• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

CDC XMRV Retrovirology Study on CFS Published

Messages
87

jspotila

Senior Member
Messages
1,099
Information from CFIDS Association

Several people have posted Dr. Vernon's analysis of the CDC study published today. You can read her statement here: http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp As others have already pointed out in the thread, Dr. Vernon says:

So the explanation for not finding XMRV in these samples is simple this was a study designed to not detect XMRV using a hodge-podge sample set.

Detecting XMRV is hard. Replication of the Science paper will be hard because of the exacting methods required and because of the heterogeneity and complexity of CFS. Regardless of the outcome of any single study, it is critical that a valid replication study be designed and implemented by multiple laboratories, using standard and optimized techniques and testing split samples collected appropriately from adequate numbers of well-characterized cases and controls. Studies such as this one from Switzer, et al., continue to absorb time, divert precious resources and fuel controversy instead of consensus.

Another statement was posted on the Association's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/...xmrv-studies-by-federal-agencies/446760015538

As we have since the Lombardi study was published in October 2009, the CFIDS Association of America has actively promoted studies that seek to validate and confirm the association of XMRV in CFS. We are working with several investigators who have studies under way. Publication of study data in top-flight peer-reviewed journals is essential to advancing our understanding of the role that XMRV plays in CFS, and we are actively advocating for publication of the study conducted by NIH/FDA as swiftly as possible. The Lombardi paper was reported to be under review for five months at Science, and its important to recognize that top journals enforce tight requirements on their authors.

Last weeks unauthorized report about the NIH/FDA study by a news agency in the Netherlands disrupted steady progress being made toward publication of the data. In response to a report in the June 30, 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Harvey Alter issued this statement last evening, transmitted via the NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison: "Our paper has not yet been accepted for publication. My colleagues and I are conducting additional experiments to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. Our goal is not speed, but scientific accuracy." According to John Burklow, director of the NIH Office of Communication and Public Liaison, these additional experiments were a condition of acceptance by the journal, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA (PNAS), and may take weeks to complete and review. Mr. Burklow is confident that the results will be published, and stated that all the collaborators are working expeditiously, but carefully, to ensure the accuracy of their results and the manuscript. The CFIDS Association has confirmed that additional reviewers for the paper were recruited as recently as two weeks ago.

The CDCs paper published today in Retrovirology was submitted to the journal on March 26, 2010, and accepted and published on July 1 after undergoing final scientific review by CDC scientists. According to Joe Quimby, senior press officer at CDC, additional assessment was performed after the paper was originally submitted as part of CDCs commitment to ensuring the accuracy and relevancy of the scientific information it reports. He noted that the paper published today is the same as the original submitted manuscript. No changes were made to the CDC paper authored by Dr. William Switzer, et al.

A critique of the Switzer study by Association scientific director Suzanne Vernon, PhD, titled, Blood from a Stone, has been posted at http://www.cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp.

In the months that passed between publication of XMRV/CFS studies (February-June), many people expressed concern that XMRV was being ignored, dismissed or overlooked. The discrepant findings by federal agencies have brought XMRV and CFS to the attention of the nations top public health officials and media outlets. As more information about the timetable for publishing the NIH/FDA study (and studies from other institutions that are in the pipeline) becomes available, we will rapidly share that news.
 

acer2000

Senior Member
Messages
818
I don't know why the CDC used their "phone screen" data set from the Reeves study. How hard would it have been for them to recruit new patients and do fresh blood draws. You'd think if they were serious about looking at this from the ground up they would have at least done that.
 

VillageLife

Senior Member
Messages
674
Location
United Kingdom
The CFIDS Association of America: Statement About XMRV Studies by Federal Agencies


Today at 8:56pm


As we have since the Lombardi study was published in October 2009, the CFIDS Association of America has actively promoted studies that seek to validate and confirm the association of XMRV in CFS. We are working with several investigators who have studies under way. Publication of study data in top-flight peer-reviewed journals is essential to advancing our understanding of the role that XMRV plays in CFS, and we are actively advocating for publication of the study conducted by NIH/FDA as swiftly as possible. The Lombardi paper was reported to be under review for five months at Science, and it’s important to recognize that top journals enforce tight requirements on their authors.

