CDC XMRV Retrovirology Study on CFS Published

Dr. Elizabeth Unger is acting in Slick Willy Reeve's old job. She did not impress at the latest CFSAC meeting.

Great insight. So how do we "play" the pharms now?

Again, thank you for all your efforts on the petition. Great job. So glad you are on Team CFIDS!!!

Hi Bob

We need cynism, skepticism, optimism and a whole lot of other things - including pessimism. Different points of view help us find a balance. They help us avoid becoming so depressed that a wave of mass suicides puts us permanently in the crazy camp (the survivors anyway).

Optimism is good. So are most of the other -isms. We are trying to deal with something vastly complex, involving big money and power, and without most of the facts. The more bases we cover, the better prepared we will be to finally win the debate and get ourselves successfully treated. This is a time for action, we have never had a better time in the history of ME or CFS.

Besides, I appreciate reading optimistic points of view in between all the pessimism.:Retro smile:

Bye
Alex

CDC is saying this study from 2 institutions is negative - I assume that means the 2 studies??? (switzer and alter) If that is the case? Are there any lawyers here?

On July 1, 2010,

CDC researchers and colleagues from two institutions reported results of a study in which they found no evidence of infection with xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus (XMRV) among patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/bp_xmrv_overview.html#

Sorry for the cross (double meaning there) posts but I though this should be posted here.

As discussed here, this is just the CDC declaring game over, no XMRV, end of story.

The original Alter paper needs to see the light of day or we may get strung along circa 1991.

Hi glen,

They are just referring to the one CDC study which has already been published...
I think that they mean that some of the named researchers involved in the study were from other institutions, other than the CDC.

Bob

isnt a drug company (GSK?) involved in a replication study? if they succeed and WPI is certainly on our side, does it really matter what the CDC think?

I agree they really are trying to pass this off as done and dusted . that there is no xmrv in cfs patients .The thing is folk will believe this crap , the sooner the positive Alter study is out the better. if enrolling folk via telephone conversation who have never been diagnosed by a doctor is representative of cfs patients then I must have been Joan of Arc in a previous life and these pigs that keep flying past my window are getting really annoying now:Retro mad:

It matters if they interfere with having possitive studies published!! Alters study was possitive and it is included with switzerss study showing as negative. Unless Alter looses his job I do not think things are going to change We cannot expect others to loose their jobs

Not necessarily. It might focus the debate on patient selection criteria even more, which is a good thing.

No, I don't think that they are talking about the NIH and FDA studies. The CDC study states in the first paragraph that the CDC used two other labs as well. "Blinded PCR and serologic testing were performed at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and at two additional laboratories."

Lynn

Sean focus need not be on their selection. The xmrv was found in alters study. The negative study is published - thats done
Its the possitive study that is being ignored but counted as negative to be included as 2 studies --- All studies need to be published so that scientists can begin to get to work on this

Lynn --- please post a link from where you have this information

glen

Reeves not the whole CDC team

While I would never argue with Muffin, this seems like a good time to make the following point. Dr. Reeves, not the retrovirology team at the CDC, chose the patient samples that were tested.

As noted by Dr. Vernon, the labs that did the testing were top labs just as the labs were in Lombardi et al. And they used standard testing, but not the exact same testing as done in Lombardi et al. So direct the anger appropriately.

And yet they were unable to detect ANY xmrv - even in controls, correct? That would mean that there seems to be a bigger issue than just cohort selection.

Glen, it's your own link... you've misread their text.
They are just talking about their own study which was published on July 1, 2010.

They are just referring to the one CDC study which has already been published...
I think that they mean that some of the named researchers involved in the study were from other institutions, other than the CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/bp_xmrv_overview.html#

In a less serious moment I posted a mock phone interview here.

Yes, all that snorting keeps me awake at night - as if I needed any help with that.

Otis Said: "this is just the CDC declaring game over, no XMRV, end of story."

Oh my Dear no. This is NOT the end of the game. This is the very start of the war against the CDC and any other Fed health org that is playing games with science.

Kelly said: "As noted by Dr. Vernon, the labs that did the testing were top labs just as the labs were in Lombardi et al. And they used standard testing, but not the exact same testing as done in Lombardi et al. So direct the anger appropriately."

We do not know that. Please stop jumping at shadows. It does not help our cause one bit.

they are bracing for impact.... scientists are peeved at this.

nature put the words "strategic" in quotations for a reason .

On the CDC XMRV Update page they hide the fact that they are using Reeves Criteria and instead twice say they are using Fukuda!!! This goes beyond mere fudging. These are lies.