1. Patients launch a $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
9th Invest in ME International ME Conference, 2014 - Part 1: Autoimmunity and ME
Mark Berry begins a series of articles on the 9th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London, with a look at three presentations on autoimmunity
Discuss the article on the Forums.

German Charit XMRV/ME study results

Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by parvofighter, Dec 4, 2009.

  1. guest

    guest Guest

    Messages:
    320
    Likes:
    5
    First of all you have to know that CFS is all psychological in Germany.
    Second of all there is lots of ideology behind studies in Germany since there is not much competition in the medical field. Structures at universities are very rigid and a major shift in opinion mainly occurs through absence or death of professors rather than through scientific discussion.

    I am German and I live in Germany, that's why I would be very skeptical towards every CFS study that is conducted here. It may look scientific but it isn't. There is not one doctor in Germany who sees CFS as a real illness. So whenever I hear or read sth. about Germany, studies and CFS an alarm goes off in my brain. I don't trust these guys.
  2. minimus

    minimus

    Messages:
    30
    Likes:
    2
    According to Paul Cheney, the German prostate cancer study's methodology is suspect, not only because the study did not look at the same type of tissue samples as Silverman. He told me that the German study did not first confirm that their PCR test yielded positive results on known positive controls using prostate tissue samples from the Cleveland Clinic. That is how a PCR is normally checked to ensure for sensitivity. He also said that PCR techniques are especially prone to manipulation, as the researcher can alter the stringency standards on PCR tests to "get whatever result they want". This, together with the possibility that different researchers may define CFS differently, means that different studies may yield different results.

    But this does not invalidate the Mikovitz paper published in Science. According to a PhD biochemist who is a close friend, Science is the most prestigious scientific journal published in the US and possibly in the world. If Science considers publishing a study, the appointed reviewers consider every possible error and omission and request additional work to confirm the study's findings. The fact that Silverman and Coffin have associated themselves with the Mikovitz paper means they think the science is good. If the Mikovitz paper were questionable, it would not have been published or would have landed in some arcane journal no one has ever heard of. All the anonymous rumors circulating on this board that the Mikovitz results won't be replicated seem to ignore these highly relevant facts.
  3. parvofighter

    parvofighter Senior Member

    Messages:
    436
    Likes:
    99
    Canada
    Thanks Minimus

    Thanks for your very helpful insights on PCR sensitivity, and the power of Science.

    That really helped my understanding of how PCR results can be made consistent (or inconsistent) across studies. THAT's what Dr Silverman meant when he said that he was sending viral samples around the world. D'oh!;)

    These points above certainly bear repeating. The source Science, and the eminent researchers/institutions associated with it, made all the difference to me when I first heard about the XMRV/ME/CFS news. And I suspect this credibility, right out of the starting blocks, is playing a big hand in stimulating interest from around the globe. As Dr Peterson stated at CFSAC, these XMRV findings are a "stimulus package" for our community. But as Minimus so rightly infers, if these were in some arcane journal, that might not be the case.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page