Last week’s unauthorized report about the NIH/FDA study by a news agency in the Netherlands disrupted steady progress being made toward publication of the data. In response to a report in the June 30, 2010 issue of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Harvey Alter issued this statement last evening, transmitted via the NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison: "Our paper has not yet been accepted for publication. My colleagues and I are conducting additional experiments to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. Our goal is not speed, but scientific accuracy." According to John Burklow, director of the NIH Office of Communication and Public Liaison, these additional experiments were a condition of acceptance by the journal, Proceedings of the National Academies of Science USA (PNAS), and may take weeks to complete and review. Mr. Burklow is confident that the results will be published, and stated that all the collaborators are working expeditiously, but carefully, to ensure the accuracy of their results and the manuscript. The CFIDS Association has confirmed that additional reviewers for the paper were recruited as recently as two weeks ago.

The CDC’s paper published today in Retrovirology was submitted to the journal on March 26, 2010, and accepted and published on July 1 after undergoing final scientific review by CDC scientists. According to Joe Quimby, senior press officer at CDC, additional assessment was performed after the paper was originally submitted as part of CDC’s commitment to ensuring the accuracy and relevancy of the scientific information it reports. He noted that the paper published today is the same as the original submitted manuscript. No changes were made to the CDC paper authored by Dr. William Switzer, et al.

A critique of the Switzer study by Association scientific director Suzanne Vernon, PhD, titled, “Blood from a Stone,” has been posted at, cfids.org/xmrv/070110study.asp.

In the months that passed between publication of XMRV/CFS studies (February-June), many people expressed concern that XMRV was being ignored, dismissed or overlooked. The discrepant findings by federal agencies have brought XMRV and CFS to the attention of the nation’s top public health officials and media outlets. As more information about the timetable for publishing the NIH/FDA study (and studies from other institutions that are in the pipeline) becomes available, we will rapidly share that news.

-----------------------------------

The statement doesnt really go with whats written at Virology blog.....http://www.virology.ws/


Virology Blog

30 June 2010

Publication of XMRV papers should not be blocked


The findings by the NIH and FDA that XMRV is associated with chronic fatigue syndrome has been accepted for publication by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Release of the article has been blocked by PNAS due to work carried out by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That study, which was submitted to Retrovirology, failed to find a link between XMRV and CFS. Its publication has also been placed on hold. According to ScienceInsider:

The contradiction has caused “nervousness” both at PNAS and among senior officials within the Department of Health and Human Services, of which all three agencies are part, says one scientist with inside knowledge.

It is senseless to block publication because the two papers reach different conclusions. If both manuscripts were subjected to proper peer-review, and were deemed acceptable by the referees, then they should be published. The journal editorial offices must respect the opinions of the reviewers. By overriding their decisions, they have compromised the entire peer reviewer process.

Blocking publication also sends the wrong message to CFS patients, to the public, and scientists. Not only does this action raise suspicions about their motives – are they trying to publish only the result they believe is correct? – but it ignores the very important fact that science is self correcting. Scientists are humans, and they make mistakes. But eventually the right answer will come to the surface. And that is why PNAS and Retrovirology should respect peer review, publish the XMRV papers, and let science correct itself.

Update: As noted in the comments section, the results of the CDC study have been published in Retrovirology.
 

dsdmom

Senior Member
Messages
397
I don't know why the CDC used their "phone screen" data set from the Reeves study. How hard would it have been for them to recruit new patients and do fresh blood draws. You'd think if they were serious about looking at this from the ground up they would have at least done that.

Probably because they had no intention in finding it in the first place. Seems more like a take home science project - maybe some of their kids helped out and brought it into school for show and tell.

The CDC would love to just forget all about XMRV and probably think they can move on now.
 

judderwocky

Senior Member
Messages
328
Probably because they had no intention in finding it in the first place. Seems more like a take home science project - maybe some of their kids helped out and brought it into school for show and tell.

The CDC would love to just forget all about XMRV and probably think they can move on now.

I dont believe the statement by CFIDS. Its not that I dont believe them... Its that I think they are getting a line.

Here is my bet... the DHHS assumes that it can quiet us down by telling us the study will be coming out shortly... i dont like this though. I can't find a statement on NIH anywhere backing us up. Its too "behind closed doors" for me. If they wanted us to know it was coming out... why no other trace except a facebook posting?

I'm not backing off the petition until the studies are published. This is a direct contradiction of the WSJ reporting. if the NIH even had a statment on their page i could find it would be nice.

