Hip
Senior Member
- Messages
- 17,820
While reading a book recently, I came across an anecdote so similar to the current XMRV debate and disagreements, that I felt compelled to type it out:
In the book Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease (Anchor, 2002, see page xvii), the author Paul W. Ewald talks about the nasty debates that took place, just over 10 years ago, when researchers at Vanderbilt University discovered the bacterium Chlamydia pneumoniae in multiple sclerosis patients.
This association between multiple sclerosis and Chlamydia pneumoniae was greatly criticized by other researchers at that time, whose experiments did not confirm the association.
The Vanderbilt group explained the discrepancy by pointing out several features of their own protocol that they had introduced, to make it much more sensitive than previous protocols. The other labs, however, did not replicate the Vanderbilt protocol exactly. Instead, as is often the case in modern medical research, each lab used its own particular variations.
To resolve the contentious issue, Carolinas Medical Center sent all the labs 22 samples of spinal fluid from multiple sclerosis patients, and 22 samples from healthy controls. The specimens were coded (blinded) so that the labs did not know which was which. The result: the Vanderbilt group detected the Chlamydia pneumoniae in the MS patient samples at a significantly higher rate than the other labs. As Vanderbilt had claimed, their protocol was more sensitive.
In the book Plague Time: The New Germ Theory of Disease (Anchor, 2002, see page xvii), the author Paul W. Ewald talks about the nasty debates that took place, just over 10 years ago, when researchers at Vanderbilt University discovered the bacterium Chlamydia pneumoniae in multiple sclerosis patients.
This association between multiple sclerosis and Chlamydia pneumoniae was greatly criticized by other researchers at that time, whose experiments did not confirm the association.
Sound familiar?
The Vanderbilt group explained the discrepancy by pointing out several features of their own protocol that they had introduced, to make it much more sensitive than previous protocols. The other labs, however, did not replicate the Vanderbilt protocol exactly. Instead, as is often the case in modern medical research, each lab used its own particular variations.
Seems that not much has improved in medical science over the last 10 years.
To resolve the contentious issue, Carolinas Medical Center sent all the labs 22 samples of spinal fluid from multiple sclerosis patients, and 22 samples from healthy controls. The specimens were coded (blinded) so that the labs did not know which was which. The result: the Vanderbilt group detected the Chlamydia pneumoniae in the MS patient samples at a significantly higher rate than the other labs. As Vanderbilt had claimed, their protocol was more sensitive.
Now I believe that the association between MS and Chlamydia pneumoniae is generally accepted. What this story does illustrate is that the medical research field needs to engage in more cooperative, more intelligent communication with itself, and between labs, not obstinate isolationism. The health of many people, not just CFS patients, depends on this.