I disagree with this assessment. In the Science article the authors noted a very strong association between XMRV and CFS, backed up by data. They did NOT suggest XMRV is the cause. In some media articles, Dr. Mikovits and others offered their OPINION that XMRV is causal rather than a passenger virus, which they have the right to do.
Many very smart people agree with them. Dr. Cheney said in his newsletter she is right to consider causality with the kinds of numbers she’s getting. Dr. Bell said in HIS newsletter that he believes it will be shown to be causal. Klimas, Enlander, Racaniello, Coffin and others are very excited about this research. The 75 virologists who attended the Cleveland Clinic conference in November are excited about this research.
Yes, that is a lot of opinion, a lot of belief, about a single study. I think you have actually helped confirm the point I was making, that there is a serious lack of caution in the reporting of the XMRV finding at this time. All these positive beliefs and opinions by credible people, without multiple independent confirmation studies being reported, is giving PWC the idea that the case is closed, this is a done deal, a mature science. And that is sadly just not true. Opinions and excitement are not data.
It is that lack of caution that will cause many PWC to be disappointed if the WPI study turns out to be flawed. Don't shoot the messenger, the replication studies are simply honest attempts to find the truth, basic science.
Note that we have yet to see a shred of data from those claiming they can’t replicate the WPI findings. Assuming their studies pass the peer-review process and are published in reputable journals, THEN we can assess the claims of Cooperative Diagnostics and other groups. Until then these reports are merely rumors.
You are setting a high standard for replication studies. What standard are you using to judge the WPI claims, or the beliefs and statements of those scientists you mentioned?
Incidentally, the Berlin study results are already announced, they did not find XMRV and while that is not a peer-reviewed publication, I do not automatically assume they are wrong, that would imply that I already know for a fact that WPI was right, but I do not and neither does anyone else at this time.
Even if the WPI antibody studies turn out to be completely bogus--which I doubt--antibodies are basically irrelevant to the original cohort of 101. 68 were positive by PCR, according to the Science paper; 30 had transmissable virus in plasma, according to the data Peterson presented at CFSAC. 68 + 30 = 98 (97% positive rate).
The only way you can add those two numbers together is if the 30 who had transmissible virus were negative by PCR. But all that means is that the 30 who were PCR negative are positive for MuLV antibodies, because how else could they tell that the virus was transmitting in samples negative on PCR? (I am making an assumption about how they measured transmission, correct me if I am wrong). I do not have much hope for the WPI antibody findings. MuLV antibodies are known to cross-react with several other species, including some found in PWC. The WPI use of statistics is a bit awkward, usually researchers do not blend that type of data from two different tests and call it positive. Particularly as 30 actually tested negative on PCR.
As far as I’m concerned there are two questions:
1. How big is the subset of CFS that has XMRV?
2. Is XMRV causal for that subset?
Good questions. This will be answered in the replication studies.
I understand the impulse on this site to temper people’s expectations, and to console those who have already tested negative. But I don’t know that we need to spend so much time in our community downplaying XMRV and thus making Reeves’ arguments for him.
So you equate challenging a scientific finding with making Reeves' arguments? There is absolutely no connection between the two. I personally would LOVE for WPI to be correct and for XMRV to be the cause of my ME/CFS (and that of my daughter, who also has ME/CFS). But I am not about to have the wool pulled over my eyes (yet again, and again).
PWC have been taken down many false roads before, and are fragile and therefore I believe it is essential that people remain objective. No single study proves anything, and no single replication study will be proof either. Multiple independent confirmations are required to make claims and consider the XMRV finding a mature science.
Long experience with many claimed breakthroughs shows the wisdom in tempering people's expectations. If I remember my basic research statistic class correctly, we will need to see at least seven solid studies before there will be any statistically valid early consensus. Ideally there should be 50-100 studies, but that is clearly improbable given the state of CFS research funding.