I have to ask a weird question... does the DHHS not think that we can handle a health crisis right now? DHHS is headed by obama picks... they're doing the same thing to us that reagan did with aids.... with all the changes and controversy over the new health care overhaul... has someone simply decided covering us will be too much of a burden? is this too much for the new healthcare system to absorb all at once??? do they think they're gonna string this along for a few more years until they can afford to deal with it?

and before anybody accuses me of being some whacked out nut spouting conspiracy theories... i will say i supported him in the last election and even helped man robo calls against his opponents in the last election...

SOMETHING STINKS.
 

free at last

Senior Member
Messages
697
I dont get it, when I went to bed last night the news was both papers have been held, I got an email last night from Jerry Holmberg telling me the papers were under review, I go to sleep and a few hours later the CDC paper is out!! whats going on???

Statement from Dr. Harvey Alter, transmitted by the NIH Office of Communication and Public Liaison: "Our paper has not yet been accepted for publication. My colleagues and I are conducting additional experiments to ensure that the data are accurate and complete. Our goal is not speed, but scientific accuracy." Harvey A...lter, M.D

WHY HAS THE CDC NOT BEEN MADE TO GO OVER THERE STUDY AGAIN!!!!

I said no goverment is going to tell the truth, its all about PR damage control, then the NIH leak, that will be the last leak anyone will now see, there will be no positive NIH paper, they are going to cover this up, the CDC dont retest but the positive NIH study do lol. Sorry but they got us hook line and sinker If the NIH paper tells the truth ill fall out of my chair , you can see whats happening here its obviouse, Alters statement is a joke, its all one big funny joke to them and we are the audience Ive had enough trusting goverment involvment, all we got is the wpi, bet they didnt realize the coverup was this bad. They know now
 

justinreilly

Senior Member
Messages
2,498
Location
NYC (& RI)
Reeves and Heneine Authored Study: Case Closed!

1) Quote from paper:

The 1994 International CFS case definition and the Canadian Consensus Criteria are different and do not necessarily identify similar groups of ill persons. Most notably, the Canadian Criteria include multiple abnormal physical findings such as spatial instability, ataxia, muscle weakness and fasciculation, restless leg syndrome, and tender lymphadenopathy. The physical findings in persons meeting the Canadian definition may signal the presence of a neurologic condition
considered exclusionary for CFS and thus the XMRV positive persons in the Lombardi et
al. study may represent a clinical subset of patients [11].


These statements undermining CCC as a legitimate criteria for diagnosing CFS patients really confused me. It only raises the question, do these people even know how to identify a CFS patient, are they in denial of the hundreds of thousands of CFS patients who experience the myriad of symptoms and abnormalities encompassed in CCC, i.e. who are these people studying?

When reading the paper I screamed out loud when I read this. I am absolutely livid!
Shiso- They know exactly what they're doing; they have all along. They know CCC is right and they are trying to reframe "CFS" as tired people by using Reeves definition exclusively and saying that neurologic disease and signs are inconsistent with "CFS". And they approve of the Oxford definition used in the dutch study; repeating Dr. Vernon's nonsense that the Dutch and UK studies were well characterized and WPI was not!! They are explicitly insisting Oxford is valid and Canadian Consensus Criteria are invalid!!

Am I right they are only looking at Reeves definition? Seems like they are trying to hide this fact from casual readers with opaque drawn out method explanations.

They mention a connection with HTLV II has not panned out. Obviously they are talking about DeFreitas RV and repeating their propaganda that DeFreitas RV is nothing more than HTLV II !!

Let's not forget that Heneine, was perhaps the most responsible for screwing up the CDC DeFreitas 'replication attempt' and destroying her reputation.

This study is totally incredible on its face for the above reasons and the fact that if Reeves and Heneine published findings different from what they did they would be acting directly against their 'penal interest'. Ie publishing these nonsense negative findings, supporting the patently invalid Dutch study and suppressing the NIH & FDA study keeps Reeves, Heneine and co-cospirators out of prison longer than otherwise! Publishing the truth would land them in prison.

Conversely, the fact that NIH (and to a lesser extent FDA) would be acting against their 'penal interests' by publishing positive data showing a connection between ME/AIDS-X and XMRV makes the NIH/FDA study even more credible than it otherwise would be! That is, NIH is coming out with a positive study; a positive study could well result in NIH's Anthony Fauci and Eleanor Hanna losing their jobs. Thus, the NIH study is credible because it's institutional author (NIH) has much to loose and nothing to gain from it.

