Please Remove Defamation of ME Patients 1 July 2010
Justin Reilly,
Attorney
Reilly Law Firm
Send response to journal:
Re: Please Remove Defamation of ME Patients
Obviously, as has been pointed out quite often, use of the spurious Sharpe 1991 ("Oxford") definition of "CFS" renders a study utterly meaningless, since the Sharpe definition does not define ME/CFIDS, but instead defines idiopathic chronic fatigue, ie tiredness. This renders the Dutch study completely invalid.
That aside, the fact that this study and others had zero xmrv positives should have been a red flag for you!
In light of the confirmation by NIH that NIH and FDA have confirmed the results of the Lombardi paper, I expect you to issue retractions of this study and editorials by Wessely, Godlee, McClure and other "CFS" articles that are facially invalid. As we discussed before, I feel that an action against BMJ for defamation of ME patients would be successful and result in substantial liability for BMJ.
Competing interests: None declared
Re: Please Remove Defamation of ME Patients 3 July 2010
Laurence L. Swift,
retired vet
n/a
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Please Remove Defamation of ME Patients
Justin Reillys brief piece is very much to the point. I stand behind him and his potential legal action against the BMJ. These dodgy papers, produced using the synthetic term CFS, must be retracted, or at least it must be absolutely clear that their use of the term CFS has nothing to do whatsoever with the disease M.E.
ME or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis was defined by Melvin Ramsey in 1956 and the definition remains technically correct today. All the other later phrases and definitions can now be set aside as talking about a different subject, tiredness as Reilly describes it.
Most patients and many doctors and scientists have known all along that a virus was the apparent cause of M.E. With the discovery of the XMRV, this belief has been vindicated, save for a matter of Kochs Postulates which are difficult to prove in cases of diseases where a fair percentage of infected subjects appear quite normal.
This last point, the failure to find any XMRV at all even in that percentage of apparently normal people, was the big clue as to the inadequate laboratory techniques used in these negative studies. The XMRV virus was always going to be difficult to find, otherwise it would have been found long ago. It is very small and very sparse in the blood.
The WPI spent upwards of three years developing their sophisticated techniques. They offered their tests, reagents and control samples, to all the other laboratories. These laboratories spurned the offer, leading to a suspicion amongst the patient groups that they actually wanted to produce negative studies that were dressed up look like real ones by using simple serology and basic PCR testing.
To an outsider like myself, who used to respect the medical profession, it seems incredible that the entire profession isnt clapping their hands and jumping up & down with glee at discovery of the retrovirus. They should all be piling onto the bandwagon and studying hard the clever WPI techniques. They should be pleased that at last there is progress with hopes of treatments or cures. After all, they all pledged the Hippocratic Oath, to put their patients health and wellbeing above all else.
Laurence Swift (retired vet).
Competing interests: None declared
