May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Medscape - Blood Products Advisory Committee Mulls XMRV Information

Discussion in 'Media, Interviews, Blogs, Talks, Events about XMRV' started by V99, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. V99

    V99

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    5
    UK
    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725820

     
  2. Roy S

    Roy S former DC ME/CFS lobbyist

    Messages:
    669
    Likes:
    1,404
    Illinois, USA
    It looks like the NCI folks are doing their job, unlike the CDC and Tony Fauci's NIAID.
     
  3. paddygirl

    paddygirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    163
    Likes:
    22
    Did I read that right, a 'gold standard assay' for XMRV from the NCI? The CDC is looking increasingly like the little boy who didn't do his homework.
     
  4. V99

    V99

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    5
    UK
    Yea, and the mouse ate my homework won't wash.
     
  5. V99

    V99

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    5
    UK
    You're embarrassing me :Retro redface:

    I liked this bit:
    Yes, they are not only disagreeing with the WPI.
     
  6. OverTheHills

    OverTheHills

    Messages:
    454
    Likes:
    938
    New Zealand
    I was very interested in Mr Hendry's use of a particular word, some might call it a Weasel-word.

    "Many people have alluded to differences in patient population, complexities of defining [CFS], lab methods, and strain differences, to explain the contrasting results; however, our results do not support an association of XMRV with the majority of [CFS] patients," he said.

    More evidence of CDC trying to split CCC ME/XMRV+ from Reeves disease? I suppose things are past claiming 1000% confidence that there is no association between XMRV and 'CFS'.

    OTH
     
  7. muffin

    muffin Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    Likes:
    10
    Sorry V99, just think you are way cool! No more GME comments!! Promise! But thanks for catching stuff like this. It fills in the blanks big time.
     
  8. V99

    V99

    Messages:
    1,471
    Likes:
    5
    UK
    Hopefully we will get the NIH/FDA study soon. That will occupy us for months. GME right back at ya.:victory:
     
  9. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,454
    Good catch! I sure does sound like their CYA tactics.

    It's a shame that the writer of this article didn't point out that the CDC not only didn't find XMRV in their CFS patients, but they didn't find it at all.
     
  10. Cort

    Cort Phoenix Rising Founder

    They are digging more deeply than anyone- NIAID is completely out of the ballgame. It would be worth it just to get the egg on that Institutes face. How lovely that would be!
     
  11. anciendaze

    anciendaze Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,769
    Likes:
    4,477
    CYA

    For those who have watched hierarchical organizations in action, the signs of CYA began long ago. The maneuver of allowing Reeves to complete negative research before reassigning him without an immediate replacement is a classic.

    Here's how this covers all bases.

    First, should the XMRV research be confirmed, the CFS group is now loosely under the infectious diseases hierarchy. All that is necessary is to reorganize a bit and you will be able to show the CDC was on top of things back in February. No fundamental change is necessary because the organization has already been purged.

    Second, should the XMRV connection be refuted, all you need do is finally get around to that delayed appointment of Reeves replacement, and things can tick along as in the past. The Science paper was merely a blip on the radar, and administrators never took those spurious results seriously. They were on top of the situation last October.

    Third, if the XMRV research has some validity, you are now in a position to fight a delaying action under the rubric of scientific integrity. You have pointed out weaknesses in the initial research, and by the time all loose ends are nailed down, you may be able to portray your organization as holding the true scientists, while meeting policy goals of suppressing public panic, and buying time to implement necessary public health measures.

    Anyone calling this excessively cynical must lack personal experience in close-combat hierarchiology.
     
  12. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    274
    Long Beach, CA
    Good article. It actually sounds like Medscape is treating this seriously, with well-balanced reporting (something they haven't always done with ME/CFS in the past). The line "The panel was treated to a rehash of conflicting studies" made me laugh.

    I agree with Dr Silverman that we need to let science do its work, yet I like the Canadian principle with regard to blood safety, that authorities must act, even if there is only a theoretical risk of harm. Especially in a case like this where defering patients isn't likely to seriously diminish the blood supply.

    Dr Le Grice's part was the most promising sounding to me, that they think they've developed a good valid assay and have sent it around the world for confirmation testing. "...if we have a problem, I think it is important to sit amongst ourselves and try to understand where those problems are before we disagree with anybody else's assay." Could that have been a subtle dig at another federal health agency, do you think? ;)
     
  13. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    274
    Long Beach, CA
    Okay, I give up. I even checked Acronym Geek, but none of them seemed to fit:
    Goat's Milk Esbilac? Naw.
    Glucocorticoid Modulatory Element? Not likely.
    Genomes Medicine and the Environment? I don't think so.
    Gelatine Manufacturers of Europe? Naw.
    Google Mashup Editor? I hope not.
    Grizzly Mountain Engineering? I give. Uncle.

    What is GME, please?
     
  14. ixchelkali

    ixchelkali Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,105
    Likes:
    274
    Long Beach, CA
    Why, Cort, you sounded downright...human there. :Retro wink::Retro tongue: Nice to know you're not completely impartial and objective. :innocent1:
     
  15. Wasbeer

    Wasbeer

    Messages:
    78
    Likes:
    0
    Amersfoort, Netherlands
    My thoughts exactly :eek: Cort goes cheeky!
     
  16. muffin

    muffin Senior Member

    Messages:
    940
    Likes:
    10
    FYI FROM FDA: Access to the transcripts if anyone wants them - from email to FDA:

    Thank you for your recent inquiry to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) regarding Blood Products Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meetings. CBER, one of seven centers within the FDA, is responsible for the regulation of many biologically-derived products, including blood intended for transfusion, blood components and derivatives, vaccines and allergenic extracts, and cell, tissue and gene therapy products.

    I apologize for the delay in response. The Center makes every attempt to respond in a timely fashion.
    Detailed information regarding the July 26-27, 2010 BPAC meeting is available on CBER's website at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte.../BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/ucm205013.htm. You may also obtain up-to-date information by calling the Advisory Committee Information Line at 1-800-741-8138. You may also access meeting materials, including transcripts of BPAC meetings at the following website: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommitte...cs/BloodProductsAdvisoryCommittee/default.htm.
    Additionally, you can sign up to receive updates on advisory committee meetings by clicking the link Sign up for updates on advisory committee meetings found on FDAs website at the following link: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. We hope this information is helpful.
    Sincerely,
    H.A.
    Consumer Safety Officer
    Consumer Affairs Branch
    Division of Communication and Consumer Affairs
    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
    US Food and Drug Administration

    This communication is consistent with 21 CFR 10.85 (k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents my best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page