This is the DeFreitas RV scandal all over again! We can't let this happen! Make your voice heard!
 

judderwocky

Senior Member
Messages
328
I said no goverment is going to tell the truth, its all about PR damage control, then the NIH leak, that will be the last leak anyone will now see, there will be no positive NIH paper, they are going to cover this up, the CDC dont retest but the positive NIH study do lol. Sorry but they got us hook line and sinker If the NIH paper tells the truth ill fall out of my chair , you can see whats happening here its obviouse, Alters statement is a joke, its all one big funny joke to them and we are the audience Ive had enough trusting goverment involvment, all we got is the wpi, bet they didnt realize the coverup was this bad. They know now

I dont know... even other researchers are getting ticked at this point... even ERV had a post questioning the CDC's motives....i'm hoping that this will just expose them.
 

judderwocky

Senior Member
Messages
328
When reading the paper I screamed out loud when I read this. I am absolutely livid!
Shiso- They know exactly what they're doing; they have all along. They know CCC is right and they are trying to reframe "CFS" as tired people by using Reeves definition exclusively and saying that neurologic disease and signs are inconsistent with "CFS". And they approve of the Oxford definition used in the dutch study; repeating Dr. Vernon's nonsense that the Dutch and UK studies were well characterized and WPI was not!! They are explicitly insisting Oxford is valid and Canadian Consensus Criteria are invalid!!

Am I right they are only looking at Reeves definition? Seems like they are trying to hide this fact from casual readers with opaque drawn out method explanations.

They mention a connection with HTLV II has not panned out. Obviously they are talking about DeFreitas RV and repeating their propaganda that DeFreitas RV is nothing more than HTLV II !!

Let's not forget that Heneine, was perhaps the most responsible for screwing up the CDC DeFreitas 'replication attempt' and destroying her reputation.

This study is totally incredible on its face for the above reasons and the fact that if Reeves and Heneine published findings different from what they did they would be acting directly against their 'penal interest'. Ie publishing these nonsense negative findings, supporting the patently invalid Dutch study and suppressing the NIH & FDA study keeps Reeves, Heneine and co-cospirators out of prison longer than otherwise! Publishing the truth would land them in prison.

Conversely, the fact that NIH (and to a lesser extent FDA) would be acting against their 'penal interests' by publishing positive data showing a connection between ME/AIDS-X and XMRV makes the NIH/FDA study even more credible than it otherwise would be! That is, NIH is coming out with a positive study; a positive study could well result in NIH's Anthony Fauci and Eleanor Hanna losing their jobs. Thus, the NIH study is credible because it's institutional author (NIH) has much to loose and nothing to gain from it.

This is the DeFreitas RV scandal all over again! We can't let this happen! Make your voice heard!

By the way... just so everyone knows, the petition now goes to PNAS, the heads of the CDC, FDA, NIH, DHHS, and Congress/Obama

so far we've gotten 249 signatures
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Missing the point . . .

The larger agenda here is being overlooked. CDC et al want to put the genie back in the bottle; XMRV does not exist. Not in CFS patients, not in healthy people. Not in anybody. That is the goal of the architects of future research that will be permitted to published. To this end, CDC is seeking to control XMRV testing procedures:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/bp_xmrv_overview.html
One important next step is to establish testing methods that can be used consistently across XMRV studies. To pursue this objective, CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and several non-federal laboratories are participating in an XMRV assay comparability study, which is being coordinated by a working group of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). When completed, the results of this process might help researchers to more precisely replicate past studies and further study a potential link between XMRV and adverse health outcomes, including CFS.

The key here is using blinded test operators, and feeding them non-human blood to be tested. Probably cloned pigs with altered genes. This was discussed some time ago on ERV as a long shot possibility:
http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2010/01/xmrv_and_chronic_fatigue_syndr_4.php
Well, the samples were intact enough to always recognize the cellular control, beta-globin (the same cellular control I use), so, no bleach or anything else that would damage the DNA.

Maybe if you used blood from another mammal, but not mice... but you would still have to be pretty damn certain they werent infected with a gamma retrovirus, but a beta-globin close enough that your primers will still work perfectly and not raise any suspicions, um, if I had to bet my life on 186 samples not testing positive, off the top of my head, right now-- maybe cow blood?

