra sciencemag.org:
«The stormy debate over a potential cause of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is nearing hurricane force. Last month, it prompted headlines suggesting that researchers have reached a dead end, scores of blog posts from disappointed patients, and accusations that scientists had gone beyond their data. The 14-month-old row intensified when four papers appeared in Retrovirology suggesting that reports linking the virus XMRV to CFS were based on false positives.
Link til den fulle teksten HER
På Whittemore Peterson Institutes Facebookside har det blitt lagt ut kommentar med link til følgende informasjon:
«This paper is not open access, but these are the highlights after I read it. 1 page.
Science writer Jocelyn Kaiser discusses the present state of XMRV and CFS. I’m unable to publish the entire article, but what is included are:
1. patients are taking ARVs and blogging and hoping XMRV is right
2. Negative Retrovirolgy papers, comments from Towers and Coffin’s comment that these studies simply point out the need to be careful about contamination and don’t negate the original association between XMRV and CFS.
3. Ila Singh says of the Retrovirology papers: ‘»The data shown..do not justify some of the sweeping statements made,» says Ila Singh».
4. «Judy Mikovits of the Whittemore Peterson Institute (WPI) in Reno, Nevada, points out that PCR wasn’t the only test her studies used: For example, Mikovits’s team also showed that XMRV-positive patients make antibodies to the virus and that XMRV isolated from their blood can infect cultured human cells. Mikovits said in a statement, “Nothing that has been published to date refutes our data.”»
5. A mention about Vincent Racaniello retracting his statement from the Chicago Tribune and «(and a similar comment to Science [magazine])».
6. Mention of Ian Lipkin’s study. 150 patients/150 controls – 6 U.S. clinical sites. Samples will be tested blindly by several labs. «Because all clinicians have agreed on standard methods, the study should help resolve concerns that differences in how CFS patients are selected or how samples are handled could explain clashing conclusions, Lipkin says: «Results will be definitive.»‘
7. Stoye gets in a job:
«As the new study gets started, some won- der whether it’s worth the $1.3 million it will cost. Jonathan Stoye of the MRC National Institute for Medical Research in London concedes that the Towers study was “over- hyped.” But he says “it’s pointing people in a certain direction,” away from chasing an elusive link to XMRV. Still, he says, a larger study may be the only way to satisfy patients.»»
Les det HER