Discussion in 'XMRV Research and Replication Studies' started by pollycbr125, Sep 17, 2012.
Oh Amy, I'm disappointed. This could have been stated so much more clearly. How about "no evidence of retroviral infection"?
The headline stinks, too, although that's probably not Amy's doing.
Thanks to David Tuller, who ended his article with:
Journalists don't write their own headlines, editors do.
I thought mBio was *supposed* to make the paper available at 12:01...but I'm sure not seeing it at the mBio site. Either mBio is being slow to post it or it's really not due up till later.
Where are the results. Have they been published.
Still not showing on the mbio site, but subscribers might have them earlier than the web page. Bye, Alex
SMC press release- 'Making deaf gerbils hear'. Hm, interesting.
This is a much better article than any others I've seen so far. It's clear and well-balanced and seems to represent what the study says without adding media bull cookies.
Probably the best article to read while waiting to get access to the real paper at the mbio site.
ETA: Now I like this one best. It tells us the most about what's in the mbio paper. So far.
The medical xpress article comments they did find some with positive antibodies though. I wonder if this is in reference to the 2009 article or the current one, I wish they were more clear. Its position does imply its the current study.
So after reading the article I saw your comment. Cause of that I've read the article again and I still don't understand your irritation.
For me it seems obvious they are talking about the current one. I don't see why you think it could be about the old one.
Even if it would be an old one they say that the virus is not there itself but an antigen. I wonder to what that antigen was built. But I doubt it's that important, after all there are only 9 people in the control and nine in the CFS group. Doesn't seem much.
So basically it seems negativ and nothing more to it as far as we know till now. I wonder why the webcast if there is nothing special there to see...
Statement from Dr. Mikovits, the author of the Science paper wherein XMRV was first linked to CFS: "I greatly appreciated the opportunity to fully participate in this unprecedented study. Unprecedented because of the level of collaboration, the integrity of the investigators, and the commitment of the NIH to provide its considerable resources to the CFS community for this important study. Although I am disappointed that we found no association of XMRV/pMLV to CFS, the silver lining is that our 2009 Science report resulted in global awareness of this crippling disease and has sparked new interest in CFS research. I am dedicated to continuing to work with leaders in the field of pathogen discovery in the effort to determine the etiologic agent for CFS.
Hi, everyone, I'm not sure why the feeling here is that this is bad news. Don't we need reliable information about our disease more than anything else? So, if this is reliable information, can that be a bad thing? It might be more helpful to think of it as clearing up one more unknown. Now, let's move on to the next one...
Lynne, I think the bad news is mainly the way the press spins this, especially in the UK.
It looks as though the source of the awful headlines may be the press release from the American Society for Microbiology, on EurekAlert. "Viruses not to blame for chronic fatigue syndrome after all"
From all the coverage this soon, it looks like this is being treated as a big story (at least as far as ME/CFS stories go).
David Tuller's story is pretty good.
I don't think it's bad news that my daughter and I don't have a retrovirus.
I do think that the way the results of this study are being presented in some media outlets is bad news. We'll get beyond that, though. We just have to ignore the morons for a while. My impression is that the press conference will emphasize the seriousness of this illness and the continuing research into the cause.
I'm waiting on the broader pathogen study. That's far more likely to turn up something useful to us.
It looks like it is very clear that the authors of this study are saying that only the above viruses don't cause me/cfs. I don't see how it can be interpreted any other way.
I would like to see investigation that looks at the immune system. Not everyone tests positive for the viruses we do so I think this would be a good area to investigate.
Maybe the initial viral infection some how messes up our immune system?
Science needs to move on. I think that's the best chance of finding the cause of this DD.
Anyone want to drink a carton of champagne with me?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=136340554&l=2c1da6fd7c&id=47921632107 The CFIDS Association of America Results of the multicenter study led by Dr. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University have been published in mBio. Authors report no association between CFS and XMRV or pMLV. Here are links to study materials and media coverage so far; we will update this page later this morning and provide a summary of the study. Research1st:http://bit.ly/Lipkin-study-results
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.