Maybe?

Maybe dogs would work.

Actually one of those sterile pigs theyre using for xenotransplants in Australia would be perfect :p

They will thus never find any XMRV in the "samples". Ask yourself, who handles the collected samples? At any time, were they in the exclusive possession of Simon W. or W. Reeves? Psychiatrists with their entire careers on the line depending on the outcome of the testing?

For those who argue that the truth will win out in the end, of course they are right. It only took 200 years or so to un-supress the work of Copernican Theory:
http://library.thinkquest.org/C005358/copernicus.htm
 

Otis

Señor Mumbler
Messages
1,117
Location
USA
There is a much simpler explanation. The WPI used blood collection tubes containing sodium heparin that are intended for use with virus isolation, the CDC did not. Please see post 177.
 

muffin

Senior Member
Messages
940
I had thought that WPI would be involved w/ the CDC study (Deep Anger in this post)

What glenp said. What I do not understand is, why cannot someone from the WPI oversee - as an observer - the CDC perform a study, if only to ensure procedurally it has merits and cannot be questioned.

Apparently this is not the case. I really thought I had read that WPI would be right there at the CDC while the replication was being done just to avoid any sort of issues with methodology. Guess I was very wrong. So, the CDC didn't have anyone else but them to oversee their replication.

I also have to wonder if they even really did do a whole new replication study. I bet they just took that piece of garbage they pumped out in that paid-for journal and re-wrote it a bit and then spent the replication money on another disease - as they have done in the past with CFS targetted monies (and Hillary Johnson nailed them on). And why in hell is Reeves involved in this study in the first place? It's a slap in OUR faces that Reeves was anywhere near the replication study. The CDC and the replication people KNEW there was a huge issue with Reeves and that he was removed from his CDC/CFS position and yet there is his name on this stupid, worthless replication study??? Slap in our faces. And that's how I interpret it.

This is now a declared war with the CDC. I have kept banging on the fact that no one listens or cares anymore what comes out of the CDC but...it's time for vengeance against them. I don't mean violence, I mean an across the board, all out, "CDC Malfeasance" attack. I mean legal and I do know it is hard to almost impossible to get at government and government employees but it can and has been done. We also need to smear the CDC across the Internet all over and in the media. I have been doing just that for the past year, but all of us sick need to do it. WE must destroy the CDC's credibility with the public, such as it remains. We must be the ones to ensure that the public knows just what the CDC has done to THEM and US for three decades. So now it's war. And this war I do NOT intend to lose. That's it. No more passive behavior from us sick. The AIDS/HIV people got billions from all the screaming and public outrage they did for years. Now it our turn. There IS a dangerous cancer causing Retrovirus out there, maybe two (DeFreitas) and it has been out there for a good 30 years and maybe even 40, 50, or 60 years. We don't know, but I do think that the CDC and other DO know.

Follow me on this one: Anyone want to give me one somewhat valid reason for an 83 year lockdown on a document in the UK Archives? Just one almost valid reason will do. They say it's because of names, etc. Well, if you look online at US government documents, when there is personal info or contract info they simply take a black marker and black out that information and then scan the document and post it online. So, why didn't the UK Archived document people do the same thing???? A simple black marker works great. What is Weasel, et al AND Reeves et al hiding from the public for so long??? What??? This is the real zinger for the conspiracy theory that I and some others believe is going on. So, high time for the public worldwide to know what the CDC and the sociopaths in the UK have been up to for 30 plus years. Time for a massive public campaign against the CDC. MASSIVE. ONGOING.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"official misconduct noun criminal conduct by a public official, criminal conduct by an administration's member, dereliction of performance in office, deviation from rectitude, dishonest management, failing to uphold a sworn oath of office, failure in office, guilty act while a public official, illegal act, illegality by a public official, improper conduct by a public official, impropriety by a public official, maladministration by a public servant, malfeasance by a pubbic servant, misadministration by a public servant, misconduct by a public official, misdeeds by a public official, misfeasance by a public official, misgovernment, misguidance by a public official, mismanagement by an office holder, misprision by an office holder, nonfeasance by an office holder, offenses while in office, transgressions by an office holder, turpitude by an office holder, wrongdoing, by a public official
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
I have heard there are additional XMRV studies with CDC involvement. Hopefully they will all be reported soon.

I have to admit that I was quite surprised at this negative CDC study... I'm sure that I had read about the CDC saying that they were proactively detecting XMRV... months ago... my memory is not great but I thought that they were absolutely content to accept that XMRV existed... and were just refining their testing procedures...

Yes, on thinking about it further, I remember the CDC saying that freezing their samples was destroying XMRV, so they were being forced to change their usual methods of storage etc... They were refining the methodology... But this paper uses frozen samples... So I'm certain that there must be more news to come from them.

I think that there is so much more going on behind the scenes than any of us mortals are privy to... maybe this study was an earlier one (Reeves is involved after all) (and it was submitted for review 3 months ago), and maybe the CDC (without Reeves' involvement) are now getting more positive results?

Once a study is completed, scientists tend to publish the paper even if there is strong conflicting evidence in other studies... that's how the scientific process works... So publication of this paper does not necessarily define the CDC's views on XMRV... This is a published paper, not a public policy announcement... and they probably have ongoing studies relating to XMRV which we won't be told about until the studies are published.
 

Cort

Phoenix Rising Founder
There is a much simpler explanation. The WPI used blood collection tubes containing sodium heparin that are intended for use with virus isolation, the CDC did not. Please see post 177.

Thank you! That just shows how detached the CDC was from pathogens in those years - they didn't even gather blood in a tube that would allow preservation of them apparently. Amazing stuff - if that is true - why even do the study?

I still say the truth will out - there are too many groups looking at this - and anyone who intentionally screws up a study does so at their peril in the long run.
 

George

waitin' fer rabbits
Messages
853
Location
South Texas
Guys, this is a really old study from Reeves, Kurt's right there are new studies that have been done by the CDC under Dr. Elizabeth Unger. But more important there are dozens of studies that have been done and not published. Not on CFS/ XMRV (there are only 6 of those that are finished per the authors and been submitted) But another 9 to 12 from CROI and Cold Harbor regarding XMRV as a virus.

None of those studies has been published. Why?

I still stand by my earlier prediction. This is a mean virus that causes illness and the DHHS is holding up the publication in a effort to put together training, testing and infrastructure to deal with the problem. August that's my prediction. Because the alternative is that the DHHS or some really powerful entity is holding the entire research world hostage and I'm not really seeing that.

This paper is Reeves final Hurrah.
 

judderwocky

Senior Member
Messages
328
Guys, this is a really old study from Reeves, Kurt's right there are new studies that have been done by the CDC under Dr. Elizabeth Unger. But more important there are dozens of studies that have been done and not published. Not on CFS/ XMRV (there are only 6 of those that are finished per the authors and been submitted) But another 9 to 12 from CROI and Cold Harbor regarding XMRV as a virus.

None of those studies has been published. Why?

I still stand by my earlier prediction. This is a mean virus that causes illness and the DHHS is holding up the publication in a effort to put together training, testing and infrastructure to deal with the problem. August that's my prediction. Because the alternative is that the DHHS or some really powerful entity is holding the entire research world hostage and I'm not really seeing that.

This paper is Reeves final Hurrah.

if what you are saying is true... how are they going to pay for it? cost has got to be an issue. think of alll the recent controversy over health.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Guys, this is a really old study from Reeves, Kurt's right there are new studies that have been done by the CDC under Dr. Elizabeth Unger. But more important there are dozens of studies that have been done and not published. Not on CFS/ XMRV (there are only 6 of those that are finished per the authors and been submitted) But another 9 to 12 from CROI and Cold Harbor regarding XMRV as a virus.

None of those studies has been published. Why?

I still stand by my earlier prediction. This is a mean virus that causes illness and the DHHS is holding up the publication in a effort to put together training, testing and infrastructure to deal with the problem. August that's my prediction. Because the alternative is that the DHHS or some really powerful entity is holding the entire research world hostage and I'm not really seeing that.

This paper is Reeves final Hurrah.

I agree with your thoughts about this George...

I definitely remember the CDC saying that freezing their samples was destroying the XMRV, so they were in the process of changing their usual methods of storage etc... They were actively refining the methodology, and proactively searching for XMRV... But this published study uses frozen samples... So I think that there must be more news to come from them, although maybe not for a while.

(If they know that freezing the samples makes XMRV undetectable, then why would they continue using frozen samples? So I think this is the last of Reeves' studies, and that there will be more results to come without Reeves' involvement. I am speculating here but it makes sense, considering everything.)